Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Old Iraq war architects rise up to wag finger at Trump’s Iran deal

Who asked for Doug Feith’s opinion anyway?

By Jim Lobe | Responsible Statecraft | June 18, 2026

Assume, for the sake of argument, that you think the U.S.-Iran Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) just signed by President Donald Trump in Versailles is a disaster for both the United States and especially for Israel. Who would you want to be in the forefront of the campaign to persuade American public opinion that it should be abandoned or killed off altogether?

There are any number of candidates, but I, for one, would NOT choose anyone who bore major responsibility for the debacles in Afghanistan and Iraq.

So, it was with great surprise that I found today that Douglas Feith, a key architect of both disasters ab initio, emerged from near-total obscurity at the hardline neoconservative Hudson Institute to publish an op-ed in the Washington Post assailing Vice President J.D. Vance (and indirectly Trump) for dangerous naivete in dealing with Iran.

I don’t want to get into his argument, which asserts that democracies can never trust “bad actors” like Iran to comply with their undertakings (an ironic point given the history of Iran’s compliance with and Washington’s unilateral abandonment of the 2015 JCPOA). You can read it yourself.

But to illustrate why I was so surprised that it was Feith, who hasn’t published an op-ed in the Post, the New York Times, or the Wall Street Journal since 2016, taking a public role in what will be a major PR campaign to kill the deal I will do what we strongly discourage on RS : I’ll quote from AI.

I asked Microsoft’s Co-Pilot’s the following question:

“Why is Douglas Feith the last person opponents of Trump’s deal with Iran would want to publish an op-ed on the deal’s alleged weaknesses?”

The answer:

“Because Feith is widely associated with the flawed intelligence, strategic misjudgments, and disastrous outcomes of the Iraq War, his criticism of any Iran policy risks undermining the anti-deal position by linking it to the same neoconservative thinking that produced the Iraq debacle. His involvement makes opponents look less credible, not more.”

I couldn’t have put it better or more succinctly, and, while Co-Pilot offered to elaborate at length, I’ll cite my own abbreviated list of why Feith is such a terrible messenger.

Feith, who served as undersecretary of defense for policy, the third-ranking post in the Pentagon, during President George W. Bush’s first term, was a long-time protégé of Richard Perle, the “Dark Prince” and the dean and impresario of hardline, Washington-based neoconservatives dating back to the early 1970’s. Feith followed Perle from his first job after law school in Sen. Henry “Scoop” Jackson’s office, which served as the hatchery of Washington-based neoconservatives in the 1970s, through Perle’s service as a senior Pentagon official during the administration of Ronald Reagan in the 1980s.

In 1996, the two men worked with several others who would later serve in the Bush II administration in a “study group” that produced the notorious “Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm” paper for incoming Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Among other things, the memo called for Netanyahu to take steps that would ensure Israeli control of the occupied Palestinian territories in part by working for regime change in Syria and “removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq.”

But Feith is best known for his Pentagon service under George W. Bush, and, as Co-Pilot noted, his roles in the invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq. Gen. Tommy Franks, the CENTCOM commander in both campaigns found working with Feith particularly frustrating, complaining at one point to Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward, “I have to deal with the fucking stupidest guy on the face of the earth almost every day.”

Part of that frustration was due to Feith’s clear determination to shape or search for or even possibly invent intelligence that would justify the invasion and occupation of Iraq and rally public opinion behind that enterprise. Indeed, Feith created offices in the Pentagon, most notoriously the Counter Terrorism Evaluation Unit, whose job was to collect and disseminate any information that might suggest a cooperative relationship between Saddam Hussein’s regime and Al-Qaeda despite the judgments by the U.S. intelligence community that such a relationship did not exist.

As part of his efforts to shape the intelligence, he and his team worked with Ahmad Chalabi’s Iraqi National Congress which provided “informants” who concocted evidence of alleged advances by Saddam’s alleged nuclear weapons program that also did not actually exist.

Even more damaging was the Office of Special Plans (OSP), which was charged with planning the occupation after the invasion, plans which included “de-Baathification,” a program long promoted by Chalabi, Perle, and other neoconservatives, that virtually overnight created the largely Sunni insurgency and that eventually resulted in a bloody sectarian civil war that not only devastated the country, but exhausted the occupation forces.

Besides his work with the OSP, Feith was also responsible for establishing the short-lived Office of Strategic Influence, which was closed down after creating a furor in Congress because of its purported aim of “providing news items, possibly even false ones, to foreign media organizations as part of an effort to influence public sentiment and policy makers.”

But those examples are really just some of the most salient examples. “Undersecretary of Defense for Fiascos,” as Slate once described him, may have been a more appropriate title.

Six months into Bush’s second term, he was out, but, unlike his nominal boss, Deputy Secretary of State Paul Wolfowitz, he didn’t get a consolation prize like the presidency of the World Bank. He retreated to write his 800+-page memoir in which he made what most critics described as a lame attempt at evading responsibility for the most disastrous “war of choice” in U.S. history.

It may be significant that the word “Iraq” did not appear once in Feith’s new attempt at a comeback.

Jim Lobe is a Contributing Editor of Responsible Statecraft. He formerly served as chief of the Washington bureau of Inter Press Service from 1980 to 1985 and again from 1989 to 2015.

June 20, 2026 Posted by | Timeless or most popular, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on Old Iraq war architects rise up to wag finger at Trump’s Iran deal

Why Iran’s Retaliation for Israel’s Attack on Beirut is a Regional Game Changer

By Robert Inlakesh | The Palestine Chronicle | June 10, 2026

Iran’s ballistic missile response to Israel’s attack on Beirut is a game-changer for the power dynamics of West Asian politics. The ‘Unity of Squares’ concept has officially led to a NATO-style defense pact developing between the members of the Iranian-led Axis of Resistance.

When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu threatened to strike the southern suburbs of Beirut last Monday, the immediate threat issued by the leadership in Tehran forced him to take a step back. Ultimately, the US and Israel would delay the implementation of the decision to attack the Lebanese Capital, then suffering an overwhelming response that outperformed expectations.

The first detail to consider here is that the mere threat of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) launching strikes on Israeli targets forced Tel Aviv and Washington to take a step back, meaning that both de facto admitted that Tehran maintains deterrence power. Then came the Israeli strike on the southern suburbs this Sunday, which was extremely limited and nothing of the nature of what Netanyahu had originally advertised.

A weak strike on Beirut’s southern suburbs, which had no actual impact on Hezbollah whatsoever, indicates that the US-Israeli alliance acted in order to save face, seeking to test Iran’s resolve, but also to leave space for it to retreat from all-out war.

Following Iran’s missile waves, which struck Ramat David Airbase – according to satellite imagery evidence – the Israelis decided to launch an attack on Iran. Although they did target at least three radar sites and a petrochemical company, amongst other targets, it was clear that the Israeli attack was lackluster; designed primarily to give them the veneer of having risen to confront the IRGC. No Iranians were killed in the Israeli attack, and the majority of the sites hit were previously struck during the 40-day war earlier this year.

It was clear that the IRGC had prepared for the Israeli counter-strike, not only unleashing an attack of its own on Israeli companies and military sites in response but also coordinating its retaliatory action with Yemen’s Ansarallah.

As the Israelis were playing catch-up, the Iranians were implementing a carefully calibrated phase two of their promised retaliation to Israel’s attack on Beirut– that being the inclusion of new fronts. The IRGC had previously warned Tel Aviv that the war would expand to other fronts; the Yemeni Armed Forces achieved precisely this.

Ansarallah has declared that the Bab al-Mandab Strait is now closed to Israeli shipping, returning to the equation imposed in support of Gaza until October of 2025, when the ceasefire was signed. Yemen then went a step further and vowed to totally close Bab al-Mandab, should the war escalate further. This would represent an enormous economic blow to the global economy, considering the ongoing closure of the Strait of Hormuz.

The concept of the ‘Unity of Squares’ was originally developed by former Secretary General of Lebanese Hezbollah, Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah, and before him Iran’s former IRGC Quds Force Commander Qasem Soleimani. In essence, it was the idea of linking all of the fronts of the Axis of Resistance so that none would stand alone. On October 8, 2023, Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah put this into action by immediately intervening on the side of the Palestinian resistance in Gaza. Soon thereafter, Ansarallah would follow, and to a lesser extent, the Islamic Resistance in Iraq.

Israel had long bragged that its assassination of Nasrallah had broken this Unity of Squares dynamic, because Hezbollah was forced into accepting a less-than-favorable ceasefire in late 2024. It was because of Nasrallah’s refusal to abandon Gaza “no matter where it takes the region”, that Tel Aviv had decided to kill him. Therefore, it is accurate to say that the former Hezbollah leader quite literally gave his life for Gaza.

Benjamin Netanyahu’s quest to achieve “total victory” in his 7-front war has not proven successful, but one major step towards that was managing to break the idea of the Unity of Squares. Through Iran’s actions this Sunday, that “success” was just undone.

The IRGC has also recently been insisting that Gaza be included in their ceasefire agreement, something that a number of statements released by Hamas also appear to be indicating will be the case. If the Islamic Republic does impose its will on the US-Israeli alliance by setting in stone the equation that an attack on one is an attack on all, the Unity of Squares equation will be imposed fully, as it was originally intended. In the past, it was never fully implemented because of Iran’s absence as a front that could easily open.

The implications of this equation coming to life are that the Iranian-led Axis will undoubtedly be the most powerful alliance in the region. Not because they necessarily possess the most firepower and capabilities, but because they will together be able to cut off key international chokepoints, while battering their adversaries in a way that can achieve strategic deterrence.

It should be noted that this is a direct result of the US-Israeli failure in their war of aggression to achieve any of their goals. Instead of weakening Tehran, their reckless aggression and arrogance may have just undone the tactical victories they previously achieved, pushing Iran into the position that many previously argued it should have assumed sooner after October 7, 2023. Unless Tel Aviv and Washington find a way to reverse this, this will represent a major historic shift in regional power dynamics.

– Robert Inlakesh is a journalist, writer, and documentary filmmaker. He focuses on the Middle East, specializing in Palestine.

June 10, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Solidarity and Activism | , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Why Iran’s Retaliation for Israel’s Attack on Beirut is a Regional Game Changer

Iran denies attacking Saudi Arabia, warns of Israeli false-flag

The Cradle | June 8, 2026

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei denied reports alleging that Iran targeted Saudi Arabia on 8 June, cautioning that such claims could be linked to potential “false-flag operations” conducted in Iran’s name.

Baghaei stressed that Tehran publicly takes responsibility for any military action it carries out and noted that no statement had been issued by Iran confirming the reported incident.

He further said Iran has repeatedly warned about the possibility of false-flag operations, claiming that Israel and other actors have previously carried out similar actions, including during the most recent US-Israeli war on the Islamic Republic.

His comments came after missile alert sirens were activated in the Saudi city of Al-Kharj, home to Prince Sultan Air Base, a facility long used by US forces, just hours after Israel launched renewed strikes against Iran on Monday morning.

Since the US-Israeli war on Iran began in late February, Tehran has frequently argued that many of the strikes blamed on its forces were actually “false-flag” operations staged by its enemies, designed to draw Gulf states further into the war.

On 4 June, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) dismissed reports that it targeted the terminal at Kuwait International Airport, saying the alleged visual evidence was a “crude fabrication.”

While acknowledging midnight strikes on regional US bases, Iranian officials noted that footage of the airport explosion was recorded in daylight.

In April, the IRGC accused Israel of being behind the strike on a Kuwaiti desalination plant to incite regional tensions further.

This followed a similar denial regarding a 30 March attack on a Kuwaiti power facility, which Tehran also blamed on Israel.

On 4 April, the IRGC further rejected claims that it struck the US Embassy in Riyadh in the opening days of the war, asserting the drone attack was “certainly carried out by Zionists.”

Iran’s Foreign Ministry said on 15 March that the US and Israel were using “Lucas” drones – modeled after the cheap and effective Iranian Shahed – to conduct false-flag operations and attribute them to Tehran.

The IRGC military headquarters, Khatam al-Anbiya, stated that such “deceptions” included attacks in Turkiye and Iraq.

Earlier in March, Iranian military sources described a drone strike on the Ras Tanura refinery in Saudi Arabia as an Israeli false flag designed to distract from strikes inside Iran and draw the Gulf states into further hostilities against the Islamic Republic.

Tucker Carlson also claimed in March that Saudi Arabia and Qatar had detained Israeli agents who were planning bombings in their countries.

June 8, 2026 Posted by | False Flag Terrorism | , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Iran denies attacking Saudi Arabia, warns of Israeli false-flag

Trump and Netanyahu: The odd couple

By Jamal Kanj | MEMO | June 5, 2026

“He’ll do whatever I want him to do,” Donald Trump declared recently about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The statement may be one of the most revealing statements Trump has ever made—not for what it says about Netanyahu, but for what it reveals about Trump’s psychology. It was intended as a display of strength. Instead, it exposed the opposite.

Trump has built a political persona around hyperbole, self-aggrandizement, and declarations of superiority to cover up for an oversized inferiority complex, he only knows its extent. When he insists that Netanyahu is acting at his command, he is projecting an authority he does not possess. The louder the boast, the more apparent the insecurity beneath it.

If there is one lesson since the election of Trump, it is that Netanyahu, not Trump, has consistently dictated the pace of America’s wars in the Middle East. Trump may occupy the White House, issue ultimatums, and proclaim himself the master negotiator, but the facts on the ground tell a different story. Again and again, Netanyahu acts, and Trump adjusts.

For years, Netanyahu worked relentlessly to pull the U. S. into another made-for-Israel war, this time against Iran. Successive administrations, despite their deference to Israel, stopped short of falling for the scheme. Trump, however, proved far more susceptible to the influence of his Israel-first donors and to Netanyahu’s chicanery. Yet he continues to portray himself as the one calling the shots.

This week, Trump proudly recounted a phone call in which he supposedly instructed Netanyahu to halt a planned Israeli attack on Beirut. It took little time after Trump’s statement for Israel’s defense minister to announce that military operations “will continue under all circumstances.” True to that pledge, Israel launched fresh attacks on hospitals and villages in southern Lebanon, killing and wounding civilians despite the so-called Trump’s war cessation.

Two days later, on Wednesday June 3rd, Lebanese and Israeli delegations meeting in Washington announced another ceasefire. The third such extension since last April. One day after reaching the agreement, Israel resumed strikes on ​South Lebanon and said it would neither withdraw nor  allow Lebanese civilians back to their homes in the south.

It is almost certain, when the Lebanese resistance eventually counters the repeated Israeli violations, Trump—as he has done before—will condemn the retaliation rather than the provocation. To save face and avoid appearing weak before Netanyahu, he will once again blame the Lebanese side while ignoring the Israeli occupation and military actions that triggered the response.

The same pattern is evident in the negotiations with Iran. For months, Trump’s stated objective was to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon—a framework which aligns with Tehran’s declared position. But nuclear-armed Israel, which never signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty that Iran did, has different goals entirely. Netanyahu’s government will not be satisfied with anything short of the destruction of knowledge and the reduction of Iran to a failed state, precisely the fate that befell Iraq and Libya after both countries agreed to surrender their nuclear ambitions.

For Israel, a negotiated agreement between the U.S. and Iran, may be far less desirable than the continuation of regional turmoil. For its objective is the preservation of a strategic environment that sustains military and geopolitical dominance. Zionism has long viewed the emergence of democratic, technologically advanced, and self-reliant neighboring states as a threat. Fragmentation and disorder in surrounding countries serve that objective by limiting the rise of independent regional powers that could one day, potentially challenge Israeli primacy. In this case, Israel may be unique among nations: it derives strategic advantage not from a stable and prosperous region, but from entropy, and has built a regional doctrine whose success depends on propagating chaos.

The cost to ordinary Americans is tangible, and personal. They feel it every time they fuel their cars, pay inflated prices for goods, or watch Congress cut healthcare or financial student aid for Americans in order to finance another military aid package for Israel.

Americans are not only financing Israel’s wars through tax dollars and weapons transfers. They are also paying what amounts to an Israeli surcharge tax at the pump.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has been trying for weeks to assure consumers that gas will hover around $3 a gallon between June and September, as if it is acceptable for Americans to pay elevated prices until Netanyahu deigns to approve a ceasefire, especially when Trump boasts that America is a net oil exporter.

Gaza is another front in Israel’s endless wars. Trump personally signed the ceasefire agreement in Sharm el-Sheikh in October 2025, chirping “we have peace in the Middle East.” He had since watched in silence as Israel systematically dismantled every commitment it had made. During the “ceasefire,” it maintained a starvation diet blockade, murdered more than 800 and wounded thousands.

Under Phase One of the agreement, Israeli forces were required to withdraw to approximately 53 percent of Gaza. Phase two stipulated further withdrawal. Instead, Netanyahu ordered the seizure of an additional 32 percent, increasing total Israeli military occupation to 70 percent of the besieged territory, confining 2.3 million Palestinians to 30 percent, or roughly 50,000 human beings per each square mile of rubble.

On all fronts, Trump did not merely follow Netanyahu’s lead. He enabled it, funded it, armed it, and defended it diplomatically. Then, standing before television cameras, he attempted to compensate for this reality by insisting that he was the one in control.

To that end, and following recent Republican primary elections, lame-duck Republican members of Congress have already begun treating the Trump administration as a lame-duck presidency, long before the midterm elections. The recent congressional vote to limit presidential war powers is a telling sign that Trump’s political capital is eroding far sooner than expected.

Nevertheless, Americans may be witnessing a historic inflection point in the decades-long power of Israel-first Zionist influence over American political life. It is clear the political landscape is shifting, and the assumptions that long governed Washington’s relationship with Israel no longer appear as immutable as they once did. From growing dissent within the Democratic Party—and among Republican influencers—to deepening unease across the Washington Beltway, genuine cracks are appearing in a system that for generations treated Israel as a sacred cow. Eight decades of unquestioned manipulation and political leverage over American leaders is now facing resistance from constituencies that were once among its most reliable friends.

Hence, no amount of presidential bravado or social-media posturing can obscure what has become undeniable: under Donald Trump, American foreign policy has served Netanyahu’s Israel-first agenda, not America’s. And when the history of this era is written, this odd couple may be remembered for ushering in the sunset of Israel-first Zionist dominance over the U.S. government.

June 5, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Timeless or most popular, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , | Comments Off on Trump and Netanyahu: The odd couple

Kata’ib Hezbollah warns Jordan over allowing US-Israeli reconnaissance missions against Iraq

Press TV – May 19, 2026

The Kata’ib Hezbollah resistance movement has warned the Amman government against ongoing reconnaissance missions launched by the United States and Israel from Jordanian soil against Iraqi resistance fighters, particularly the Popular Mobilization Units (PMU).

“In the wake of unfolding developments across the region and US-Israeli actions against Iraq’s security and stability, the enemies are aggressively seeking to escalate tensions against the (Iraqi) resistance front and the PMU,” Abu Mujahid al-Assaf, the security chief of the group, said in a statement on Monday evening.

He warned that the patience of heroic resistance fighters in the face of blatant Israeli violations of ceasefire agreements and recurrent acts of aggression against Iraq’s national sovereignty is about to run out.

Assaf noted that the bulk of US and Israeli surveillance missions are being launched from Jordan, warning that this serves as a prelude for attacks against Iraq.

The Jordanian government, therefore, is strongly advised to take lessons from missile and drone operations conducted in retaliation for the US-Israeli war of aggression against Iran, as “patience is starting to run out,” the senior Kata’ib Hezbollah official emphasized.

He further said that the US and Israel, based on received information, are preparing for a fresh round of strikes against commanders of Iraqi resistance groups and the PMU, commonly known by its Arabic name Hashd al-Sha’abi.

Assaf warned Washington and Tel Aviv against any strikes on Iraq, stressing that the response to such a folly would be comprehensive, and the United States would have to shoulder responsibility for all serious repercussions in such a case.

The remarks come as US military aircraft have been scrambling over the past few days to transfer personnel and munitions from one military installation to another across Iraq.

May 19, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on Kata’ib Hezbollah warns Jordan over allowing US-Israeli reconnaissance missions against Iraq

Iraq, Pakistan ink Hormuz safe passage deals with Iran: Report

The Cradle | May 13, 2026

Iraq and Pakistan have reached separate arrangements with Iran to move crude oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) through the Strait of Hormuz under Tehran’s new system for controlled passage through the strategic waterway, Reuters reported on 12 May.

The deals come as the US-Israeli war on Iran has sharply reduced energy exports from the Gulf, a region that normally supplies 20 percent of the world’s crude oil and LNG.

Claudio Steuer of the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies told Reuters that “Iran has shifted from blocking Hormuz to controlling access to it … Hormuz is no longer a neutral transit route, it is a controlled corridor.”

Under this new framework, Iraq secured safe passage for two very large crude carriers, each carrying about 2 million barrels of crude, through the strait on Sunday.

An Iraqi oil ministry official said Baghdad is now seeking Iranian approval for additional shipments, as oil revenue makes up 95 percent of the Iraqi budget.

“Iraq is a close ally of Iran, and any deterioration in Iraq’s economy would also damage Iran’s economic interests in the country,” the official said.

In a separate arrangement, two tankers carrying Qatari LNG are heading to Pakistan after Islamabad reached an agreement with Tehran, according to two industry sources cited by Reuters.

The sources said neither Iraq nor Pakistan made direct payments to Iran or the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) for the transits.

Industry sources said Tehran is formalizing control over the strait by asking Baghdad to submit documents for each tanker, including destination, shipping details, ownership, and cargo specifications.

A Pakistani source told Reuters that the process has not been smooth, saying, “The IRGC sometimes changes the goalposts, so it is hard to keep things on track, but we are working through it.”

Amid the chokehold of the US–Iran double blockade, maritime activity through the vital Strait of Hormuz has withered to a mere five percent of its normal capacity, staggering global economies and energy markets.

The blockade has pushed Pakistan to open six overland routes for Iran-bound cargo, giving Tehran an alternative land corridor as the US blockade disrupts maritime trade through the Gulf.

A military correspondent for The Cradle reported that Pakistan issued the “Transit of Goods through Territory of Pakistan Order 2026” on 25 April, designating Karachi Port, Port Qasim, and Gwadar Deep-Sea Port to receive cargo bound for Iran and Central Asia through the Taftan border crossing.

The move could help clear around 3,000 Iranian containers stranded in Karachi after restrictions on ships traveling to and from Iran left food and consumer goods stuck at Pakistani ports.

Former Pakistani information minister Mushahid Hussain Syed said the new corridor gained importance after “the US Navy’s blockade of the Strait of Hormuz since 13 April,” but stressed that Islamabad sees the arrangement as a commercial decision rather than a direct escalation with Washington.

“The unfair blockade has left thousands of Iranian containers stuck at Karachi ports, which has made it harder for people in Iran to get consumer goods,” Syed told The Cradle.

May 13, 2026 Posted by | Aletho News | , , , , | Comments Off on Iraq, Pakistan ink Hormuz safe passage deals with Iran: Report

Villains of Judea: Douglas Feith

The shadow architect of the Iraq War

José Niño Unfiltered | April 27, 2026

Few individuals embody the conflict between American national interest and the demands of world jewry as sharply as Douglas Feith. Throughout his career, Feith has operated as a consummate advocate for the Jewish state, positioning himself within the highest echelons of the U.S. government to ensure that American military and foreign policy served as a potent instrument for his own tribal convictions. From his early days in the pro-Israel lobby to his role in architecting the catastrophic Iraq War, Feith’s career is a study in the subordination of American sovereignty to the priorities of the Jewish people.

General Tommy Franks, who commanded the invasion of Iraq, famously said he had to deal with “the fucking stupidest guy on the face of the earth almost every day” — referring to Feith, as documented in Bob Woodward’s Plan of Attack. Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell’s chief of staff at the State Department, separately stated: “Seldom in my life have I met a dumber man.” Irrespective of his perceived deficiencies, Feith was able to reach the apex of the national security establishment and fundamentally reshape American foreign policy for the benefit of Israel.

The Zionist convictions Feith brought to the highest levels of American government were not adopted in adulthood but absorbed in childhood.

The Origins of a Zionist Hawk

Douglas Jay Feith was born on July 16, 1953, into a Jewish family in Philadelphia. His background was rooted in Zionist tradition through his father, Dalck Feith, who had been a member of Betar, the Revisionist Zionist youth organization founded by Ze’ev Jabotinsky, active in Poland during the 1930s. Betar was a militaristic movement associated with Jabotinsky’s Revisionist Zionism, a hard-line nationalist strand that rejected the socialist mainstream of the Zionist movement and evolved through the Herut Party into what became the Israeli Likud Party,

Dalck Feith came to the United States in January 1942 and became a businessman, philanthropist, and Republican donor. Douglas Feith grew up in Elkins Park, a Philadelphia suburb, and has acknowledged that his father’s Betar membership and the family’s experience of the Holocaust profoundly shaped his own Zionist convictions.

Feith has publicly described himself as a Zionist — specifically not a Labor or “peace now” Zionist but a right-wing Zionist closely aligned with the Likud tradition. He wrote a 2021 op-ed in the Jewish News Syndicate titled “Why I’m a Zionist,” arguing that support for a Jewish state is entirely compatible with American patriotism. His worldview draws heavily on Ze’ev Jabotinsky’s “iron wall” doctrine, the idea that Arabs will only accept a Jewish state after recognizing they cannot destroy it militarily.

Education and Early Career

This ideological foundation accompanied Feith through an elite educational track and into the upper reaches of the legal profession. Feith graduated magna cum laude from Harvard College in 1975 and magna cum laude from Georgetown University Law Center in 1978, according to his Hudson Institute biography.

He began his public career in 1975 working as an intern on Senator Henry M. “Scoop” Jackson’s Subcommittee on Investigations — the Democratic senator from Washington famous for his hawkish anti-Soviet foreign policy and strong support for Israel. While at Harvard, Feith studied under Professor Richard Pipes, a Polish-born Jewish scholar and anti-Soviet hawk who chaired the CIA’s Team B strategic intelligence exercise in 1976 and later joined Reagan’s National Security Council in February 1981. Feith joined the NSC as a Middle East specialist that same year, working under Pipes.

The Reagan Years

These formative experiences positioned Feith for a direct entry into the national security establishment. Feith joined the government in 1981 as a Middle East specialist on the National Security Council, serving under his former Harvard professor Richard Pipes. The following year, he moved over to the Pentagon to take up duties as Special Counsel to Richard Perle, then Assistant Secretary of Defense. Feith later characterized the role in his own words as covering “UN-related, law of war, and the like” issues that fell to him as the only lawyer in that office. Two years later, in 1984, Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger elevated Feith to Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Negotiations Policy, where he remained until 1986.

One striking and highly contentious chapter unfolded in 1982, when Feith departed the NSC amid an FBI probe into administration officials suspected of leaking intelligence to Israel. Accusations surfaced that he had mishandled classified materials, though Feith never faced prosecution.

The Private Sector and the Pro-Israel Network

Feith soon traded government service for the lucrative side of the defense and foreign-policy world. When Feith left the Pentagon in 1986, he and Marc Zell co-founded Feith & Zell, P.C., a law firm based initially in Israel that lobbied the U.S. government on behalf of the Turkish, Israeli, and Bosnian governments while representing defense contractors including Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman. In 1989, Feith separately established International Advisors, Inc., a lobbying operation whose clients included Turkey.

In 1999, Feith & Zell merged with the Israel-based Zell, Goldberg & Co. to form the FANDZ International Law Group. When Feith returned to government in 2001 as Undersecretary of Defense overseeing Iraq reconstruction, FANDZ was simultaneously running a task force to help companies secure reconstruction contracts in Iraq.

Throughout the 1990s, Feith built an extensive presence in neoconservative and pro-Israel organizations that would later staff the Bush administration’s national security apparatus. In 1997, the Zionist Organization of America honored both Feith and his father at its annual dinner. Dalck received the ZOA’s special Centennial Award “for his lifetime of service to Israel and the Jewish people,” while Douglas received the prestigious Louis D. Brandeis Award.

Feith served as Vice Chairman of the advisory board of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), a think tank promoting close military cooperation between the United States and Israel. He also served as Chairman of the Board of the Center for Security Policy, a think tank founded in 1988 by Frank Gaffney that advocates higher military budgets, missile defense systems, space weapons programs, and hard-line Middle East policies.

Feith was also among the founding figures of One Jerusalem, created in 2001 following the Camp David peace talks, with the mission of “maintaining a united Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel.” Other founders and principals included former Israeli diplomat Dore Gold and former Deputy Prime Minister Natan Sharansky.

The Clean Break Document

Feith’s organizational work in this period laid the groundwork for direct policy advocacy on behalf of the Israeli government. The most consequential episode in Feith’s pre-government career was his participation in drafting “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm” in 1996. The paper was produced by a study group led by Richard Perle and organized by the Israel-based Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies for incoming Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It urged Netanyahu to abandon the Oslo Accords and the land-for-peace framework entirely, called for removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq as an “important Israeli strategic objective,” proposed striking Syrian military targets in Lebanon and possibly in Syria proper, and laid out a new Israeli strategic doctrine grounded in “peace through strength” rather than diplomatic concessions.

Three members of that study group later occupied senior positions shaping Bush administration Middle East policy: Perle chaired the Defense Policy Board, Feith became Under Secretary of Defense, and David Wurmser became Dick Cheney’s top Middle East adviser. Professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, in their 2006 essay “The Israel Lobby” in the London Review of Books, wrote that the Clean Break paper “called for Israel to take steps to reorder the entire Middle East” and that “Feith, Perle and Wurmser were soon urging the Bush administration to pursue those same goals.”

Under Secretary of Defense for Policy

A second and far more consequential bureaucratic creation soon followed. Appointed on July 16, 2001, Feith served as Under Secretary of Defense for Policy — the third-highest civilian position in the Department of Defense. His portfolio included formulating defense planning guidance, managing DoD relations with foreign governments, representing the Pentagon in interagency deliberations, and advising the President and Secretary of Defense on national security matters.

Early in the Bush administration, Feith created the Office of Strategic Influence, established in November 2001 to conduct information operations targeting foreign audiences, including proposals to plant news items — “possibly even false ones” — with foreign media organizations, according to the New York Times. After the program’s existence became public in February 2002 and generated intense scrutiny, Feith decided to close the office, with Rumsfeld announcing the closure at a February 26 press conference. Rumsfeld later acknowledged that its functions continued through other offices, telling reporters in November 2002: “I’m gonna keep doing every single thing that needs to be done and I have.”

The Office of Special Plans

The most damaging controversy of Feith’s tenure centered on his supervision of the Office of Special Plans, a Pentagon unit that operated from September 2002 through June 2003. The OSP was charged with supplying senior administration officials with raw intelligence about Iraq that bypassed the normal vetting process of the intelligence community.

The unit’s driving purpose was to build the political case for invading Iraq by circumventing both the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency, which had each concluded that evidence for an operational Iraq-al-Qaeda link was weak or nonexistent. Rather than work through the established intelligence consensus process, the OSP fed its conclusions directly to Vice President Cheney’s office and other senior decision-makers. According to Mother Jones, the OSP’s director, Abram Shulsky, “turned cherry-picked pieces of uncorroborated, anti-Iraq intelligence into talking points” that circulated to Rumsfeld and Cheney. The OSP also worked closely with Ahmed Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress, whose intelligence the broader community had largely discounted.

In September 2002, two days before the CIA completed its own final assessment of the Iraq-al-Qaeda question, Feith briefed senior advisers to Cheney and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, directly attacking the CIA’s credibility and alleging “fundamental problems” with its analysis. The version of the OSP briefing presented to senior White House officials differed from the version shown to the CIA — with a slide citing the CIA’s “fundamental problems” omitted from the version given to the intelligence community, according to the Washington Post’s reporting on the Inspector General’s summary.

In February 2007, the Pentagon’s Inspector General released a landmark report concluding that Feith’s office had “developed, produced, and then disseminated alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and al Qaida relationship, which included some conclusions that were inconsistent with the consensus of the Intelligence Community, to senior decision-makers.” The report found these actions “inappropriate” though not “illegal.”

Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), Chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, did not accept the limitations of that framing. “The bottom line is that intelligence relating to the Iraq-al-Qaeda relationship was manipulated by high-ranking officials in the Department of Defense to support the administration’s decision to invade Iraq,” Levin stated. “The inspector general’s report is a devastating condemnation of inappropriate activities in the DOD policy office that helped take this nation to war.”

Feith seized on the “not illegal” finding to declare he felt “vindicated” by the report, calling it proof that his office had been “smeared for years.” He disputed the Inspector General’s “inappropriate” finding as “bizarre” and “quibbling,” arguing that his office had simply produced “a criticism of the consensus of the intelligence community.”

De-Ba’athification and Its Catastrophic Consequences

The intelligence controversy was only one front of the wreckage Feith’s office produced. Among the most consequential decisions associated with Feith’s tenure were two orders that remade Iraq’s governing and security structures. The Pentagon, under Feith’s direction, drafted the de-Baathification decree that became CPA Order 1, signed by Ambassador Paul Bremer on May 16, 2003, which stripped all senior Ba’ath Party members from government positions.

A separate instrument, CPA Order 2, signed one week later, dissolved Iraq’s military and security forces — affecting 385,000 soldiers, 285,000 police, and 50,000 presidential security personnel. Together, the two orders threw hundreds of thousands of Iraqis out of work and destroyed the administrative and security infrastructure of the Iraqi state. They are now widely considered among the worst strategic decisions of the occupation, having helped ignite the sectarian insurgency that followed.

The Lawrence Franklin Espionage Scandal

The damage caused by Feith’s policy decisions was matched by serious security breaches involving his subordinates. Lawrence Franklin, a veteran Defense Intelligence Agency analyst who worked in Feith’s Near East and South Asia Bureau, was arrested in 2005 and pleaded guilty to espionage-related charges for passing classified information to AIPAC officials Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman, who then relayed the information to Israeli officials and the media. Franklin was sentenced to nearly 13 years in prison, later reduced to ten months’ house arrest. All charges against Rosen and Weissman were dropped in 2009. Although Feith himself was not charged, the scandal reinforced longstanding concerns about the security culture within his office and its relationship to Israeli intelligence interests.

After the Pentagon

After leaving the Pentagon in August 2005, Feith held the position of professor and Distinguished Practitioner in National Security Policy at Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service from 2006 to 2008. The appointment drew sharp opposition from the faculty — a letter signed by 35 professors accused Feith of ethical conflicts and of having defended the use of torture — and his contract was not renewed. He subsequently served as a Distinguished Visiting Fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution before joining the Hudson Institute in September 2008 as a Senior Fellow and Director of the Center for National Security Strategies.

In 2009, Feith became one of several Bush administration officials considered for a war crimes investigation by a Spanish court under claims of universal jurisdiction, headed by Judge Baltasar Garzón.

Ultimately, the Iraq War must not be viewed merely as a tactical or strategic failure of the American state, but as a profound success for the interests of organized Jewry, which Feith serves with unwavering fidelity. By viewing Feith as an agent of the Jewish state rather than a servant of the American public, the true objective of his career becomes clear: the advancement of his own people is his paramount duty, with the welfare of the United States trailing as a distant afterthought.

April 27, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Subjugation - Torture, Timeless or most popular, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on Villains of Judea: Douglas Feith

Washington cuts flow of US dollars to Iraqi central bank until ‘acceptable’ government formed

The Cradle | April 21, 2026

The US has suspended all funding and security coordination with Iraq, and shipments of dollars the Central Bank of Iraq (CBI), until a new Baghdad government acceptable to Washington is formed, Al-Hadath reported on 20 April.

The US is also conditioning continued security cooperation on the disclosure of those involved in the bombing of its embassy, the Saudi news channel added.

Nevertheless, on Monday, the CBI released a statement rejecting the Al-Hadath report.

Since 2003, a decision issued by Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) head Paul Bremer has required that all Iraqi oil revenues be paid into an account at the US Federal Reserve Bank of New York, giving the US the ability to control how many US dollars are returned to the CBI.

From that point until today, the Iraqi Ministry of Finance has had to submit funding requests to the US Treasury, which then approves or denies them based on its own criteria.

This monthly transfer of US dollars, flown into Baghdad in pallets of hard cash, determines Iraq’s ability to pay for basic needs such as salaries, food, and medicine.

Whenever Washington believes that Iraq is not aligned with US regional goals, including enforcing economic sanctions on Iran, Baghdad’s major trading partner and a source of natural gas for electricity production, these fund transfers can be delayed or reduced.

The Coordination Framework (CF), the largest parliamentary bloc of Shia parties, has not yet selected a prime minister nearly five months after securing a plurality in the latest elections.

Former prime minister Nouri al-Maliki, viewed by the US as “close” to Iran, was initially chosen to replace incumbent Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani.

However, while Washington wants to replace Sudani, it also opposes Maliki’s return to power.

“Last time Maliki was in power, the Country descended into poverty and total chaos. That should not be allowed to happen again,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform after Maliki emerged as a candidate for prime minister in January.

“Because of his insane policies and ideologies, if elected, the United States of America will no longer help Iraq,” he said. If we are not there to help, Iraq has ZERO chance of Success, Prosperity, or Freedom. MAKE IRAQ GREAT AGAIN!”

Maliki was the prime minister in 2014 when ISIS conquered large swathes of Iraq, including the country’s second-largest city, Mosul.

Maliki received much of the blame for the loss of nearly one-third of the country’s territory to ISIS, which enjoyed covert support from the US military and Iraqi Kurdish leader Masoud Barzani.

The CF, which won 185 of 329 seats in the last election, must nominate a prime minister by 26 April.

April 21, 2026 Posted by | Illegal Occupation, Wars for Israel | , , | Comments Off on Washington cuts flow of US dollars to Iraqi central bank until ‘acceptable’ government formed

Nations across Asia strike direct deals with Iran for Hormuz passage

Al Mayadeen | April 7, 2026

As US President Donald Trump threatens to “obliterate” Iran’s energy infrastructure unless it reopens the Strait of Hormuz, a growing number of countries are now negotiating directly with Tehran to secure safe passage for their ships.

Several nations in Asia, arguably the region most affected by the ongoing fuel crisis, have been able to get their vessels through the chokepoint, through which about a fifth of the world’s oil and gas normally transits. Tehran effectively closed the Strait after the country was attacked by the US and “Israel” on February 28.

It is a state of affairs that reflects a new geopolitical reality: access to the world’s most critical energy chokepoint is no longer governed by international maritime law, but by direct diplomacy with Iran.

A ‘de facto toll booth regime’

According to maritime tracking platform Kpler, commodity traffic through the strait fell by 95 percent when the war began. Before the US-Israeli aggression, around 100 ships transited daily. On some days this past week, that number was in the single digits.

But Iran has not closed the Strait entirely. Instead, it has created what maritime intelligence firm Lloyd’s List has described as a “de facto toll booth regime,” a permissions-based system operated by the IRGC, in which vessels from friendly countries are escorted through a narrow northern corridor near Larak Island.

As of this week, a second southern corridor near the Omani coastline has become operational, with Windward Maritime Intelligence tracking 11 transits on Sunday split across the two routes.

Iran names friendly nations

Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has publicly named the countries considered friendly enough for passage: China, Russia, India, Iraq, and Pakistan. Several others have since joined the list.

India was among the first countries to secure safe transit, reportedly without paying any fees. The Iranian embassy in New Delhi posted on social media that “our Indian friends are in safe hands.”

Pakistan was allocated 20 vessel slots by Tehran. “This is a welcome and constructive gesture by Iran,” Pakistani Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar said.

Thailand struck a deal after weeks of disruptions that included a Thai bulk carrier being struck by Iranian projectiles in March, leaving three crew members unaccounted for. A Thai tanker subsequently crossed without paying a fee.

Malaysia secures passage

Malaysia secured assurances of safe passage through what its Transport Minister described as a “good diplomatic relationship with the Iranian government.” The Iranian embassy in Kuala Lumpur said on Monday that the first Malaysian ship had passed through the strait since the war began. “Iran does not forget its friends,” it said.

A Malaysian Foreign Ministry statement confirmed that one of seven Malaysian-owned commercial vessels stranded in the strait has been granted safe passage and is now heading to its destination, following “high-level diplomatic engagements” and “constructive” talks with Iranian officials led by Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim.

Other nations join the list

The Philippines, despite its close ties with the US, became the latest Asian country to secure an agreement after what its foreign secretary described as “a very productive phone conversation” with Tehran. Iran assured “safe, unhindered and expeditious passage” for Philippines-flagged ships.

China, Iran’s largest oil buyer, confirmed that some of its ships had sailed through. Windward’s data show Chinese-linked vessels account for around 10 percent of the limited traffic still moving through the strait.

Indonesia secured passage for two of its vessels following diplomatic engagement with Tehran. Iraq has also been granted an exemption, with Windward identifying 21 Iraqi-linked tankers already operating under the arrangement.

Japan joined the list this week after a vessel operated by Mitsui OSK Lines carrying liquefied natural gas passed through the strait.

A system based on political alignment

The system is selectively allocated based on political alignment rather than open maritime norms. Of the roughly 280 global transit requests tracked by one intelligence firm, only 17 were approved. Some 670 commodity vessels were still stranded west of the strait as of last week.

Iran’s parliament is pursuing legislation to formally codify the toll system, likely making permanent a wartime measure and turning one of the world’s most important shipping routes into a fee-paying corridor controlled by its military.

A strategy that works

While Washington threatens military action and demands European naval support, Iran has quietly built a parallel system: nations that engage with Tehran diplomatically get their ships through. Those who follow Washington’s lead find the strait closed.

As the US-Israeli war on Iran enters its sixth week, the message is clear. Iran controls the Strait. Iran decides who passes. And Iran is proving that diplomacy, not threats, is the only path through. The countries that need their ships to move are making their own deals, and they are getting results.

April 7, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Nations across Asia strike direct deals with Iran for Hormuz passage

Baghdad tells Asian refiners, traders to begin loading Iraqi crude amid Iranian exemption

The Cradle | April 6, 2026

Baghdad has told Asian traders and refiners they can begin loading Iraqi oil into tankers for transit through the Strait of Hormuz following an Iranian exemption to transit the strategic waterway.

After the US and Israel began their unprovoked attack on Iran over one month ago, Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz, threatening to target vessels linked to the US and Israel with missile and drone strikes.

The move forced Iraq to cut its oil production by some 70 percent, as Baghdad had no major alternate route for exporting oil, which funds 90 percent of the state budget, and as its oil storage facilities quickly reached capacity.

Iraqi oil exports subsequently plunged by roughly 97 percent, to an average of 99,000 barrels per day (bpd).

However, in a notice sent on Sunday, Iraq’s State Organization for Marketing of Oil (SOMO) announced that Iraqi oil shipments were now “exempt from any potential restrictions.”

It asked Asian buyers to begin loading crude into vessels, saying export terminals, including in the city of Basra on the Persian Gulf, were “fully operational.”

According to Bloomberg, it was not immediately clear if the Iranian exemption would apply to all Iraqi oil or just the tankers owned by SOMO.

“Buyers expressed caution about the move,” the financial news outlet added.

The Ocean Thunder, a tanker carrying a million barrels of Iraqi crude, crossed the narrow strait on Sunday.

Iraq often sells oil on a free-on-board basis, meaning refiners arrange their own shipping. Asian buyers speaking to Bloomberg said they were seeking additional information, including whether Iraq would allow the use of its own tankers for extra security.

Transit of vessels through Hormuz has not only been hampered by Iranian threats, but by massive increases in maritime insurance premiums, as well as outright cancellations of insurance policies by western insurers.

Bloomberg notes that the number of vessels transiting through Hormuz has increased over the past week but remains at a “trickle” compared to before the war.

On 18 March, Baghdad reached a deal with leaders of the Iraqi Kurdistan region to resume oil exports via pipeline to Turkiye, though the volume the pipeline can hold is too small to make up for the disruptions of exports from Basra through Hormuz.

Roughly 300,000 bpd are now exported via the pipeline in the Kurdistan Region through Turkiye’s Ceyhan port.

This may aid Israel’s oil security, as Tel Aviv receives much of its oil from Azerbaijan, which ships to Ceyhan via the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline. From there, Israel can import crude via oil tankers transiting to Haifa on the Mediterranean Sea.

April 6, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , , , | Comments Off on Baghdad tells Asian refiners, traders to begin loading Iraqi crude amid Iranian exemption

Why the CIA conspiracy to invade Iran with Kurdish militias failed

By Robert Inlakesh | Al Mayadeen | April 5, 2026

At the beginning of the US-Israeli War on Iran, stories were circulated about the United States attempting to use Kurdish militia groups in order to wage a ground offensive against Iran. Yet the strategy never ended up getting off the ground. Understanding the context helps explain what happened

On February 22, just prior to the joint US-Israeli war of aggression against Iran, five Kurdish-Iranian militant factions held a conference declaring a historic unity agreement had been reached. As a result the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan (PDKI), Kurdistan Free Life Party (PJAK), Kurdistan Freedom Party (PAK), Khabat Organization of Iranian Kurdistan, and a branch of the Komala Party of Iranian Kurdistan came together. They declared themselves the Coalition of Political Forces of Iranian Kurdistan (CPFIK), explicitly to fight against the Islamic Republic of Iran.

For long, Tehran had argued that these groups were being backed by the Western and Israeli intelligence agencies. However, journalists also adopting this analysis were often framed as being conspiracy theorists. That was, of course, until a few days into the US-Israeli war on Iran, when it emerged that the Trump administration was openly in talks with them, encouraging an invasion of Iran’s Western borders.

Then came the bombshell report from CNN, whose sources alleged that the CIA had been covertly working to arm these Kurdish-Iranian groups based in Iraq. So, at this stage, and shockingly so, there is no conspiracy to unravel as it has already been exposed.

What would such an invasion look like?

As has become evident, regime change in Iran is not going to be possible through a campaign from the air alone; the natural next step to achieving this was always going to be creating an insurgency inside the country, whilst invading from without also. In the US’s alleged strategic thinking, a Kurdish invasion would ideally work to foster a wider uprising inside the country, thus creating a general environment of chaos and division.

However, bringing about such a predicament was not going to come easy. In January, the Israeli Mossad attempted to foster an armed uprising that would trigger a civil war. Iran managed to put this bloody assault down with overwhelming force in just two or three days, a conflict which cost the lives of 3,117 people, including hundreds of policemen and security force members.

Initially, this uprising sought to use paid agents from criminal groups in the West of Iran and there was some evidence that Kurdish militia groups were used to clash with the Iranian security forces, but this was quickly quelled. In fact, in 2022, when the death of Mahsa Amini triggered nationwide protests, Western intelligence agencies jumped on the opportunity to use Kurdish separatist groups, but failed to achieve their desired objectives.

In Iraq, the US, and later the Israelis, also worked alongside Kurdish forces in order to secure the control of oil resources and successfully created the semi-autonomous Iraqi-Kurdistan region, complete with its own Kurdish government. The same came in north-eastern Syria, where the US helped set up what was known as the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), using them to fight back ISIS and claim control of not only Syria’s oil fields but the most fertile agricultural land in the country.

Unfortunately, Kurdish nationalism has always been promoted by the United States, and before it the British, dating back to the 1920’s, in a way that enables them to use the Kurdish minority populations of the region to do their bidding. Although these Kurdish nationalist groups, who seek to build separatist regions in Iraq, Syria, Iran and Turkiye, proudly believe that their groups are fighting for a noble cause, they almost always end up causing more harm to the Kurdish populations and those around them.

This is not to comment on the historical or moral validity of Kurdish nationalism and their struggle for statehood, instead it is a factual assessment. Take for instance the recently dissolved Kurdish autonomous region project in north eastern Syria, what the US-backed SDF called Rojava. In 2015, the United States armed and funded them to fight against ISIS, promising them a bright future in return for their sacrifices on the battlefield.

Eventually, the Kurdish-led SDF, which ruled over a majority Arab territory, managed to seize the area of Afrin, towards the north-west of Syria. Turkiye, which views almost every Kurdish group as a terrorist organisation and/or threat, decided in 2018 to launch “Operation Olive Branch”, crushing the SDF and seizing that territory for themselves, handing it over to their own proxy forces. What did the US military do to help them? You guessed it, they ran away and deserted their Kurdish allies.

In 2019, Turkiye then launched “Operation Peace Spring”, seizing a strip of north-eastern Syria from the SDF and using their Al-Qaeda linked proxy forces called the “Syrian National Army” (SNA) to hold on to that land. Again, the US deserted their Kurdish allies. Despite this, the SDF crawled right back to their US backers and refused to reach an agreement with the then government of Bashar al-Assad.

When Assad was overthrown in December of 2024, there came a significant threat to many Kurdish-Syrians and more specifically the longevity of the SDF’s rule in north-eastern Syria.  Syria’s new ruler, Ahmed al-Sharaa (formerly known as Abu Mohammed al-Jolani while he led Al-Qaeda in Syria), decided to lead an offensive against the SDF to recapture the north-eastern portion of the country and place it under Damascus’s rule.

In January of 2026, after the US again deserted the Kurdish movement at the moment of truth, the SDF’s rule fell, and al-Sharaa took over north-eastern Syria. Why? Well, it’s very obvious: the US had only been using the Kurdish group as a proxy to withhold Syria’s oil and agricultural resources from it, until the government of Bashar al-Assad was toppled. Once regime change was accomplished, al-Sharaa was invited to the White House, and his Al-Qaeda and ISIS history was ignored.

See, the US never cared about the Kurds, nor did the Israelis, because both had covertly, and in some cases overtly, supported al-Qaeda linked groups in Syria also- playing both sides.

Although tragic, history shows us that it is very likely that Kurdish militant groups are used to do the West’s bidding, with promises of securing their own interests that never materialise. Therefore, it was always safe to assume that this would be attempted again. This time, however, the chance they had was extremely slim, and the consequences of such action even threatened the collapse of the Iraqi-Kurdistan project altogether.

The Kurdish groups in Iran cannot likely inspire a general uprising inside the country, this is for a number of reasons. The Kurdish population is considerable, numbering around 10 million of Iran’s 92 million strong population, yet they are not all hellbent on destroying the government, this is simply propaganda, most are normal people living their lives. These hostile Kurdish groups are based primarily in Iraq, in terms of their militant numbers, meaning that their forces inside Iran would have been overwhelmed from the jump.

Then there was the issue of the Iraq-Iran border, which had already been fortified and is where the Iranian military has deployed assets and soldiers to guard against an anticipated assault. But before they even reach the Iranian side, where they would have been greatly outnumbered, they would have to face off against Iraqi groups that are aligned with Iran. In total, these Iraqi groups – under the Popular Mobilisation Units (PMU) – constitute a force of around 250,000 fighters if fully mobilised.

In order for such an assault to succeed in creating an uprising in Iran, or inspire other armed factions from other minority groups in the country – like the Lors, Arabs or others – to begin taking action, they would need to at least see results.

Even if the Kurdish factions were to hypothetically seize some territory, Iran is such a massive country that the temporary loss of towns and villages wouldn’t be such an issue. That’s the best case scenario for these groups, assuming they get past the Iraqis – in addition to the Iranian Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC)’s drones and missiles – first. If anything, such an offensive would have been destined to trigger an enormous backlash against the Kurdish regional project, rather than do it any good.

As for the idea of this leading to Balkanisation, it is not something that appears to be possible in the foreseeable future. This is not to say that Tel Aviv and Washington won’t try. Yet, the Iranian opposition is so incredibly divided – territorially and ideologically – that the ability for groups to work together is also scarce.

Take for example the Iranians who support Israeli puppet Reza Pahlavi. These are hardline Persian Nationalists who believe that they are a superior ethnicity to Kurdish people, Afghans, Arabs and so on. Under the rule of the deposed Shah of Iran, whose son is now worshipped in a cult-like fashion by a small but vocal minority of Iranians [especially in the diaspora], the non-Persian groups inside the country were enormously undermined and discriminated against.

In fact, under the Islamic Republic, the minorities fare much better than they have under the Pahlavi monarchs and those Shahs that came before them. Their conditions are by no means perfect, and there are often complaints that the centre of Iran is prioritised by the government, which is where the majority of ethnic Persians are situated, yet there is simply no comparison between the way they are treated under the current Islamic rule and that of the previous leaderships.

In conclusion, the options for creating a Syria-style civil war in Iran were always much lower than was being claimed by some commentators, or had been presented by pro-war think tanks in Washington. As Iran is under attack, and atrocities are being carried out against civilians on a daily basis, this has worked to make the nation’s people rally behind the flag, rather than embark upon bloody sectarian revolts.

Another key factor to understand here is that the Islamic Republic is clearly holding its own against the world’s top military superpower and the region’s most advanced military. This in itself makes small militant groups more hesitant to take action. Having said this, the US and Israelis appear to be willing to sacrifice all their proxies in a bid to achieve regime change, or at least inflict a significant blow, this time around, so it is never an impossibility that some desperate action may still be ordered at some stage.

April 5, 2026 Posted by | Deception, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Why the CIA conspiracy to invade Iran with Kurdish militias failed

One martyr, 5 injuries in US attack on Iraqi border crossing with Iran

Al Mayadeen | April 4, 2026

On Saturday, Major General Omar Al-Waeli, head of the Iraqi Border Ports Authority, confirmed the martyrdom of one person and injuries to five others following an attack on the Shalamcheh border crossing with Iran.

Al Mayadeen’s correspondent in Basra reported that movement at the crossing has been completely suspended, adding that US warplanes targeted the Iranian passport hall at the border point.

Since the onset of the US-Israeli war on Iran, American attacks have relentlessly targeted Iraq, including Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) units and centers.

PMF martyr, injruies in US attack earlier today

Earlier today, the PMF reported that its 45th Brigade, part of the Jazira Operations Sector, was attacked at the al-Qaim border crossing. The assault left one PMF member martyred, four others injured, and one Ministry of Defense employee wounded.

In response to the repeated aggression, the Iraqi Cabinet directed the armed forces and the Popular Mobilization Forces to defend themselves and respond to any attacks on their positions.

The cabinet also instructed the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to submit an official complaint to the UN Security Council, condemning the attacks and demanding they be stopped.

Iraqi Resistance calls for action against US-Israeli regional allies

Similarly, the Iraqi Resistance Coordination Committee praised the Iraqi people’s positions in support of the Axis of Resistance, while calling for punitive measures against countries that enable US-Israeli aggressions in the region.

In a statement, the Committee said that “the alignment of the rulers of Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE with the criminality of the Zionist-American enemy against the Islamic Republic and their betrayal of the honorable free people of Iraq represent the height of baseness and vileness.”

It stressed that this “requires a firm deterrent response from the Iraqi government,” adding that such measures should begin with “punishing Jordan in particular, as it serves as a launch point for enemy aircraft targeting the fighters of the Popular Mobilization Forces and Iraqi security forces,” calling for “the complete closure of the land border crossing and the suspension of Iraqi oil grants.”

The Committee also stated that the Iraqi Resistance has avoided harming Kuwait’s economic interests and infrastructure while targeting US forces in the country. It further called for avoiding harm to Qatar’s interests, excluding US bases, “in appreciation of Doha’s responsible positions toward the Palestinian cause and the Axis of Resistance.”

April 4, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on One martyr, 5 injuries in US attack on Iraqi border crossing with Iran

« Previous Entries