Burning America’s Cards One by One: What is Iran’s Strategy?
By Robert Inlakesh – The Palestine Chronicle – August 16, 2026
While the US Trump administration insists that the very much closed Strait of Hormuz is in fact open and grapples with domestic pushback against his war losses, Iran has been busy pursuing a military strategy that is placing a chokehold on their opposition.
Although the ongoing regional war has been experiencing a lull in direct confrontations between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the US-Israeli alliance, a series of other fronts have become the focus of Tehran’s recent efforts.
Contrary to what you would be led to believe by the corporate media, Iran’s ballistic missile and drone fire has not ceased. Instead, officials belonging to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) have made it clear that there is no ceasefire in effect and that their operations are therefore being carried out in a coordinated fashion.
One of the fronts Iran has chosen to keep open is northern Iraq, where it has consistently launched short-range ballistic missiles and drone waves, targeting headquarters, hideouts, bases and weapons depots belonging to Kurdish-Iranian opposition factions backed by the United States. Powerful blasts are being reported on a near-daily basis in Suleimaniyeh and Erbil, with footage often confirming direct impacts on strategic targets.
US President Donald Trump has been vocal since the first weeks of the war on Iran, which began on February 28 of this year, that he was expecting action from his Kurdish allies that he armed during the riots in Iran a month prior. Leaked reports in the American press suggested that a plan was being drawn up that would see the use of these Kurdish militant groups to invade the Iranian mainland, triggering a process that would – in their minds – lead to the disintegration of the Islamic Republic.
A Kurdish breakaway State project was one major card that the US and Israel – which was revealed to have established bases in Iraqi Kurdistan – were hoping to play against Tehran. The IRGC and Iranian Regular Army have not let that go, choosing to launch persistent strikes and even deploy special forces units to carry out operations on the ground against these groups.
Meanwhile, Iran’s Yemeni allies have mobilized their forces and are committing major offensive operations against their Saudi-backed opposition. They have also imposed an unprecedented equation on Saudi Arabia, where they are now implementing a counter-blockade that places a further chokehold on global oil supplies, while striking Saudi oil facilities in retaliation to violations of Yemeni airspace alone.
The threats of Iraqi factions to intervene in Syria, if the leadership in Damascus follows Trump’s orders to attack Lebanon, combined with reports that Iran will launch strikes on targets belonging to the Syrian regime, also appear to be an effort to prevent this step from taking place.
In the Strait of Hormuz, the IRGC Navy continues to take out tankers with drones and missiles if they choose to attempt to break the blockade with US coordination. When this occurs, US Central Command refrains from even making regular comments, a far cry from its previous threats to bomb Iranian civilian infrastructure in retaliation for every tanker struck.
As this has all been happening, the US is scrambling to replace its USS Abraham Lincoln Aircraft Carrier, after reports emerge that chaos is erupting on board. The vessel has been deployed for over 9 months and is now facing a food shortage that has impacted around 5,000 sailors. The situation is so bad that some reports even indicated that the first fights broke out on the ship, deaths have occurred, and that some service members either attempted or were considering suicide.
Recent reports also indicate that Iran has destroyed at least 45 US MQ-9 Reaper Drones, costing roughly $1.3 billion in total; this is on top of the US military expending most of its long-range precision missiles and depleting 80% of its THAAD interceptor stockpile.
The Israelis are currently refusing to budge when it comes to Lebanon, Gaza and Syria, while escalating their attacks on Palestinians in the occupied West Bank, fronts that could all escalate very quickly and drain more resources.
Iran has demonstrated that it is far from depleting its weapons stockpiles and even Israeli intelligence estimates assess that it has rapidly recovered from the 40-day war period. What has become clear is that the US President has to make a choice sooner or later: either he signs what will effectively be a surrender agreement and pushes back against the Israel Lobby, or he decides to try an all-out war one last time.
Iran blocks US-backed plan for Syrian military intervention in Lebanon
Al Mayadeen | August 13, 2026
Iran has thwarted a planned Syrian military intervention in Lebanon that was being prepared at the request of the United States, delivering a direct warning to Damascus that any Syrian military entry into Lebanese territory would be met with a regional response, according to Iranian sources cited by U News.
The Iranian warning included threats to stir up the Syrian–Iraqi border, open a confrontation line in Homs, support Alawite movements in the Syrian coastal region, and encourage the Kurds to return militarily to the outskirts of Aleppo.
The warning was not directed solely at Damascus; it also reached Ankara, Baghdad, Doha, and Riyadh, carrying the message that any Syrian adventure against Hezbollah in Lebanon would not remain confined to the Bekaa Valley but could turn into a broad regional confrontation within Syrian territory.
Iran succeeded in transforming any potential Syrian intervention in Lebanon from a military option that could be marketed to the US into a high-cost regional adventure, sources said. The Iranian warning, which reached Damascus through Turkish channels, included a threat of Iranian ballistic missile strikes that would begin from Damascus and include, in the first wave, more than 100 strategic targets, foremost among them the Syrian presidential palace.
The US-backed scenario: a three-pronged offensive into Lebanon
The scenario promoted by figures linked to the US embassy in Lebanon involves sending Syrian armed units from the Masnaa crossing toward Chtoura in the Lebanese Bekaa and on to the city of Zahle, simultaneously with mobilization from the eastern highlands toward the city of Baalbek.
The proposed scenario also includes declaring the city of Tripoli a Syrian zone of influence, with advancing forces benefiting from local environments, particularly in some Sunni-majority areas.
The presumed goal of the operation is to strike Hezbollah’s rocket infrastructure in the Bekaa and to create military and political pressure that would force the party to withdraw or accept new security arrangements.
Hezbollah prepared, treats potential Syrian operation as US-Israeli pressure
Iran’s warning has prompted regional parties to reassess the cost of the scenario, especially since Syria, emerging from deep military and political transformations, does not appear capable of enduring a new internal war.
Hezbollah is treating the information about a potential Syrian intervention extremely seriously and has taken precautionary measures in the Bekaa in anticipation of any possible Syrian incursion.
Hezbollah does not view the scenario as a separate Syrian operation, but rather as part of US–Israeli–regional pressure aimed at dismantling the structure of resistance in Lebanon from the east, following Israel’s failure to achieve a decisive result in the south.
Iraq’s rejection, UAE’s enthusiasm, and Saudi caution
Iraqi intelligence chief Hamid al-Shatri visited Damascus and informed Syrian officials of Baghdad’s rejection of any Syrian military expansion into Lebanese territory. Al-Shatri warned that Iraqi forces, primarily factions of the Popular Mobilization Forces, might enter Syrian territory if an intervention against Hezbollah occurred.
The Iraqi position added a further layer of deterrence to the Iranian warning, signalling that Damascus could face military pressure not only from within Syria but also from its eastern border.
The UAE is enthusiastic about funding any Syrian military operation in Lebanon, with officials quoted as ready to pay troop salaries as well as finance combat operations. This financial backing suggests that the UAE views the intervention as an opportunity to curtail Hezbollah’s influence in Lebanon, despite the broader regional risks that Iran has highlighted.
Qatar rejects Syrian intervention in Lebanon, while Saudi Arabia does not object to an intervention as long as it is within arrangements that weaken Hezbollah without igniting the region. The divergent positions among Gulf states underscore the complex calculations at play, with Riyadh appearing to balance its opposition to Hezbollah against the dangers of a wider conflict that Iran has explicitly threatened to unleash on Syrian soil.
Iranian precision drones cripple US Patriot shield in Erbil, forcing a hasty American pullout
By Yousef Ramazani | Press TV | August 2, 2026
The US military’s accelerated withdrawal from its base in Erbil, officially described as a scheduled redeployment, comes after Iranian precision strikes destroyed air-defense apparatus, including Patriot air-defense systems stationed there, a development supported by satellite imagery that has received limited attention in much of Western media coverage.
The hasty and unplanned withdrawal of American occupation forces from Iraq’s Kurdistan region has taken place amid a series of Iranian retaliatory strikes that have reshaped the security environment and military calculations in Iraq and across the region.
Media reports indicate that US military convoys have been moving from Erbil toward neighboring countries in recent days, with a significant portion of American troops and heavy equipment already withdrawn from the military compound near Erbil International Airport.
The official explanation, promoted by regional officials and reflected in Western reporting, presents the move as a routine redeployment consistent with Washington’s obligation to remove all US forces from Iraq by the September 30 deadline agreed upon with Baghdad.
However, this account does not address a key factor behind the reported withdrawal: the large-scale destruction of Patriot air-defense systems that had served as a central element of US force protection in the Iraqi Kurdistan region.
Satellite imagery dated July 16 and July 24 provide clinching evidence that Iranian drone and missile strikes targeted and destroyed Patriot launchers at Erbil International Airport. Despite this, the imagery has received limited coverage in mainstream Western media.
The removal of these systems reflects not merely a planned redeployment but an acknowledgment that the air-defense assets had become increasingly vulnerable in the face of Iran’s precision-strike capabilities.
Evidence of Patriot system destruction
Satellite imagery captured on July 16 and analyzed by independent observers shows a US Army Patriot air-defense launcher at Erbil International Airport destroyed following an Iranian drone strike in response to the US military aggression against southern Iran.
The imagery shows significant damage to a Patriot PAC-3 system, with smoke visible at the reported impact site, rendering it completely dysfunctional.
The strike was attributed to Shahed-136 one-way attack drones launched by the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) Aerospace Force – loitering munitions that have demonstrated the cutting-edge ability to challenge advanced and multi-layered air-defense networks.
A second strike on July 24 followed, with additional satellite imagery indicating the destruction of another component of the same Patriot air-defense battery.
A fire reported at Erbil International Airport was linked to damage involving one or more Patriot launchers. Images from the aftermath have been described by military analysts and OSINT researchers as evidence of a precision strike that damaged one of Washington’s most advanced defensive systems and highlighted the challenges posed by Iranian drone capabilities.
The IRGC Aerospace Force announced the destruction of a Patriot air-defense system at Erbil as part of the 27th wave of Operation Nasr-2, carried out under the code phrase “Ya Aba Saleh al-Mahdi, Adrikni.”
In its statement, the IRGC said the operation involved a “surprise” strike that also destroyed a US surveillance balloon and targeted facilities used to accommodate American military personnel.
Declining effectiveness of American air defenses
The devastating strikes against Patriot systems in Erbil exposed vulnerabilities that have been a growing concern for American military planners throughout the war of aggression against Iran.
The Patriot batteries, which have an operational range of between 100 and 160 kilometers, were originally deployed to protect American occupation forces but had become targets themselves.
While US interceptors succeeded in preventing some attacks on the Erbil compound, other attacks proved sufficient to disable the most advanced air-defense systems in the American inventory.
The near-total destruction of Patriot launchers in Erbil was part of a broader pattern of Iranian military successes against American air-defense infrastructure across the region, which prompted war hawks in Washington to look for alternatives and forced Trump to end the bombing campaign.
A study documented the diminishing resources available to American forces, revealing that 55 percent of the Patriot stockpile had been depleted by April, with a further 10 percent reduction following the collapse of the US-Iranian ceasefire in recent months.
The Foreign Policy Research Institute estimated that the United States produces around 600 Patriot interceptors annually, noting that existing stockpiles had already been strained by transfers to Ukraine prior to the escalation of unprovoked hostilities against Iran.
The Iranian success against Patriot systems reflects the inherent asymmetry in modern drone warfare, where expensive air-defense interceptors are depleted by relatively low-cost loitering munitions.
The Shahed-136 drones used in the Erbil strikes are estimated to be thousands of dollars each, while each Patriot interceptor costs millions, making it extremely costly for the aggressor.
This economic imbalance, combined with the demonstrated vulnerability of high-end air-defense systems to drone saturation tactics, has created a fundamental challenge for American force protection that cannot be resolved through redeployment alone.
Accelerated withdrawal: facts on the ground
The destruction of Patriot systems at Erbil appears to have been the catalyst for the accelerated withdrawal of American forces from Iraqi Kurdistan, according to military sources.
The US military began drawing down its last remaining forces stationed near Erbil International Airport, with the pullout starting in the final week of July and continuing at the time of filing this report.
The bulk of US troops and heavy equipment have already been removed from the compound, according to the Al-Monitor website, which claims that all Patriot anti-missile batteries have been redeployed to an undisclosed destination.
However, sources told the Press TV website that the Patriot anti-missile batteries don’t exist anymore at the highly fortified base, which was the main trigger for the hasty military withdrawal.
The Pentagon has declined to confirm or deny the reports of its military’s withdrawal, citing “operational security reasons” for refusing to discuss specific movements.
They also remain tight-lipped about the existing condition of air-defense systems, including Patriot, and how they intend to protect their troops in other regional countries with American bases.
This evasive response has done little to reassure Kurdish authorities, who have been left to interpret the withdrawal without clear guidance from their American allies.
Attack context: sustained Iranian pressure on Iraqi Kurdistan
The withdrawal of American forces from Erbil must be understood within the broader context of Iranian military pressure on the Kurdistan Region throughout July 2026.
Iranian forces maintained sustained retaliatory attacks on US military infrastructure in Iraqi Kurdistan, with the bulk of attacks targeting armed Kurdish militant groups based in the region as well as the US military compound near Erbil International Airport.
The attacks on the Erbil compound specifically targeted the Patriot systems and other military assets, with the IRGC launching multiple waves of Operation Nasr-2 that pounded US-run bases in Kuwait, Bahrain, Jordan, and the Iraqi Kurdistan region.
Local media outlets reported that the Kurdistan Region was subjected to dozens of drone and missile attacks in July, with the city of Erbil facing repeated air-raid warnings and interception attempts.
Iranian and Kurdish sources confirmed renewed strikes against infrastructure associated with coalition forces, with the attacks focused on operational infrastructure rather than saturation bombardment.
The attacks on Erbil International Airport included strikes on a ground support station and maintenance facility belonging to US surveillance aircraft, along with the destruction of the Patriot systems.
This precision targeting reflects the sophistication of Iranian intelligence gathering and the ability to identify and strike high-value American assets with accuracy.
The IRGC’s statement that “almost all” US military infrastructure in Erbil had been destroyed during the conflict, while not independently verified, is consistent with the subsequent American withdrawal.
Regional realignment: from Iraq to the Persian Gulf
The withdrawal from Iraqi Kurdistan is part of a broader American reassessment of its military posture across the region, driven by the recognition that large, permanent military presences have become liabilities rather than strategic assets.
The priority for the US has also shifted toward Persian Gulf states, particularly Kuwait and Jordan.
The United States has been reviewing the extent of its military presence in Kuwait following developments in the war against Iran, with reports indicating that analysts believe “a large, permanent military presence in Kuwait is no longer vital or militarily wise”.
This reassessment has been driven by the reality that US installations and bases have been repeatedly targeted by Iran during the war, with the Patriot systems themselves becoming magnets for Iranian strikes rather than reliable defensive shields.
The destruction of Patriot systems at Erbil ahead of the troop withdrawal has raised further questions about US interceptor stockpiles and how the military seeks to protect troops elsewhere in the region.
The successful Iranian strikes on Patriot systems in Erbil demonstrated that these assets are vulnerable to drone attacks, making their deployment to other locations a matter of risk assessment rather than simple repositioning.
Strategic implications: victory for Iranian deterrence
The American withdrawal from Iraqi Kurdistan, following the destruction of Patriot systems by Iranian precision strikes, represents a significant victory for the Axis of Resistance and a demonstration of the effectiveness of Iranian deterrence strategy, according to defense analysts.
The IRGC’s official statement on the Erbil strikes warned that “should the unlawful and bullying US regime continue its hostile actions, it will face different and stronger responses,” a warning that has been validated by the American decision to withdraw rather than reinforce its position in Iraqi Kurdistan.
The Kurdish Regional Government, which has benefited from the American military umbrella while not being the primary target of Iranian attacks, now faces an uncertain future without the protection of US air-defense systems, including Patriot.
The withdrawal also carries significant implications for the broader regional balance of power. The US, which has maintained a military presence in Iraq for over two decades, is now completing a withdrawal that has been accelerated by Iranian military pressure rather than strategic planning.
The annihilation of Patriot systems from Erbil, and the subsequent withdrawal of American occupation forces, represents an acknowledgment that these systems were no longer capable of protecting American personnel in the face of Iranian precision strike capabilities.
The official narrative of a scheduled redeployment, analysts opine, cannot mask the reality that the American position in Iraqi Kurdistan became untenable following the Iranian retaliatory strikes in recent weeks, which demonstrated that even the most advanced American air-defense systems cannot withstand sustained Iranian drone warfare.
Iraq cancels PM’s Riyadh visit after US-Saudi aggression amid calls for response
Press TV – July 29, 2026
Iraq has postponed Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi’s planned visit to Saudi Arabia after the joint US-Saudi attack on Popular Mobilization Units (PMU) positions across several Iraqi provinces, as officials and lawmakers called for a military response.
The strikes came as millions of Muslims from Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Azerbaijan and other countries around the world were converging on the Iraqi city of Karbala to mark Arbaeen, one of the largest religious gatherings in the world.
Some observers have viewed the timing of the attacks as a show of anger toward the gathering, which has been marked by expressions of solidarity with the Axis of Resistance and condemnation of US-Israeli wars and expansionist policies.
According to Iraqi media, al-Zaidi’s trip to Saudi Arabia was postponed indefinitely after the attack. The prime minister also ordered the country’s National Security Council to convene an emergency meeting following the security developments and the airstrikes on several areas across Iraq.
Former Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia’ al-Sudani said, “We condemn the Saudi-American aggression against the headquarters of the Popular Mobilization Forces in the strongest terms.”
“This aggression is a blatant violation of Iraq’s sovereignty and a clear violation of international law and the United Nations Charter,” Sudani said.
“Iraq reserves all of its legitimate rights guaranteed under international law, including the right to defend its sovereignty, territory and people.”
He added that “any violation of Iraq’s security and stability is unacceptable and cannot be met with silence.”
According to a statement carried by Iraq’s official news agency, the PMU said the casualty toll from the attacks remains preliminary and could rise as special committees continue field assessments and gather more accurate information.
The organization denounced the strikes as a “joint US-Saudi terrorist attack” targeting its official headquarters in the provinces of Baghdad, Wasit, Nineveh, Basra, Kirkuk, Karbala and Diyala.
The assaults caused extensive material damage to PMU headquarters, military vehicles, machinery and equipment in the targeted locations, the statement said.
The Iraqi resistance movement added that its investigative teams remain deployed to assess the full extent of the casualties and destruction, noting that the number of those killed and wounded may increase as rescue and assessment operations continue.
Earlier, the PMU announced that several of its bases in different parts of Iraq had come under attack, describing the strikes as “terrorist” and reporting casualties among its personnel.
The PMU said it viewed the attacks as “a highly dangerous escalation, a blatant violation of Iraq’s territorial integrity, and an attack on the country’s official security institutions.”
The attacks prompted growing calls from Iraqi lawmakers for a decisive response.
Two Iraqi lawmakers called on the government to respond decisively, with one urging military retaliation and another demanding the cancellation of al-Zaidi’s visit to Saudi Arabia.
Saud al-Saadi, a member of the Iraqi Parliament and the Huqooq Movement, called on the commander-in-chief of the armed forces to assume his responsibility and issue an order for a military response to the Saudi-American aggression.
“Show [Saudi Crown Prince] Mohammed bin Salman and the other slaves their true worth and size,” he said, according to Iraqi media.
“The blood of Iraqis is not cheap, and the dark record of Washington and Riyadh in our beloved country will not be erased without a response that preserves Iraq’s dignity. It is not acceptable to settle for disgraceful and humiliating statements,” he added.
Another Iraqi lawmaker, Faleh al-Khazali, described the strikes as “terrorist attacks” carried out by “the Saudi and American enemy,” saying they targeted Iraqi security positions in several provinces.
“The attacks on our security positions constitute blatant aggression and a violation of Iraq’s sovereignty,” al-Khazali said, adding that “the Iraqi government and its prime minister bear the responsibility to courageously defend the Iraqi people and the country’s national interests.”
Iraqi lawmaker Hussein Nima al-Battat also condemned the attacks as a “blatant violation of Iraq’s sovereignty and of international laws and norms,” warning that they constituted a dangerous escalation threatening the country’s security and stability.
Al-Battat urged the government to take all necessary military, political, diplomatic and legal measures to defend Iraq’s sovereignty and protect its people, while also calling for the cancellation of the prime minister’s scheduled visit to Riyadh as a demonstration of Iraq’s rejection of the attacks.
The Iraqi resistance had warned Saudi Arabia earlier against waging such strikes against Iraqi territory following Riyadh’s claims that its oil facilities were targeted from Iraq.
In a statement released on Monday, the resistance rejected the Saudi allegations as “baseless” and urged Saudi authorities to stop blaming Iraq and instead end Riyadh’s blockade on Yemen.
Political analyst Jumaa al-Atwani told Lebanon’s Al Mayadeen television that the joint US-Saudi attack was aimed at weakening the PMU and retaliating against Iraq over its solidarity with Iran.
“The American pressure on Iraq has intensified because of Iraq’s position in solidarity with Iran, especially after the massive funeral procession for the martyred leader of the Ummah,” he said.
Atwani said the millions who participated recently in the ceremonies in Karbala and Najaf for funeral of martyred Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei reflected Iraq’s role within the Axis of Resistance.
Al-Atwani said Saudi Arabia maintains close coordination with the United States and described the PMU as “a major problem for Washington.”
He also suggested that regional plans involving Saudi Arabia and Syria have been discussed to justify attacks on Iraqi military positions.
Russia warns Ukraine expanding ‘terrorist activities’ beyond Europe
Press TV – July 28, 2026
The Kremlin has warned that Ukraine is expanding the scope of its “terrorist activities” beyond Europe, citing Kiev’s recent involvement in destabilizing Iraq, attacks on strategic infrastructure in Germany and Kazakhstan, and the attack on an Iranian commercial vessel in the Caspian Sea.
Speaking at a press briefing on Tuesday, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said the reported involvement of Ukrainian-linked groups in Iraq demonstrated that “the geography of the Kiev regime’s terrorist activities is expanding,” warning that such actions pose a growing threat beyond Europe.
“We see that the Kiev regime continues its terrorist activities,” Peskov said, arguing that the trend “again highlights the need for a successful and complete special military operation.”
The Kremlin spokesman also pointed to attacks carried out by Kiev beyond the battlefield, citing the sabotage of the Nord Stream gas pipelines, strikes against infrastructure linked to the Caspian Pipeline Consortium, and an attack on an Iranian commercial vessel in the Caspian Sea on Saturday.
Peskov’s remarks came after Iraqi authorities said they had identified and dismantled several sabotage cells responsible for a series of bombings across the country that were planning further attacks with backing and support from Ukraine.
Ukraine has denied involvement, saying Baghdad had presented no evidence to support the claims and had not raised the issue through diplomatic channels before the comments were made public.
Iraq’s National Security Adviser Qasim al-Aboudi, however, said authorities had arrested several suspects who admitted working for Ukraine and carrying out attacks on Iraqi facilities, describing the case as complex and still under investigation.
Ukraine also targeted an Iranian cargo vessel in the Caspian Sea on July 25, killing one sailor and injuring several others. Tehran said the vessel was a civilian ship carrying iron from Russia to Iran, while Ukraine alleged it was transporting Iranian drone and missile components to Russia.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said the attack had been carried out at the behest of the Israeli regime in an attempt to draw Europe into the war in West Asia, warning that the strike “cannot go unanswered.” The Foreign Ministry also said that Kiev had sought to spread insecurity by attacking the Iranian commercial vessel.
No route around Hormuz: Why West Asia’s pipeline alternatives fall short
The rush to bypass Hormuz leads back to the same problem: Every alternative route remains hostage to war, rival chokepoints, or political disputes.
By Hussein Askary | The Cradle | July 23, 2026
“The only alternative to the Strait of Hormuz is the Strait of Hormuz.”
This blunt assessment, offered by an Iraqi expert in a recent interview, captures the central weakness in the rush to revive old pipeline schemes and promote new ones across West Asia. Since Iran effectively closed the Strait of Hormuz after Israel and the US launched their second war against it in February 2026, the region has been flooded with proposals for alternative oil-export routes.
Washington has encouraged these plans, while several governments have presented dormant or unfinished pipelines as strategic solutions. Yet the closer one looks at geography, markets, costs, capacity, and security, the clearer it becomes that most of these projects cannot substitute for Hormuz.
Even if oil bypasses the strait, it still faces the rival chokepoint of Bab al-Mandab, where the Ansarallah-aligned armed forces have declared a maritime blockade against Saudi Arabia and attacked Saudi tankers.
These expensive detours will remain exposed unless security in the Persian Gulf itself improves. Until the war on Iran ends and an inclusive regional security architecture is established, Iranian and Yemeni missiles and drones can reach the pipelines and loading terminals built to evade them.
Asia still runs through Hormuz
The first reason is straightforward. The Strait of Hormuz is the natural outlet of the Gulf energy system. In 2024, oil flows through the strait averaged about 20 million barrels per day (bpd), roughly one-fifth of global petroleum liquids consumption. The International Energy Agency (IEA) describes it as one of the world’s most important oil transit chokepoints.
Most of this oil is not heading west. About 80 percent of the oil moving through Hormuz is destined for Asia, with China, India, Japan, South Korea, and other Asian economies as the principal buyers. The pattern is even clearer for liquefied natural gas (LNG).
The US Energy Information Administration estimated that 83 percent of LNG moving through Hormuz in 2024 went from Persian Gulf exporters to Asian markets, especially China, India, and South Korea.
This market reality matters because many proposed alternatives send oil away from its main customers. Pipelines to the Mediterranean, the Red Sea, or the Levant may appear useful on a map, but they often move Gulf crude farther from Asia rather than closer to it.
Commercially, building multibillion-dollar infrastructure to move oil westward, only to redirect it by sea toward Asian markets, is inefficient. If Hormuz is open, the direct route remains cheaper and faster. If it is closed by war, the underlying problem is not a lack of pipelines but the collapse of regional security.
Old routes, unresolved disputes
The older pipeline options illustrate the point. The Kirkuk–Baniyas pipeline once carried Iraqi oil across Syria to the Mediterranean. Built in the early 1950s, it had genuine strategic value in its time but has been largely inactive since it was damaged during the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq. Washington is now backing efforts to revive the route, with US companies expected to play a role. Yet the project still requires extensive reconstruction and years of work before it can provide meaningful export capacity.
Estimates for a full restoration and expansion to around 700,000 bpd run as high as $8 billion. It cannot answer an immediate crisis in Hormuz, and if regional peace is restored before completion, the commercial case for reviving it weakens sharply.
The Iraq–Turkiye pipeline faces a different but equally serious problem: politics. The route through the Kurdistan region to Turkiye’s Mediterranean port of Ceyhan was repeatedly interrupted by disputes among Baghdad, the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG), Ankara, and international oil companies.
A 2023 arbitration ruling against Turkiye over unauthorized Kurdish exports led to a two-and-a-half-year shutdown. Flows resumed in September 2025, and exports have continued, but the route still depends on fragile agreements over contracts, payments, federal authority, and revenue sharing.
Its limited throughput and political vulnerability prevent it from becoming a structural replacement for a maritime passage that normally carries a vast share of the world’s seaborne oil.
The Iraqi pipeline in Saudi Arabia, known as IPSA, is another example of strategic nostalgia. Built in the 1980s during the Iran–Iraq war, it was designed to move Iraqi crude from the Basra region to the Red Sea.
It stopped operating after Iraq’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia expropriated it in 2001. Reopening the line would therefore require a Saudi–Iraqi political settlement over ownership and control, as well as a major technical assessment after decades of disuse. In other words, IPSA is not an available alternative; it is a diplomatic and engineering problem dressed up as a solution.
The proposed Basra–Aqaba pipeline is even more controversial. Its advertised purpose is to move Iraqi oil from southern Iraq to Jordan’s Red Sea port of Aqaba, bypassing Hormuz. Yet it has faced intense objections inside Iraq because of its projected cost, uncertain financing, and questionable strategic value.
Since much of Iraq’s crude is sold to Asian customers, sending it westward to Aqaba would add distance and complexity rather than solve the basic market problem. The pipeline would also move Iraqi exports closer to another zone of instability, including the Israeli military sphere and the wider Red Sea security environment.
A bypass route that merely exchanges one security risk for another is no solution. Iraq’s severe fiscal pressures also leave Baghdad poorly placed to finance such an expensive project, while international investors are unlikely to embrace it without strong political and security guarantees.
Bypasses within missile range
The existing Saudi and Emirati bypasses are more credible but still limited. Saudi Arabia’s East–West Pipeline, or Petroline, moves crude from the eastern oil region to Yanbu on the Red Sea. The UAE’s Abu Dhabi Crude Oil Pipeline carries oil from Habshan to Fujairah on the Gulf of Oman.
These systems reduce exposure to Hormuz for Saudi Arabia and the UAE and have become important national energy-security assets. But they cannot replace the strait for the region as a whole. They offer little to Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, Iran, or most Iraqi exports, and they do not solve the LNG problem, especially Qatar’s dependence on Hormuz.
The IEA estimates that only 3.5 to 5.5 million bpd of spare pipeline capacity is available to bypass the strait. Neither Yanbu nor Fujairah are immune from attack; regional conflict has already shown the vulnerability of ports, tankers, and energy infrastructure.
The crisis pipelines cannot solve
This is why the alternative pipeline debate is misleading. It treats the closure of Hormuz as a logistical puzzle when it is primarily a political and security crisis. If the Persian Gulf remains militarized and unstable, no pipeline network can fully protect exports.
Pipelines cross vulnerable territory, depend on political agreements, and terminate at ports that can also be threatened. If Gulf security improves, however, Hormuz will almost certainly reopen because this serves the interests of producers and Asian consumers alike.
Once that happens, the commercial rationale for many alternative pipelines will fade. Why spend tens of billions of dollars duplicating a natural route with unmatched capacity and direct access to the main buyers?
The more honest conclusion is that alternative pipelines may offer limited resilience for individual states, but they are no strategic replacement for Hormuz. They are costly, slow, politically fragile, geographically inefficient, and in some cases obsolete before construction begins.
The answer to the crisis is a security arrangement that keeps the Persian Gulf open, prevents attacks on shipping, and restores normal trade through the strait.
Under such an arrangement, oil and LNG would continue to flow mainly to Asia by the most direct and economical route. Hormuz will remain indispensable, while the grand pipeline alternatives amount to expensive insurance policies against a crisis that only diplomacy and regional peace can resolve.
Preparing for Regional Escalation: Iran Appears to Be Pre-Empting the US’ Attack Strategy
By Robert Inlakesh | Palestine Chronicle | July 15, 2026
The US Trump administration sought to weaponize diplomacy once again against the Islamic Republic of Iran and implement a surprise attack strategy – this time, Tehran appears to have preempted the American-Israeli plot.
The Iran-US Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) officially died this week, but in reality it was terminated on June 26 with the Lebanon-Israel deal that Washington brokered. The reason why was simple: the United States decided to print on paper a new deal that violated the former by granting Israel de facto permission to maintain a belligerent occupation of southern Lebanese lands.
Throughout the month that the MoU technically held, the US committed various violations of a number of clauses of the agreement, including by direct threats from Donald Trump himself to assassinate the entire Iranian negotiating team. But the Lebanon issue was far more indicative of where things were heading than the limited skirmishes in the Persian Gulf and threats to commit war crimes.
Clause 1 of the MoU concerned the ensuring of the war’s termination on all fronts, with Lebanon being explicitly mentioned. Tehran made it clear that this meant a full withdrawal of Israeli occupation forces from southern Lebanon and the protection of Lebanese sovereignty.
Instead of implementing the clause, Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu coordinated a careful approach to the Lebanon war, one that would not result in a withdrawal or end to the war, while simultaneously being careful not to provoke any Iranian retaliatory strikes. Therefore, the US worked with Israel to develop a new conspiracy. This involved the use of the US-proxy regime in Beirut to stir division within Lebanon, an attempt to force the Lebanese army to clash with Hezbollah, combined with an initiative to pressure neighboring Syria to invade the Bekaa Valley region in order to take on Hezbollah.
Meanwhile, as this plot was developing, the Israelis returned to the pre-March 2 status quo more or less in Lebanon – Hezbollah froze its retaliatory operations, while Israel continued to blow up civilian homes, bomb on a lower scale, while maintaining its presence inside south Lebanon.
A US military advisory force is being deployed to Beirut in order to guide the Lebanese army on its newly agreed-upon mission to clash with Hezbollah, the stated goal of which is to disarm the movement. Speculation also has it that the US may even be considering deploying thousands of combat troops into Lebanon in order to help prop up the regime in Beirut if the situation goes sideways, although this assertion is yet to be fully substantiated.
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) has been documenting the ongoing mobilization and military buildup along the Lebanese-Syria border, as Trump himself has repeatedly stated in public that he seeks to use Syria’s forces to invade Lebanon.
Hezbollah’s sudden silence and lack of operations indicate that it has been taking these threats very seriously. Fighting Israel alone has been a battle that it has proven capable of managing, but preparations to fight US-proxies inside Lebanon, the possible collapse of the Lebanese Army into warring factions, and combating a Syrian invasion all demand new defensive and even perhaps offensive preparations.
Iran, for its part, was clearly also coordinated more heavily with Yemen’s Ansarallah leadership. The Yemen front never fully opened during the war earlier this year. Tehran openly challenged Saudi Arabia’s blockade on Yemen, while Ansarallah was mobilizing its forces and declared that it would fight to break the blockade. When Riyadh took the decision to strike Sana’a International Airport, this reopened the Yemen-Saudi War for the first time since early 2022, collapsing the UN-brokered ceasefire.
Yemen’s role in the renewal of the regional war will add major pressure, especially as it holds the card to shut down the Bab Al-Mandab Strait, imposing a blockade in the Red Sea that will choke the global economy further than it has been under the pressure of the Strait of Hormuz blockade. Ansarallah’s capabilities have also significantly developed since 2022, meaning that they will be able to aid Iran in their war efforts against targets in the Arabian Peninsula.
If the US succeeds in pressuring Damascus to launch an assault on Lebanon, then Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Units (PMU) have already threatened to enter the fight on the ground. The PMU would likely seek to seize areas in eastern Syria, like Deir Ezzor, which would open up new supply lines inside Syrian territory and put enormous pressure on its forces.
A US-Israeli plot to collapse the Lebanese State in order to weaken Hezbollah is a major gamble to say the least, one which will inevitably lead to a rise in regional sectarianism. It is also very likely that Arab Gulf media will also act to portray the conflict as a new Sunni-Shia war, as they begin to take more active roles in support of the US-Israeli war effort.
Ultimately, it appears as if the Iranians are not taking any chances and are being proactive, which has been reflected in the scale of their strikes on US assets in the region, including a surprise attack that took out US ATACMS missiles in Kuwait earlier this week.
A return to full-scale war this time around could trigger a series of conflicts that will spiral out of control and thus make any easy off-ramp impossible. The Global economic repercussions will be horrendous, as the only end to the war is total victory or total defeat. The US will be put in a position where it will be forced to withdraw from the region, while Israel is betting on the idea of Iran being significantly weakened as a result of the conflict’s continuation.
No side appears to be backing down, so unless the US suddenly decides to perform a 180-degree pivot in its approach, West Asia is about to erupt into total chaos.
– Robert Inlakesh is a journalist, writer, and documentary filmmaker. He focuses on the Middle East, specializing in Palestine. He contributed this article to The Palestine Chronicle.
The monopoly of arms: Why the doctrine is enforced only where resistance exists
By Sondoss Al Asaad | Al Mayadeen | July 15, 2026
For decades, the slogan of “restricting arms to the state” has been presented as a universal principle of sovereignty and state-building. Yet a closer geopolitical examination reveals a striking inconsistency: the doctrine is aggressively promoted in countries like Lebanon and Iraq, while it is largely absent from discussions in surrounding countries such as Syria, Libya, or other fragmented states where multiple armed actors continue to exist.
This selective application raises an uncomfortable question: Is the objective truly the consolidation of state authority, or is the slogan primarily employed where armed movements challenge Israeli military superiority and American hegemony?
Political philosopher Carl Schmitt argues that sovereignty ultimately belongs to whoever decides the exception.
Modern geopolitical practice appears to confirm his observation. The international order invokes legal principles selectively, depending on whether they reinforce or undermine prevailing strategic interests. The debate over arms, therefore, is not merely legal; it is profoundly political.
The Lebanese case illustrates this contradiction with exceptional clarity.
Following the November 2024 ceasefire, “Hezbollah withdrew from the north of the Litani River and ‘accepted’ that decisions regarding war and peace would rest exclusively with the Lebanese state and its armed forces”. The expectation promoted by Western capitals was that this would allegedly strengthen Lebanese sovereignty and reduce tensions.
The reality unfolded differently; the Israeli enemy, unable to establish a lasting foothold inside southern Lebanese villages during sixty-six days of warfare, achieved after the ceasefire what military operations had failed to accomplish. It maintained positions inside Lebanese territory, continued near-daily airstrikes across Lebanon, and expanded targeted assassinations while facing little meaningful deterrence.
The sequence of events inevitably fuelled a renewed domestic debate. If sovereignty means that only the state possesses weapons, what happens when the state itself lacks the capacity to prevent violations of its own borders?
This dilemma reflects what Thomas Hobbes identified centuries ago as the fundamental purpose of political authority: providing security.
The legitimacy of the state rests not merely on possessing legal authority but on its ability to protect those living under its jurisdiction. When that capacity weakens, alternative security arrangements inevitably emerge.
The issue extends beyond Lebanon; In Iraq, international pressure consistently emphasizes integrating or dismantling armed resistance groups under the banner of state monopoly over force. Yet comparable urgency is rarely directed toward states where numerous militias continue to operate without challenging Israeli strategic dominance.
Syria offers another revealing comparison. Multiple foreign militaries, including American, Turkish, and Israeli forces, remain active on Syrian territory alongside various local armed factions.
Libya remains fragmented among competing military authorities and militias. Yet the international discourse seldom revolves around an immediate imperative to monopolize arms before broader political settlements are achieved.
Such inconsistencies have led many observers to conclude that the slogan itself is not universally applied but strategically deployed.
French philosopher Michel Foucault argued that power operates through discourse by defining what becomes accepted as common sense.
The phrase “arms outside the state” has increasingly become one such discourse. It transforms a complex security equation into a simplified legal formula while avoiding a more difficult question: Can sovereignty exist when a state cannot defend its territory?
Million-strong crowds fill Najaf streets for Khamenei funeral as Iraq declares public holiday
MEMO | July 8, 2026
Million-strong crowds filled the streets of Iraq’s holy city of Najaf on Wednesday as funeral ceremonies for Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, began. His coffin will be taken to Karbala before returning to Iran for burial in Mashhad, bringing to an end a week-long farewell.
Iranian leaders sought to reflect Khamenei’s status during the ceremonies. He led the Islamic Republic for nearly four decades before being killed in US-Israeli strikes on his residence in Tehran on 28 February, attacks that marked the start of the Middle East war.
Khamenei’s funeral in Iraq coincided with renewed tensions between Iran and the United States over the strategic Strait of Hormuz, which was a major flashpoint during the regional conflict.
The US military said it had carried out strikes on more than 80 Iranian targets in response to attacks on three ships in the Strait of Hormuz that Washington blamed on Tehran. In response, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps said it had targeted dozens of US military facilities in Bahrain and Kuwait.
Khamenei’s coffin arrived at Najaf International Airport late on Tuesday, where it was received by Iraqi officials, including Prime Minister Ali Al-Zaidi and other political and military figures.
Iraq declared Wednesday a public holiday to allow citizens to take part in the funeral ceremonies before the coffin returns to Iran for the final burial in Mashhad.
Explainer: Which foreign delegations attended the funeral of martyred Leader of the Islamic Revolution?
Press TV – July 4, 2026
The funeral ceremony for the martyred Leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, brought together one of the largest gatherings of foreign dignitaries in Iran in recent decades, with representatives from across Asia, Africa, Europe, the Americas, and major international organizations attending the event in Tehran.
The delegations included presidents, prime ministers, parliamentary speakers, foreign ministers, senior government officials, political leaders, and representatives of religious organizations and resistance movements, underscoring the broad international participation in the ceremony.
Asia
Asia accounted for the largest share of official delegations.
From West Asia, Iraq sent one of the largest delegations, including Kurdistan Region President Nechirvan Barzani, Parliament Speaker Mahmoud al-Mashhadani, senior officials, and representatives of the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF).
Saudi Arabia was represented by Deputy Foreign Minister Waleed Al-Khuraiji, while Oman sent the chairman of its State Council and Qatar was represented by Parliament Speaker Hassan bin Abdullah Al Ghanim.
Shia community representatives also attended from Bahrain and several other Persian Gulf countries.
Lebanon dispatched Defense Minister Michel Menassa alongside senior delegations from Hezbollah and the Amal Movement.
Yemen was represented by Vice President Mahmoud al-Junaid and an Ansarullah delegation.
Palestinian groups also attended, including senior Hamas leaders and Islamic Jihad Secretary-General Ziyad al-Nakhalah.
From the wider Asian region, Pakistan sent one of the highest-level foreign delegations, headed by Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Army Chief Field Marshal Syed Asim Munir. The delegation also included the Senate speaker, senior government officials, and religious leaders.
Afghanistan was represented by delegations from the Taliban administration and the Afghan resistance.
India sent a special government envoy at the deputy foreign minister level.
China was represented by He Wei, Vice Chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress.
Tajik President Emomali Rahmon attended the ceremony in person, while Armenia was represented by Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan. Georgia sent President Mikheil Kavelashvili along with a Muslim delegation.
Türkiye dispatched Vice President Cevdet Yılmaz, together with political and party representatives.
Turkmenistan was represented by Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedow, Chairman of the People’s Council and National Leader.
Among other participants were Azerbaijan’s parliament speaker, Kazakhstan’s foreign minister; the parliamentary speakers of Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka; Thailand’s deputy prime minister; Malaysia’s agriculture minister; Myanmar’s special envoy; and official delegations from South Korea and North Korea.
Africa
Several African governments were represented by ministerial- or cabinet-level delegations.
Egypt sent its Senate speaker.
South Africa, Burkina Faso, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Namibia, Tanzania, and Tunisia all sent official representatives.
Nigeria and Senegal also dispatched delegations to participate in the funeral ceremonies.
Europe and the Americas
Russia sent Dmitry Medvedev, Deputy Chairman of the Russian Security Council, as President Vladimir Putin’s special representative.
Belarus was represented by its parliament speaker, while Serbia sent its communications minister. Bulgaria also dispatched parliamentary and political representatives.
Germany was represented by members of the country’s Shia community.
From Latin America, Cuba sent its higher education minister as a special representative, while Nicaragua was represented by Foreign Minister Valdrack Jaentschke.
International organizations
The ceremony also drew senior representatives of several international organizations.
The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) was represented by Secretary-General Nurlan Yermekbayev, while the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) sent Deputy Secretary-General Tariq Ali Bakheet.
The D-8 Organization for Economic Cooperation and the Economic Cooperation Organization (ECO) were represented by their respective secretaries-general.
Iraq sets Sept. 30 deadline for resistance groups to hand over arms amid US pressure
Press TV – June 29, 2026
Iraq has set a late-September deadline for resistance groups to hand over their weapons to the state, as Washington pressures Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi to expedite the disarmament of anti-American factions.
“The end of next September will be the ultimate date for the surrender of weapons,” stated government spokesperson Haider al-Aboudi during a press conference on Monday.
He added, “Simultaneously, the [US-led] international coalition will withdraw.”
Under Zaidi’s leadership, the Iraqi government has initiated a renewed effort to disarm armed groups and limit weapon possession to state control. The initiative receives substantial support from Washington, which has long advocated for the disarmament of such groups, many of which are part of the anti-American Resistance in Iraq coalition.
Zaidi, who has received robust backing from the US since assuming office in May, is scheduled to visit Washington in mid-July.
Earlier in June, he met with US envoy to Iraq Tom Barrack, where both emphasized the necessity of ensuring “the complete disarmament and disbandment” of non-state armed groups.
The disarmament process is also expected to coincides with the withdrawal of the US-led coalition purportedly formed to fight against the Daesh Takfiri terrorist group from Iraq, as per an agreement between Washington and Baghdad.
Since the establishment of Iraq’s new cabinet, several resistance factions have expressed their willingness to surrender their weapons and integrate into the state security apparatus.
The Iraqi government’s deadline comes at the same time as a significant anti-corruption purge initiated by Zaidi, resulting in the arrest of at least 67 high-ranking officials and lawmakers. Among those arrested was Muthanna al-Samarrai, a prominent Sunni politician and leader of the Azm Alliance.
“This anti-corruption narrative is distinct from its predecessors, and safeguarding public funds is a duty that remains unaffected by individuals or circumstances,” Aboudi emphasized, asserting that the anti-corruption campaign “will not cease.”
Featured Video
Racist Seinfeld Dances for Joy as Bibi Unveils His New Map
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
TV Drama Review
Japanese drama projects Japan’s wartime atrocities onto Chinese characters
Global Times | October 25, 2026
By portraying Chinese characters as perpetrators of ruthless violence while casting Japanese Self-Defense Forces (SDF) intelligence operatives as defenders, the season 2 of the Japanese drama Vivant has recently drawn criticism from Chinese netizens, who argue that its depiction turns historical reality on its head while ignoring Japan’s wartime atrocities.
The TBS drama series – a spy suspense story in which an alleged unofficial intelligence unit of the SDF operates across the globe — has attracted a passionate fanbase. Its currently airing season 2 opened with a household rating of 18.8 percent, the highest for a TV drama this year, according toa commentary article by Japanese media Toyo Keizai.
What draws attention is the portrayal of the enemies in the series, the article noted. Scenes in which the Chinese organization subjects kidnapped members of the SDF unit to brutal torture are repeated with unrelenting intensity.
It is rare for Japanese TV dramas to explicitly portray a real-life country as the enemy, the article noted.
Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi also made a reference to the drama, saying that she has been recording Vivant and hopes to binge-watch it over the year-end and New Year holidays, according to Japanese media outlets.
China’s CCTV News report on Sunday revealed that the drama features scenes in which Chinese personnel cut off the fingers of and stab Japanese intelligence operatives in the abdomen. Such acts bear striking similarities to the torture inflicted on Chinese nationals by invading Japanese troops during the World War II.
The drama distorts the truth by attributing these atrocities to modern Chinese characters. Beneath the surface, it subtly glorifies Japan’s cross-border overseas operations, blurs the functional boundaries of the SDF and implicitly promotes an expansionist narrative, per CCTV News. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- EU facing trillion-euro debt hole while seeking more cash for Kiev
- How US, Europe, Persian Gulf states exhausted missile stockpiles, splurged billions to defend Israel
- Up in arms… Koreans reject U.S. empire’s plan to make South Korea the next Ukraine
- Iran, Turkey, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia could advance region-led security framework in Tehran: FM spox
- Netizens condemn Japanese drama for projecting Japan’s wartime atrocities onto Chinese characters
- Racist Seinfeld Dances for Joy as Bibi Unveils His New Map
- A West Bank War for Netanyahu’s Election Campaign, Could It Backfire?
- Yemen denounces European Parliament’s ‘hypocritical’ push to blacklist Ansarullah
- Qalibaf: UAE’s UN bid aims to ‘clear the runway’ for ‘Greater Israel’, whitewash genocide
- Pakistan reopens Iran border after boosting security: Report
- If Americans Knew
- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
- No Tricks Zone
- Sudden Stratospheric Warming, Powerful El Niño Combination May Lead To Extreme Europe Cold, Energy Crisis!
- Two New Studies Find Thwaites Glacier Melt Cannot Be Driven By Human Activity Or A Warming Ocean
- E-Cars Reduce CO2 Emissions By Only 41% Compared To Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles
- Predictions Made By Renowned Climate Professor Over Past Decades Have Been Proven To Be Poor
- New Study Suggests Large Regions Of The Pacific Ocean Have Been Cooling For The Last 80 Years
- Germany’s Green Energy Debacle: High Energy Costs Force Kahla Porzellan to Close After 182 Years!
- New Study: 50 Years Of The Most Aggressive ‘Net Zero’ Policies Can Only Affect The Global Climate By 0.03°C
- US September “Heat” Was No Record…Many Records Set Decades Ago
- Latest European Green Energy Debacle; Portugal’s Largest Flagship Solar Park Insolvent!
- Green Energy Debacle: German Expert Professor Fritz Vahrenholt Warns Of Severe Economic And Social Consequences
