Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Nablus: When the killer becomes the victim

By Tamer Ajrami | MEMO | July 25, 2026

In the occupied West Bank, the story often starts too late.

It starts when an Israeli settler is killed, injured, or frightened. It starts when Israeli officials speak, when the army enters Palestinian villages, and when headlines describe a “clash” or a “terror attack”. Suddenly, the settler becomes the victim, the Palestinian village becomes the threat, and the occupation disappears from the story.

But Nablus cannot be understood from the middle of the story.

For years, Palestinian villages around Nablus have lived under daily pressure: land seizures, settlement expansion, military raids, road closures, intimidation, and settler violence.

This is not a normal conflict between two equal communities. It is a system where one side expands with weapons, army protection, and state support, while the other side is expected to remain silent.

That is why the recent events of yesterday near Nablus cannot simply be called a “clash”. The word sounds neutral, but the reality is not neutral. A clash suggests two equal sides. But there is no equality between armed settlers living on occupied land and Palestinians living in villages surrounded by settlements, checkpoints, and military control.

Of course, individual settlers can suffer. Death is death. Fear is fear. No human pain should be mocked or ignored. But the pain of one incident cannot erase the larger reality. A settler can be a victim in one moment, while still being part of a wider system that causes fear, dispossession, and daily suffering for Palestinians.

This is the contradiction: the executioner becomes the victim only when the story is cut away from its history.

When the headline begins with Israeli pain, Palestinian pain becomes invisible. The settler becomes a civilian under attack. The Palestinian becomes a security threat. The settlement becomes a neighbourhood. The occupied village becomes a battlefield. The army becomes “protection”. Resistance becomes “terrorism”. And the occupation, which created this whole reality, disappears.

This is not by accident. This is how power protects itself.

The settlement movement has always tried to make its presence in the West Bank look normal. It wants the world to see settlers as ordinary residents, not as people living inside a political project built on occupied land. It wants attacks on Palestinians to look like isolated events, while every Palestinian reaction is used to say that Palestinians are violent and must be controlled.

But the truth is simple: a system built on domination cannot bring security.

It can bring temporary control. It can create fear. It can silence people for a while. It can build walls, checkpoints, settler roads, and military zones. But it cannot bring peace. When land is taken, when homes are attacked, when settlers enter Palestinian villages, and when the army protects one side only, violence is not an accident. It becomes part of the system.

This does not mean every settler carries the same guilt. It does not mean every Israeli death should be dismissed. It means that individual suffering should not be used to hide collective power. The victimhood of the settler cannot be used to erase the long victimhood of the occupied.

Yet this is what often happens.

The Palestinian is asked to explain his anger. The settler is rarely asked to explain why he is there. The village is asked to condemn violence. The settlement is rarely asked to justify its existence. The occupied are told to stay calm, while the occupier calls control “security”.

That is why the phrase “when the executioner becomes the victim” matters. It is not a denial of human pain. It is a refusal to forget the political reality.

A settler killed in one incident may be a victim of that incident. But the settlement project remains a machine of dispossession. The grief of one Israeli family does not erase the daily fear of Palestinian families living beside armed settlers, checkpoints, and expanding settlements. One tragic day does not erase decades of occupation.

Nablus shows this clearly. The more Israel protects settlements, the more tension it creates. The more settlers expand, the more Palestinian space shrinks. The more Palestinian life is controlled, the more resistance becomes likely. Then, when violence erupts, Israel presents itself as surprised, as if it had no role in creating the conditions.

This is the oldest trick of domination: create the wound, then cry when the wound bleeds.

The question after Nablus is not only who fired first. That question matters, but it is not enough. The deeper question is: who built the reality where armed settlers, occupied villages, military raids, and daily humiliation became normal?

Who allowed settlers to move through Palestinian land with confidence, while Palestinians move through their own land with fear? Who turned settlements into protected facts, and villages into security zones? Who decided that Palestinian life could be restricted every day, then acted shocked when this reality produced violence?

Until these questions are answered, every incident will be treated as a beginning, when it is actually only another consequence.

When the executioner becomes the victim, the world must be careful. It must see human pain, but it must also see the political structure. It must mourn the dead, but it must not forget the system that keeps producing death.

Because the real tragedy is not only that people die. The real tragedy is that occupation creates the conditions for death, then asks the world to feel sorry when those conditions return to its own doorstep.

July 25, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Progressive Hypocrite | , , , , , | Comments Off on Nablus: When the killer becomes the victim

Bankrupt and fraudulent: EU sanctions Russia while silent on U.S., Israeli genocide

Strategic Culture Foundation | July 24, 2026

European Union leaders imposed yet another raft of sanctions on the Russian Federation this week. This is the 21st package of political and economic strictures that the 27-nation bloc has deployed against Russia over the past four years.

The EU sanctimoniously claims that the measures are a demonstration of rebuke for Russia’s alleged unprovoked aggression and invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

This pretense of European principle is farcical.

Anyone who has objectively studied the Ukraine conflict knows that the United States and its European NATO partners incited the war by orchestrating the violent coup in Kiev in 2014, followed by the deliberate weaponizing of the NeoNazi regime that the Western imperialists covertly directed for a geopolitical confrontation with Russia. That many people aren’t aware of that history is largely due to the brainwashing propaganda of the Western media.

The EU’s sanctions policy is therefore properly understood as economic warfare, and as supplementary to a larger military strategy to defeat Russia. It is part of “Total War,” as a former French finance minister clumsily admitted in March, 2022.

While the NATO-armed Ukrainian regime steps up long-range air strikes deep in Russia in an attempt to damage oil and gas infrastructure and the Russian economy, the EU’s sanctions are aimed at achieving the same objective.

This has nothing to do with using trade and financial measures to show political and moral support for Ukraine as an alleged victim of Russian aggression. It is all about maximising confrontation with Russia to defeat it.

The use of unilateral sanctions is illegal under international law and expressly prohibited by the United Nations Charter. They constitute a form of criminal aggression. The EU is in criminal violation of international law, as is the U.S., which also blatantly wields sanctions to intimidate other nations, currently 30, including Russia, China, Iran and Cuba.

In any case, the EU’s policy meets the definition of insanity, as manifested by repeating a futile action multiple times and expecting a different result.

Russia is arguably the most sanctioned country in the world given the 21 rounds that the EU has fired and the hundreds of banks and other businesses that it has targeted. Yet Russia’s economy has not buckled, as desired.

Even more insanely, it is the European economies that have suffered grievously from the self-imposed exclusion of trade and business with Russia, particularly the loss of affordable energy supplies. The EU is rapidly deindustrializing due to soaring economic costs. Germany, once the economic powerhouse of Europe, is crippled as it imports more expensive American fuel in place of the traditional Russian supplies which historically underpinned Europe’s industries.

European citizens – a combined population of 500 million – are hit with a calamitous cost-of-living crisis that in large measure is caused by the sanctions policy of their political leaders. These so-called leaders are decimating their own economies and societies.

The bankruptcy is political and moral. The strains are showing within EU member nations, as seen from the wrangling and watering down of the latest round of sanctions. Several countries were clamoring for exemptions to limit damage to their national interests.

Greece wanted waivers on restrictions over its international shipping of Russian oil and gas. Germany and Portugal wanted exemptions from sanctions on Russian fisheries. Austria, Bulgaria, France, and Italy also appealed for curbing prohibitions to protect their various interests.

As Euronews headlined: “Chaotic sanctions negotiations expose cracks in EU front versus Russia.”

The outlet reported that the collective policy is starting to harm national interests, which is leading to infighting among the EU members.

“It’s getting more and more difficult to find common ground. We saw that this week,” said one diplomat about the fractious negotiations.

Another diplomat commented: “The [European] Commission [the EU’s executive branch] is running out of options for what to include. It has to become more creative, and every package is more complex and takes longer to negotiate.”

In other words, the policymakers in Brussels are insolvent from failing political ideas over their illegal sanctions. They are also politically bankrupt because these elitist, Russophobic officials are making European citizens suffer severe economic consequences without any democratic mandate. They are imposing a ruinous policy like a dictatorship, one that is aggravating tensions and hostilities towards all-out war.

European elites have caused two world wars already over the past century; they seem to be driving a third one.

But here is the kicker: this insane policy is a total fraud. It is bereft of any supposed righteousness or avowed concern for Ukraine and the defense of democracy.

The hypocrisy is glaringly exposed by the European Union’s indifference to war crimes that the United States and the Israeli regime are perpetrating on a massive scale.

As former European Members of Parliament Mick Wallace and Clare Daly pointed out this week, the EU leadership has said nothing about the United States waging a war of aggression against Iran now in its fifth month. Thousands of Iranians have been killed by American and Israeli bombing, and U.S. President Donald Trump is repeatedly making genocidal threats to destroy the nation, diabolically hinting at the use of nuclear weapons.

On the other side of the world, as Wallace and Daly also note, thousands of children in Cuba are being starved to death under a maximum blockade on the island country by Washington. The EU has made not the slightest criticism of the U.S., never mind any condemnation of this barbarism.

This week, as European elites were drawing up their 21st round of dubious sanctions on Russia, the same officials declined to issue any sanctions against the Israeli regime for its ongoing genocide against Palestinians, a genocide enabled by the U.S. and, it has to be said, by European countries trading with Israel.

The double standard of the EU leadership is not just idiotic duplicity. It is proof of its political and moral bankruptcy and systemic fraud. There was a time when some European politicians would speak out to oppose U.S. wars and crimes. Not anymore. The entire European political class is putrid from corruption and complicity.

On so many levels, the EU sanctions on Russia are self-defeating. The ultimate defeat is the fatal corrosion of its own institutions and abject lack of authority. European politicians are delegitimizing themselves and their claim to govern. People of Europe and around the world can see what the EU has become: an elitist warmongering project that is sacrificing its own citizens.

July 25, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Progressive Hypocrite, Russophobia | , , , , | Comments Off on Bankrupt and fraudulent: EU sanctions Russia while silent on U.S., Israeli genocide

The nuclear leash: Washington’s deal to put Saudi Arabia back in its place

By Junaid S. Ahmad | MEMO | July 24, 2026

The United States has presented its new nuclear agreement with Saudi Arabia as a gift: reactors, technology, investment, prestige, and the radiant promise of a peaceful atomic future. Washington is forever giving gifts of this kind. Curiously, they tend to arrive fitted with surveillance equipment, political conditions, and a discreetly concealed choke chain.

This is not merely a civil nuclear agreement. It is a disciplinary instrument aimed at Mohammed bin Salman — a strategic summons issued to a crown prince who has recently behaved less like an obedient client and more like the ruler of an indispensable state.

Its message is simple: Saudi Arabia may diversify its economy, its diplomatic partners, and even its wardrobe of alliances, but it may not diversify the source of its ultimate protection. That franchise still belongs to Washington.

The agreement therefore concerns nuclear energy only in the same sense that a prison contract concerns architecture. Its deeper purpose is to reconstruct American authority over a kingdom that has begun imagining life beyond the imperial security nursery.

Riyadh has committed three increasingly intolerable offenses.

First, it has moved too close to Pakistan. The Saudi–Pakistani relationship is hardly new: money, soldiers, intelligence cooperation, religious patronage, and strategic ambiguity have bound the two states for decades.

What has changed is the context. As confidence in American protection has weakened, Pakistan has ceased to look merely like a useful military subcontractor and begun to resemble a possible component of an alternative security architecture.

That possibility is especially sensitive because Pakistan is nuclear-armed. No formal Saudi–Pakistani nuclear arrangement has been acknowledged, and neither capital needs one publicly declared. Strategic ambiguity is useful precisely because it performs deterrence without submitting an invoice to the International Atomic Energy Agency. A defense pact, carefully suggestive official language, and decades of intimate military cooperation can generate considerable anxiety without anyone having to unveil a warhead in Riyadh.

Washington’s nuclear offer is designed to interrupt that imagination. It tells the Saudis: there will be no Pakistani shortcut to strategic autonomy. If the kingdom wants reactors, fuel-cycle expertise, advanced technology, and the political symbolism of nuclear modernity, those ambitions must pass through American gates. The atomic future may be Saudi, but the key to the laboratory must remain in Washington.

Second, Mohammed bin Salman has shown insufficient enthusiasm for the campaign against Iran. Riyadh has no sentimental attachment to Tehran; states do not exchange friendship bracelets. But it has learned, after years of expensive confrontation, that permanent hostility to Iran is a ruinous American luxury financed by Gulf vulnerability. Saudi–Iranian accommodation is not ideological reconciliation. It is an insurance policy against being drafted into someone else’s war.

This is precisely what makes it objectionable to Washington and Israel. An autonomous Saudi Arabia might decline to become the logistics platform, financier, diplomatic choir, and eventual target of a regional war against Iran. It might decide that oil facilities, desalination plants, investment plans, and glittering megaprojects are poorly served by turning the Gulf into a missile exchange. Such ingratitude cannot be encouraged.

The nuclear deal places Washington back at the center of Saudi strategic planning. Technology creates dependency; dependency creates leverage; leverage restores obedience.

The reactor is not merely an energy source. It is a thirty-year listening device embedded in the kingdom’s national-security imagination.

Third, Riyadh has refused to normalize relations with Israel on Washington’s preferred terms. Saudi leaders continue to tie normalization to a credible pathway toward Palestinian statehood — an inconvenient demand in an imperial order that prefers Palestinians as humanitarian statistics rather than political subjects. Trump’s subsequent insistence that the nuclear arrangement depends on Saudi entry into the Abraham Accords merely stripped the agreement of its ceremonial clothing.

The bargain is now indecently clear: Washington will help construct Saudi Arabia’s nuclear future if Riyadh helps rehabilitate Israel’s regional standing. Nuclear cooperation becomes diplomatic blackmail. The kingdom is invited to purchase strategic reassurance with Palestine. This is less a treaty than a geopolitical obedience course: sit beside Israel, distrust Iran, step away from Pakistan, and receive your reactor.

China and Russia are the other uninvited guests at the signing ceremony. Saudi Arabia is not merely another energy producer; it is the central Arab power in OPEC, a financial heavyweight, and a pivotal actor in the emerging multipolar order. Its relations with Beijing and Moscow challenge Washington not because Riyadh has become anti-American, but because it has become insufficiently exclusive.

Empire does not require affection. It requires the absence of alternatives.

A Saudi nuclear program built with Chinese or Russian assistance would deepen technological, financial, and strategic relationships that Washington can no longer confidently control. American companies want the contracts, certainly, but the larger concern is architectural: whoever builds the reactors helps shape the dependencies surrounding them.

Nuclear cooperation produces decades of training, maintenance, fuel arrangements, regulatory influence, security coordination, and elite access. Washington is not selling machinery. It is purchasing strategic occupancy.

The irony is exquisite. The United States portrays the agreement as evidence of restored strength, yet its generosity reveals its weakness. A hegemon secure in its position does not need to offer extraordinary concessions to retain an old client. It does so when the client has discovered competing suppliers, alternative protectors, and the invigorating sensation of being courted.

Nor does the agreement simplify nuclear diplomacy with Iran. Washington has spent years treating Iranian enrichment as uniquely sinister while now constructing a far more permissive vocabulary for Saudi ambitions. The distinction will be explained through the usual theological machinery of empire: allies possess peaceful atoms; adversaries enrich malicious ones. Centrifuges, apparently, acquire moral character from the flag hanging above them.

The result is a nonproliferation doctrine so intellectually elastic that it can be folded into a campaign brochure.

Mohammed bin Salman may believe Saudi Arabia has accumulated enough leverage to escape the old hierarchy. Washington’s answer is this agreement: not quite a reward, not quite a threat, but an elegant combination of both. America will protect the kingdom — from Iran, from uncertainty, and above all from the dangerous temptation to protect itself through arrangements Washington cannot supervise.

The reactor, then, is the bait. Israel is the condition. Pakistan is the warning. China and Russia are the targets.

And the leash, freshly polished and marketed as partnership, remains unmistakably American.

July 24, 2026 Posted by | Timeless or most popular, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Comments Off on The nuclear leash: Washington’s deal to put Saudi Arabia back in its place

UN experts call for accountability five months after US-Israeli attack on Minab school

Press TV – July 24, 2026

UN experts have called for an independent investigation into the bombing of a primary school in the southern Iranian city of Minab that killed 168 children and teachers, saying the attack highlights serious violations of international law during war of aggression by the United States and Israel.

In a statement released on Friday, the experts said the school was struck twice during school hours on Feb. 28, 2026, and that there was no indication it was being used for military purposes.

“The school was clearly identifiable as a civilian educational facility and that they had received no information indicating it was being used for military purposes,” the statement read.

Five months later, they said, neither the United States nor Israel had made public the findings of any investigation into the deadly attack, raising questions about the transparency of any inquiry.

“Five months following the school bombing in Minab, the US and Israel have not made any findings public, raising valid questions regarding the impartiality, effectiveness and transparency of any investigation that may be underway,” the experts said. “Justice delayed is justice denied.”

The experts further stated that the Minab school attack illustrated as a broader failure by the United States and Israel to protect civilians during armed conflict, particularly women and children.

“Characterizing civilian deaths as a mistake does not diminish States’ obligations under international humanitarian law and international human rights law, nor does it preclude individual criminal responsibility where violations have occurred,” they said.

“Victims and their families are entitled to truth, justice and effective reparations.”

They voiced grave concern over serious violations of international law arising from US and Israeli war of aggression in Iran since Feb. 28, 2026.

The independent experts called for prompt, independent, impartial and transparent investigations into civilian casualties and damage to civilian infrastructure, including attacks on schools, hospitals and other protected sites.

“International law prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State,” the experts said. “The prohibition of the threat or use of force is a cornerstone of the international legal order.”

The US-Israeli war of aggression against Iran between Feb. 28 and early April killed at least 3,375 civilians, including nearly 500 women, and wounded more than 33,000 others, noted the experts.

The experts also said they had received credible reports that Iranian civilians may have been exposed to internationally prohibited and banned hazardous substances, with potentially serious health consequences, particularly for women, girls and pregnant women.

The experts also expressed concern over the latest round of US aggression against Iran despite a memorandum of understanding (MoU) intended to end the war.

The experts urged United States to adhere to the principles of distinction and precaution under international humanitarian law and to protect civilians and civilian infrastructure on land and at sea. They also warned against attacks on civilian population centers, desalination plants and electricity networks.

The US-Israeli acts of aggression in June 2025 and again since February 2026 have deliberately targeted civilians, civilian infrastructure and critical facilities in violation of international law and international humanitarian law.

After weeks of sporadic incidents, the US military launched a fresh wave of large-scale attacks on Iranian soil two weeks ago, targeting military and civilian sites mainly in southern provinces. The attacks have so far destroyed several infrastructure sites, such as bridges and water desalination plants, and killed over 50 Iranians.

Senior Iranian officials have warned that ongoing US attacks threaten regional stability, freedom of navigation, and the security of the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz.

July 24, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes, Wars for Israel | , , , | Comments Off on UN experts call for accountability five months after US-Israeli attack on Minab school

Greece approves purchase of $4bn Israeli air defense system

Athens, Tel Aviv, and Washington are forming an Eastern Mediterranean energy bloc to counter regional trade and energy networks

The Cradle | July 23, 2026

Israel is set to supply Greece with a layered air defense network under an agreement valued at up to $4 billion, Greek Defense Minister Nikos Dendias announced on 23 July, with the same round of approvals covering several drone models and the C-390 military transport aircraft manufactured by Embraer.

Dendias said the government security council, KYSEA, had signed off on the plans in principle earlier this year and has now cleared the procurement contracts.

Greece aims to build a multi-layered network capable of intercepting ballistic missiles, aircraft, and drones, named “Achilles Shield.” The system’s core will rely on radars and missiles supplied by the Israeli firms Rafael and IAI.

“It will be ready and fully operational within 35 months, starting from today,” Dendias stated, noting that at least 25 percent of the system will be manufactured by Greek companies.

Athens currently relies on US-made Patriot batteries and aging Russian S-300 systems to guard its airspace, and has earmarked roughly €28 billion (around $32 billion) for a rearmament drive running through 2036.

Under that program, Greece intends to acquire as many as 40 F-35 fighter jets from the US, along with frigates from France and Italy.

Defense spending in Greece stands at close to 3.5 percent of gross domestic product, outpacing most other NATO members, a level Athens attributes to its long-running dispute with Turkiye.

Greece and Israel maintain close economic and diplomatic relations, running an air training center on Greek soil, staging annual joint military exercises, and working together on anti-drone systems and cybersecurity.

Joint military drills between Athens and Tel Aviv resumed in early July, ending a lengthy suspension brought on by Israel’s genocide in Gaza over the past three years. Israel’s Channel 12 called the cooperation between both countries “part of a broader strategic plan taking shape in the region.”

Beyond military cooperation, the US, Israel, Greece, and Cyprus launched the Eastern Mediterranean Energy Center (EMEC) in early June.

The framework for cooperation on energy and critical infrastructure security involves offshore natural gas projects, research, and technological development, with the wider aim of expanding hydrocarbon output and connectivity schemes such as the India–West Asia–Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC).

Officials from Greece, Cyprus, and Israel had already discussed that alignment at a private diplomatic conference in Athens in May, and weighed a “formal strategic alignment” to capitalize on regional shifts. They also positioned IMEC as an alternative to the Strait of Hormuz – which remains closed as a result of the US war on Iran – and as a direct counter to China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

July 24, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Comments Off on Greece approves purchase of $4bn Israeli air defense system

Prevent the Great War

By Israel Shamir • Unz Review • July 24, 2026

A couple of weeks ago, in Ankara, the capital of Turkey, there was a NATO conference that sought yet more rearmament and militarization, steps that must inevitably lead to a new Great War. As an answer to this NATO conference, 200 ministers, members of parliament, ambassadors, politicians, activists, journalists, retired generals, academics, diplomats, military personnel and experts from many countries gathered in Ankara last weekend to prevent NATO’s new Great War. Among them were a few of our fellows, Unz Review writers, notably Larry Johnson and Scott Ritter.

The Alliance to Prevent the Great War concluded that the threats that could lead to a Great War originate from the United States, the EU and Israel. The US and Israeli attacks on Iran, NATO’s build-up of military power in Ukraine and the deployment of proxy forces against Russia, Israel’s genocide in Gaza and the attacks on Lebanon — these are regional wars that carry the risk of triggering a Great War.

NATO, as an instrument of US hegemony, poses a threat to world peace. The countries targeted by NATO, foremost among them Russia, do not pose a threat to Europe. The militarisation of Europe should be stopped. The course towards confrontation between NATO and Russia must be reversed. The escalation of the conflict poses a direct threat of nuclear war. Western leaders must not cross Russia’s ‘red lines’, provoke or ‘test’ the strength of the Russian people and their president. Conference participants stated that arms supply to Ukraine must cease. Further arms supply to Kiev will sooner or later lead to an expansion of military operations in Europe.

In short, the Alliance to Prevent the Great War calls for the strategic union of four states: Russia, China, Iran and Turkey, against the US, EU, and Israel. Never before has Israel been considered such an enemy – not by Russia, neither by Turkey. Putin in his first visits to Israel tried to befriend the Jewish state, saying that there are more than a million ex-Soviet citizens in Israel, speaking Russian and maintaining family ties with Russians in Russia. However, recently Israel has become a stage for anti-Russian emigres with a strong sympathy for an independent Ukrainian state. These are mainly Soviet Jews who were born in the Ukraine, or their ancestors were from the Ukraine, and it turned them towards the Ukrainian statelet of Mr Zelensky.

Many Soviet Jews were extremely pro-American. A Russian writer Viktor Pelevin wrote once that a modern cultural Jew—whether living in Moscow or New York—often faces a subconscious dilemma, unable to definitively answer whether they are primarily a patriot of Israel or a patriot of the United States. The support of Ukraine by Israel spoiled its relations with Russia, though Israel tried to hide its pro-Ukrainian stance. A Russian-Israeli journalist Artem Kirpichonok wrote (tongue in cheek) of Israel’s contributions to the Ukraine war:

1. Israeli anti-tank weapons have been transferred to Ukraine via NATO countries. With their help, a column of Russian troops near Kharkiv has already been destroyed.

2. ‘Volunteers’ – veterans of Israeli special forces – have been deployed to Ukraine. As MP Gerashchenko stated: ‘The best of the best. They, too, want to take part in the struggle of light against darkness. Shabbat Shalom!’

3. Doctors and hospitals have been deployed to assist the Ukrainian army and the civilian population.

4. 76 per cent of Israelis support Ukraine (i.e. everyone except the Arab minority)

5. The renowned Israeli thinker Yuval Noah Hariri noted in a television interview that Putin believes Ukrainians are Russians, and that only a handful of Jews who have taken over Ukraine are preventing them from pelting Russian tanks with flowers. Thus, Putin is a psychopath and an anti-Semite.

9. Religious circles emphasise the fact that Putin launched a war against the Jew Zelensky on the eve of Purim and will therefore inevitably suffer the same fate as Haman and Stalin.

Turkey was once rather friendly to Israel, but Israel’s attack on the Mavi Marmara boat that carried Turkish volunteers to Gaza spoiled it. Israel’s genocide of Gaza turned the people of Turkey against Israel, while Israeli objections to the US sale of jets to Turkey added to the enmity. And finally, Israeli officials claiming that “Turkey is the next Iran” firmly shut this door forever. Thus has Israel been doing its part to get Russia, China, Iran and Turkey together into a strategic union. Still Turkey remains a member of NATO, and President Trump calls President Erdogan “his best friend”.

Russian relations with Iran are very good, and could be described as “strategic”. The Alliance to Prevent the Great War stated: “One of the factors that undoubtedly prevented the United States and Israel from using nuclear weapons in their attacks against Iran was the nuclear umbrella provided by Iran’s partnership with Russia and China. Had a strategic alliance between Turkey, Russia, China and Iran already been established, this would have made an American-Israeli attack on Iran impossible from the outset.”

What should be done with NATO? The Alliance to Prevent the Great War ruled:

It is not the reorganisation of NATO, but its abolition, that would serve global security. European countries would thereby also be freed from the new and onerous burden imposed by the United States on NATO members.

Among interesting speakers there was Prof Dr Ulrike Guérot of Germany. A renowned political scientist, Prof Guérot presented a radical vision for the future of Europe. Arguing that NATO has completed its historical mission, Prof Guérot stated that Europe must break free from American hegemony, transition to a neutral stance, and build its future with Eurasia, particularly with Turkey. Giving extensive space to the war in the Ukraine in her speech, Prof Guérot claimed that this conflict is a proxy war that has been prepared for a long time. Criticizing NATO’s eastward expansion policies, the political scientist argued that NATO has ceased to be a security alliance and has become an element of tension, stating: “We did not tear down the Berlin Wall; we merely moved it a thousand kilometres to the East, to Kiev. We are building a rigid NATO line and dividing the European continent.”

Prof Guérot proposed a concrete model of cooperation to reduce Europe’s dependence on the United States. She argued that a strong tripartite cooperation mechanism established between Paris, Moscow, and Istanbul could build a lasting order of peace and independence on the continent.

Responding sharply to Israel’s policies toward Gaza, Prof Guérot described the silent collaboration and ongoing arms support of the European Union as a “deep shame.” Probably Israel VS Palestine is the deepest bifurcation point between the US and the rest of mankind. While the world supports Palestine, President Trump stands for Israel, and he does not care about genocide. I think it will be his undoing.

Our Scott Ritter said: “To be honest, what happened in Ankara (the NATO conference) was an affront to Turkey’s sovereignty. We must never forget that the countries gathered in Ankara are not Turkey’s friends. Not a single one of them. Neither the United States, nor France, nor Germany, nor the United Kingdom, nor other NATO members, nor Greece.”

What took place there was nothing more than a grand political spectacle. It was a large-scale political charade staged to drag Turkey into NATO’s adventure in Ukraine and to exploit Turkey’s strategic position – painstakingly built up by President Erdogan over the last decade – in Europe’s interests and to Turkey’s detriment.

People need to understand this: everything NATO does – frankly, everything the United States does – runs counter to Turkey’s interests. Because Turkey has never been a priority. Neither for the United States nor for NATO.

NATO has used Turkey for its own interests from the very first day of its accession to the alliance. Turkey was drawn into the alliance to ensure the security of NATO’s southern flank. But that task effectively came to an end with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Now they are trying to drag Turkey into an even greater quagmire: Ukraine. They want Turkey to become an active participant in a war that has dragged on for far too long, has resulted in far too many casualties, and seems unlikely to end as NATO intends – namely, with a strategic defeat for Russia.

So why did President Erdogan allow NATO’s conference to be hosted in Ankara?

I think the answer lies in the Turkish economy. I think President Erdogan was hoping to create an atmosphere of goodwill by hosting Western countries in Ankara, which could have yielded positive results for Turkey. However, I believe he will be disappointed in this regard.

On the contrary, I believe that in the coming period Turkey will continue to develop relations with Russia, China and, increasingly, Iran. This is because Turkey will realise that working together with these countries, which oppose American global hegemony and NATO’s subservient role within that hegemony, is the right path for its own future.

Larry C. Johnson said: “The Ukraine war is not simply a war between Ukraine and Russia. The West is waging a ‘NATO proxy war’, using Ukraine against Russia.”

European leaders are facing a crisis of confidence in their own countries. Examples of this include Germany’s deindustrialisation, the Volkswagen crisis and the economic downturn.

NATO’s stockpiles are depleted; factories cannot cope with the workload.

The war in Ukraine is currently ‘the most dangerous flashpoint in the world’. NATO’s preparations for direct war are increasing the risk of nuclear escalation, and Russia has reached the point where it could deploy tactical nuclear weapons.

Germany was also represented by Admiral Kay-Achim Schönbach, the man who commanded the German Navy and retired to avoid fighting Russians. He said:

My name is Kay-Achim Schönbach. I am a retired Vice-Admiral of the German Navy, and until 2022 I served as Commander-in-Chief of the German Navy.

As a citizen of a European country and as a German, I can only express my deepest concern on this matter. Not since the dark and dangerous days of the Cuban Missile Crisis have we been so close to an escalation that could lead to a major war in Europe. And I do not believe I am the only one to have reached this conclusion.

The war in Donbas, in particular, has shown us that ignoring the historical context and failing to undertake a more in-depth and, above all, impartial examination of the causes of the conflict has been one of the fundamental factors that made this armed conflict possible.

The wars in Eastern Europe could have been avoided. We know this. We all know this.

Drawing on my own experience, I can say with confidence today that diplomacy based on mutual respect and conducted on an equal footing provided all the necessary means to prevent this smouldering conflict from escalating into a full-scale war. And I do not think I am the only one who shares this view. However, we must all acknowledge that the influential players in the international system had ample opportunities to resolve this conflict. Perhaps there was no complete agreement on every detail, but they managed to prevent the conflict from spiralling out of control.

The Admiral explained this behaviour of his superiors by “moralising and misguided idealism”, in my view this is too optimistic an explanation.

The Greek journalist Dimitris Konstantakopoulos chaired one of the sessions. Konstantinopoulos stated that Europe’s sanctions against Russia are not sustainable. Issuing a warning, the Greek expert assessed the situation as follows: “Both in Ukraine and in Western Asia, we are heading towards a very dangerous situation which, if it escalates, could even lead to nuclear war. That is precisely why we must de-escalate tensions, and I fear that very few political forces in Europe realise this. This makes the situation extremely dangerous.”

The Greek expert noted that the sanctions imposed by Europe have not worked. Konstantinopoulos said: “The sanctions have proved ineffective. However, if you wish to achieve the United States’ long-term strategic objective, they have proved effective: namely, to separate Europe from Russia (and the former Soviet Union in the past) and make Europe entirely dependent on the United States. If that was the aim of the sanctions, then they have achieved it. Incidentally, I believe that the entire operation in Ukraine — by which I mean the 2014 coup, because the Ukrainian issue did not begin with Russia’s intervention in 2022 but many years earlier — all this Western aggression in the territories of the former USSR was planned. It was a pre-emptive policy aimed at preventing a potential alliance between Europe and Russia, or, as the former French Prime Minister de Villepin put it, between Europe, Russia and China.”

It takes more than a conference to stop the coming Great War. Still, the Alliance to Prevent the Great War was a very useful discussion of the possible ways to do it. And surely much better than NATO’s own conference of trial balloons for their future war crimes.

July 24, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Prevent the Great War

The Iran war may go down as the US’ worst ever defeat

By Robert Inlakesh | Al Mayadeen | July 24, 2026

While the US president continues to lie to his people about imagined victories over Iran in West Asia, the arguments fall flat amongst the vast majority of Americans who see through his tired rhetoric. Unlike past military blunders, Washington has not and will not be able to pull the wool over its people’s eyes.

Some analysts have attempted to compare Donald Trump’s failure to effectively combat Iran with defeats and strategic mistakes that ruined the reputations of past presidents; this one is very different.

To go through all US wars of aggression is simply too steep a task to take on in a single article, but there are a few different comparisons that are going around which deserve to be analyzed: they are the Iraq War, the Vietnam War, and even Operation Eagle Claw.

All the above-noted comparisons are very much different in their nature from the large-scale air campaign, turned stop-start battles that the Trump administration has engaged in. If we first look at the Vietnam War comparison, this is often said as a figure of speech – “it is so and so’s Vietnam” – which is the way in which some analysts have chosen to apply Vietnam to what we see today.

Although there is something to be said about how the US is being bogged down in the Iran War, it is a totally different ball game to what occurred in Vietnam. At the beginning stages of the escalation, in October of 1965, a Gallup poll recorded a 64% public approval rating of US intervention in Vietnam, which by 1970 had shifted to around 55% of the US public stating that they sought a return of the troops.

At the time, the US had sold its population the need to fight Communism and that the Vietnam War was necessary, as the fall of South Vietnam to a Communist government would lead to a slippery slope whereby governments across Asia would fall to the ideology. The Communist boogeyman captured the imaginations of those living in the West, who opposed the Soviet Union and Chairman Mao’s China.

In Trump’s case, the approval rating for the Iran war was never there. Ipsos polling data from the beginning of the war suggested that 58% of Americans opposed a war with Iran, with only 38% expressing approval. Two weeks into the conflict, Pew Research polling data then revealed that 61% of the country disapproved of the war. Now, even Trump’s own cult-like fan base is turning on the war, with Politico polling data suggesting that little more than a third of MAGA supporters believe the economic costs of the Iran war have been worth it.

In the Vietnam War case, public opinion at its worst was more favourable than it was at the beginning of the war on Iran. When it came to the disastrous 2003 Iraq invasion, a Gallup News poll recorded a 72% approval rating for the war, with only 25% of Americans opposing it.

Then there is the comparison with Operation Eagle Claw, which refers to the disastrous mission that was ordered by former US President Jimmy Carter – aimed at seizing back American citizens held by the Islamic Republic at the time. The reference is now being made to Jimmy Carter and his failed operation, resulting in the deaths of 8 US service members, because of President Trump’s own comments about the Carter administration.

In the event of a ground invasion that seeks to seize Iranian territory – Kharg Island being the most publicly discussed target to occupy – the US president will almost inevitably be in a position where a number of American soldiers could be captured.

All of the above-noted cases have a shared difference that separates them from what the Trump administration is doing today, that being that they were not operations launched solely for a foreign country’s interests.

Although the Israelis certainly played a role in pushing the US toward launching the Iraq War, it was a conflict that did assert Washington’s dominance over the region, further bringing the Arab Gulf States under their control, and was evidently winnable. The consequences of the invasion were not immediate; the American public believed in the new “Islamic enemy” that had replaced the Red Scare narrative sold to populations across the collective West during the Cold War.

The Vietnam War also had the Gulf of Tonkin incident false flag that helped justify the war, while Iraq had the September 11 attacks. The Iran War didn’t even bother to use any incident as an excuse; it was rushed and sloppy.

This time, Iran has managed to use the closure of the Strait of Hormuz as leverage against the US, while Yemen’s Ansar Allah is now tightening the noose by imposing a counter-blockade on Saudi Arabia in the Red Sea. If the Yemeni Armed Forces choose to do so, they can totally block the Bab al-Mandab Strait also, choking off two of the world’s most important trade routes. Iran has demonstrated its ability to continuously pound US military bases and embarrass the US Navy’s attempts to coordinate the passage of ships out of the Gulf.

The US’ military industrial complex is also getting slapped around, as Iran has managed to shoot down at least one F-15 fighter jet, even locking on and striking an F-35 that was forced to do an emergency landing.

US allies in the Gulf, which have pledged to invest trillions in the American economy, are taking an economic beating, with the possibility that some could even be rendered uninhabitable if the war escalates. From power projection to the sale of weapons, seizure of resources, and an image of victory, there is nothing to gain.

Only the Israelis are set to gain anything from this deeply unpopular war. They seek to use the United States military to do their dirty work of degrading Iranian infrastructure and dealing an economic blow to the Islamic Republic. This is because Tel Aviv understands that the job cannot be performed by them alone and that as long as they can take the punishment dished out against them, they are willing to continue using the Trump administration to do their bidding.

Never before has a war of this nature been fought by the United States, where it loses in every category, with the conflict being fought solely for the purpose of fulfilling the expansionist desires of a foreign rogue regime. Donald Trump is not Jimmy Carter or George Bush Jr.; he will be remembered as the president who launched an offensive war of aggression on behalf of a genocidal regime that couldn’t care less how the US and the rest of the world are impacted, as long as they continue to get propped up to forward their goals of creating a regional empire premised on a supremacist ideology.

July 24, 2026 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on The Iran war may go down as the US’ worst ever defeat

Col Douglas Macgregor: Iran May Seize Kuwait ON THE GROUND

Daniel Davis / Deep Dive – July 23, 2026

WHY IRAN’s NOT STRIKING ISRAEL /Prof Seyed Marandi in Tehran

Daniel Davis / Deep Dive – July 23, 2026

July 24, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Video, Wars for Israel | , , , | Comments Off on Col Douglas Macgregor: Iran May Seize Kuwait ON THE GROUND

US Army turns to older PAC-2 Patriot missiles as war against Iran drains stockpiles

Press TV – July 23, 2026

The United States Army has been forced by Iran’s resolute resistance to procure outdated PAC-2 Patriot missiles for the first time in decades, as its vaunted air defense stockpiles were severely depleted during its war of aggression against Tehran.

Raytheon RTX received a $441.6 million contract modification on April 30 for the production of Patriot Guidance Enhanced Missile-Tactical (GEM-T) interceptors, essentially upgraded versions of the older PAC-2 series, to support what Washington called Operation Epic Fury, twz.com reported on Thursday.

The rush order, funded by special fiscal 2026 appropriations outside normal budgeting, demands completion by September 30 and marks the first domestic US purchase of these missiles in over 30 years. Work is underway solely at Raytheon’s Chambersburg, Pennsylvania facility, the only US production line for the system.

The move comes after American forces expended an estimated 1,060 to 1,430 Patriot interceptors between late February and early April 2026 in a desperate attempt to counter Iran’s precision missile and drone strikes.

What began as a reckless imperialist assault aimed at crippling Iran’s defensive capabilities quickly exposed the fragility of US and allied air defenses.

Iranian forces, employing a sophisticated mix of ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and low-cost drones, overwhelmed the expensive Western systems, forcing repeated high-cost intercepts that drained inventories at an unsustainable rate.

PAC-2 GEM-T missiles rely on blast-fragmentation warheads designed primarily for tactical ballistic missiles and aircraft. They are widely acknowledged as less capable than the more advanced PAC-3 variants, which use hit-to-kill technology for greater precision against modern threats. Yet the US Army has no choice: production of newer interceptors cannot keep pace with consumption, and existing PAC-3 stocks have been further strained by transfers to the Kiev regime, the Zionist entity, and Gulf monarchies.

This desperation underscores the strategic failure of Washington’s aggression. Iran’s resilient missile industry and asymmetric capabilities turned the tables, compelling the Pentagon to scramble for whatever interceptors it can obtain, even decades-old designs that were phased out of primary US inventories long ago.

Analysts note that each PAC-2 costs significantly less than a PAC-3 but offers diminished performance, highlighting how Iran’s cost-effective saturation tactics rendered America’s multi-million-dollar defenses economically and operationally bankrupt.

The contract’s urgency, with full funding obligated immediately and a compressed five-month delivery window, reveals the depth of the crisis.

US officials have long touted the Patriot as the “gold standard” of air defense, yet the reality of confronting a determined and technologically sovereign nation like Iran has laid bare its limitations.

Stockpiles were already pressured by prolonged support for proxy conflicts, but the direct confrontation with Iran’s armed forces accelerated the depletion beyond recovery through standard channels.

As the Islamic Republic continues to strengthen its deterrent posture, this procurement serves as an admission of vulnerability.

The United States, despite its vast military-industrial complex, finds itself recycling outdated hardware while Iran demonstrates the superiority of indigenous innovation and national resolve. The war machine that sought to impose its will has instead been forced to dig into the past, a telling indicator that aggression against Iran carries unsustainable costs.

July 23, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , | Comments Off on US Army turns to older PAC-2 Patriot missiles as war against Iran drains stockpiles

Trump’s bombing campaign in Iran just sinks U.S. into a deeper quagmire

By Martin Jay | Strategic Culture Foundation | July 22, 2026

The coming days and weeks will see Trump lower himself in the acid bath of what analysts call the ‘escalation trap’. Many analysts comment that he has already fallen on his sword in the Iran war, as his fantasy of bringing Tehran to its knees – served up by Israel’s PM Netanyahu – has proved to be the greatest deception in U.S.-Israeli relations since the birth of the entity in 1948. He has, to many, lost the war, which was really the essence of him signing the MOU on June 17th, agreeing in principle to all of the points of unconditional surrender, making Iran a bigger, bolder regional power which now controls the Straits of Hormuz and is revered by the GCC elites like never before.

Yet his own lack of diplomatic verve both with Western leaders, NATO and above all Benjamin Netanyahu made his signature worthless, and his only recourse was to continue the war, to at least make it look like he is still relevant.

But this gambit, which is foolish on so many levels – not least of all because the U.S. is very low on military hardware used up between February 28th and April 7th – is more reckless than he understands and will soon destroy him.

Just recently, GCC countries’ elites frantically called him to tell him to stop bombing Iran’s civilian infrastructure, as, unbeknown to him, the capability of Iran to completely wipe off the surface of the map the same infrastructure in the Gulf countries is within arms’ reach. It is one thing to have your U.S. air base bombed, but quite another for your schools, hospitals, bridges, power plants and water facilities to be blown up with a handful of hypersonic missiles. And it is hard to imagine how those elites would rebuild their countries if Iran chose to retaliate in such a fashion.

The call seems to have done the job. But Trump is a mercurial man-child who understands little and only cares about nursing his ego, and so there is no telling what he might do in the future if pushed, or if he simply fails to take the warning seriously.

And yet, whichever route he chooses, it all ends badly for him, and the Iranians are taking the time to remove entirely the U.S. presence in the region. If Trump persists in hitting their infrastructure, one move which Iran is mulling is destroying the oil shipments presently coming out of the UAE and Saudi Arabia outside of the Persian Gulf – in other words, oil which the Saudis send via pipeline to the Red Sea and oil which is sent to Fujairah port, currently being expanded. The 7 million barrels of oil each day which together these two countries export could easily be stopped by Iran, and so it is hard to see what strategy Trump thinks he has with his bombing, other than he believes that this will soften the Iranians up for coming back to the MOU.

What Trump doesn’t understand is that the hardliners in the Iranian government never believed he was serious about the MOU and saw it as a ruse to buy time before continuing with a bombing campaign. Now that they have been proved right, any return to an MOU will be much harder on Trump, as the demands from Tehran will be higher than the first time around.

Top of that list will be Lebanon, and this is where Trump’s problems start, as the position that he will be in if an MOU 2.0 is put together will be very weak, while Netanyahu’s will be very strong. Bibi is never going to pull Israel’s troops out of Lebanon, and so a peace deal will be impossible, leading Trump to only one recourse: the mother of all maddest ideas, which is the land invasion of Iran – which he might be thinking about around November when the weather is cooler. But the U.S. doesn’t have either the number of men required, the stockpile of weapons, or even, frankly, the competence to carry out such a remarkably risky venture. The casualties would be incredibly high, and Trump would go down in history as the egghead U.S. president who fell into Israel’s trap and got the ultimate lesson from Iran. The humiliation Jimmy Carter had to endure after a failed rescue mission of U.S. embassy workers in Iran in 1980 will pale into insignificance in comparison to what the Iranians have lined up for Trump.

Trump’s problem is credibility. No world leaders respect him nor trust him, and this is a major factor now with the Iranians, who simply consider Trump to be a clown at best or a dangerous, insecure child at worst – ready to burn the family house down just to get the attention that he craves. Nothing he says is taken seriously, as Tehran knows all along that Trump is always creating distractions while he is listening to his generals’ latest crackpot ideas about invasion. While Trump panics, Iran moves at a painfully slow, measured pace – confident about itself, its history and its destiny. Iran thinks long term and about how the world will judge it, also keeping in mind negotiating with the next U.S. administration. As an ancient civilisation, they are used to thinking in terms of decades and centuries. Trump only thinks about this week’s coverage in the Wall Street Journal or New York Times. His gate-crashing of the World Cup and having the president of FIFA actually manhandle him out of the Spanish team’s photo shoot must have been very embarrassing for many Americans.

July 22, 2026 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on Trump’s bombing campaign in Iran just sinks U.S. into a deeper quagmire

US Threats Against Iran’s Nuclear Facilities Violate International Law – Iranian Foreign Ministry

Sputnik – 22.07.2026

Statements from the US that it might bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities violate international law, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei said on Wednesday.

“The repeated US attacks and threats against Iran’s peaceful nuclear facilities not only constitute a flagrant violation of the core principles of the UN Charter, international law, and the relevant resolutions of the IAEA Board of Governors, General Conference, and UN Security Council, but also reveal the United States’ deep-rooted enmity toward Iran’s scientific progress and technological development,” Baghaei wrote on X.

Iran does not conduct any nuclear activities in the area of the Kuh-e Kolang Gaz La Mountain, otherwise known as “Pickaxe,” which the United States wants to strike, the diplomat said, adding that the relevant remarks are just an excuse for more aggression.

On July 21, US President Donald Trump threatened to attack Iran’s Pickaxe Mountain, where, per Israeli intelligence assessments, a fortified nuclear enrichment facility is located.

The US has been conducting strikes against Iran since July 8, in violation of the provisions of the memorandum of understanding signed on June 17.

July 22, 2026 Posted by | War Crimes, Wars for Israel | , , , | Comments Off on US Threats Against Iran’s Nuclear Facilities Violate International Law – Iranian Foreign Ministry

Press Freedom Threatened as U.S. Government Seizes Max Blumenthal’s Devices

Glenn Diesen | July 21, 2026

Max Blumenthal discusses how the US-Israel partnership undermines press freedom. Blumenthal is the editor-in-chief of The Grayzone, an award-winning journalist and the author of several books, including best-selling Republican Gomorrah, Goliath, The Fifty One Day War, and The Management of Savagery. He has produced print articles for an array of publications, many video reports, and several documentaries, including Killing Gaza. The Grayzone: https://thegrayzone.com/

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

Follow Prof. Glenn Diesen:

Support the research by Prof. Glenn Diesen:

Books by Prof. Glenn Diesen

July 21, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Video | , , , , | Comments Off on Press Freedom Threatened as U.S. Government Seizes Max Blumenthal’s Devices

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »