Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

The EU never learns – except for the wrong lessons

By Tarik Cyril Amar | RT | March 13, 2026

Some observers of the current EU ‘elites’, including this author, used to believe that their defining feature – apart from things such as complicity in genocide and wars of aggression with Israel and the US, bigoted xenophobia about Russia and China, and, of course, pervasive corruption – was an absolute inability to learn.

We must admit, we stand corrected: Those running the EU are able to learn. The real problem is their relentless compulsion to learn the wrong thing. We are not dealing with non-learners but anti-learners: where others progress from experience, they regress.

Case in point, their response to the fact that their US-Israeli masters have started a war to end if not strictly all then at least all (barely) affordable energy supplies to the EU’s economies, while its major players are already limping along on a spectrum between walking-wounded (for instance, France, maybe) to comatose (Germany, definitely).

In Germany, still the largest single economy inside the EU, providing almost a fourth of the bloc’s total GDP, industrial demand – orders from factories – fell by over 11% in January. Such a decrease – really, collapse – in orders is “drastic,” as German Manager Magazine notes. According to the Financial Times, this “very weak” start into the new year, puts preceding – and very modest – signs of a recovery from years of stagnation in doubt. Indeed. And all of that disappointing data was gathered before the fallout of the Iran war had even started.

Regarding the latter, it will be severe. Even Berlin’s Ministry of Economics admits that the risks stemming from the war’s consequences, most of them still incoming, is substantial.

In general, the Eurozone – different from but covering most of the EU – is not in good shape either. According to Bloomberg, a very low and yet still over-optimistic Eurostat estimate of expansion by 0.3% for the last quarter of 2025 has just been revised downward to 0.2%. But frankly, who cares at that level of misery?

And for the Eurozone as well, America and Israel’s unprovoked war against Iran is likely to make things much worse. Philip Lane, chief economist of the European Central Bank (ECB), has confirmed that much to the Financial Times : An enduring decrease in oil and gas supplies from the Middle East can (read: will), he warns, bring about a “substantial spike” in inflation and a “sharp drop in output.”

And what is the EU leadership’s response to this deeply depressing outlook for its economy and the European citizens depending on it? Let’s not dream. It is true, if the EU’s ‘elites’ were in the business of protecting European interests and prosperity, they would, obviously, take a sharp turn against both the US and Israel (as well as London in case it were to stick to its special-poodle relationship with Washington).

Yet if the EU leadership had such priorities, it would long have turned against the US, for its blatant exploitation of its vassal regimes via, first, NATO over-expansion and, now, crippling overspending, for Ukraine proxy war outsourcing, and for devastating tariff warfare. It would also long have broken with Israel, for, to name only two compelling reasons, its genocide and serial wars of aggression that are both horrifically criminal and extremely destabilizing and damaging not “only” to the Middle East but the world as a whole and Europe in particular.

In short, the EU would not even be in the mess it is now if it actually took care of Europe. And, by the way, if it were not so craven but had opposed the US and Israel instead of pandering to them, perhaps it could even have contributed to preventing the current criminal war against Iran.

That, however, would not be the EU as it really is. In sordid reality, it is a second iteration of NATO, that is, an instrument of the US empire (notwithstanding showy and silly Greenland hysterics) and of international oligarchic structures. Ordinary Europeans matter only in so far as they are expected to vote – and think and speak – in line with EU ‘elite’ priorities, and when they do not, they are made to.

No wonder then that the utterly unelected and legally extremely challenged EU Commission head Ursula von der Leyen – really, the EU’s despot and US viceroy rolled into one – demonstratively does not give a damn about the massive energy price shock that has already started hitting the fragile economies of EU-Europe.

With tanker ships on fire off the Strait of Hormuz, oil surging over $100 per barrel, national reserves being dipped into, gas prices up by 50% in the EU, and, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA), oil markets suffering “the largest supply disruption in history,” von der Leyen has had nothing to offer but reverting to the tired – and less than successful – playbook of 2022, originally put together when the Western-Russian proxy war via Ukraine escalated. Tinkering, again, with ineffective price caps, taxes and fees, electricity market structures and price distortions, renewables, and wasting money on subsidies (out of budgets that are already vastly overstretched) – that was about it. No wonder, several national governments have already signaled their impatience with what, in essence, is inactivity and non-strategy.

At least as important, though, was what von der Leyen took pains to rule out: Returning to Russian supplies would be a “strategic blunder,” the EU’s one-woman decider-in-chief declared. Instead, she insists, the EU must stay the course and continue ridding itself of the last remnants of Russian gas and oil. Clearly, von der Leyen is anxious that not everyone in the EU’s ‘elites’ is up to her level of ideological obstinacy and economic as well as geopolitical irrationality. “Some,” she chided, “argue that we should abandon our long-term strategy and even go back to Russian fossil fuels.” Perish the thought! As long as von der Leyen and her type run the EU, it will ruin itself before doing the obvious – making peace with Russia and rebuilding economic ties, including in the energy sector.

And there you have it: This is a leadership style not simply refusing to learn from experience but repeating the worst blunders of the past. The von der Leyen way of policy making – from sanctions (now on round 20, I believe) to pipelines – is akin to negative natural selection: Whatever does not work will be done again, and again, and again. The real question, it seems, is not if the EU “elites” will ever stop being perverse anti-learners, but whether – or when – they will lose control. Mismanaging the massive shock that the US and Israel have sent their way now may finally provoke enough backlash from below to send the von der Leyens packing. For Europe’s sake, let’s hope for the best, even if it’s delivered by the worst.

Tarik Cyril Amar is a historian from Germany working at Koç University, Istanbul, on Russia, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe, the history of World War II, the cultural Cold War, and the politics of memory.

March 13, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Russophobia, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The EU never learns – except for the wrong lessons

Iran attacks on UAE leaves RSF militia high and dry

The Canary | March 12, 2026

Iran’s retaliatory strikes on Israel and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) are reportedly contributing to a rapid collapse of the genocidal so-called ‘Rapid Support Forces’ (RSF) in Sudan.

The RSF, funded and armed by the UAE and Israel, had been making gains up to February 2026. It has murdered hundreds of thousands of people in Sudan. Rapes, sexual torture and executions have been common and almost 400,000 people are in starvation.

However, Sudanese government forces have achieved a string of military victories that appear to be turning into a rout.

With UAE shipments rerouted from the Hormuz Straight and the UAE to Saudi Arabia due to Iran’s counterattacks of shipping, the UAE economy, and it’s global financiers, have been dealt a major blow.

Meanwhile, Sudanese forces are targeting RSF arms and supply depots, crippling front-line RSF troops by cutting off ammunition, fuel, and essentials.

March 13, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on Iran attacks on UAE leaves RSF militia high and dry

Hosting Washington’s war: Bahrain faces the consequences

By Hasan Qamber | The Cradle | March 12, 2026

The Persian Gulf is entering one of the most volatile periods in its modern history. Military confrontation between Iran, the US, and Israel has, from the outset, unfolded across the Gulf geography itself. States hosting western military infrastructure – particularly Bahrain – have not merely been exposed to the conflict’s expansion, but structurally integrated into its battlefield logic.

For Bahrain, the current escalation raises urgent questions about the kingdom’s internal stability, the resilience of Gulf political systems, and the capacity of neighboring countries to absorb the security, economic, and social shocks generated by an expanding war.

Frontline kingdom

Bahrain today stands squarely at the center of the region’s intensifying confrontation. Despite its small size, the island holds outsized political and military importance. Its strategic location, heavy reliance on the energy sector, and fragile domestic balances make it one of the Gulf states most exposed to the consequences of prolonged escalation.

The kingdom’s hosting of the US Fifth Fleet headquarters cements its position as a key node in Washington’s military architecture in the Persian Gulf. This presence transforms Bahrain into a potential target in any direct clash between Tehran and Washington. As the war goes on, US installations on Bahraini soil are increasingly viewed as forward operational platforms – and therefore legitimate strategic objectives in a widening regional war.

The implications extend beyond the military domain. Bahrain’s domestic political arena remains shaped by unresolved tensions dating back to the 2011 uprising. Renewed confrontation risks aggravating these internal fault lines by tying national stability more closely to the trajectory of external conflict.

Recent developments have effectively placed Bahrain on the front line. Its role as both a logistical hub for western military operations and a regional energy services center means that any escalation in the Persian Gulf immediately reverberates across the island’s security environment.

According to reports, Iranian strikes against Bahraini-based targets began on 28 February. By early March, roughly 70 to 75 ballistic missiles and more than 120 drones had reportedly been launched. Bahraini authorities stated that most incoming projectiles were intercepted.

Targets included facilities linked to the US Fifth Fleet, Bahraini and US military infrastructure, the BAPCO refinery complex in Ma’amir, and sites in Manama associated with US personnel. Installations near Bahrain International Airport and a major desalination plant – the Abu Jarjour facility – were also reportedly struck.

While the full extent of the damage remains unclear, some accounts suggest partial destruction of base infrastructure and temporary disruption of logistical systems. Heightened alert levels were subsequently reported across US installations throughout the Persian Gulf following injuries among American personnel.

Energy pressure points

The military dimension of the crisis intersects with Bahrain’s structural economic vulnerabilities. The kingdom’s economy remains heavily dependent on the energy sector, with BAPCO Energies forming its backbone. Following recent upgrades, refining capacity has reached approximately 405,000 barrels per day – positioning Bahrain as an important, if relatively modest, contributor to regional oil supply dynamics.

Reports indicate that the refinery complex has been hit at least once during the escalation, triggering fires and forcing the company to invoke force majeure clauses on certain export commitments. Temporary disruptions to refining operations reportedly led to shipment delays and a partial pause in exports, although authorities insist domestic fuel supplies remain secure.

The situation is further complicated by the growing role of international investors in Bahrain’s energy sector. The sale of selected BAPCO assets to major global investment firms – including the US-based BlackRock – has generated political controversy.

Civil society groups have criticized such moves as part of a broader normalization trajectory aligned with Washington’s regional agenda, particularly amid mounting public debt estimated to exceed 130 percent of GDP.

Any sustained targeting of energy infrastructure would therefore carry consequences far beyond immediate production losses. It would threaten investor confidence, fiscal stability, and Bahrain’s long-term economic positioning within the Gulf.

Hormuz chokehold

The crisis acquires even greater significance in light of Iran taking control over maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz – one of the most critical arteries in the global energy system. At least 20 percent of the world’s seaborne oil trade passes through this narrow waterway. Any disruption to navigation would send shockwaves through international markets and place immense pressure on Gulf economies.

For Bahrain, whose oil export routes are heavily tied to the strait, strategic alternatives remain limited. While pipeline connections to Saudi Arabia offer partial mitigation, rerouting exports through Red Sea terminals or relying on floating storage solutions would impose logistical and financial constraints.

The implications extend to food security. Gulf states import the vast majority of their food supplies via maritime routes traversing Hormuz, with some importing as much as 85–90 percent overall. Bahrain, constrained by limited agricultural capacity, is particularly vulnerable.

Early indicators of wartime strain have already surfaced, including higher transport costs, shipment delays, and rising prices for essential imported goods. Authorities maintain that strategic reserves are sufficient for now, but prolonged disruption could test these assurances.

Public mood and internal pressure

Bahrain’s domestic political environment adds another layer of complexity. The kingdom is often described as the only Gulf state where a Shia demographic majority lives under Sunni political rule, though the absence of official statistics makes precise figures contested. Estimates have fluctuated significantly since the introduction of political naturalization policies in the early 2000s.

The 2006 “Bandar Report” controversy – which alleged systematic demographic engineering – remains a reference point in debates about representation and legitimacy. Today, observers suggest Shia citizens may constitute between 55 and 65 percent of the population, with Sunnis forming a substantial minority. Expatriates account for more than half of Bahrain’s total population, further complicating social dynamics.

Against this backdrop, public reactions to regional escalation diverge sharply from official state positions. While Gulf governments continue to emphasize strategic partnership with Washington, segments of Bahraini society openly express support for strikes targeting US military facilities in the region. Social media circulation of footage from recent attacks reflects this polarization.

Authorities have responded with sweeping security measures aimed at preventing internal destabilization. Arrests have been reported against individuals accused of documenting strikes or organizing demonstrations. Restrictions on public gatherings and curfews in sensitive areas underline official concerns that regional war could reignite domestic protest movements.

According to human rights and field sources speaking exclusively to The Cradle, at least 114 people have been arrested since the beginning of the events. The Public Prosecution has sought the death penalty for a group of citizens and residents accused of “communicating with the enemy” for documenting missile and drone strikes on military targets.

This reflects the scale of the political challenge Bahrain faces as it attempts to balance internal stability with its security and external commitments amid a divided public mood regarding the regional war.

Strategic dilemmas

Manama’s predicament reflects a broader Gulf reality. The kingdom faces simultaneous pressures stemming from its geographic exposure, reliance on external military guarantees, and unresolved internal political tensions. Crisis management under such conditions becomes increasingly complex as regional confrontation deepens.

There is also uncertainty surrounding the stance of neighboring Gulf states. Should escalation expand to include widespread targeting of energy infrastructure or maritime trade routes, regional economic interdependence could magnify the impact on domestic stability across the peninsula.

A sustained Iran–US–Israeli confrontation threatens to reshape the political calculus of Gulf states. For decades, security architectures across the region have been anchored in strategic partnerships with Washington. Direct confrontation between Iran and the US, therefore, places these states in a structurally vulnerable position.

Three major risks loom. First, the physical targeting of military bases and oil facilities could undermine deterrence frameworks. Second, prolonged disruption to trade and energy flows may generate severe economic stress. Third, divergent popular attitudes toward the conflict risk fueling internal political tensions.

In Bahrain, these dynamics intersect with an already active opposition and a politically engaged society. Continued escalation could heighten domestic sensitivity to government policies and widen the gap between official narratives and public sentiment.

Paths ahead

Several trajectories remain possible. Rapid containment of escalation would restore the familiar pattern of managed tension in the Persian Gulf. A prolonged exchange of strikes, however, could intensify economic pressure and gradually erode political stability across Gulf states.

The most dangerous scenario would see the region transformed into an open theater of great-power confrontation – fundamentally altering the balance of power and exposing smaller states like Bahrain to sustained instability.

The kingdom now finds itself navigating an exceptional moment in regional history. Escalation is now shaping the island’s economic stability, political tensions, and security calculations in real time. Efforts by authorities to enforce internal control underline the depth of official concern that external conflict could reopen unresolved domestic fault lines.

The kingdom’s experience points to a wider shift across the Persian Gulf: strategic alignment with Washington’s military order is increasingly transforming allied states into operational terrain. In Bahrain’s case, the distance between the forward base and the front line has effectively collapsed.

March 13, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on Hosting Washington’s war: Bahrain faces the consequences

The US fell for its own Iran propaganda

By Robert Inlakesh | Al Mayadeen | March 13, 2026

The US government’s mistake with Iran has been that it clearly fell into believing its own lies. Think tanks, donors, paid advisors, lobby groups, and establishment analysts are all responsible for the catastrophic mistakes that have been made in attacking the Islamic Republic.

What was supposed to be a war, destined to be all over in four days, quickly turned into weeks, months, and now, in US President Donald Trump’s own words, a “forever” war. In order to understand why, we have to assess the way the political system in Washington works.

As we now know, US politicians are oftentimes chosen by the donor class. Most of the US Congress and Senate take considerable sums from AIPAC and affiliated pro-Israeli, pro-war donors. The Israeli Lobby not only pays its chosen politicians, but also hands them materials to run through, so that they skip to the Zionist script and position themselves as attack dogs against anyone who stands up to the lobby.

Hiding underneath this, we have think tanks, which are the policy expert wing of the lobbyists. These think tank “experts” are brought in as the brains behind the operation. They shift around between holding positions within different administrations, sitting on boards, and writing briefs or analyses for think tanks.

Then you have the mainstream media, which is owned by many of the same people funding the think tanks and lobby groups, employing articulate individuals to parrot their propaganda. The media itself is a bubble, where the so-called “reputable” outlets rely on each other for validity and help to police the boundaries of the “acceptable” discourse, meaning the likes of the New York Times, BBC, and others.

When it comes to broadcast media in specific, the top suppliers of stories, soundbites, on-the-ground footage, and leads are Reuters, AFP, and the Associated Press. Oftentimes, broadcast media channels will simply copy and paste the leads or descriptions from what these suppliers provide, altering them ever so slightly to suit their channel’s bias. That is why they often use very similar language and report the same stories for their news bulletins. Anyone who has worked in a newsroom knows this to be the case.

This trio of information control, which often intersects and enjoys some crossover, is what pollutes the minds of the masses on a daily basis. This is important to understand in order for the rest of this article to make sense.

Falling for their own lies

In the lead-up to the illegal attack on the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Western ruling class constantly repeated the idea that Iran and its allies were severely weakened. Revelling in what will likely prove to be a pyrrhic victory in Syria, with the installation of a pro-US Zionist collaborator regime in Damascus, the annihilation of Gaza’s infrastructure, along with the severe blows to Hezbollah’s leadership, all three elements of the Zionist information control system began to grow arrogant.

Think Tanks like the Zionist Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) held a series of conferences about the disarmament of Hezbollah and discussed how the so-called Gaza ceasefire was supposed to be weaponized in “Israel’s” favour, while discussing war on Iran as if it was like putting down a once dominant racehorse with a broken leg.

Still, today, if you look at WINEP’s homepage, there are analysis pieces, written by Zionists salivating over a victory over Iran and envisaging how the future will pan out in a West Asia dominated by the Israelis. “The Middle East’s 1919 Moment” and “A Levant Without Militias” discuss the downfall of Iran and Hezbollah, respectively. Even at a time of great crisis for the Zionist entity, they cannot help but fantasize about how they will dominate in the future.

The trio of information control has created a parallel universe for themselves, one which they continue to cling to, for fear of shattering their entire view of reality.

When Donald Trump and Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu claimed to have greatly degraded Iran, it wasn’t just them speaking; they were in lockstep with the think tanks, lobbyists, and donors. Just as was the case when former US envoy to Lebanon, Morgan Ortagus, confidently asserted that Hezbollah was defeated.

For them, assessing the realities on the ground was no longer a priority; what was important was bolstering a narrative that would lead to the war that the Zionist entity desired. In essence, what they had done was fall for their own nonsense.

All of this stems from the psychological blow the Zionist regime and its loyal supremacist backers suffered on October 7, 2023. When a few thousand Palestinian Resistance fighters, armed with light weapons, tore down the illusion of the Israeli surveillance regime and collapsed its southern command within hours, the Zionists went into a kind of mental hysteria.

Suddenly, on that day, it was proven that the theory of Hezbollah’s late Secretary General, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, was correct: “Israel” is indeed weaker than a spider’s web. This meant for them that two things had to be achieved: the first was that their so-called “deterrence capacity” had to be re-established, which they believed would be achieved through committing the world’s first live-streamed genocide.

The second imperative was that the Zionist project had to be rapidly accelerated. At first, this appeared unlikely, yet their perceived successes in Lebanon and Syria appeared to give them the impression that it was possible.

Along comes the second Trump Presidency, which was bought and paid for by the Zionist billionaire class.

Donald Trump, a man with a vocabulary no greater than that of a 10-year-old, is their perfect puppet. Not only this, his entire administration is staffed with ultra-Zionists or paid shills who lack basic intelligence. Therefore, the Zionists saw that this was the perfect time for them to hatch the last phase of their so-called master plan to expand their regime and rule the entire region.

In the process of doing this, the Zionists dismantled the United Nations and the notion of International Law, instead ushering in “the law of the jungle.” There are no longer international norms or red lines, just total chaos.

Meanwhile, as this was going on, the Zionists adopted the attitude toward the global population that they should be scared into submission; should they dare stand up to oppose the tyranny everyone has watched unfold before their very eyes. When they are surprised because things aren’t going their way, they cry victim and, in a fit of rage, attempt to punish you. This is a reflection of their unstable mental state.

All of this is relevant because it explains how we have gotten to this point and why this trio of information control has bought into their own nonsense. The war on Iran was evidently going to be a catastrophe, but they did it anyway. Those of us who have been monitoring the situation could also tell that Lebanese Hezbollah was far from militarily finished, which the Israeli media are now beginning to come to terms with.

What do they do now that the situation is getting out of hand? They censor and desperately lie to cover their tracks. They censor their deaths, lie about the destruction and missile hits, fake air defense victories, and claim tactical and operational military victories that don’t exist. One example of this is the US Trump administration, which claimed to have destroyed Iran’s navy during the first days of the war and still brags about sinking new ships.

The Israelis take things even further: with dozens of military vehicles hit and their soldiers falling into ambush after ambush in Lebanon, only two soldiers have died, according to them. They have even banned the filming of Iranian and Hezbollah missile strikes, threatening their own population with fines and jail time for doing so. Sometimes, they will claim to have intercepted all incoming projectiles or say they fell in open spaces, yet not too long after, published videos show direct hits. It’s getting so bad there, in terms of censorship, that their own people are getting agitated.

These people lived in a “reality” where Hezbollah was weak and Iran was weak, claiming that it had only a few thousand missiles and a handful of launchers; a “reality” in which killing Iran’s leader, Sayyed Ali Khamenei, would instantly lead to regime change, where the Iranian people would suddenly fight against their government because Netanyahu told them so. Perhaps the only thing they don’t believe is their laughable lies about Iranian protester deaths; that nonsense is reserved for the Pahlavist cult.

As the entire planet is witnessing, Iran and the Axis of Resistance that it backs are far from weak. Their determination is strong, and their capabilities are clearly greater than the Zionists expected. The longer this insane arrogance continues, the worse things are going to get, because just as we saw in the Gaza Strip, nobody is about to back down and become the slaves of the terrorist entity occupying Palestine.

March 13, 2026 Posted by | Deception, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Comments Off on The US fell for its own Iran propaganda

Seyed M. Marandi: Threat of Seizing Kharg Island & the Use of Nuclear Weapons

Glenn Diesen | March 12, 2026

Seyed Mohammad Marandi is a professor at Tehran University and a former advisor to Iran’s Nuclear Negotiation Team. Prof. Marandi argues that it will be extremely difficult for the US to seize Kharg Island, and Iran would then destroy all energy facilities in the region.

Follow Prof. Glenn Diesen:

Support the research by Prof. Glenn Diesen:

Books by Prof. Glenn Diesen

March 13, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, Video, War Crimes, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on Seyed M. Marandi: Threat of Seizing Kharg Island & the Use of Nuclear Weapons

Is there even an off ramp?

Have events accelerated to the point where a nuclear attack is nearly inevitable?

Ashes of Pompeii | March 13, 2026

The strategic paradigm regarding Iran has shifted fundamentally. And despite the calls for a ground invasion in some circles, and given the combination of current events on the ground, Iranian resiliance, and logistics, it is simply not possible. Therefore, the United States faces a constricted set of options amidst an escalating existential crisis. The convergence of domestic political survival, allied desperation, military attrition, and the personal psychology of the executive creates a pressure cooker where the use of tactical nuclear weapons transitions from absolute taboo to a very real grim strategic calculus. Central to this equation is the vindictive nature of President Trump, a trait that transforms geopolitical setbacks into personal grievances, compounded by the “Bibi factor”: Benjamin Netanyahu’s four-decade obsession with confronting Iran, now reaching a point of catastrophic desperation as every strategic avenue fails.

Netanyahu has dedicated much of his political life to conflict with an emergent, Islamic Iran. For forty years, he has advocated, plotted, and pressured for decisive action. Now, with Israel under daily barrage and conventional options nearly exhausted, his influence on Washington becomes a volatile accelerant. But the more dangerous variable may not be Israeli pressure on America, but rather Israeli action independent of America. Israel possesses nuclear weapons. A desperate Israel, facing existential threat, may calculate that only a nuclear strike can halt the onslaught. If Israel launches first, the United States is instantly complicit. The question shifts from “Will America use nukes?” to “How does America respond when its ally does?”

This scenario triggers a specific and catastrophic escalation dynamic. Iran has consistently signaled that any existential attack would be met with disproportionate retaliation against its primary adversary: Israel. A nuclear strike would not coerce Tehran into surrender; it would guarantee an all-out Iranian assault focused overwhelmingly on Israeli population centers and probably the Dimona nuclear center. The retaliation would not be measured; it would be existential. For Trump, this creates an impossible bind. His vindictiveness demands punishment of Iran, but his legacy depends on protecting Israel. If Iran retaliates with devastating force, Trump faces two choices: accept the near destruction of America’s key ally, cementing his legacy as the president who lost the Middle East, or escalate further. Each path deepens the quagmire. Added to this is the question of whether Iran has, or is quickly acquiring, nuclear weapons that would be used in any retaliation response.

Compounding this trap is the total collapse of trust. Any diplomatic off-ramp requires a minimum reserve of credibility between adversaries. The Trump administration has systematically burned every bridge. The precedent of attacking on February 28 in the midst of negotiations signaled that talks were not a path to resolution, but a ruse to keep the opponent off guard. To de-escalate now would almost certainly require Trump to take substantial, clear and verifiable unilateral first steps: a ceasefire, sanctions relief and public concessions. In the current climate, such actions would not be read as statesmanship; they would be interpreted as capitulation by many in America, especially his staunchest allies. For a leader whose political identity is built on projecting strength and punishing perceived slights, unilateral de-escalation is politically indistinguishable from surrender. The trust deficit does not merely complicate diplomacy; it comes close to eliminating it as a viable instrument.

This absence of trust reinforces the escalation logic at every turn. Iran, believing that American assurances are worthless, has no incentive to show restraint. Israel, doubting that diplomacy can halt the threat, has every incentive to act alone. Trump, convinced that any sign of weakness will be exploited, has no political space to offer concessions. The system becomes self-reinforcing: distrust justifies aggression, aggression deepens distrust, and the space for compromise evaporates. Institutional guardrails – the military chain of command, cabinet counsel, congressional oversight – retain theoretical weight, but they are overwhelmed by the momentum of crisis. When every actor believes the other operates in bad faith, restraint appears as vulnerability, and to a desperate man, escalation appears as the only rational response.

Global and domestic consequences, however catastrophic, are discounted in the immediate calculus. The precedent of nuclear use would shatter non-proliferation regimes and realign global power. Yet, in the moment of existential pressure, these long-term risks are subordinate to the demand for survival and retribution. Domestic backlash remains possible, but partisan media ecosystems and the framing of Israeli victimhood could harden public resolve rather than soften it. The political cost of appearing weak may be seen to exceed the cost of escalation. Trump’s fear of legacy merges with the visceral demand to protect an ally under fire and punish an adversary that, in his mind, has humiliated American power for nearly half a century.

In conclusion, the decision rests on a knife’s edge, sharpened by the certainty of Iranian retaliation against Israel and the impossibility of diplomatic retreat. The trust deficit is not a peripheral concern; it is the linchpin that locks the system into escalation. With no ground option, no credible off-ramp, a desperate ally possessing nuclear capability, and a vindictive leader who equates compromise with defeat, the use of nuclear weapons emerges not as a deliberate policy choice but as an emergent property of systemic collapse. The taboo against nuclear weapons persists only so long as actors believe restraint serves their survival. When survival is perceived to depend on escalation, and when trust, the essential currency of de-escalation, has been extinguished, the unthinkable becomes inevitable. The United States may not make the first move, but it may find itself unable to stop the chain reaction it enabled. The legacy Trump fears may not be shaped by his decision, but by his inability to escape a logic where every path forward leads deeper into catastrophe. The world watches not a policy debate, but the unraveling of deterrence, diplomacy, and restraint in real time. The outcome will not be chosen, it will be endured.

God help us all.

March 13, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, War Crimes, Wars for Israel | , , , | Comments Off on Is there even an off ramp?

Michael von der Schulenburg: Europe’s Self-Defeating Iran War Policy

Glenn Diesen | March 12, 2026

Michael von der Schulenburg is a German member of the EU Parliament who was previously a UN diplomat for 34 years in positions that included Assistant Secretary General of the UN Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs. Schulenburg also lived and worked for 9 years in Iran for the UN, and explains why this war is yet another disaster for Europe.

Follow Prof. Glenn Diesen:

Support the research by Prof. Glenn Diesen:

March 12, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Progressive Hypocrite, Video | , , , , , | Comments Off on Michael von der Schulenburg: Europe’s Self-Defeating Iran War Policy

US-Israeli war of aggression on Iran meant to reshape region: Omani FM

Press TV – March 12, 2026

Oman’s Foreign Minister Sayyid Badr Albusaidi says that the United States and Israel launched an all-out coordinated aggression against Iran to block the Palestinian statehood and reshape the West Asia region.

Albusaidi said on Thursday that the “real objective of the war” is to “weaken Iran, reshape the region, and push the normalization agenda,” including efforts “to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state.”

The top Omani diplomat warned that the ongoing US and Israeli attacks on Iran are part of a “dangerous chain of violations.”

The war on Iran has undermined the legal framework that has provided regional stability for decades, he added.

Albusaidi also pointed out that Iran is not the only target of the ongoing aggression.

“There is a broader plan targeting the region, and Iran is not the only target. Many regional actors are aware of this, but they are betting that aligning with the United States may push it to revise its decisions and policies,” he said.

In recent months, the Tel Aviv regime has displayed its ill intention by releasing maps which show several areas of Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Iraq as part of “Greater Israel,” a vicious Zionist project, widely supported by the administration of US President Donald Trump.

The Israeli regime’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu and members of his extremist cabinet have already announced a plan to annex the occupied West Bank in order to steal more Palestinian land and block the possibility of a Palestinian statehood.

Albusaidi also warned the war could drive higher oil prices and major supply chain disruptions globally.

The US-Israeli aggression has already driven the oil and gas prices much higher and caused food inflation.

Oman is seeking to stop the war and return to diplomacy, he stressed.

Albusaidi said the war may end soon, but called for reconsidering Persian Gulf security strategies and preparing for worst-case scenarios.

The US and Israel attacked Iran on February 28 in an unprovoked act of aggression, targeting sites across Iran, including schools, hospitals, and sports halls.

Iran responded by launching missiles and drones at targets inside Israel as well as at American bases across the region.

Senior Iranian officials have asserted that any deliberate assault by the United States and Israeli regime on Iran’s civilian and cultural heritage sites constitutes a “flagrant breach of international humanitarian law and an undisputed war crime.”

Elsewhere in his remarks on Thursday, the Omani foreign minister said Oman will not join Trump’s so-called “Board of Peace” and will not normalize relations with Israel.

The remarks come as Trump keeps pushing more Arab states of the Persian Gulf region to join the Abraham Accords and normalize their ties with Israel despite the regime’s brutal more than to-year long Israeli assault against Palestinians in Gaza.

March 12, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , | Comments Off on US-Israeli war of aggression on Iran meant to reshape region: Omani FM

Iran Does Not Consider Israel Party to Talks to Need Mediators With It – Ambassador

Sputnik – 12.03.2026

Iran does not need mediators with Israel because it does not consider it a party to negotiations, Iranian Ambassador to Moscow Kazem Jalali told Sputnik in an interview.

“Iran does not officially recognize the Zionist regime as a party with which to negotiate. To date, there have been no cases of mediation or similar measures. In the recent series of events, Iran has responded on the battlefield and is not seeking mediation or any similar steps,” Jalali said when asked whether Iran attempted to establish contact with Israeli authorities through Russia.

He also recalled that Israel had told the Russian leadership that it had no intention of attacking Iran, but Tehran, he said, knew that such assurances were untrue.

On February 28, the United States and Israel launched strikes on targets in Iran, including in Tehran, causing damage and civilian casualties. Iran responded by striking Israeli territory and US military facilities in the Middle East.

The US and Israel initially claimed their “preemptive” attack was necessary to counter the perceived threat coming from Iran’s nuclear program, but they soon made it clear that they want to see a change of power in Iran.

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was killed on the first day of the military operation. The Islamic Republic declared 40 days of mourning.

Russian President Vladimir Putin described Khamenei’s assassination as a cynical violation of international law. The Russian Foreign Ministry condemned the US-Israeli operation and called for an immediate deescalation and an end to hostilities.

March 12, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , | Comments Off on Iran Does Not Consider Israel Party to Talks to Need Mediators With It – Ambassador

Macron’s aircraft carrier and warplanes to the Persian Gulf is a dangerous vanity project

By Finian Cunningham | Strategic Culture Foundation | March 12, 2026

Like a knight in shining armour, French President Emmanuel Macron is vowing to defend Europe’s interests as the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran escalates.

Macron is not defending Europe or French honor. His theatrical swashbuckling is going to get more people killed and very possibly make the economic impact on Europe even more disastrous.

On a visit to Cyprus this week, Macron declared that a strike on Cyprus was a strike on Europe. He was referring to drone attacks on a British air base on the Mediterranean island last week that were blamed on Iran. It’s not clear who fired the drones at a time when false-flag operations are suspected in Turkey and Azerbaijan, carried out by Israeli forces seeking to embroil the region.

The French president was also filmed inspecting troops on board the Charles de Gaulle, France’s sole aircraft carrier, which he said is being sent along with 12 other warships to the Strait of Hormuz. The aircraft carrier was abruptly redirected from NATO exercises in the Atlantic to the Mediterranean.

The Strait of Hormuz has been closed to oil tankers since the U.S. and Israel launched their aggression on Iran two weeks ago. Europe is particularly vulnerable to oil price shocks and diminishing supply since the EU cut itself off from Russian energy markets over the proxy war in Ukraine.

In addition to the French armada being dispatched to the Persian Gulf, Macron has also ordered Rafale fighter jets to “defend the skies” over the United Arab Emirates, where the French have a base.

However, Macron’s latest show of bravado has telltale question marks. He emphasized that the French naval mission and its air assets were “purely defensive.” This indicates a lack of resolve, and that Paris is worried about the political backlash among French voters if it is seen to be wading into a reckless war started by the unhinged Americans and Israelis.

Also, Macron will be concerned that Iran views any involvement by European states as a party to the aggression and will likewise be targeted. That’s why Macron was trying to make out that French warships would be only “escorting tankers” to ensure passage through the Strait of Hormuz. The subtext to Iran is, please don’t hit us.

But Iran has categorically stated that as long as the U.S. and Israel’s aggression continues, then not one drop of oil will pass out of the Persian Gulf. If French warships try to enter the Gulf even as escort vessels, they will be seen as trying to break Iran’s tactical blockade. That will make them legitimate targets for Iran.

Macron qualified his armada plan as happening when the conflict subsides. That hardly sounds like a forthright act of bravery, more like hedging your bets.

What the French leader is doing is engaging in a vanity contest. Notably, the British Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, has been ridiculed by Donald Trump as “not being Winston Churchill” over his dithering to send military support. The British press has noted that Macron was trolling British weakness and “rubbing our noses in it”. The visit to Cyprus – which still has colonial links with London – was aimed at showing up the British as ineffective, unlike the chivalrous French coming to the rescue.

Macron is also attempting to sideline Germany’s Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who was in the White House last week, sucking up to Trump by avowing Berlin’s support against Iran. There has been a long-running ill feeling in Paris that Germany is becoming too big for its boots militarily. Macron is endeavoring to don the mantle of European leadership by declaring the defense of interests in the Persian Gulf.

The blunt truth is that Europe and France in particular are a non-entity. The EU is a mess because it has been a pathetic vassal to the United States, cutting itself off from Russian energy and damaging its economies. Now that oil is being cut off from the Persian Gulf and oil prices are heading above $100 per barrel, the Europeans are hit with a double whammy – all because of their subservience to Washington.

Macron’s strutting around the Charles de Gaulle to the strains of the Marseillaise is just theatrics to contrive looking as if he is doing something.

Another vanity factor is the major loss of the French warplane deal with Colombia last week.

For years, the French have been bidding for the sale of their Rafale fighter jets to the South American country. At the last minute, Colombia canceled the purchase and opted instead for Swedish Gripen jets. The loss is huge, amounting to €3 billion for French revenue and thousands of manufacturing jobs. But even more than that, the knock-on effect is a serious setback to French ambitions to crack the strategic Latin American market.

As soon as the news of the Colombia setback was announced, Macron took to nationwide television with his plans to send the Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier and its squadron of Rafale jets.

This is Macron compensating for being jilted by Colombia and the potential damage to France’s military reputation and future sales of its Rafale. He is using the Persian Gulf as an advertising platform for the French military.

The mobilizing of French sea and air assets is less about “defending” Europe and more about boosting national ego and Macron’s self-image as a reincarnation of Napoleon or De Gaulle.

Macron’s folly could see him getting France and Europe dragged into a disastrous war instigated by Trump and the genocidal Israeli regime.

Iran has warned that France or any other European involvement in the war will not be viewed as neutral. France, Britain, and Germany have fanned this war by their duplicity and pandering to the United States and Israel. Macron’s vanity is an added dangerous factor for escalating the conflict and the catastrophic impact on the global economy.

If Macron and the Europeans had any moral fibre, they should be condemning the U.S. and Israeli aggression against Iran, not exploiting it for self-aggrandizement.

March 12, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Comments Off on Macron’s aircraft carrier and warplanes to the Persian Gulf is a dangerous vanity project

Department of War Using Palantir AI to Pick Targets in Iran

By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | March 11, 2026

The Pentagon is using an Artificial Intelligence system developed by Palantir to select targets in Iran. Some members of Congress are considering legislation to place restrictions and safeguards on the Department of War’s use of AI.

Two Congressional sources speaking with NBC News confirmed the use of Palantir’s AI for targeting and the potential bill. “AI tools aren’t 100% reliable — they can fail in subtle ways and yet operators continue to over-trust them,” said Rep. Sara Jacobs.

“We have a responsibility to enforce strict guardrails on the military’s use of AI and guarantee a human is in the loop in every decision to use lethal force, because the cost of getting it wrong could be devastating for civilians and the service members carrying out these missions,” she added.

None of the members of Congress who spoke with NBC News wanted to prevent the Pentagon from using AI in the targeting process. The Department of War has claimed that humans remain the final decision makers on what the US military will target.

AI targeting has become increasingly common in warfare. The US has used AI to help Ukraine identify targets, and Israel relied extensively on AI systems to determine who and what to bomb in Gaza.

Central Command (CENTCOM) claims that US forces have hit more than 5,500 targets in Iran. The US has already bombed a number of civilian targets in Iran, including Shajarah Tayyebeh elementary school. That strike killed at least 175 people, mostly children and their parents.

Palantir’s targeting system, dubbed Maven, relies on Anthropic’s Claude. Anthropic has demanded that its AI not be used for targeting or mass surveillance, leading to retaliation from the White House.

Anthropic and Palantir did not comment on the story.

March 11, 2026 Posted by | War Crimes | , , | Comments Off on Department of War Using Palantir AI to Pick Targets in Iran

American bases do not protect – they attack the peoples of the Persian Gulf

By Eduardo Vasco | Strategic Culture Foundation | March 11, 2026

“Our success will continue to hinge on America’s military power and the credibility of our assurances to our allies and partners in the Middle East.”

These were the words spoken in December 2013 by the Secretary of Defense of the Obama administration, Chuck Hagel, to the countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council. That reinforced the historical guarantees given by Washington to its puppets, reaffirming the deceptive propaganda that the United States is the guardian of global security.

Promises like that are made by every administration, whether Democrat or Republican. Twelve years later, Donald Trump would reinforce that mantra again, addressing Qatar specifically: “The United States shall regard any armed attack on the territory (…) of Qatar as a threat to the peace and security of the United States.” According to Trump, the United States would respond to attacks against Qatar with “all lawful and appropriate measures,” “including militarily.”

Israel had just bombed Doha, targeting Hamas leaders. The entire speech by the president of the United States was completely hollow: the Patriot systems acquired for 10 billion dollars in the 2012 agreement, together with a new acquisition of Patriot and NASAMS systems for more than 2 billion dollars in 2019, did not intercept the Israeli bombardment. And the United States did not consider that attack a “threat to the peace and security of the United States” — on the contrary, they turned a blind eye to it.

Qatar hosts the U.S. Central Command, the U.S. Air Force and the British Royal Air Force at Al-Udeid Air Base, built with more than 8 billion dollars invested by the Qatari government. None of this has protected the Qatari people. Iran’s retaliation for the U.S.–Israel aggression revealed that the base itself (the largest U.S. military installation in the Middle East) is a fragile target: it was struck by a missile on the 3rd, which likely damaged or destroyed the AN/FPS-132 early-warning radar, one of the most important sensors in the U.S. missile defense system, valued at about $1.1 billion. Satellite images suggest significant damage to the equipment, which could compromise the ability to detect ballistic missiles at long distances.

In 2017, Saudi Arabia spent $110 billion on U.S. military equipment in an agreement that foresees spending more than $350 billion by next year — including Patriot and THAAD systems. Apparently, this enormous expenditure is not guaranteeing fully secure protection. Despite important interceptions in the current war, the U.S. government instructed part of its personnel to flee Saudi Arabia to protect themselves — which reveals that even the United States does not trust the defensive capability it sells to others. In fact, in the early hours of the 3rd, two drones struck the U.S. embassy in Riyadh and, two days earlier, U.S. soldiers were also targeted.

Since 1990, Gulf countries have spent nearly $500 billion purchasing weapons and protection systems from the United States, according to data from the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA), the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) database and reports from the Congressional Research Service (CRS). The construction and maintenance of defense infrastructure by the United States is almost entirely financed by the host countries. All of this is being blown apart by the legitimate Iranian retaliation.

The ineffectiveness of the protection provided by the United States had already been demonstrated in last year’s war, but also by the launches from Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis toward Israel, which shattered the myth surrounding the Iron Dome. In a certain sense, the success of many of those attacks represented a humiliation for the all-powerful American arms industry. The several MQ-9 Reaper drones shot down by the Yemenis represented losses amounting to $200 million — the drones used by the Houthis to shoot down the American aircraft cost an insignificant fraction to produce.

The ineffectiveness of American protection also reveals the extremely low quality of the products of its military complex. This complex is dominated by a small handful of monopolies such as Lockheed Martin and Raytheon which, without competitors and with clients subservient to the American government, see no need to make the maximum effort to produce weapons and systems of unsurpassable quality. Finally, corruption runs rampant in this field, and inferior peoples such as those of the Gulf do not deserve to consume products of the same quality as those destined for America — apparently their regimes are willing to pay dearly for anything.

Iran, with all its experience of more than four decades dealing with aggression, has known how to use these vulnerabilities very well. Leaders at the highest levels of the Iranian state publicly insist that peace in the Middle East is impossible while U.S. bases remain operational in the region. Saeed Khatibzadeh, Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister, stated, “We have no option but to put an end to the existence of American presence in the Persian Gulf area.” These appeals are certainly circulating in neighboring countries — both among the general population and within the armed and political forces.

The Persian nation is not only attacking military installations but also strategic targets that affect the nerve center of the Gulf countries’ economies: the energy industry — in retaliation for the bombings of its own oil infrastructure by the United States and Israel. These Iranian attacks place even greater pressure on the puppet regimes of imperialism to do something to stop their masters. The obvious solution would be to prevent the use of their territory for aggression against Iran, which would necessarily imply closing the military bases.

Although all these countries are dictatorships that repress any dissent, as the suffering of the civilian population increases, popular discontent may become uncontrollable. Their rulers know this and are already racking their brains to find a safe way out of this potentially explosive situation.

Will the peoples of these countries swallow all the lying propaganda that their regimes — fed by the lie industry of the United States and Israel — try to tell them, that Iran is the aggressor and responsible for the attacks? But why do the United States build missile launch bases so close to residential neighborhoods? Clearly, just like the Israelis, this is not a “moral” and “ethical” army: those people exist to serve as human shields for American soldiers. The logic of protection is inverted: it is not U.S. anti-aircraft systems that serve to protect the Saudi, Emirati or Qatari people — it is these second-class citizens who must die to protect the occupying forces.

Moreover, U.S. military bases frequently house soldiers responsible for crimes against local populations. This became explicit during the Iraq War. For example, the rape of a 14-year-old girl named Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi, followed by her murder and the killing of her family after soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division invaded her house in Mahmudiya in 2004. Or the rapes documented over years during the invasion of Iraq, together with the practice of sexual exploitation and prostitution carried out in areas near American military installations such as Balad Air Base, used by the 4th Infantry Division.

On the 1st, U.S. Marines killed at least nine protesters who attempted to storm the American consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, in protest against the criminal aggression against Iran that had already massacred about 150 girls in an Iranian school the previous day. This is what imperialist presence in the countries of the Middle East, Central Asia, Africa and Latin America serves for: to rape, murder and use the natives themselves as human shields, not to protect them.

How long will it take before they rise up against this true military occupation? Probably not long.

March 11, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , | Comments Off on American bases do not protect – they attack the peoples of the Persian Gulf

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »