Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Trump’s ’Project Freedom’ just got blown out of the water. What now?

By Martin Jay | Strategic Culture Foundation | May 6, 2026

The escalation trap seems to be pulling Donald Trump deeper and deeper into the quicksand of the Iran war. Following Iran’s strike on a UAE oil terminal, Trump has had to back down and “pause” his plan to create a military escort that would chaperone oil tankers through the Straits of Hormuz. Project Freedom, according to the president’s own social media posts, has been suspended before it even started as Trump struggles to find more smoke-and-mirror tactics to fool a gullible American public that the war in Iran has been “won”. Eight times, in fact.

But it’s easy to see how Trump is getting pulled about by various players and may still be clinging onto the idea of some sort of military manoeuvre in the Persian Gulf. I have previously speculated that I don’t believe he will launch a second strike, but an attempt at landing on an island and installing US soldiers there must still be something he is considering. And since the Iranian strike on the UAE, something extraordinary has happened that will now lodge this idea further in his head—that such a plan might work. The UAE just went out on a limb and beefed up its relations to a whole new level with Israel, even beyond the special status it had as being the Zionist entity’s only solid partner in the entire GCC. After the strike on its oil terminal, news flooded social media that the UAE was planning a retaliatory strike and has teamed up militarily with Israel. This is significant on many levels, as not only does it create a clear dividing line between itself and other GCC countries that would like to make a statement to Iran that they are not its enemy, but it also positions the UAE as a major target for Tehran, and so the move is incredibly risky, if not foolish for its elite in Abu Dhabi. It is almost as though they are prepared to destroy everything the country has accomplished in fifty years as an economic miracle of the entire region just to make the point that signing the Abraham Accords was, in fact, not an egregious error on their part. Israel or nothing.

And so the strategy of Israel is shifting from convincing America that it needs to take huge collateral losses, both militarily and in terms of human life, to now convincing the UAE. But do Abu Dhabi’s rulers have the guts to take on Iran head-on? Can they take the losses of life and the destruction of their infrastructure that is inevitable? One can only imagine that the Israelis have turned on the charm and sweet-talked its rulers into the fantasy zone that Trump was dragged into. Perhaps Trump himself has played a minor but important role as well, as it cannot be a coincidence that just a week earlier he commented to journalists that the US should consider compensating the UAE for the damage caused by Iran’s strikes. Of course all this is linked, and we shouldn’t consider it a coincidence that the UAE has just made the decision on a capricious whim.

Trump’s idea of taking an island in the Persian Gulf and the UAE now making a military alliance with Israel are all part of the same doomed blueprint, which must be bringing new levels of joy to Tehran, whose leaders can hardly believe their luck. They will be thinking, “We’ll destroy Dubai and Abu Dhabi and then watch their rulers beg for mercy, while the whole GCC gives in to whatever demands we have, including rule over the straits.”

Trump’s idea of taking an island is probably his most stupid yet and may well be the brainchild of Israel’s military planners. It’s dumb on so many levels, but it’s easy to see how it is appealing in that it is feasible to install US troops on one of the many islands the UAE claims Iran took from them. Iran would probably allow the operation to go ahead anyway, as allowing the US to install itself on an island would be the perfect way to hold them hostage. Even from a logistical point of view the idea is doomed. It is one thing to put US troops on an island but quite another to supply them. The Iranians could simply block US ships and planes supplying them once they are there and have set up their base. Troops need food, water, and equipment just to function. The military planners who came up with the idea are probably thinking that such an island could be a base to launch operations from, but have not figured that Iran will be one step ahead and will not allow the second part of this plan to bear fruit. And so the island idea will blow up in the faces of those who signed it off, as the soldiers will effectively be hostages to be paraded on social media platforms every day while it is Iran, out of an act of decency, who will be feeding them—unless Tehran is so enraged by a strike on its energy infrastructure that it decides to kill them all to send a message to the US and Israel. It’s all madness. But the problem with such madness having got to this stage is that the only solution seems to be more madness. Trump, Israel, and now the UAE are all fighting fire with fire, and ironically it is the UAE—the only country in the region that had, at one point, quite cordial relations with Iran—that could have been the diplomatic conduit to finding a peaceful solution. The UAE, which has a huge Iranian community in Dubai, could have been the one country to have stopped the madness and to have brokered peace given its unique relations with both Israel and Iran, and yet it chose not to. This is the escalation trap, as Professor Bob Pape calls it, and it just took its latest victim in Abu Dhabi.

May 6, 2026 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on Trump’s ’Project Freedom’ just got blown out of the water. What now?

Rubio ‘lying’: Cuba slams denial of US blockade; claims debunked

Al Mayadeen | May 6, 2026

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio rejected accusations that Washington is enforcing an oil blockade on Cuba, instead attributing the island’s deepening energy crisis and blackouts to the end of Venezuelan subsidized oil shipments and internal mismanagement.

Speaking publicly, Rubio said, “Here’s what’s happening with Cuba, okay? Cuba used to get free oil from Venezuela. They would take like 60% of that oil and resell it for cash. It wouldn’t even go to benefit the people. So the only blockade that’s happened is … the Venezuelans have decided we’re not giving you free oil anymore.”

Rubio further criticized Cuba’s leadership, stating, “The reason that I can’t fix it is not just because they’re communist. That’s bad enough, but they’re incompetent communists.”

His remarks come amid a worsening fuel and electricity crisis on the island, where oil imports have fallen sharply. Venezuela had previously supplied Cuba with subsidized crude, reportedly up to 100,000 barrels per month, under a barter system in which Havana sent medical personnel in return. That arrangement collapsed following the US-backed ouster of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in early 2026, cutting off a key energy lifeline.

Rubio’s comments also contrast with reports and assessments pointing to US sanctions and restrictions as a major factor in the island’s energy shortages, with measures targeting entities involved in supplying fuel to Cuba.

Trump admin statements casually doing backflips

Additionally, all the way back in January, the Trump administration was considering new measures aimed at forcing political change in Cuba, including the possibility of a “full blockade on oil imports to the island,” three sources familiar with the discussions told Politico.

US President Donald Trump signed an executive order threatening tariffs on countries exporting fuel to Cuba, prompting suppliers such as Mexico to halt shipments. Reports indicate that only one tanker has reached Cuba in the past four months, contributing to widespread blackouts, school closures, and growing public protests.

According to people familiar with the matter and cited by Politico, Marco Rubio at the time even backed this decision, being a vehement critic of the Cuban government.

Cuba slams US denial as ‘lies’

Cuba’s Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez dismissed Rubio’s current statements as “lying”, accusing Washington of intensifying pressure on the island as it faces historically low oil imports and a worsening humanitarian situation.

“He has simply chosen to lie. He contradicts the President and the White House spokeswoman,”  Rodriguez wrote on X.

Citing the US president’s January 29, 2026, Executive Order that threatened to impose tariffs on any country exporting fuels to Cuba, he said, “It is impossible to hide the truth.”

“After four months, only one fuel tanker has arrived in Cuba. All our suppliers are being intimidated and threatened in violation of the rules that govern free trade and freedom of navigation.”

“The new Executive Order issued on May 1st establishes secondary sanctions in the field of energy. The Secretary knows only too well the harm and hardships that is being caused by the criminal oil siege that he himself suggested the President to impose on the Cuban people.”

It is worth observing that back in 2024, the United Nations General Assembly had, for the 32nd consecutive year, voted overwhelmingly in favor of a resolution calling for an end to the US blockade on Cuba, with only the US and “Israel” opposing the measure.

Only the US and “Israel” have been so insistent for years on this blockade, while framing it as something that the Cubans themselves have been asking for, and then turn around and blame Venezuela for it.

Trump threatens immediate US takeover of Cuba

Only a few days ago, Trump stated that Washington could move to take control of Cuba “almost immediately”, in remarks signaling a sharp escalation in the long-standing hostile US rhetoric toward the Caribbean island.

Speaking at an event in Florida last Friday, Trump said, “Cuba, which we will be taking over almost immediately,” adding that “Cubans got problems.”

The US president outlined a potential show of force involving a US aircraft carrier, indicating that such a move could compel Cuba to submit without direct conflict.

“On the way back from Iran, we’ll have one of our big, maybe the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier, the biggest in the world, we’ll have that come in, stop about 100 yards offshore,” he said.

He further claimed that the presence of such military force alone would force a rapid capitulation. “They’ll say ‘thank you very much. We give up,’” Trump added, concluding: “I like to finish a job.”

The reference to the USS Abraham Lincoln highlights Washington’s reliance on naval power projection as a central tool in its strategy.

Earlier in April, sources told USA Today that US defense officials were moving forward with plans to potentially conduct military operations against Cuba.

May 6, 2026 Posted by | Deception | , , , | Comments Off on Rubio ‘lying’: Cuba slams denial of US blockade; claims debunked

Trump’s Self-Serving Narrative Crashes Against the Reality of War

By Ted Snider | The Libertarian Institute | May 6, 2026

Within a few days at the end of March, Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky made two claims. He revealed that Russia had given him two months to withdraw all forces from areas still under its control in Donbas, or Russia would take it by force and change the terms of the settlement. Russia said that was not true.

And he said that the United States had conditioned security guarantees on Ukraine withdrawing from Donbas. “That’s a lie,” U.S. Secretary of State and National Security Advisor Marco Rubio said. “I don’t know why he says these things; they’re just not true.”

That Zelensky was constructing a false narrative about the war does not bother him because he is not trying to reflect reality; he is trying to reshape reality. With Russia’s military acquisition of Donbas appearing increasingly inevitable, American peace plans conceding it, and Ukrainians increasingly accepting it, Zelensky’s survival depends on crafting a narrative in which he did not betray the nationalists or his promise but had no choice but to surrender Donbas because he was forced by both his enemy and his supporter.

In another war, in another part of the world, another president is doing the same thing. All Iran has to do to end the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, President Donald Trump said last week is to “cry uncle, that’s all they have to do. Just say, ‘We give up.” It doesn’t matter if they really give up: they just have to say it.

Trump’s team is crafting a narrative that provides them with an off ramp to a war they have lost that tells the story of a war they have won.

The U.S. had no legal reason for its war on Iran, and what publicly stated reasons they had were forever shifting. But there seem to have been four key goals:

  1. Regime change.
  2. Removing Iran’s ballistic missile program.
  3. Severing Iran from its forward deterrent network, or proxies.
  4. Zero enrichment of uranium.

Trump has repeatedly identified regime change as a key goal of the war. He has called for it, and he has explicitly said it is “time to look for new leadership in Iran.” The promised change in regime did not occur. The narrative response to that reality has taken two forms. First, Trump simply rewrote history and said regime change was never the goal: “regime change was not our goal. We never said regime change.”

Second, Trump and his team simply continuously repeated that there had been regime change when there had not, as if saying it made it so. Aboard Air Force One on March 30, Trump told reporters that “We’ve had regime change.” One week later, he posted that “we have Complete and Total Regime Change.”

There has been no regime change. Following the assassination of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the regime underwent a seamless transition to his son, Mojtaba Khamenei, though he was specifically declared unacceptable by Trump. That is the opposite of regime change; that is regime continuity. Mojtaba Khamenei is a hardliner who was a close advisor to his father. He has been a core part of the regime, and his selection represents a preservation of, and not a change from, the regime.

Other new leaders who replaced the old, assassinated leaders, also represent regime continuity and survival. Ali Larijani’s replacement as secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, Mohammad Bagher Zolghadr, is a former commander of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps who has served in government since the days of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He is very close to Mojtaba Khamenei and has always been aligned with the hardliners in the political establishment.

When you spend $25-35 billion, destroy a country, kill thousands of people, devastate the environment, damage the United Nations, discredit international law and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and irreparably wound relations with your European and NATO allies to bring about a regime change that never materialized, just say it did. You might remember another U.S. administration in another U.S. war, saying “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality.”

As part of his checklist of goals that have been accomplished by the war, Donald Trump has repeatedly included that Iran’s “missiles are just about used up or beaten.” Trump says Iran’s military has been “beaten and completely decimated.” Secretary of War Pete Hegseth says Iran’s ballistic missile program has been “functionally destroyed.” That’s not true.

Many of Iran’s missile stockpiles were protected deep underground and were untouched by American strikes. Some that were struck were actually dummy decoys. Many of the ballistic missile launchers that were hit were repaired and reactivated within hours. Hegseth now concedes that Iran is “digging out” its struck missiles and launchers. U.S. intelligence and the military assess that Iran still has at least 60% of its missile launchers, nearly half of its missiles, and 40% of its attack drones.

And they are very capable of hitting their targets and doing damage. U.S. bases in the region suffered a degree of damage thought unthinkable before the war and have been rendered uninhabitable. Radar systems, air defense systems, and aircraft were damaged and destroyed. And recent reporting reveals that the actual damage they sustained far exceeds what has been reported.

The reality falls far short of the narrative and calls into question, not just the claim that the U.S. has won this war, but its ability to win a future war against a real power, like China.

The Trump team’s narrative has consistently told a tale of Iran’s forward deterrent network of proxies being “crushed,” amputating Iran’s ability to reach into the region. Contrary to the narrative, the surprising reality is that Iran’s proxies and partners have survived and are far more resilient, capable and integrated than the United States believed. Hezbollah has launched sophisticated missiles that the U.S. believed they no longer possessed at a rate greater than they have ever launched before. Iraqi militias are launching drone strikes on U.S. bases in the region. The Houthis entered the war and launched several barrages of missiles, some carried out in coordination with Iranian missile strikes.

The primary goal of the war on Iran was the final death of Iran’s nuclear weapons program. “There will never be a deal unless they agree that there will never be nuclear weapons,” Trump said again last week.

That nuclear narrative is the central lie in the justification of the war. Iran has never pursued a nuclear weapon. Washington knows that. The 2022 U.S. Department of Defense Nuclear Posture Review concluded that “Iran does not today possess a nuclear weapon and we currently believe it is not pursuing one.” That assessment was repeated in the 2025 Annual Threat Assessment that clearly states that U.S. intelligence “continue[s] to assess Iran is not building a nuclear weapon.” As recently as March 18, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard told a Senate Intelligence Committee that since the June bombings, “there has been no efforts [sic]…to try to rebuild their enrichment capability.” All Iran has done is insist on their right—like so many other countries—as a signatory to the NPT to enrich uranium for civilian purposes. And that is all they have ever done.

Trump was handed a mechanism for ensuring Iran could never build a nuclear bomb in the form of the 2015 JCPOA nuclear agreement, which Iran was honoring and which was working. Trump was the author of the current problem because he illegally pulled out of the agreement.

There has been zero progress in negotiations toward forcing Iran to terminate its civilian enrichment program. As at the start of the war, the right to enrich continues to be an absolute red line for Iran.

Trump’s vocabulary alters the narrative. The most concerning 970 pounds of 60% highly enriched uranium is rendered insignificant by renaming it “nuclear dust.”

Trump’s narrative not only renders the highly enriched uranium insignificant, it renders it irrelevant. He doesn’t really care about it because it is “so far underground,” the Americans can watch it, and the Iranians can’t get it. “I had one goal,” Trump said, “They will have no nuclear weapon, and that goal has been attained.”

At times, Iran’s enriched uranium is insignificant, at times it is irrelevant, and at other times it is resolved. According to Trump’s narrative, Iran has already agreed to hand over all of its enriched uranium. “They’ve agreed to give us back the nuclear dust,” he said. The reality, of course, is that, though Trump says it, Iran has agreed to no such thing.

Iran still possesses a quantity of its enriched uranium. More importantly, it still possesses advanced scientific knowledge of how to enrich uranium and the legal right to do so. Most importantly, despite starving sanctions and the most lethal bombing the U.S. can deliver, protecting its right to enrich uranium for civilian purposes remains a redline that the U.S. has been unable to erase.

That is the reality. The rest is fiction: a narrative fiction crafted by Trump’s team to give them a way to tell an angry and betrayed public that they won the war when none of the goals—and all of the nightmares—have been achieved.

Though it may have cost $40-50 billion and used up half of its critical munitions, it is not a war but an “excursion.” Aspects of operation “Epic Fury” are rebranded for a public that is no longer buying it as “Project Freedom.”

And in an act of outrageous sophistry, it turns out that none of this matters because there isn’t a war. Seeking to circumvent the demand of the War Powers Resolution to receive permission from Congress to wage war after sixty days of troops being deployed, On May 1, Trump notified Congress that “hostilities” against Iran “have terminated.” Erase Trump’s threats, and the ships, aircraft and tens of thousand of troops in the region. Erase the fact that the U.S. blockade of the Strait of Hormuz is an act of war under international law and that the U.S. fired on an Iranian flagged ship only days ago. Erase that the day before, Trump was briefed by CENTCOM on new plans for potential military action against Iran and that, days later, U.S. forces sank seven Iranian boats.

This is reality. But the reality is erased by a narrative fiction crafted by the Trump team in which the war is over because they define it as over. So, none of this matters any longer because the war is over.

This article was originally delivered as a speech at the West Suburban Peace Coalition Educational Forum on May 4, 2026.

May 6, 2026 Posted by | Deception, Wars for Israel | , , , | Comments Off on Trump’s Self-Serving Narrative Crashes Against the Reality of War

‘Project Freedom’ perishes in 48 hours as Trump retreats under the wall of Iran’s asymmetric deterrence

Press TV | May 6, 2026

In a dramatic and entirely predictable turn of events, US President Donald Trump early on Wednesday announced the immediate suspension of “Project Freedom,” the high-stakes naval offensive launched 48 hours ago with the stated goal of forcing open the Strait of Hormuz.

This is not an isolated tactical pause, as he wants the world to believe, but the third strategic retreat by the United States in less than a month – a sequence of capitulations that reveals a profound and irreversible shift in the balance of power in the Persian Gulf.

The first retreat was the ceasefire following the devastating 40-day full-scale war against Iran, in which the US-Israeli war machine failed to achieve even a single strategic objective.

The second retreat was the unilateral extension of that ceasefire after the first round of Islamabad negotiations. The third, and most telling, is the suspension of an operation whose very continuation would have inevitably reignited full-scale Iranian retaliation.

At its core, this decision exposes a singular, undeniable truth: Trump has belatedly realized that he holds no cards, no good options, no viable coalition, and no appetite for the catastrophic confrontation to challenge Iran’s legal sovereignty over the strategic waterway

The quiet abandonment of the so-called “Project Freedom” is not a strategic pivot, but a crushing defeat. It marks yet another failure for the US war machine, following closely on the heels of the 40-day war imposed on the Islamic Republic, and confirms that the era of unilateral American naval intimidation in the Persian Gulf is effectively over.

The immediate and decisive Iranian response

The suspension of the so-called “Project Freedom” was not born of American goodwill, but of raw, immediate, and overpowering Iranian military deterrence.

Within hours of its commencement 48 hours ago, Iran’s armed forces delivered a response that was as calculated as it was lethal in its messaging. Serious warning shots were directed squarely at US warships – a level of direct confrontation that Washington has historically sought to avoid.

Furthermore, the targeting of a South Korean vessel that violated the new maritime rules defined by the Islamic Republic served as an unambiguous signal: Iran will enforce its sovereign rights with kinetic action. Finally, a clear and serious ultimatum issued to the United Arab Emirates shattered any illusion that the war could be contained to international waters.

Iran showed that it will not cower under the shadow of American airpower. It is fully prepared for, and in some ways inviting, a decisive engagement. The message was unmistakable: Iran would not merely defend the Strait of Hormuz, but it would hunt aggressors within it.

The speed and severity of this response forced the war hawks in the Pentagon into a defensive crouch, demonstrating that the threshold for Iranian retaliation is far lower – and far more dangerous – than Washington had anticipated.

Perhaps the most ingenious move was the sudden, asymmetric expansion of the war’s geography. Extension of the definition of the Strait of Hormuz to encompass the entire territory of the UAE, specifically designating the port of Fujairah as lying within the Strait’s operational limits, is deemed a masterstroke of strategic redefinition.

For the US and its allies, this has come as an unexpected shock. The port of Fujairah, located on the Gulf of Oman outside the narrow choke point of the Strait of Hormuz, had long been considered a secure fallback. But the dynamics have changed now.

The impotence of American intimidation

The 48 hours of the doomed “Project Freedom” laid bare a critical strategic reality: America has completely lost its ability to intimidate Iran. The torrent of threats that emanated from Washington – warnings of “unmatched force” and “severe consequences” – landed on Tehran with the weight of a spent cartridge.

For Iran’s armed forces, American threats, regardless of their hyperbolic grandeur, no longer constitute actionable intelligence and execution. They are now understood as little more than psychological operations and media theater.

With this premature suspension, the US implicitly confessed that it still fears the risk of re-entering a war with Iran, particularly after the harrowing experience of the 40-day war.

This fear is not abstract but rooted in the traumatic memory of Iran’s deadly strikes against American forces and their allies during those 40 days, impacts whose full scale and intensity remain deliberately under-disclosed by the Pentagon.

The psychological scar tissue from those engagements is so deep that Washington has been forced to abandon all its prior claims regarding “Epic Fury.” US Secretary of State Marco Rubio confirmed that the operation had ended – without anything in hand.

That campaign is effectively over. The US has declared, through its actions, that it will not risk a conventional military exchange with an Iran that has proven willing to draw blood. The credibility of American military threats has essentially evaporated.

The Pakistani intermediary – A pretext for surrender

Perhaps the most humiliating detail of this episode is the official reason offered for the suspension of the 48-hour offensive. According to Trump’s own social media post, the decision to halt “Project Freedom” came in response to a request from the army chief of Pakistan.

Let that sink in. A self-styled “superpower,” possessing the largest and most technologically advanced navy in history, abandons a prestigious military operation – one framed as vital to global energy security – at the behest of a foreign military commander.

This transparent pretext reveals two deeper truths. First, the US is in a state of urgent, almost frantic, need for negotiations with Iran. As became evident during Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi’s recent trip to Pakistan, the Americans are not just open to talks, but they are counting the moments to re-engage.

Second, the Trump administration is willing to seize upon the smallest request from any intermediary – even one as peripheral as a Pakistani general – to manufacture an exit ramp from a disastrous escalation.

The eagerness for a diplomatic off-ramp is directly proportional to the fear of war. America is not stepping back out of generosity but out of terror at the alternative.

The lonely superpower – No coalition for war

In essence, the failure of “Project Freedom” was sealed long before the first warning shot was fired. It was sealed when America discovered that it was entirely alone and cornered.

Shipping companies, the lifeblood of global trade, ignored the American proposal. Insurance firms, the arbiters of risk, refused to underwrite vessels sailing under the American flag in the troubled zone. Key regional allies, fearful of Iranian retaliation on their own soil and economic infrastructure, distanced themselves from the American offensive.

The American Empire is no longer capable of forming a coalition to open the Strait of Hormuz. Its scenario-planning has devolved into solitary fantasizing. This isolation is not a temporary diplomatic hiccup, but a structural reality.

The world’s biggest navies and commercial fleets have observed Iran’s previous responses and concluded that the cost of aligning with Washington exceeds any conceivable benefit. Trump finds himself commanding a fleet of one.

The triple crossroads: Trump’s impossible choices

Now, after this third and latest retreat, the most humiliating one, Trump stands at a very dangerous triple crossroads. Each path is clogged with thorns. He can choose to continue the war – an effectively impossible option, given the lack of coalition support and the certainty of Iranian asymmetric retaliation.

He can choose to accept Iran’s principles for ending the war – an option that would represent a total strategic surrender. Or he can choose to continue the naval blockade and await results.

The blockade is a particularly ambiguous gamble for Trump. On one hand, he urgently needs time to stabilize global energy markets before the upcoming meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping and the November midterm congressional elections.

The volatility of oil prices is a political enemy he cannot afford. On the other hand, it is entirely unclear – and virtually impossible – that continuing the blockade will force Iran to submit. All evidence from the past two months suggests the opposite: the blockade is hardening Iran’s resolve, not breaking it. Trump is trapped in a cycle where inaction hurts his domestic timetable, and action guarantees a wider war. He has no good options because he holds no cards.

Negotiations to end the war: Iran’s non-negotiable principles

With the back-and-forth exchange of draft principles now underway, under the Pakistani mediation, it is essential to clarify the fundamental and obvious conditions Iran has laid out to end the war. These are not bargaining points but structural realities of a new Persian Gulf order.

Iran’s sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz: Iran’s management of the strategic waterway, even after the war, is permanent. This is not about temporary wartime measures. Iran must guarantee its own security in the Persian Gulf, a right that includes obtaining material compensation from vessel passage.

The recent wars have proven that the Strait has been used to equip and strengthen Iran’s enemy. Therefore, enforcing Iranian rules is a natural act of self-defense. Furthermore, effective sovereignty over the Strait can nullify the effects of sanctions.

The Strait is not a bargaining chip but an undeniable right of the Iranian nation. As the Leader of the Islamic Revolution has clarified, Iran’s new management of this strategic waterway is permanent and non-negotiable. There will be no return to the pre-war status quo.

Withdrawal of American forces: The complete withdrawal of American military forces from the Persian Gulf region is a definitive requirement. As the aggressor and perpetrator of unprovoked and devastating war against Iran, the US presence is the only remaining obstacle to peace.

As long as these forces remain in the region, the shadow of war will persist.

Reparations for damages: Iran’s damages from the third imposed war and before that the 12-day war represent an undeniable right of the Iranian nation. Every single Iranian citizen has been harmed by American aggression. Any shortfall in achieving this condition is unacceptable.

Inclusion of the Resistance Front: The terms of ending the ongoing war must include Iran’s allies on the resistance front, especially in Lebanon. This does not negate the right to legitimate resistance against occupation; rather, it codifies the reality that Iran’s security architecture is regional. Any peace that ignores Iran’s partners is no peace at all.

Negotiation from the position of victory: Iran’s post-war doctrine

The collapse of the so-called “Project Freedom” effectively closes the military chapter. What opens now is the diplomatic one – but on Iran’s terms alone. As the new doctrine makes clear, negotiation has no intrinsic value. Only its achievable objectives matter.

First, negotiation is only acceptable if it prevents the repeat of a new war of aggression, not causes it. After repeated American betrayals, Iran will not accept talks that merely delay the next war. The bar is absolute and clear – enduring peace or nothing.

Second, Iran negotiates from the position of the victorious party in the third full-scale imposed war. The goal is not to restore the pre-war status quo but to secure additional concessions not previously held, which includes full sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz, expulsion of all American forces from the region, and protection of the resistance front.

Third, reparations are not a concession but a basic and inviolable right. The aggressor must pay for the damages of the imposed war. This is non-negotiable.

Fourth, any concession in any domain is forbidden. The enemy is defeated by all accounts. To concede what the enemy failed to win on the battlefield – whether in the 40-day war or the 12-day war before that – would be to validate its aggression.

Inalienable Iranian rights, including nuclear and defense capabilities, are entirely off the table.

Fifth, concessions guarantee future war. If the US learns it can extract through talks what it could not take by force, it will launch another war. Each retreat from an Iranian right is a green light for the next catastrophe – more martyrs, more disasters like the Minab school massacre.

Sixth, the current negotiation must achieve 100 percent of its objectives. Without full realization of Iran’s goals, no further negotiation of any kind will happen. There would be no phased deals, or interim frameworks, or endless talks without result.

May 6, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on ‘Project Freedom’ perishes in 48 hours as Trump retreats under the wall of Iran’s asymmetric deterrence

Israel threatens Gaza flotilla activists with death after abduction

Press TV – May 5, 2026

Israeli forces have threatened two Gaza-bound humanitarian flotilla activists, seized in international waters last week, with death or long prison terms, according to a rights group representing them.

The two pro-Palestinian activists, Saif Abu Keshek and Thiago Avila, were among dozens detained during an Israeli raid on the Gaza-bound Global Sumud Flotilla in international waters off Greece on April 30.

On Tuesday, an Israeli court extended their detention until Sunday, May 10.

The legal rights centre Adalah, which represents the pair, said they have been subjected to psychological abuse and held in solitary confinement. According to the group, Israeli officers threatened to kill them or imprison them “for 100 years.”

Both men remain in “total isolation,” subjected to 24/7 high-intensity lighting in their cells and kept blindfolded whenever they are moved, including during medical examinations. They are also being held in very low temperatures, the group added.

Adalah said the court’s decision to prolong the detention “amounts to judicial validation of the regime’s lawlessness.” No charges have been filed, but the two face accusations including affiliation with a “terrorist organisation” and contact with “foreign agents,” which the legal centre described as “baseless.”

According to the group, the activists are continuing their hunger strike, consuming only water since their abduction.

Meanwhile, the flotilla’s organisers demanded their release in a post on X, urging the international community to intervene.

They said the activists were “forcefully brought against their will to occupied Palestine, where they have been subjected to interrogations, death threats, sleep deprivation and medical neglect.”

The governments of Spain and Brazil issued a joint statement on Friday describing the detention of Avila and Abu Keshek as illegal.

During the raid on the Global Sumud Flotilla, Israeli forces attacked 22 of the 58 aid boats heading toward the besieged Gaza Strip and detained 175 activists.

Testimonies indicate that the activists were tortured while in Israeli custody following their abduction.

May 5, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance, Subjugation - Torture | , , | Comments Off on Israel threatens Gaza flotilla activists with death after abduction

Met refuses to probe British nationals accused of war crimes in Gaza

Al Mayadeen | May 5, 2026

The Metropolitan Police has refused to open an investigation into ten British nationals accused of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity during the genocide in Gaza. According to Novara Media, the decision follows the submission of a 240-page dossier of evidence by the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights and the Public Interest Law Centre.

The Met stated that the material provided “did not meet the threshold required” to launch a formal investigation. This decision came despite support from more than 70 legal experts and proof of the targeted killing of civilians, attacks on hospitals, and the forced displacement of Palestinians involving the nationals between 2023 and 2024.

Human rights barrister Michael Mansfield KC condemned the Met’s refusal as a denial of accountability and a misapplication of legal standards, and legal representatives stressed that the police applied the wrong test by requiring evidence sufficient for prosecution before even opening an investigation.

Concerns over lack of accountability

Consequently, legal advocates have raised concerns about accountability for British dual nationals involved in the aggression against Gaza. The case has intensified debate over how UK authorities handle cases involving international crimes committed abroad by British citizens.

Raji Sourani of the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights accused the British establishment of politicizing international law and shielding perpetrators from accountability.

Human rights groups involved in the case say the refusal reflects a wider pattern of inaction by UK authorities regarding crimes in Gaza.

The Metropolitan Police decision comes amid concerns about the UK government’s approach to monitoring breaches of international law abroad. Reports have also pointed to the closure of a Foreign Office unit previously tasked with tracking such cases.

UK shuts down unit tracking Israeli violations of International Law

The Metropolitan Police decision comes amid concerns about the UK government’s approach to monitoring breaches of international law abroad.

Recently, the Foreign Office unit responsible for tracking potential breaches of international law by “Israel” in Gaza and, more recently, Lebanon has been closed as part of departmental spending cuts, according to The Guardian. The closure follows a review led by Olly Robbins, the permanent secretary at the Foreign Office, who was dismissed last week by the prime minister over the Peter Mandelson scandal.

The decision comes just weeks after Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper said that respect for international law would be a cornerstone of the department’s work under her leadership. The shutdown of the international humanitarian law cell appears to contradict that stated policy direction.

The closure also ends funding for the Conflict and Security Monitoring Project run by the Centre for Information Resilience, which carried out large-scale open-source monitoring of incidents in occupied Palestine and Lebanon. The programme was the only UK-based system collecting and analysing human rights and conflict data in these areas, supporting assessments on potential breaches of international humanitarian law and informing decisions on issues such as arms export licensing to “Israel”.

May 5, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , , | Comments Off on Met refuses to probe British nationals accused of war crimes in Gaza

Hezbollah denies activity in Syria amid persistent and false claims

Al Mayadeen | May 5, 2026

Hezbollah’s Media Relations categorically denied the false accusations issued by the Syrian Interior Ministry, which claimed to have dismantled a “Hezbollah-affiliated cell” that was planning to carry out security operations inside Syrian territory.

In a statement issued on Tuesday, Hezbollah noted the repeated accusations issued by the Syrian government despite the resistance’s consistent assertions that it maintains no activity in Syria.

It further said that the repetition of such allegations “raises serious questions and confirms that there are those seeking to ignite tension and discord between the Syrian and Lebanese peoples.”

Consequently, Hezbollah said it wishes only well for Syria and its people, and that any threat to Syria’s security would also constitute a threat to Lebanon’s security. It also reiterated that it never sought and would never seek to destabilize the security of any state, stressing that its confrontation remains against the Israeli entity and its expansionist project.

“Hezbollah has been and will remain in a defensive position in confronting the Zionist enemy and its expansionist projects, an enemy of Lebanon and Syria that occupies their lands and covets their resources and the wealth of their peoples,” the statement concluded.

Hezbollah urges vigilance 

Several statements have been issued by Syria’s transitional leadership accusing Hezbollah of operating inside its territories, which have been consistently rejected. This is also a trend that stretches beyond Syria, with recent fabricated allegations coming out of Bahrain and Kuwait.

Hezbollah has warned against such narratives, urging the countries to remain vigilant in the face of what appears to be a foreign plot to ignite tensions between Arab nations and the Axis of Resistance.

May 5, 2026 Posted by | Deception, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Comments Off on Hezbollah denies activity in Syria amid persistent and false claims

Melkite bishops concerned over Israeli demolitions in South Lebanon

Al Mayadeen | May 5, 2026

The Council of Melkite Greek Catholic Bishops in Lebanon urged on Tuesday both the Lebanese government and the United Nations to take measures to protect civilian property and religious institutions.

The bishops specifically cited Yaroun, where local officials and community representatives say a Melkite convent was destroyed earlier this month alongside other structures, describing the destruction of the buildings as “a deep wound in the national and human conscience”.

According to Christian community figures in Yaroun, the convent belonging to the Melkite tradition was bulldozed by Israeli occupation forces in southern Lebanon.

Adib Ajaka, a local Christian community leader, said the structure was part of a religious complex that also included nearby facilities. He disputed claims that the convent remained intact, stating that rubble near adjacent buildings indicated its destruction.

In turn, the French Catholic charity L’Oeuvre d’Orient condemned the “deliberate act of destruction of a place of worship and the systematic destruction of homes in southern Lebanon aimed at preventing the return of civilian populations”.

The organization called for the protection of religious heritage sites and civilian housing, warning of long-term consequences for displaced communities.

This isn’t an isolated case; the desecration of religious sanctities is a recurrent activity for Israeli forces.  From Gaza to South Lebanon, numerous videos and photos were posted by Israeli soldiers themselves showing them shooting pointlessly at mosques, desecrating churches, and destroying statues of religious figures.

Last month, a photo circulating on social media showed an Israeli occupation soldier using a sledgehammer to strike the head of a statue of Jesus on a crucifix that had fallen from a cross.

May 5, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , | Comments Off on Melkite bishops concerned over Israeli demolitions in South Lebanon

Israel’s Obliteration Ecocide from Gaza to Lebanon and Beyond

By Dan Steinbock | Palestine Chronicle | May 3, 2026

Lebanon accuses Israel of committing ecocide in country since 2023. It is an extension of Israel’s destruction of Gaza – and its obliteration doctrine.

Israeli military aggression has “reshaped both the physical and ecological landscape” of southern Lebanon, according to the Lebanese report (which does not consider the impacts of Israel’s latest barrage of attacks this spring).

In her foreword, Lebanon’s minister for the environment, Tamara el Zein, notes: “The scale and intentionality of the damage to forests, agricultural lands, marine ecosystems, water resources, and atmospheric quality constitute what must be recognized as an act of ecocide, with consequences that extend far beyond immediate destruction.”

Obliteration ecocide in Lebanon

Released by the country’s National Council for Scientific Research and presented by the environment ministry, the report accuses Israel of “ecocide” during the 2023–2024 war and subsequent escalations. It frames environmental destruction not as incidental “collateral damage” but as a systematic transformation of ecosystems.

Key findings are damning. They include:

  • 5,000 hectares of forest destroyed
  • Massive agricultural losses ($118m direct infrastructure damage; much larger indirect losses)
  • Soil contamination (including high phosphorus levels)
  • Air pollution from repeated strike cycles
  • Destruction of orchards and irrigation systems

Minister el Zein characterizes this as “intentional ecological destruction” affecting food systems, public health, and the long-term viability of southern Lebanon’s rural economy.

International reporting on the same dossier highlights an estimated total damage burden of over $25 billion when recovery costs and economic losses are included. The figure is a combined total from the assessments by the Lebanese report and the World Bank Rapid Damage and Needs Assessment (RDNA) 2025.

This framing aligns with a growing legal discourse around “ecocide” as a potential international crime, particularly where environmental damage is widespread, long-term, and strategically embedded in military operations.

It is also aligned with UN reporting on the broader Israel–Lebanon escalation, confirming extensive infrastructure destruction, civilian displacement, and strikes affecting residential areas.

As the ecocide of Gaza has gone effectively unpunished by the international community, the Netanyahu government is extending the environmental devastation into Lebanon and the proximate region.

Obliteration Doctrine in Gaza

In The Obliteration Doctrine (2025), related commentaries and excerpts, I define this doctrine as the lethal mix of scorched earth policy, collective punishment, and civilian victimization, coupled with massive indiscriminate bombardment and systematic use of artificial intelligence (AI).

The concept is vital because it connects the dots between military strategies, aerial bombardment, lethal deployment of artificial intelligence (AI) and international law, particularly the Geneva Conventions and the Genocide Convention. As Professor William Schabas, a leading scholar of genocide, notes, “the Obliteration Doctrine” “adds a new term to the lexicon on genocide, notably in the application of international law and its judicial mechanisms.”

Modern warfare in Gaza is no longer just counterinsurgency but systems-level destruction of the environmental and infrastructural substrate of life—water, soil, agriculture, energy, and urban continuity.

This interpretation overlaps with empirical reporting on Gaza’s environmental collapse:

  • Satellite analysis shows 38–48% of tree cover and farmland destroyed
  • Severe contamination of soil and groundwater
  • Large-scale destruction of greenhouses and irrigation systems
  • Air pollution from sustained bombardment and debris burning

These patterns are described in independent investigations as producing conditions of near-uninhabitability in many parts of Gaza.

Warfare is no longer bound by battlefield geography. It becomes the restructuring—or “obliteration”—of ecological systems that sustain civilian life.

Ecocide here is not merely the destruction of nature, but the destruction of life-support systems as a purposeful strategy. It is another word for cultural genocide.

Lebanon and the Gaza template

The Lebanese report and international commentary suggest strong structural parallels between Gaza and southern Lebanon operations:

  • Destruction of orchards, especially olive groves (long-lived economic ecosystems)
  • Targeting of water infrastructure and rural supply systems
  • Repeated airstrikes generating soil and atmospheric contamination
  • Displacement of civilian populations from ecologically productive zones, which can be seen as a form of ethnic cleansing

International media reports that Israel is applying a “Gaza playbook” in Lebanon: expulsion orders, infrastructure targeting, and village-level destruction patterns.

Lebanon is now an adjacent theatre where similar operational logics are extended across a different ecological terrain:

  • Gaza: dense urban-agricultural mosaic under blockade conditions
  • Southern Lebanon: dispersed agro-ecological rural system with forested and orchard economies

In both cases, ecological assets are not collateral but structurally embedded in livelihood and resistance capacity – and that makes them strategic targets under the high-intensity obliteration doctrine.

Consequences beyond Lebanon (and for Israel)

The environmental consequences of such conflict patterns are not geographically contained. Three spillover trajectories are particularly important.

First of all, regional ecological degradation. Soil contamination, wildfire damage, and agricultural collapse are not confined to strike zones. Windborne particulates, water contamination, and long-term soil chemistry changes affect broader cross-border ecosystems.

Second, economic fragility and food-system insecurity. Both Lebanon and Israel depend on regional agricultural stability and water systems. Repeated infrastructure destruction increases food import dependence, rural depopulation and long-term land degradation in border zones.

Third, internal Israeli environmental vulnerability. A less discussed but critical dimension is the simple reality that prolonged warfare conditions can feed back into Israel’s own ecological systems vis-à-vis air quality deterioration from sustained military operations, water system strain under security infrastructure expansion, fire ecology disruption in northern regions. long-term land-use militarization effects.

In this sense, “obliteration” generates mutual ecological degradation across interconnected landscapes. It is an ecological version of MAD – mutually assured destruction.

Diffusion of Doctrine

The key concern is not just localized destruction but doctrinal diffusion. Methods of high-intensity ecological disruption normalize across theaters. And let’s keep in mind that the first test of the obliteration doctrine occurred in Dahiya, the predominantly Shia enclave of Beirut.

US military legacy in Iraq and Syria already includes extensive infrastructure and ecosystem disruption under counterinsurgency and airpower doctrines. These features include water system destruction in Iraq, oil field fires, atmospheric contamination, and urban siege warfare effects in Raqqa and Mosul via coalition partners.

Such precedents create a shared operational vocabulary where environmental damage is treated as secondary to strategic objectives.

In a potential Israel–Iran escalation scenario, ecological infrastructure becomes strategically central through water scarcity systems in Iran’s arid regions, oil and petrochemical infrastructure vulnerability, and agricultural basins dependent on irrigation networks.

Under the obliteration logic, these become dual-use environments—civilian life-support systems that also acquire military significance.

Finally, there is the regional systemic risk. This implies a shift from territorial warfare to ecosystem-targeted coercion, where water, soil, energy, and agriculture become primary pressure points. Meanwhile, environmental degradation is exploited as a form of strategic leverage and recovery cycles extend beyond political timelines into generational horizons.

From Battlefield to Biosphere as a Target

The Lebanese charges, Gaza environmental destruction data, and the doctrine of obliteration converge on a structural transformation in modern conflict.

The object of war is increasingly not just territory or armed forces, but the ecological infrastructure that makes civilian life possible. In this way, destruction of that infrastructure is a prelude to ethnic cleansing and displacement.

For military doctrines, this may be framed as an incidental or operational necessity. But for Lebanon and environmental analysts, this constitutes potential ecocide under international law. In view of the obliteration doctrine, it represents a systemic shift in the practice of warfare itself, from the battlefield to the biosphere as a target.

What happens in Gaza won’t stay in Gaza. What happens in Lebanon won’t stay in Lebanon. The stage is being set for obliteration ecocides wherever they are seen as effective necessities.

Ecological systems are now central to both the conduct and consequences of war.

– The author of The Fall of Israel (2024) and The Obliteration Doctrine (2025), Dr Dan Steinbock is the founder of Difference Group and has served at the India, China and America Institute (US), Shanghai Institute for International Studies (China) and the EU Center (Singapore). For more, see https://www.differencegroup.net/

May 5, 2026 Posted by | Environmentalism, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes, Wars for Israel | , , , | Comments Off on Israel’s Obliteration Ecocide from Gaza to Lebanon and Beyond

UAE deports tens of thousands of Pakistanis, seizes their savings amid war on Iran: Report

Press TV – May 5, 2026

Authorities in the UAE are conducting a sweeping deportation campaign targeting tens of thousands of Pakistani workers, freezing their bank accounts and stripping them of their life savings amid growing regional fallout from the US-Israeli aggression on Iran.

While initial reports from New Lines Magazine placed the number of expelled individuals at 15,000, Pakistani sources recently confirmed to Press TV that the deportations are continuing at a rapid pace and now affect tens of thousands of workers.

The expulsions target Shia Muslims or individuals who have publicly expressed solidarity with Tehran following the recent US-Israeli aggression against Iran.

Those targeted are being expelled without formal charges or legal recourse. The systematic removals involve sudden arrests, phone confiscations, and transfers between various detention facilities before the workers are forced onto flights back to Pakistan.

Crucially, deportees are being sent back “without being given the opportunity to withdraw their funds” from Emirati banks, according to a Shia cleric cited by New Lines Magazine.

This sudden seizure of assets has left many families in financial ruin, stripping workers—some of whom spent decades contributing to the Emirati economy—of their entire life savings.

Mohammad Amin Shaheedi, chief of Ummat-e-Wahida Pakistan, told the magazine that following the outbreak of the war, the UAE government launched “what appears to be an organized campaign to deport Shia individuals from the country.”

The US-Israeli aggression began on February 28 with airstrikes that assassinated senior Iranian officials and commanders, including Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei. In response, Iranian armed forces launched daily missile and drone operations targeting locations in the Israeli-occupied territories and US military bases and assets, including those in the UAE.

The ensuing war sparked immense public solidarity with Iran across the region, particularly in Pakistan.

Sources indicate the UAE’s mass expulsions are deeply tied to Islamabad’s clear stance against the Israeli regime’s aggression on Iran and Lebanon, as well as Pakistan’s prominent role as a mediator.

On April 8, forty days into the war, a Pakistan-brokered temporary ceasefire between Iran and the US finally took effect. However, subsequent peace negotiations in Islamabad ultimately stalled amid Washington’s maximalist demands and insistence on unreasonable positions.

May 5, 2026 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Comments Off on UAE deports tens of thousands of Pakistanis, seizes their savings amid war on Iran: Report

Wheels Down in Tbilisi: Was a Routine U.S. Military Stopover a Deliberate Signal to Iran?

By Seth Ferris – New Eastern Outlook – May 5, 2026

A brief and poorly explained landing of a U.S. military transport aircraft in Tbilisi at the end of March 2026 has become a subject of discussion and speculation about its real significance, fueling suspicions that more complex geopolitical signals may lie behind the official explanation of a “routine flight.”

Let’s pull apart the “routine flight” narrative and read between the lines, asking whether a fleeting stopover was less about logistics and more about sending a message — one that Georgia may end up paying for. If you think geopolitics is all press releases and polite diplomacy, think again. I would suggest that what is going on in the shadows, outside of mainstream coverage, is closer to theater — with Georgia cast in a role it never auditioned for.

Start with the headlines: last month, a US Air Force cargo aircraft made a brief stop in Tbilisi, purpose unknown – and just start reverse engineering, taking it apart, and you come up with what is between the lines as to the possible motivations for the US, a strategic ally of Georgia, to be willing to put Iran, its regional partner, in harm’s way. Moreover, it is interesting to know the news sites where this news first appeared, such as Georgian Today, and its history of paid hired gun articles supporting US policy in the region.

It is not as if Georgia and the US do not know that now is not the most opportune time to be perceived as supporting the illegal American-Israeli war against Iran. And let’s not forget C-130 Turkish Cargo Planes falling out of blue Georgian skies. Providing logistic support in a preempted war of aggression is still a recognized crime under the Nuremberg Codex. That puts the provider of such support in the crosshairs of the party being attacked, as has already been demonstrated by Iranian countermeasures, not to mention ‘protective reaction’ strikes in the Gulf States and Jordan.

What do we know?

A United States Air Force military transport aircraft made a short, unexplained landing in Tbilisi the last week of March, prompting questions and speculations but little official detail about its actual mission. However, multiple reports published on April 1, 2026, said a Boeing C-17 Globemaster III landed at Tbilisi International Airport in the afternoon after departing from the U.S. military hub at Ramstein Air Base in Germany.

It is interesting that the US Embassy provided a ‘most vague’ news release after the incident, telling of a phone call between Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Georgia Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze the very next day.

Also vague is the lack of coverage of planes without tail numbers landing at regional airports, such as the one named in honour of the Soviet-Georgian movie “Mimino” in Telavi, East Georgia, supposedly owned by the Aviation University of Georgia. It has operated since 2012 and serves as a training ground for students in the Faculty of Aviation and Engineering.

But it can serve other purposes, as the airport hosts an aircraft technical service enterprise, a navigation tower, a terminal building for passengers, and dormitories for pilot-instructors and engineering-technical staff.

Recent sightings, including of European-looking visitors to the facility, appear a bit too dodgy in terms of standard news release material about a local use and training facility after the landing of the military transport and drones spotted over Georgia – too short and sweet not to be subterfuge.

The U.S. Embassy characterized some flight movement as routine, stating that such flights are “regularly carried out in coordination with partners,” without providing details about cargo, passengers, or final destination.

Flight tracking platforms such as Flightradar24 confirm that C-17 aircraft frequently operate across Europe and the Middle East, typically transporting personnel, equipment, or humanitarian supplies, though specific mission details are not publicly disclosed.

But I am more interested in what was on board, delivering or taking out human cargo! This brings back memories of a Turkish military transport, a C-130. Dropping from the clear blue sky a few months ago, including its crew, all died, and the debris was scattered over a wide area of Georgian territory. The forensic findings of that crash investigation have never been publicly shared to the best of my knowledge.

Wheels Down!

Would the Georgian government, especially now, be so naive as to agree to this touchdown, an unexpected one at that—and of a US military transport plane out of the blue in the middle of a shooting war in the Middle East?

Already there is political blowback. Georgia political analyst Gia Khukhashvili reportedly said that Rubio’s phone call was a “threatening warning”.

Perhaps Rubio was checking how ready Georgia was, and in what form [to what degree] it was ready to help solve America’s logistical problems… I don’t think there have already been any concrete proposals at this stage. But this was logically followed by a threatening warning (for Georgia) from the Iranian ambassador: “Don’t do anything wrong, otherwise you will also become a target,” the Georgian News portal quotes the political scientist.

Gia Khukhashvili believes that there will be no Georgian-American agreements, because “Washington will understand who it is dealing with … and how the Georgian PM Kobakhidze will later say that Rubio threatened him on the phone and demanded to open a second front,” confirmed the Georgian political pundit.

Posting News to Provoke Iran!

Who knows the real motivations and how the news was reported? As one close, trusted Georgian source shared, … just that they post this news to make Iran angry! The UNM, United National Movement, former Saakashvili regime, wants it so VERY much!

Why didn’t they use Turkish or Armenian bases?

That is a good question, and I think you already know the answer. The US wanted to show Iran that Georgia and the US are cooperating, so it provoked Iran to send a drone or make some attack, as Israel has ordered the US to do.

It should be noted that Armenia has a Russian base, and the plane is claimed to have flown over some Armenian and Turkish territory, perhaps touching down in the Kurdish-controlled region of Northern Iraq. It would have been too dangerous to land in Armenia, as secrets could be revealed, and as for Turkey, it shares a similar position as Georgia, it does not want to get involved, or give the impression of being involved, especially since the Americans are openly arming regional Kurds. It can be expected that a substantial part of this ratline is flowing into and through Turkish territory.

I still can’t find any serious discussion on the plane and its real purpose for making a short stopover in Georgia. It appears that the US and Israel would love to put Georgia in the crosshairs of Iran just for the hell of it. It is also interesting that strikes have been carried out by Israel on joint Russian-Iranian port facilities on the Caspian, in the part on the Iranian side.

Possible Motivations for Wheels Down and Vague News Coverage

My first thought was delivering something to put in place for Iran. But if it went to Turkish airspace, it could also be headed to eastern Turkey or Iraq. Or one of the NATO bases in Turkey, although I’m pretty sure those are in the west, and we would not be in the flight path. In any case, if it is at all related to the war, then more EU countries are banning the use of the bases in their countries, so if a plane needs to stop somewhere or refuel, it could be done here. Georgia still wants to stay on good terms with the US, so if it is a brief stop, they would probably allow it. Not much will happen. If the use looks more like staging, it could be dangerous. Moreover, they could use Vaziani. I think NATO supported development of an air base there (which the government now wants to use for a new commercial mega-airport). But there isn’t much of an air force here, so maybe Vaziani lacks fuel in any quantity and other amenities. The motivation was perhaps to deliver some radar equipment, greenbacks, spyware equipment, or perhaps human resources, thinking that Iran will not attack Georgia since it needs it too much as its window to the world.

We’ll have to see; just a thought on it!

In the end, a half-hour touchdown, a vague press release statement, and a conveniently timed diplomatic call say more than any official briefing ever will. Whether it was cargo, coordination, or quiet signaling, the message landed louder than the aircraft itself: Georgia is being watched, tested, and potentially positioned in a conflict it has no desire to join.

And if this was meant as a signal to Iran, then it’s a risky one—because in today’s climate, even a brief stop can turn a bystander into a target. A fleeting military stopover can transform neutral ground into perceived staging areas, risking Iranian retaliation against a nation determined to remain on the sidelines. Sparse public facts and local sources reveal the shadowy interplay of great-power signaling, where a half-hour touchdown may speak louder than any formal briefing—placing Georgia uncomfortably in the crosshairs of a war it wants no part of.

Seth Ferris is an investigative journalist and political scientist, expert on Middle Eastern affairs.

Follow new articles on our Telegram channel

May 5, 2026 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Comments Off on Wheels Down in Tbilisi: Was a Routine U.S. Military Stopover a Deliberate Signal to Iran?

Trump’s second strike on Iran would be suicidal. But that’s not the reason why he won’t go ahead with it

By Martin Jay | Strategic Culture Foundation | May 4, 2026

Trump has been presented with a report sketching out a second-strike plan against Iran’s infrastructure, which he is reported to be mulling over. The media has latched onto terms like “short, powerful” strikes aimed at Iran’s infrastructure – which the author predicted in two previous articles and which, if it were to happen, would occur over the summer period when temperatures reach unbearable levels in the region. But is Trump really serious about it, and does he even understand the extent of Iran’s retaliation? The very fact that Trump has military advisors who are even presenting him with such plans shows, if nothing else, the level of their disconnect from reality and his exaggerated sense of self-importance.

The US already did this the first time round and went through its stocks of ordnance, breaking all records for the volume of missiles used in such a short space of time. It did very little to bring Iran to its knees, rather making it stronger than ever, with greater support. But what it did succeed in doing was giving Iran a dry run with such an attack and allowing it to learn a great deal about how to cope with one. Militarily, Iran has never been stronger, more focused and more technologically advanced. For Trump to believe he has a shot at a second go is not only unrealistic but sheer madness in terms of what the US – and to a lesser extent Israel – is going to have to deal with as a response. Iran will almost certainly reduce Saudi Arabia’s oil infrastructure to dust, which experts estimate would take ten years to rebuild.

If the US opts to go for a second strike, the retaliation against Saudi oil infrastructure and the US military ships themselves being used in the blockade will be unprecedented. Not only could oil easily reach 200 USD a barrel, but the striking of the US armada could be the end of America as we know it.

While the Iranian government presents Trump with their fourteen-point plan, its key officials understand how difficult it is for Trump to walk away. Both sides talk as though they’ve won the war, but in reality Trump is shackled to Netanyahu, who is insisting that the ridiculous blockade continues. What the US media are not reporting about it, though, is that it is only really working for the cameras and not choking Iran of revenues as reported. Many tankers from countries friendly with Iran travel towards the straits while keeping very close to the Iranian coastline – too far for the Americans to strike them, as US battleships would have to come closer.

Meanwhile Iran takes further steps to formalise its legal ownership, which would suggest there is an even stronger case for Tehran to strike the US battleships at some point. Iran is patient and prefers to keep a dialogue going, hoping for Trump to back down at some point while the markets increase pressure on him each day and EU countries drift farther away from Washington’s influence as their own economies face collapse if the situation isn’t resolved soon. Trump has his own way of dealing with the crisis, which, hilariously, is always to place himself first. His recent tantrum about NATO not supporting him, resulting in him pulling US troops out of Germany, is simply a distraction.

Yet the chances of this second strike happening are unlikely. But not for the reasons that seem obvious. In reality, China and Russia are playing an increasingly central role in supporting Iran, and Trump is beginning to understand what this means in practical terms. The low levels of missiles will restrict his options about what kind of strike this second one could be, which is why there’s so much talk about the US using its own hypersonic missiles. It’s not only that the US can’t replenish its stocks – THAAD and Patriot are very low – but the essential raw minerals needed to make them come from China, and Beijing has indicated that this supply is on pause. The other point is that Israel has almost nothing left to even throw into the air, let alone to present so-called journalists with video pictures of a country defending itself. Israel has nothing left. For Trump to go ahead with a second strike would really give Iran the excuse it needs to destroy Trump as a global leader, as hitting Saudi Arabia’s oil would be a wake-up call that Trump would have to take seriously. Iran sees such a strike just as the Americans considered the atomic bombs dropped on Japan at the end of the Second World War: a moment of clarity.

Trump is still confused. But such a strike would put such enormous pressure on him from around the world, from America’s allies, that the sheer noise would be deafening for him. He would have to listen to it and concede defeat. But for the moment, there is still time for distracting the media with utterly stupid statements that portray America as a winner in the war, and we should expect more of them – but some kind of defeat is coming. Creating a massive distraction will be inevitable, and that might come in the form of a new crisis around the world or from the US pulling out of NATO. Iran, right at the last moment, adding that it is now able to include the nuclear issue as part of the talks – that is now on the table. But will Trump seize the moment?

May 5, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , | Comments Off on Trump’s second strike on Iran would be suicidal. But that’s not the reason why he won’t go ahead with it

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »