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.
Emirati billionaire rebukes US senator over call for Gulf states to join war with Iran
MEMO | March 10, 2026
Emirati billionaire Khalaf Al Habtoor has sharply criticised US Senator Lindsey Graham after the American lawmaker called on Gulf states to join military operations against Iran alongside the United States and Israel.
In a lengthy post on the social media platform X, Al Habtoor rejected any Gulf participation in the conflict, arguing that the region is already paying the price for decisions taken without consulting Arab states.
Graham made the remarks during media interviews following a closed congressional briefing, where he urged Gulf countries to become more actively involved in military action against Iran. He argued that Iranian attacks on countries such as Kuwait, Qatar and Saudi Arabia could prompt Washington’s Arab allies to take a stronger role in the confrontation.
The senator also said that the United States “will not fight alone in the Middle East”, noting that arms sales to Gulf countries form part of broader strategic alliances.
Al Habtoor responded by criticising what he described as foreign pressure on regional states to join the conflict.
“We know perfectly well why we are being attacked, and we also know who dragged the entire region into this dangerous escalation without consulting its allies,” he wrote.
The Emirati businessman said Gulf countries do not need outside protection and warned against risking the lives of people in the region in a wider war.
“Nothing is more precious than the lives of our sons, and no alliance is worth risking them,” he said, adding: “We don’t need your protection… all we want from you is to keep your hands off us.”
Al Habtoor also criticised the role of the global arms trade, describing weapons sales as a major business rather than a form of protection, and argued that conflicts in the region benefit the international arms industry.
He further accused Graham of prioritising Israeli interests over those of the American public, saying the region’s countries seek peace and stability and prefer diplomatic solutions rather than military escalation.
Op. True Promise 4: Iran’s missile blitzkrieg dismantles US war machine in West Asia
By Ivan Kesic | Press TV | March 10, 2026
In just ten days, Iran’s military response to the Israeli-American war of aggression has dismantled the core of US power in the Persian Gulf, from Qatar’s Al-Udeid Air Base to the US Fifth Fleet headquarters in Bahrain.
What began on February 28, 2026, as the ill-fated “Operation Epic Fury” has spiraled into a strategic catastrophe for the US military-industrial complex.
The aggression, which led to the martyrdom of the Leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, as well as ordinary civilians, has been met with one of the most devastating and precisely coordinated military campaigns in modern regional history.
Systematically, Iranian missiles and drones have pierced American air defenses, reducing over a dozen military installations to rubble, obliterating advanced radar systems, and crippling US naval power.
Thousands of American personnel now confront an undeniable reality: their assets are no longer safe from Iran’s formidable and far-reaching arsenal.
US military web in the Persian Gulf
To fully grasp the magnitude of Iran’s military achievements, one must first understand the intricate web of US military power that has for decades strangled the Persian Gulf region.
This network has served as the primary instrument of US hegemony over the world’s most vital energy resources and the principal military guarantee for the security of the Zionist entity.
At the apex of this system sits Al-Udeid Air Base in Qatar. A sprawling facility covering approximately fifty square kilometers southwest of Doha, it stands as the largest American military installation in the entire West Asia and the forward headquarters of United States Central Command.
Al-Udeid is the cornerstone of US military strategy in the region, housing over ten thousand personnel and supporting the 379th Air Expeditionary Wing. Its formidable array of bombers, fighter aircraft, surveillance platforms, and drones has, for years, been the launchpad for aggressive operations against regional nations.
Less than two hundred and fifty kilometers from Al-Udeid lies Al-Dhafra Air Base in the United Arab Emirates. This installation complements its Qatari counterpart by providing the United States with advanced intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities.
Al-Dhafra hosts approximately five thousand active-duty US military personnel assigned to the 380th Air Expeditionary Wing.
Their primary missions include aerial refueling and high-altitude intelligence gathering, utilizing platforms such as the Lockheed U-2 Dragon Lady, the Boeing E-3 Sentry AWACS, and the RQ-4 Global Hawk surveillance drones – aircraft that have routinely violated Iranian airspace along the Persian Gulf coast.
The base achieved particular notoriety in 2019 when one of its Global Hawk drones was shot down by Iran’s air defense system, an episode that foreshadowed the far greater defeats to come.
In Bahrain, the Naval Support Activity in Manama serves as the headquarters for both US Naval Forces Central Command and the United States Fifth Fleet.
Supporting over nine thousand military personnel and more than one hundred tenant commands, this facility, established on the grounds of the former British Royal Navy base HMS Juffair, provides the logistical and command infrastructure necessary for the Fifth Fleet to project power throughout the region with its carrier strike groups and supporting vessels.
Kuwait hosts yet another crucial node. Camp Arifjan serves as the primary forward logistics hub for American ground forces, while Ali Al-Salem Air Base hosts the 386th Air Expeditionary Wing, and Mohammed Al-Ahmad Naval Base provides critical naval infrastructure.
This was the fortress America had built, a ring of steel and fire meant to contain and intimidate. And this is the fortress that Iran has just shattered.
Initial wave: Iran’s devastating response to US-Israeli aggression
When the US and the Israeli regime launched their cowardly aggression against Iranian territory on February 28, assassinating Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and more than two hundred Iranian civilians, including 165 schoolgirls in the city of Minab, they evidently believed that such a devastating blow would leave Iran paralyzed.
The school was attacked twice by the US missiles, debunking the claim that it was not deliberate. As experts noted, the same site cannot be mistakenly targeted twice.
Within hours of the initial wave of aggression, the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) launched Operation True Promise 4, a meticulously planned retaliation that simultaneously targeted more than a dozen American military installations across the region.
At Al-Udeid Air Base in Qatar, Iranian missiles struck with devastating precision. Their impacts were captured on video and broadcast by multiple news agencies. The most significant achievement was the complete destruction of the AN/FPS-132 Upgraded Early Warning Radar, a system valued at approximately $1.1 billion that served as the electronic eye of American air defense throughout the Persian Gulf.
This fixed UHF phased-array radar, designed to detect and continuously track ballistic missiles at extremely long ranges, represented the most critical component of the US early warning architecture in West Asia.
Its obliteration rendered the entire American air defense network effectively blind, forcing surviving batteries to operate with degraded situational awareness and dramatically reducing their effectiveness against subsequent Iranian strikes.
Simultaneously, Iranian missiles and kamikaze drones descended upon Al-Dhafra Air Base in the UAE, destroying the American terrorists’ air warfare center, satellite communication center, early warning radars, and fire control radars, effectively decapitating the base’s command and control capabilities.
The Lockheed U-2 reconnaissance aircraft, Boeing E-3 Sentry AWACS, and RQ-4 Global Hawk drones found themselves without the supporting infrastructure necessary for their operations. Their hangars were damaged or destroyed, their crews scrambling to survive the onslaught.
The strikes extended to the naval infrastructure. At Jebel Ali Port in Dubai, which is the most frequent port of call for US Navy vessels outside the American homeland, Iranian missiles caused significant damage to facilities used for resupplying and maintaining the Fifth Fleet’s warships.
In Bahrain, the headquarters of the United States Fifth Fleet came under direct attack, with multiple missiles and kamikaze drones striking the Naval Support Activity facility.
Video clips captured the moment of impact as projectiles struck buildings within the base complex, including a high-rise structure housing American troops.
The IRGC announced that a service center for the Fifth Fleet had been specifically targeted, and subsequent attacks on March 1 would hit an unnamed US naval command and backup center with two ballistic missiles.
Kuwait’s American installations suffered perhaps the most complete destruction. Ali Al-Salem Air Base, struck on February 28, came under renewed attack on March 1.
The IRGC subsequently declared that the base had been rendered completely out of service. This facility, home to the US Air Force’s 386th Air Expeditionary Wing, was effectively neutralized as a military asset: its runways cratered, its hangars destroyed, its aircraft either damaged or forced to flee. The Mohammed Al-Ahmad Naval Base suffered an equally devastating fate, with three naval infrastructure structures reportedly destroyed.
In a matter of hours, the elaborate fortress America had spent decades building had been shattered.
Strategic significance of America’s lost assets
The full measure of Iran’s military achievement becomes apparent only when one considers what these destroyed facilities actually meant to American strategic power.
The AN/FPS-132 radar at Al-Udeid was not merely an expensive piece of equipment, but the keystone of the entire American air defense architecture in the Persian Gulf.
Without it, the Patriot and THAAD batteries scattered across the Persian Gulf states became fundamentally degraded. Forced to rely on their own shorter-range sensors, they were rendered far more vulnerable to saturation attacks.
The destruction of this single system effectively crippled the integrated air defense network that the United States had spent decades constructing.
Al-Dhafra’s destroyed command and control centers represented an equally significant loss. These facilities were the nerve centers through which American intelligence operations across the Persian Gulf were coordinated.
The satellite communication center had been the primary link transmitting data from surveillance aircraft to analysis centers; its loss temporarily blinded American intelligence collectors across the region.
The damage inflicted upon the Fifth Fleet’s headquarters in Bahrain disrupted the command infrastructure necessary for coordinating carrier strike groups and support vessels across an area encompassing the Persian Gulf, Red Sea, and Arabian Sea.
Without this hub, the fleet’s ability to project power became fundamentally compromised.
The destruction at Jebel Ali Port compounded these difficulties by damaging the primary logistics hub through which the Fifth Fleet received supplies and maintenance support.
A fleet without fuel, without spare parts, without the means to sustain prolonged operations, is little more than a collection of floating metal.
In a single night, Iran did not merely strike American bases; it dismantled the architecture of American power in the region. The radar that saw everything was blinded.
The centers that coordinated everything were silenced. The ports that sustained everything were crippled. The fleet that dominated everything was paralyzed.
Continuing campaign: Sustained pressure on US positions
The second phase of the retaliatory military campaign unfolded on March 8 and 9, with fresh strikes targeting key American installations in the region.
Al-Udeid Air Base came under renewed attack on March 8, with loud blasts and sirens reported. The Qatari Ministry of Defense subsequently acknowledged the strikes, though Iranian military sources framed them as direct hits on the key command hub.
The fact that attacks continued despite Qatari interception claims suggested that many missiles and drones were still getting through. The following day, March 9, Al-Udeid was struck again, with explosions rocking the base for the second consecutive day and verified reports confirming impacts.
The Juffair Naval Base in Bahrain was also targeted on March 8. The IRGC announced a direct strike in retaliation for a US attack on an Iranian desalination plant on Qeshm Island earlier the same day. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi stated that the United States had set the precedent by hitting civilian infrastructure, which made Iran’s response more legitimate.
Ali Al-Salem Air Base in Kuwait, already severely damaged in earlier strikes, came under drone attack on March 8. The Islamic Resistance in Iraq claimed responsibility for an operation that allegedly breached Kuwaiti air defenses and hit the installation.
The Prince Sultan Air Base near Al-Kharj in Saudi Arabia was targeted with a volley of ballistic missiles. Although Saudi forces claimed to have intercepted three missiles heading for the base, the installation still suffered significant damage.
Iran’s military-technological triumph
The past 10-11 days of combat have demonstrated conclusively that Iranian military technology has reached a level of sophistication American strategists never anticipated.
Iranian missiles have consistently penetrated American air defenses, striking their targets with precision that rivals, or exceeds, that of US weapons, as experts acknowledge.
Iranian drones have swarmed American bases in numbers that defensive systems simply cannot engage. The destruction of the AN/FPS-132 radar represents perhaps the most significant single technological achievement of the campaign: a billion-dollar system, specifically designed to detect and track missiles like those Iran fired at it, proved utterly incapable of preventing its own destruction.
The performance of Iranian anti-ship missiles against American naval assets, including the reported strike on a US Navy combat support warship, further demonstrates the comprehensive nature of Iran’s capabilities.
No domain, whether air, land, or sea, has remained immune this time.
Beyond technology, the sustained nature of the Iranian campaign reveals logistical and industrial capacities that the US clearly did not anticipate. Iran has fired hundreds of missiles and drones while maintaining the ability to continue such strikes indefinitely, a feat that suggests a production capacity Western intelligence had catastrophically underestimated.
American forces, by contrast, have expended enormous quantities of interceptors attempting to defend against Iranian attacks, depleting stocks that will take years to replenish.
The economics of this war are as devastating as its tactics: a missile that costs Iran a few hundred thousand dollars is met by an interceptor that costs America several million. This is a war of attrition that the United States cannot win.
The technological edge upon which American military dominance has rested for decades has been revealed as a myth in these 11 days. The industrial capacity that was supposed to guarantee American superiority has been exposed as insufficient. And the will to sustain a prolonged war in the face of mounting losses has yet to be tested.
Humiliation of American power
Beyond the purely military dimensions lies the broader strategic impact on American military prestige throughout West Asia, carefully built over the decades, military experts say.
The US has presented itself as the indispensable guarantor of security in the Persian Gulf, the force whose military might ensures the free flow of oil and the stability of friendly regimes.
The events of the past 11 days have exposed this narrative as hollow propaganda, revealing that American power rests not on invincible capability but on the absence of serious challenge.
The Persian Gulf Arab states that have hosted American bases now find themselves in an impossible position, their territories transformed into battlegrounds, their air defense systems exposed as ineffective, their American protectors revealed as vulnerable.
The casualties inflicted upon American forces, estimated in the hundreds by Iranian military sources, represent a human cost that will reverberate through American society.
American families are receiving notification that their loved ones will not return from a war that Washington started and cannot win, a source told the Press TV website.
The images of destroyed bases, burning aircraft, and fleeing personnel convey a message more powerful than any official statement: the United States is not winning this war.
New strategic reality
As the imposed war enters its second week, a new strategic reality has emerged in West Asia, one in which American military dominance has been shattered and Iranian power stands ascendant, military experts note.
“The United States can no longer guarantee the security of its bases in the Persian Gulf. It cannot protect its warships from Iranian missiles. It cannot conduct intelligence operations along Iranian coasts without risking the destruction of its most valuable platforms,” a highly placed military source told the Press TV website.
“The carefully constructed edifice of American military power has been revealed as a house of cards, collapsing at the first serious challenge.”
For Iran, he noted, these military achievements represent not merely a successful retaliation but a strategic victory that fundamentally transforms the entire regional security environment.
The Islamic Republic, through these 34 waves of Operation True Promise 4 (and counting), has demonstrated capabilities that will deter American aggression for years to come.
“The message from Tehran to Washington could not be clearer: the era of American dominance in West Asia has ended. Any future aggression against the Islamic Republic will be met with responses far more devastating than anything yet seen,” the source said.
What If Iran Says No?
Is an end to fighting currently possible?
Ashes of Pompeii | March 10, 2026
Rumors persist that the Trump administration is actively seeking an off-ramp to the escalating conflict with Iran. The prevailing assumption within certain circles of the White House is that Tehran, having sustained serious damage from recent military strikes, would welcome a cessation of hostilities. This calculation, however, rests on a dangerous misreading of Iranian resolve, historical grievance, and strategic necessity. What if Iran says no?
The first and most fundamental obstacle is trust. Can Iran reasonably trust any promise made by Donald Trump? The historical record suggests otherwise. The unilateral withdrawal from the JCPOA in 2018, despite verified Iranian compliance, established a precedent of bad faith. Yet, the breach of trust goes deeper than past policy. The February 28 surprise attack was not merely a military strike; it was launched in the midst of ongoing peace talks. To strike while negotiating is the absolute most serious breach of diplomatic trust possible. It signals that words are meaningless and that force is the only language recognized by Washington. For Iranian leadership, any verbal assurance offered today carries the weight of tomorrow’s tweet. Diplomacy requires a foundation of credibility; that foundation has been systematically dismantled.
Second, the ideological makeup of the opposing governments creates a structural barrier to compromise. The current Israeli government is composed of extremist Zionists whose platform often rejects coexistence in favor of maximalist territorial and security demands. Simultaneously, Christian Zionists hold an important role in the Trump administration, viewing conflict in the Middle East through a theological lens that favors escalation over diplomacy. This alignment makes compromise with Iran inherently harder. For these factions, concession is not strategy; it is heresy. What demands could Iran make that would credibly constrain Israeli action? Binding security guarantees from the United States would be required, yet Washington’s ability to restrain its ally in moments of crisis is historically limited. Conversely, any Iranian demand for verifiable, long-term restrictions on Israeli military operations would likely be viewed in Jerusalem as an unacceptable infringement on sovereignty – a potential casus belli in itself.
Third, any serious Iranian negotiation would inevitably demand the removal of American military bases from the Persian Gulf. From Tehran’s perspective, these installations are not defensive outposts but forward operating bases for coercion and regime-change planning. Their presence is an existential threat. Yet for any American president, particularly one branding himself as a champion of strength, agreeing to withdraw forces from Bahrain, Qatar, or Kuwait would be politically untenable. It would be framed domestically not as diplomacy, but as retreat. Trump, who measures success in visible, declarative terms, could not sell a deal that requires abandoning strategic assets as a victory.
Fourth, Iran would demand the immediate and comprehensive lifting of sanctions. The economic toll of the pressure campaign has been severe, but capitulation without full relief would be seen as surrender. However, an immediate, total sanctions lift is a non-starter for the administration. It would undermine the central lever of U.S. pressure and invite fierce criticism from allies and domestic opponents alike.
And it is not worth even discussing the reaction to likely Iranian demands for reparations from America or Israel.
Underpinning all these structural obstacles is a profound cultural and emotional reality. Iran has raised the red flag of revenge. For Shiites, this is not merely political rhetoric; it is a religious imperative rooted in the tragedy of Karbala. Martyrdom and the justice due to martyrs cannot be so easily forgotten or forgone for political expediency. The rage in Iran for the February 28 attack is enormous, compounded by the perfidy of being struck during negotiations. A return to the status quo ante is not possible. The leadership that agrees to such terms risks being seen as weak, or worse, complicit in the betrayal of the faithful. And let us not forget, it is the son of the murdered Supreme Leader who has now been chosen as the new spirutual leader of Iran. This selection, in itself, can be seen as a slap in the face for Trump, who was demanding a say in the selection of the new leader.
The Trump administration appears to operate under the assumption that it holds total control over the escalation and de-escalation process. This is a critical miscalculation. Iran is not a passive recipient of U.S. policy but a strategic actor with its own red lines, domestic imperatives, and regional alliances. Tehran has demonstrated both the capacity and the will to act, and to retaliate when necessary. Diplomacy is a dialogue, not a dictate.
The central question, therefore, is not whether the United States can offer an off-ramp, but whether Iran can accept it. If the answer is no – and the points above suggest compelling reasons why it might be – then the conflict enters a more dangerous, protracted phase. Miscalculation risks increase. The assumption that pain alone will produce compliance ignores the role of pride, sovereignty, faith, and survival in strategic decision-making. Before celebrating a potential exit, policymakers must confront an uncomfortable truth: Iran has a say. And if Tehran chooses to say no, the path forward grows darker, longer, and far less certain. Added to this, Trump’s emotional, some would say vindictive, character would suggest that an Iranian refusal would lead him to escalate further.
Therefore this potential off-ramp may exist on a map in Washington, but in Tehran, the road ahead may still lead only forward, into not a storm, but a full blown global hurricane.
Trump Threatens to ‘Hit’ Iran ‘Twenty Times Harder’ Over Strait of Hormuz Oil Flows
Sputnik – 10.03.2026
US President Donald Trump warned Iran against disrupting oil shipments through the Strait of Hormuz, saying Washington would respond with far stronger military action.
“If Iran does anything that stops the flow of Oil within the Strait of Hormuz, they will be hit by the United States of America TWENTY TIMES HARDER than they have been hit thus far,” President Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social.
He added that the US could target sites that would make it “virtually impossible for Iran to ever be built back, as a Nation, again,” while saying he hopes such a scenario “does not happen.”
Trump described the policy as “a gift from the United States of America to China, and all of those Nations that heavily use the Hormuz Strait.”
Corporate Media Go All Out To Support The US-Israeli War on Iran
By Alan MacLeod | MintPress News | March 6, 2026
Corporate media of all stripes have rushed to support the U.S./Israeli attack on Iran, throwing objectivity and accuracy by the wayside in order to manufacture consent for regime change.
On February 28, the U.S. and Israel launched a joint attack on Iran, bombing cities across the country, assassinating its supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, and openly stating their goal was overthrowing the government.
Despite this, media have gone out of their way to present the actions as the U.S. protecting itself, describing them as “defensive strikes,” and to frame Iran as the aggressor. “Iran chooses chaos” ran the headline of the New York Times’ newsletter, portraying the Islamic Republic as the primary actor.
The Free Press used similarly Orwellian concepts. “War is Iranians’ best chance at peace,” presenting U.S./Israeli crimes as an act of mercy on its long-suffering population.
Meanwhile, under the new leadership of self-described “Zionist fanatic” Bari Weiss, CBS News has transformed itself into a mouthpiece for the Israeli Defense Forces, interviewing IDF Brigadier General Effie Defrin, and uncritically presenting Israel’s war as “aimed at preventing a wider global threat.”
Across the West, corporate media have employed the same tactics of using the passive voice and not naming the perpetrator when describing U.S./Israeli aggression. A perfect encapsulation of this was the BBC’s headline, “At least 153 dead after reported strike on school, Iran says,” that made it sound as if the children died in a lightning strike or a labor dispute, rather than that they were bombed by hostile foreign powers.
Israeli casualties were given more sympathetic coverage than their Iranian counterparts, while media regularly toned down the language used to describe Israeli actions to make them sound more reasonable, and did the opposite with Iran. The Washington Post, for example, wrote (emphasis added) “Israel urges evacuation of south Beirut suburbs; Iran threatens revenge on U.S. over warship.” Thus, Israel was treated as making a good faith attempt to reduce civilian casualties, while the Iranian response to their ship being attacked and sunk in international waters was presented as menacing.
Another common tactic of delegitimization media use is to describe the Iranian as a “regime” (e.g., Bloomberg, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, CNN, NBC News). The word “regime” immediately discredits a government, and cues the reader to oppose it. The phrase “Israeli regime” is virtually never used, unless in a quote from Iranian officials.
Earlier this week, large numbers of Israeli troops re-invaded southern Lebanon. Media attempted to find ways to present the operation as legitimate, including euphemistically using the phrase “cross over into Lebanon” to describe the invasion, or even blaming Hezbollah for the violence. CNN, for instance, wrote that, “Hezbollah is dragging Lebanon into the war on Iran,” and that “Hezbollah just restarted the fight that Israel was waiting to finish,” thereby flipping the realities of who was attacking whom.
There have also been a number of fawning profiles of Israeli leaders. “Benjamin Netanyahu’s long career was built on conflict avoidance—then, October 7 transformed and radicalized him,” wrote The Atlantic. In Britain, the coverage from some quarters was even more positive. “Netanyahu is the great war leader of our age” The Daily Telegraph stated, describing the prime minister as a “genius.”
The Daily Telegraph’s Monday front page headline read “Britain backs war on Iran,” with a picture of diaspora Iranians cheering on the bombing of their country. The reality, however, is far less jingoistic. A YouGov poll published the same day found that only 28% of U.K. citizens support U.S./Israeli actions, with 49% expressing their opposition to them. Nevertheless, BBC anchor Nick Robinson suggested, on air, that protests against the U.S./Israeli attacks should be banned across the U.K.
This sort of mentality should come as no surprise, given BBC leadership’s stated positions on Israel. The corporation’s Middle East editor, Raffi Berg, is a former CIA operative and Mossad collaborator who has a signed letter of recommendation from Netanyahu on his office wall.
Anonymous BBC employees speaking to Drop Site News claimed that Berg’s “entire job is to water down everything that’s too critical of Israel.” They went on to allege that he holds “wild” amounts of power at the British state broadcaster, that there exists a culture of “extreme fear” at the BBC about publishing anything critical of Israel, and that Berg himself plays a key role in turning its coverage into “systematic Israeli propaganda.” The BBC has disputed these claims.
If true, the sort of top-down pro-Israel bias at the BBC closely mirrors that of American outlets. A leaked 2023 New York Times memo revealed that company management explicitly instructed its reporters not to use words such as “genocide,” “slaughter,” and “ethnic cleansing” when discussing Israel’s actions. Times staff must refrain from using words like “refugee camp,” “occupied territory,” or even “Palestine” in their reporting, making it almost impossible to convey some of the most basic facts to their audience.
CNN employees face similar pressure. In the wake of the October 7 attacks, the company’s C.E.O. Mark Thompson sent out a memo to all staff instructing them to make sure that Hamas (and not Israel) is presented as responsible for the violence, that they must always use the moniker “Hamas-controlled” when discussing the Gaza Health Ministry and their civilian death figures, and barring them from any reporting of Hamas’ viewpoint, which its senior director of news standards and practices told staff was “not newsworthy” and amounted to “inflammatory rhetoric and propaganda.”
German media conglomerate Axel Springer, meanwhile – owner of outlets such as Politico and Business Insider – requires its employees to sign what amounts to a loyalty oath to support “the trans-Atlantic alliance and Israel.” The company fired a Lebanese employee who, through internal channels, questioned the requirement.
American newsrooms are also filled with former Israel lobbyists. A MintPress News investigation found hundreds of former employees of Israel lobbying groups such as AIPAC, StandWithUs and CAMERA working in top newsrooms across the country, writing and producing America’s news – including on Israel-Palestine. These outlets include MSNBC, The New York Times, CNN, and Fox News.
There are even ex-Israeli spies writing our news. Another MintPress report revealed a network of former agents of IDF intelligence outfit, Unit 8200, working in America’s newsrooms, including at CNN and Axios.
Therefore, with American newsrooms presided over and staffed in no small part by pro-Israel zealots, it is far from a surprise that their coverage closely mirrors the outlook and biases of Washington and Tel Aviv.
And now, with CNN, CBS News, and TikTok owned by CIA asset Larry Ellison, the IDF’s largest private funder and a close personal friend of Benjamin Netanyahu, we should only expect the propaganda to be dialed up to eleven.
Trump press conference reveals a man who wants out of war
By Trita Parsi | Responsible Statecraft | March 9, 2026
Trump’s “all over the place” press conference at his Miami resort on Monday appears to have had two key objectives: a) Calm the markets by signalling the conflict may soon be over because it has been so “successful,” and b) Prepare the ground for Trump ending the war through a unilateral declaration of victory.
Though ending a war that never should have been started in the first place — rather than fighting it endlessly in the pursuit of an illusory victory as the U.S. did in Afghanistan — is the right move, it won’t be as easy as Trump appears to think.
Tehran also has a vote — and there is little to suggest that it will agree that the war is over.
Tehran objects to what it would consider a premature ceasefire out of fear that it would only give the U.S. and Israel time to regroup, rearm, and then re-attack Iran. For the conflict to be ripe for a ceasefire, Tehran believes that enough cost must have been inflicted on the U.S., regional states, Israel, and on the global economy that all states conclude that starting the war was a mistake — and as a result, no state will seek to restart it.
Moreover, if the war ends now, Iran will be in a worse situation than it was before the start of the war. Much of its infrastructure has been destroyed, its missile capabilities have taken hits, its ability to export oil has been damaged, and most crucially, its prospects for sanctions relief have been obliterated. Indeed, who will and can help rebuild Iran under these circumstances?
This would leave Iran not only in a weakened position but also in a continuously weakening state. Which, in turn, would make another war of aggression by the U.S. and Israel more, not less, likely, since it is Iran’s perceived weakness that prompted Trump and Israel to see an opportunity for war.
As such, it appears likely that Iran will continue to target Israel, even if the U.S. declares victory and withdraws its military. Even GCC states may continue to be targeted. And Tehran will very likely try to keep the Straits of Hormuz shut. (At least for now, there are no signs that Tehran has lost its ability to do these things).
This will create a dilemma for Trump. It will be difficult for him to stay out while Iran and Israel continue to go at each other. But if he reenters the war, the hollowness of his declared victory will have been revealed. Markets will react negatively, and all the costs Trump is currently trying to avoid will likely intensify dramatically.
Iran, of course, does not want, nor can it afford, an endless war. But it will likely demand some significant steps in order to accept a ceasefire. This may include a commitment from Trump not to restart the war (though I don’t understand the value of such a commitment). But more importantly, it will likely require sanctions relief and release of its frozen funds abroad.
Trump will, of course, bark, but if the outcome is continued war, that will put a lot of pressure on him. Here, the role of some GCC states may prove crucial due to their willingness and ability to find an arrangement that could leave both Trump and Iran feeling that they “won.”
Whether Israel will allow that to happen, of course, is a different matter.
Trita Parsi is the co-founder and Executive Vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.
When Tel Aviv decides, Washington fights
By Jamal Kanj | MEMO | March 9, 2026
American taxpayers are still hemorrhaging from the made-for-Israel war in Iraq, a war audaciously offered as one that would “pay for itself.” Instead, it was paid in Iraqi and American blood, ruins and financed by American debt. The promised democracy was a broken state, regional chaos, and the afterbirth of terror and resistance that continues to metastasize across the Arab world. Marketed as a short, decisive campaign, Iraq became a two-decade-long disaster with no exit in sight. Trillions were burned on lies manufactured by Israel-first Zionists in Washington, while generations of Americans—many not even born when the invasion began—were conscripted into inheriting the debt, the interest, and the moral stain.
The real balance sheet of that war is etched into nearly 5,000 American tombstones and the endless corridors of veterans’ hospitals. Before that blood-soaked bill is even paid, the very same architect, using the same lies, has succeeded again in dragging the U. S. into another made-for-Israel war, this time against Iran. Iraq was not an aberration; it was a rehearsal. Yet, Iran doesn’t appear to be the final act on the Israeli menu. In recent weeks, former Israeli prime minister Naftali Bennett declared that Turkey is next. And it is the U.S., not Israel, that is expected to keep paying for wars, America neither needed nor chose.
The evidence of who set the clock of this war is unmistakable. The most revealing admission did not come from Tehran, Moscow, or Beijing, but from the U.S. State Department. In an unguarded moment, the U.S. Secretary of State admitted that the timing of this war was not an American choice. This became painfully clear when the State Department was caught unprepared to help evacuate tens of thousands of Americans from the war zone.
As U.S. ambassadors hurried to evacuate their staff and families, desperate citizens were told their government could not assist and were advised to arrange their own departures, after airports had already closed.
This is not a minor detail. It’s a government that is willing to sacrifice the well-being and security of its citizens by joining a war decided by someone else. It goes to the heart of sovereignty and democratic accountability. A nation that chooses to go to war prepares its people, its diplomacy, and its logistics. A nation that is dragged into war improvises and hopes for the best.
Iran, for its part, is not the caricature often presented by the American Secretary of War and Donald Trump. It is a country prepared for drawn-out conflict and strategic patience. During the nearly eight-year Iran-Iraq War, Tehran fought a grinding, no-win war against a better-armed adversary. Against the expectations of Western military analysts, Iran endured. In a grim irony, it even committed the greatest of all sins: purchasing weapons from Israel, falling into Tel Aviv’s cynical strategy to weaken both Baghdad and Tehran simultaneously. Israel was willing to arm its supposed arch-enemy as part of its broader calculus of exhaustion and division.
That history matters today. Iran has demonstrated, repeatedly, a willingness to absorb punishment, and extend conflicts over time. At the end of the day, and by all means necessary, Iran is unlikely to surrender. In a protracted war of attrition to bleed the world economy, Tehran could move to close the Strait of Hormuz, an oil blood line for world economies. Iran may be economically battered, and it has been for decades under severe sanctions, but that very weakness reduces its restraint. A country with little left to lose is more inclined to impose pain on others, including Western and neighboring welfare oil economies dependent on uninterrupted energy exports.
Meanwhile, regional instability in the Gulf and prolonged American entanglement create the perfect parasitic symbiosis for Israel: a state that flourishes in the shadows of regional chaos like a scavenger thriving on the scrap of a landfill.
President Trump has suggested escorting oil shipments in the Strait to keep the oil flowing. The macho bravado may play well on television or for the stock market, but history, old and recent, offers daunting realities. The same was attempted during the Iraq-Iran war in the 1980s but failed. More recently, the U.S., the EU, and Israel combined failed to force a much smaller and poorer country—Yemen—to open the Red Sea. After months of bombardment, siege and naval pressure, Washington was forced into negotiations, and even then, Yemeni forces continued to block vessels linked to Israel until Gaza ceasefire.
The comparison is useful. The shorelines area under the Houthi control of the Red Sea (green map in the link) in the north of Yemen, is a much wider maritime passage. The Strait of Hormuz, by contrast, is so narrow in a clear day each shore is visible from the other. To borrow a simple image, in the Houthi area the width of the Red Sea is an Amazon River and where Hormuz is a stream. The narrowness of the Hormuz Strait makes control easier for Iran and exposes the vulnerability of U.S. naval ships. Before promising to escort commercial shipping, a responsible administration should ask a basic question: if a small, impoverished Yemen could not be subdued by the world’s most powerful militaries, how exactly will American warships be safer under the reach of fire in the narrower Strait?
There is another question Washington refuses to entertain: How will Americans feel when they realize they are risking lives, ships, and economic stability largely to advance Israel’s sole strategic objectives?
This is not an abstract question. It is a political and economic reckoning, purposefully delayed. Especially since Americans are still reeling from the cost of previous Israeli wars, and now, they are asked to take on a new national debt—$200 billion—to bankroll yet another war, especially made for Israel.
The made-for-Israel wars may have begun in Iraq but will not end with Iran. Israeli false flags are poised to provoke further escalations designed to entrap even states traditionally friendly to Tehran, such as Oman. For Israel, victory remains incomplete unless it drags Gulf Arab states into open confrontation with Iran, hardening divisions that may last generations. Iranian mistrust of the Gulf Arabs would likely endure even in the event of regime change. In this calculus, Israel “wins” not only on the battlefield, but by entrenching lasting hostility between Iran and the Arab world, ensuring a permanently fragmented region.
More than two decades ago, the illegal war against Iraq was cooked in the dens of the Pentagon by Israel-first ideologues and sold to the American public through the managed media, ruse and weapons of mass deception. The current war is, in some ways, even more brazen. It was exclusively designed in the war ministry offices of Tel Aviv, and Trump obliged.
This is not America’s war. The decision was made elsewhere, and timed elsewhere, fought on behalf of someone else to serve the strategic objectives of a foreign country. Washington has subordinated the American national interest to the tribal agenda of Israeli-firsters inside the Beltway. Simply put: Tel Aviv chooses the war, and Washington pays the bill.
Top official: Iran ready for a long war with US, no more diplomacy
Press TV – March 9, 2026
The head of Iran’s Strategic Council on Foreign Relations says the United States has proved that it does not know the language of diplomacy, and that Tehran is ready for a long war.
“I no longer see any room for diplomacy. Because [US President] Donald Trump deceives others and does not keep his promises, and we experienced this in two rounds of negotiations. While we were negotiating, they attacked us,” Kamal Kharrazi said in an interview with CNN.
However, he noted that the economic pressure could increase to the extent that other countries take action to guarantee the end of the US-Israeli aggression against Iran.
“The Persian Gulf Arab countries and other countries must put pressure on the United States to end the war,” Kharrazi stated.
Noting that this war has created a lot of economic pressure on others, in terms of inflation and energy shortages, he said: “If it continues, this pressure will increase, and thereby others will have no choice but to intervene.”
The US and Israel started a fresh round of aerial aggression on Iran on February 28, some eight months after they carried out unprovoked attacks on the country.
The attacks led to the martyrdom of Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei.
The aggression was launched as Tehran and Washington had held three rounds of indirect negotiations in the Omani capital of Muscat and the Swiss city of Geneva and planned to open technical talks in Vienna, Austria.
Iran began to swiftly retaliate against the strikes by launching barrages of missiles and drone attacks on the Israeli-occupied territories as well as on US bases in regional countries.
How Iran’s Toxic Rain Reveals US-Israel Discord
By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 09.03.2026
The main Israeli goal is to cause as much chaos as possible and draw the US even deeper into the war, security expert Dr Simon Tsipis tells Sputnik.
US Energy Secretary Chris Wright accused Israel of bombing Iranian fuel depots, insisting the US targets no energy facilities.
Axios reports that the US was informed ahead of the Israeli attacks, but the huge scale of damage shocked Washington. The attack caused an environmental disaster with black acid rain in Tehran.
This situation reveals a divide between the allies, Tsipis said:
- Israeli forces behind Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu want to trigger a full-scale war in the Persian Gulf
- The US realizes it has been drawn into a project that has nothing to do with its own goals
“Israel has effectively set a trap for its long-time allies among American Christian evangelicals,” Tsipis says. “A strong opposition is growing within the US, openly declaring that the current course does not serve the nation’s interests.”
The US is taking most of the blame with Israel’s role forgotten, the pundit says.
“This creates enormous reputational risks for the US, turning it into a hostage of someone else’s strategy,” Tsipis says, “one that brings no benefit to the White House while forcing it to bear all the costs of supporting the conflict.”
Consequences:
- A regional conflict escalates into a global threat
- The US is caught in a strategic trap
- US allies in Europe are caught in a deepening crisis
- A rift is growing inside the US
- The reputational damage will have long-term consequences for US influence in the world
Iran’s latest move in the GCC countries was a stroke of genius
By Martin Jay | Strategic Culture Foundation | March 9, 2026
After just a week into Donald Trump’s war, there is very little to report which should or could please the U.S. president. Much of America’s infrastructure in the Middle East has been destroyed with U.S. soldiers now housed by hotels in GCC countries as there is nothing left of their bases. The stocks that these countries have as part of their air defence systems is almost depleted as military chiefs argue about how quickly they can be replaced (some THAAD and Patriot systems are being shipped from Japan and South Korea) and Iran is hitting Israel harder and harder each day.
Of course, due to the new draconian rules which Israel has imposed — that no military strikes that Iran succeeds in carrying out can be ‘reported’ on by journalists or even citizens who wish to post it on social media — as well as the comically corrupt, partisan way U.S. news outlets are covering the war, very little bad news gets seen by the public, if any.
Under this set up, it is hardly surprising that Trump went to war, given that he must have factored in a great deal of support from U.S. media, whom he claims to despise. In this regard, we can conclude that media itself is complicit in war crimes, given that it has played a huge role in the decision to go to war and also the day to day reporting of events on the ground.
A good example of the few points of the war which are reported, but done in such a distorted way, is the news that Iran has stopped its bombing of GCC Gulf states. This has been presented as a victory by the U.S. and a climb down by Iran. The truth though is that it is a considerable victory for Tehran as what is not being reported or even examined is the deal that Iran has struck with those countries. None of those countries will allow any kind of military activity now by U.S. forces there, which means the thousands of U.S. soldiers in hotels in these GCC countries might as well head back home as their role there is redundant. Of course it’s unlikely that Trump will move them out as such an event will be captured by many on social media and will look like a great defeat. But some analysts are going further and speculating that there is more bad news for Israel and the U.S. with this latest move. Not only has Iran insisted on no activity at all in these countries by U.S. forces but they have also said that when the war is over, all the bases must be completely shut down.
Sadly, the gesture didn’t hold for long as it is rumoured that Iran’s elite guard was angered by Trump’s response and so the missile attack on the GCC countries continued.
Against a backdrop of rumours spreading throughout the middle east that Saudi Arabia, UAE and Qatar were considering jointly to completely pull out their investment in the U.S., this move, even as a gesture, couldn’t have come at a worse time for Trump.
His media machine is working overtime in spewing out so many fake news reports, like the recent one that the U.S. has total air superiority over Iran, that it will be interesting to see how this is spun in the coming days. But there is nothing but lies from the Trump camp and as a complicit western media scrum is happy to pump out these lies, people are obviously turning to social media or international news channels in the global south, like CGTN and Russia Today. For many Americans, they are simply too dumb to know how to even question the narrative. Where is the video footage to support these preposterous claims that American has air superiority over Iran? Within 24 hours of Trumps B2 bombers hitting nuclear sites in Iran last year in June, media were given video clips of the satellite imagery. So far, the claims by Trump’s people about air superiority, have not been matched with any evidence. None the less U.S. media reports it more or less like it is fact.
It’s a similar story with the claims about the U.S. navy sinking 20 Iranian vessels. Where’s the evidence? If we are to take into account completely defenceless ships like the unarmed frigate that was sunk in international waters after it returned from a joint exercise with India, it would seem that America is on the losing side. Not even Japanese naval strikes in the WWII would blow up enemies’ ships and not then pick up survivors. The Americans left 80 sailors to drown, the same seamen who posed with photos days earlier with Prime Minister Modi, who, it should be pointed out often claims that India is the “guardian of the Indian ocean”, a patently absurd claim. Many believe Modi sold the Iranians out and disclosed its position to the Americans, leaving many to question just how much he can be trusted with his present allies. Will Russia still sell its oil to India after such a betrayal?
It’s clear that the Iran war is already WWIII in many respects. Certainly each side has its partners and media have made much of Russia’s intelligence support to Iran pointing out American positions, while China has given Iran considerable military support both in state of the art radar systems and ground to air missile systems. The sinking of the Iranian ship shows us all the depth of the desperation of America, that it needs to go as far as hunting for Iranian ships thousands of miles away and sinking them, even if they are unarmed as this ship was. Does that look like the act of a confident aggressor on a victory role? Hardly.
It isn’t just that America can barely hold the high moral ground for even a brief, ephemeral media moment, but more that the number of shocking tactical errors by Trump are piling up and having an impact. The failure to see that killing the supreme leader, who has been replaced by a hard liner who has always wanted Iran to have a nuclear deterrent, was a major act of stupidity. Nearly all U.S. wars follow the same pattern of America underestimating its enemy and overestimating its own capabilities and this one is no exception. The move to bring GCC states closer to Iran and turn them against the U.S. is smart and what we could expect from Iran who has had years to prepare for this attack and has been given so many free lessons by America’s blunders — the best one being the June attack which resulted in Iran upping its game and identifying all the weak spots which needed work. The biggest miscalculation probably of all is going to war in the first place believing that regime change would be inevitable in days and therefore no longer-term plans, in terms of military stocks, need to be addressed. America is about to run out of ammo. For the GCC countries, it’s quite possible that the deal might be reinstated in the coming days as a new truth emerges from the war. While Donald Trump tells reporters on Air Force one that Iran was responsible for bombing its own school, GCC leaders will have to wake up to a new reality which is summed up by Henry Kissinger. “It may be dangerous to be America’s enemy, but to be America’s friend is fatal.”
Possible Scenarios for the Middle East
By Yuriy Zinin – New Eastern Outlook – March 9, 2026
The US and Israeli aggression against Iran has pushed the Middle East to the verge of exploding. It has ignited regional media discourse, which presents various assessments of the situation and its consequences.
According to a major regional portal, Middle East Online, these assessments can be divided into two categories. One group tends to support the idea of Israel’s overwhelming superiority and its control over the region’s key institutions. They also believe the predictions of the Lebanese astrologer Layla Abdel Latif. The other group offers alternative scenarios, including those pointing to an Iranian victory and the collapse of the Trump-Netanyahu alliance.
Who is to blame for the war and how long it will last
Two main themes are of particular interest to commentators: who is responsible for this operation and how long will the confrontation between the two antagonistic sides last? One of the mediators, Omani Foreign Minister Badr bin Hamad Al-Busaidi, speaking on CBS television, revealed that Iran had accepted the zero enrichment condition and was ready to move its stockpiles outside its territory. However, this effort was in vain; Washington did not hear it.
It is clear that the adversaries’ balance of potential and military arsenals are disproportionate and favor the aggressors. Nevertheless, according to many experts, technological superiority does not guarantee a swift victory for the US. Trump left Tehran no chance for retreat, and Iran is acting in accordance with the logic of attrition, not traditional doctrine. Iran’s arsenal of ballistic missiles and drones, as well as the use of allies on Arab bridgeheads, allows it to open several fronts and turn the war against it into a costly and prolonged endeavor. Therefore, Tehran is betting on dragging things out until the military pressure becomes a political burden for its opponents.
Western intelligence services were too slow
Analyzing the situation, an Arab newspaper claims that Western intelligence services failed to properly assess Iran. Their attack plans were based on the assumption that “decapitating” the leadership would deprive Tehran of the will to launch retaliatory strikes. But events have shown that these intelligence agencies overlooked the quiet restoration of Iran’s potential, which began in 2025.
In addition, Iran’s opponents did not take into account the fact that, in Islamic tradition, the killing of a spiritual leader is often perceived not as his end, but as a transition to martyrdom. Usually such losses do not disorganize society but, on the contrary, mobilize it and give it strength.
Many analysts believe that Iran has demonstrated its ability to overcome this shock and recover institutional cohesion, having formed a temporary tripartite leadership including reformers, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, and the bureaucratic religious elite. Despite limited capabilities compared to the US, Iran retains significant regional influence. At the same time, some fear that an Iran weakened by the US and Israel could strategically destabilize the countries that rely on Tehran for security purposes.
Countries in the region reject US military involvement
This war was unleashed by Washington for the sake of Israel and for goals that are not accepted by the countries of the region, concludes the Arab As-Sabil newspaper. Washington ignored all calls, efforts, and negotiations aimed at preventing it. According to analysts, this places Arab states at the epicenter of pressure, requiring high political acumen in matters of national security demands in order to avoid being drawn into axes that could lead to a larger confrontation. America’s investment in its military assets has actually damaged regional stability and the interests of the countries of the region. Military assets, including bases and partnerships, have become nothing less than a curse for the countries in the region and a cause of undermining its security.
“Trump’s noble mission for the future” – rhetoric repeated at the White House – is nothing more than a grand gamble based on the assumption that overseas power is capable of changing history. This may provoke unforeseen reactions from other international powers, which perceive such behavior as a dangerous American unilateral approach to the demands and fate of global energy and logistics.
Not just a war, but a deep transformation
Regional analysts find that part of society is shocked as the predictions they hear in the evening are irrelevant by the morning, with multiple new scenarios spawning. Today a massive new war looms in the region. This war is not a traditional conflict between two sides, but rather a brief moment that will determine the region’s landscape for decades to come. An Arab author fears that it is not just a clash; it is a deep strategic transformation that is turning the region into a quagmire where blood, chaos, and miscalculation are constant.
Yuri Zinin, PhD in History, Senior Research Fellow at the Institute of International Studies, Moscow State Institute of International Relations (University), Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation
Follow new articles on our Telegram channel
Featured Video
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Israel Would Have No Qualms About USS Liberty-Style FALSE FLAG If Iran Campaign Falters – Analysts
By Ilya Tsukanov – Sputnik – 18.06.2025
Donald Trump is mulling whether or not to join Israel’s aggression against Iran as Tel Aviv faces problems sustaining its defenses against growing counterstrikes, and apparently lacks a realistic game plan for an end to hostilities after failing to achieve its goals. Analysts told Sputnik how the US could be ‘nudged’ into the conflict.
“The US is already assisting Israel with supplies, intel, refueling support, etc. One of the many US posts in the region could be attacked for a casus belli,” former Pentagon analyst Karen Kwiatkowski explained.
“If Trump doesn’t comply with Israel’s demand” and join its aggression voluntarily, “a false flag may be needed” to drag the US in, Kwiatkowski, retired US Air Force Lt. Col.-turned Iraq War whistleblower, fears.
Netanyahu has a diverse array of options at his disposal, according to the observer, including:
- a false flag against US assets abroad blamed on Iran or one of its Axis of Resistance allies, like the Houthis
- a US domestic attack or assassination blamed on Iran
- Iranian air defenses ‘accidentally’ hitting a civilian jetliner carrying Americans
- use of a dirty bomb or nuclear contamination somewhere in the region blamed on Iran
- even blackmailing by threatening to use nukes against Iran if the US doesn’t join the fight
Kwiatkowski estimates that Israel probably has “enough blackmail power” against President Trump and Congress to avoid the necessity of a false flag operation, but a “USS Liberty-style” attack, targeting the soon-to-be-retired USS Nimitz supercarrier that’s heading to the Middle East, for example, nevertheless cannot be ruled out entirely, she says. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Smotrich calls for annexation of South Lebanon to Litani River
- Echos of Gallipoli? Hormuz and the Geography of Hubris
- Pakistan PM backs Iran’s right to self-defense amid tensions
- Hungary blasts ‘fake’ EU accusation
- SAFE Debt Trap: Poland’s €43.7 Billion Bet on Unipolar Illusion
- War on Iran threatens global Gulf capital flows: FT analysis
- Mossad De Facto Admits To Inciting Riots In Iran
- Tehran: World grown thoroughly exhausted with US-Israeli ‘false flag storylines’
- Trump ‘stuck between a rock and a hard place’, lacks Iran war strategy: Ex-CIA chief
- Trump’s bombardment of fake news so far is working quite well. But where is it heading?
- If Americans Knew
- From Sde Teiman, the truth about Israel’s military justice system has been set free
- Child denied life-saving bone marrow transplant by Israel ‘because he is from Gaza’
- Raffi Berg: BBC Middle East Editor Exposed as CIA, Mossad Collaborator
- Jerusalem Archbishop Rebukes Netanyahu’s Statements on Christianity
- US to embed Palantir AI across entire military: Report
- Israeli-US war on Iran to drag on “a few more weeks” – Not a ceasefire Day 164
- Lebanon deaths top 1,200; Palantir AI to be embedded across US military – Not a ceasefire Day 163
- Israel’s assassination game: Take all pragmatists off the board
- Food shortages return to Gaza as Israel tightens aid restrictions under the cover of its war on Iran
- Trump demands trillions in payments from Gulf countries, billions from Harvard – Not a ceasefire Day 162
- No Tricks Zone
- Devastating Assessment Of Comirnaty Vaccine By Former Senior Pfizer Europe Toxicologist
- New Study: CO2 Is ‘Effectively Negligible’ As An Explanatory Climate Change Factor Since 2000
- Former Pfizer Toxicologist Dr. Helmut Sterz Tells Bundestag Hearing Pfizer Vaccine Should Have Never Been Approved
- Energy Expert: Germany’s Nuclear Phaseout Was A “500 Billion Euro Mistake”
- New Research: South Australia’s Mid-Holocene Sea Surface Temperatures Were 4°C Warmer Than Today
- Storing Green Energy To Last Germany 10 Days Would Require A 60-Million Tonne Battery
- New Studies: UK Sea Levels Were 4 Meters Higher Than Today During The Mid-Holocene
- Destructive Green New Deal: German Energy And Metal Group Warns Of Drastic Crisis
- New Study Documents A 20-Year Pause In Arctic Sea Ice Decline – Driven By Internal Variability
- Wake-up Call: Survey Shows Majority Of Germans Now Favor Postponing Climate Targets!
Aletho News 
