Iran, Russia, Azerbaijan reach major agreement on cargo transit
Press TV – October 13, 2025
Iran, Russia, and Azerbaijan have agreed to significantly increase the volume of cargo that passes through their territories from the Baltic Sea and the Barents Sea to the Persian Gulf.
Iran’s Minister of Road and Urban Development Farzaneh Sadegh said on Monday that Tehran, Moscow, and Baku had agreed to set a target of 15 million metric tons (mt) for annual cargo transit via their territories.
Sadegh made the remarks after a trilateral meeting in Baku, where he discussed transport, energy, and customs issues with Azerbaijan’s Deputy Prime Minister Shahin Mustafayev and Russian Deputy Prime Minister Alexey Overchuk.
Sadegh said the three countries had also agreed to streamline and modernize their customs operations to help increase the volume of cargo transit via their territories.
She said that Iran and Russia had accelerated works on the construction of a key railroad link in northern Iran that would significantly boost transit volumes via the International North–South Transport Corridor (INSTC).
Sadegh said that the Russian contractor of the Rasht-Astara railroad will be able to start work on the project after March 2026, when Iran finishes land purchases and other preparations for the construction of the 160-kilometer rail link.
Russia’s Overchuk also hailed the agreements reached during the trilateral meeting in Baku, saying that Iran, Russia, and Azerbaijan have been seeking to create a common commodity market with barrier-free logistics that could cover transit from the Barents and Baltic Seas to the Persian Gulf.
Overchuk told Russia’s Tass news agency that increased transit via the INSTC would lead to more economic welfare for the people of the three countries, adding that the project would entail major benefits for producers, exporters, and importers.
The defeat of Israel and the rebirth of Palestinian agency
By Ramzy Baroud | MEMO | October 13, 2025
For decades, the prevailing notion was that the ‘solution’ to the Israeli occupation of Palestine lay in a strictly negotiated process. “Only dialogue can achieve peace” has been the relentlessly peddled mantra in political circles, academic platforms, media forums, and the like.
A colossal industry burgeoned around that idea, expanding dramatically in the lead-up to, and for years after, the signing of the Oslo Accords between Yasser Arafat’s Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Israeli government.
The unmaking of ‘peace’
The problem was never with the fundamental principle of ‘dialogue,’ ‘peace,’ nor even with that of ‘painful compromises‘ — a notion tirelessly circulated during the ‘peace process’ period between 1993 and the early 2000s.
Instead, the conflict has largely been shaped by how these terms, and an entire scaffolding of similar terminology, were defined and implemented. ‘Peace’ for Israel and the US necessitated a subservient Palestinian leadership, ready to negotiate and operate within confined parameters, and entirely outside the binding parameters of international law.
Similarly, ‘dialogue’ was only permissible if the Palestinian leadership consented to renounce ‘terrorism’ — read: armed resistance — disarm, recognise Israel’s purported right to exist as a Jewish state, and adhere to the prescribed language dictated by Israel and the US.
In fact, only after officially renouncing ‘terrorism’ and accepting a restricted interpretation of specific UN resolutions on the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza did Washington agree to ‘dialogue’ with Arafat. Such low-level conversations took place in Tunisia and involved a junior US official — Robert Pelletreau, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs.
Not once did Israel consent to ‘dialogue’ with Palestinians without a stringent set of preconditions, driving Arafat to a unilateral series of concessions at the expense of his people. Ultimately, Oslo yielded nothing of intrinsic value for Palestinians, apart from Israel’s mere recognition, not of Palestine or the Palestinian people, but of the Palestinian Authority (PA), which, over time, became a conduit for corruption. The PA’s continued existence is inextricably linked to that of the Israeli occupation itself.
Israel, conversely, operated unchecked, conducting raids on Palestinian towns, executing massacres at will, enforcing a debilitating siege on Gaza, assassinating activists, and imprisoning Palestinians en masse, including women and children. In fact, the post-‘dialogue,’ ‘peace,’ and ‘painful compromises’ era witnessed the largest expansion and effective annexation of Palestinian land since the 1967 Israeli occupation of East Jerusalem, the West Bank, and Gaza.
Gaza as the anomaly
During this period, there was a widespread consensus that violence, meaning only Palestinian armed resistance in response to unconstrained Israeli violence, was intolerable. The PA’s Mahmoud Abbas dismissed it in 2008 as ‘useless,’ and subsequently, in coordination with the Israeli military, devoted much of the PA’s security apparatus to suppress any form of resistance to Israel, armed or otherwise.
Though Jenin, Tulkarm, Nablus, and other regions and refugee camps in the West Bank continued to forge spaces, however constrained, for armed resistance, the concerted efforts of Israel and the PA often crushed or at least substantially reduced these moments.
Gaza, however, consistently stood as the anomaly. The Strip’s armed uprisings have persisted since the early 1950s, with the emergence of the fedayeen movement, followed by a succession of socialist and Islamic resistance groups. The place has always remained unmanageable — by Israel, and later by the PA. When Abbas loyalists were defeated following brief but tragic violent clashes between Fatah and Hamas in Gaza in 2007, the small territory became an undisputed center of armed resistance.
This event occurred two years after the Israeli army’s redeployment out of Palestinian population centers in the Strip (2005), into the so-called military buffer zones, established on areas that were historically part of Gaza’s territory. It was the start of today’s hermetic siege on Gaza.
In 2006, Hamas secured a majority of seats in the Palestinian Legislative Council, an unexpected turn of events that infuriated Washington, Tel Aviv, Ramallah, and other Western and Arab allies.
The fear was that without Israel’s PA allies maintaining control over the resistance inside Gaza and the West Bank, the occupied territories would inevitably result in a widespread anti-occupation revolt.
Consequently, Israel intensified its suffocating siege on the Strip, which refused to capitulate despite the horrific humanitarian crisis resulting from the blockade. Thus, starting in 2008, Israel adopted a new strategy: treating the Gaza resistance as an actual military force, thereby launching major wars that resulted in the killing and wounding of tens of thousands of people, predominantly civilians.
These major conflicts included the war of December 2008-January 2009, November 2012, July-August 2014, May 2021, and the latest genocidal war commencing in October 2023.
Despite the immense destruction and the relentless siege, let alone external international and Arab pressures and isolation, the Strip somehow endured and even regenerated itself. Destroyed residences were rebuilt from the salvaged rubble, and resistance weaponry was also replenished, often utilizing unexploded Israeli munitions.
The 7 October rupture
The 7 October Hamas operation, known as Al-Aqsa Flood, constituted a significant break from the established pattern that had endured for years.
For Palestinians, it represented the ultimate evolution of their armed struggle, a culmination of a process that commenced in the early 1950s and involved diverse groups and political ideologies. It served as a stark notification to Israel that the rules of engagement have irrevocably shifted, and that the besieged Palestinians refuse to submit to their supposed historical role of perpetual victimhood.
For Israel, the event was earth-shattering. It exposed the country’s vaunted military and intelligence as deeply flawed, and revealed that the country’s leadership assessment of Palestinian capabilities was fundamentally erroneous.
This failure followed the brief surge of confidence during the normalisation campaign initiated by the US and Israel with pliable Arab and Muslim countries during Trump’s first term in office. At that time, it appeared as though the Palestinians and their cause had been rendered irrelevant in the broader Middle Eastern political landscape. Between a co-opted Palestinian leadership in the West Bank and besieged resistance movements in Gaza, Palestine was no longer a decisive factor in Israel’s pursuit of regional hegemony.
The centerpiece of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s strategy, and his aspiration to conclude his long political career with the ultimate regional triumph, was suddenly obliterated. Enraged, disoriented, but also determined to restore all of Israel’s advantages since Oslo, Netanyahu embarked on a campaign of mass killing that, over the course of two years, culminated in one of the worst genocides in human history.
His methodical extermination of the Palestinians and overt desire to ethnically cleanse the survivors out of Gaza laid bare Israel and its Zionist ideology for their inherently violent character, thus allowing the world, especially Western societies, to fully perceive Israel for what it truly is, and what it has always been.
Resistance, resilience, and defeat
But the genuine fear that unified Israel, the US, and several Arab countries is the terrifying prospect that resistance, particularly armed resistance, could re-emerge in Palestine, and by extension across the Middle East, as a viable force capable of threatening all autocratic and undemocratic regimes. This fear was dramatically amplified by the ascent of other non-state actors, such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and Ansarallah in Yemen, who collectively with the Gaza resistance managed to forge a formidable alliance that required direct US involvement in the conflict.
Even then, Israel failed to achieve any of its strategic objectives in Gaza, owing to the legendary resilience of the Palestinian people, but also the prowess of the resistance that managed to destroy over 2,000 Israeli military vehicles, including hundreds of the pride and joy of the Israeli military industry, the Merkava tank.
No Arab army has managed to exact this scale of military, political, and economic cost from Israel throughout the country’s violent existence of nearly eight decades. Though Israel and the US — and others, including some Arab countries and the PA — continue to demand the disarming of the resistance, such a demand is rationally nearly unattainable. Israel has dropped over 200,000 tons of explosives over Gaza over the course of two years to achieve that singular objective, and failed. There is no plausible reason to believe that it can achieve such a goal through political and economic pressures alone.
Not only did Israel fail in Gaza, or, more accurately in the words of many Israeli historians and retired army generals, was decisively defeated in Gaza, but Palestinians have managed to reassert Palestinian agency, including the legitimacy of all forms of resistance, as a winning strategy against Israeli colonialism and US-Western imperialism in the region. This explains the profound fear shared by all parties that Israel’s defeat in Gaza could fundamentally alter the entire regional power dynamics.
Though the US and its Western and Arab allies will persist in negotiating in an attempt to resurrect the almost 90-year-old Palestinian leader Abbas and his Oslo paradigm as the only viable alternatives for Palestinians, the medium and long-term consequences of the war are likely to present a starkly different reality, one where Oslo and its corrupted figures are definitively relegated to the past.
Finally, if we are to speak of a Palestinian victory in Gaza, it is a resounding triumph for the Palestinian people, their indomitable spirit, and their deeply rooted resistance that transcends faction, ideology, and politics.
All of this considered, it must also be clearly stated that the current ceasefire in Gaza cannot be misconstrued as a ‘peace plan’; it is a mere pause from the genocide, as there will certainly be a subsequent round of conflict, the nature of which depends heavily on what unfolds in the West Bank, indeed the entire region, in the coming months and years.
US sent $21.7 billion to Israel to back Gaza genocide: Study
Press TV – October 7, 2025
An academic study has revealed that the United States has funneled $21.7 billion in financial and military assistance to Israel since the onset of the Gaza genocide on October 7, 2023.
The report released on Tuesday by the Costs of War Project at Brown University’s Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs details how the US State Department and the newly renamed Department of War, under both Joe Biden and Donald Trump administrations, have collectively transferred at least $21.7 billion to support Israel’s genocide in Gaza.
According to the study, the United States supplied $17.9 billion to Israel in the first year of the genocide, during former US president Joe Biden’s tenure, and $3.8 billion in the second year.
A large portion of the assistance has already been delivered, while the remainder will be distributed in the coming years, the report added.
The study notes that Washington is expected to allocate tens of billions of dollars in future funding to Israel through various bilateral deals.
Another analysis, also published by the Costs of War Project, states that the United States has spent approximately $9.65 – $12.07 billion on military operations in West Asia over the past two years.
US spending in the region, such as strikes on Yemen in March and May 2025 and attacks on Iranian nuclear sites on June 22, estimates total costs between $9.65 billion and $12 billion since October 7, 2023, including $2 billion to $2.25 billion for operations against Iran.
Although both reports rely on open-source data, they present detailed assessments of US military support for Israel and estimates of the cost of direct American involvement in the region.
Meanwhile, the State Department has not commented on the amount of military assistance given to Israel since October 2023. The White House referred inquiries to the Pentagon, which oversees only a part of the aid that is given to the Zionist entity.
The studies argue that without US backing, the regime would have been unable to maintain its genocidal campaign in Gaza for two years.
The principal study was produced in collaboration with the Washington-based Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.
Pro-Israel groups have accused the institute of isolationism and anti-Israel bias, allegations the organization firmly denies.
Meanwhile, Israel’s war machine continues its campaign of destruction, claiming countless civilian lives across Gaza and the wider region.
Since October 7, 2023, when Israel launched its genocidal war on the besieged Gaza Strip, more than 76,000 Palestinians, including over 20,000 children and 12,500 women, have been killed or gone missing, while in its 12-day war with Iran last June, the regime killed at least 1,604 people.
Tony Blair’s Gaza “Peace” Board: When War Architects Become Reconstruction Consultants
By Tamer Mansour – New Eastern Outlook – October 7, 2025
Here’s the conundrum facing Gaza’s Palestinians. Having endured devastating military operations, they now face “reconstruction” overseen by someone whose interventions have consistently produced what results, exactly?
Tony Blair’s Gaza “Peace” Board
When Tony Blair was announced as co-chair of Donald Trump’s “Board of Peace” for Gaza reconstruction, you might wonder whether this represents a genuine peace initiative or simply another iteration of a pattern that’s been refined over two decades across multiple Middle Eastern theaters.
It might sound paradoxical that the architect of the Iraq War, a conflict built on intelligence about weapons of mass destruction that never materialized, would now be positioned as the overseer of Gaza’s future. But in reality, that’s how these appointments work in the Western establishment.
Previous failures seem to qualify rather than disqualify candidates for new ventures.
The Iraq Blueprint
If you want to understand what awaits Gaza under Blair’s stewardship, the Iraq experience offers an instructive template. The Chilcot Inquiry found that Blair “misrepresented intelligence” and “failed to exhaust all peaceful options” before launching the 2003 invasion.
What’s particularly revealing is that British intelligence agencies knew evidence used to justify the war came from individuals who had been tortured, yet the decision to proceed was made regardless.
Blair and his administration spent a decade denying British complicity in the CIA’s torture programs, only to eventually face uncovered evidence that proves the UK’s deep involvement in the rendition programs. Not to forget the major role the UK played in creating a war that killed over a million Iraqis, further destabilized an already inflammable region, emboldened the mutation of what they called “Al Qaeda” into multiple versions, most famously ISIS, and caused a refugee crisis that Europe complains about the most.
Yet Blair has never faced legal accountability. Instead, he has been rewarded with lucrative consultancy contracts and, incredibly, now oversees yet another Middle Eastern territory devastated by military operations.
No wonder some observers view this appointment with skepticism, is there?
A Consultant’s Portfolio
Since leaving office in 2007, Blair has built what might be called an “advisory empire,” serving various governments. His client list makes for interesting reading, doesn’t it?
In Kazakhstan, Blair advised former President Nursultan Nazarbayev following the December 2011 massacre of at least 17 protesting workers. Leaked emails revealed Nazarbayev paid an estimated £20 million for Blair’s counsel on how to “present a better face to the West.
Blair chose to provide no response on two different occasions to Human Rights Watch when they requested a detailed account of his “consultancy” work and the results it has achieved.
Moving on to Rwanda, where Blair has built a special relationship with Paul Kagame’s regime, which has lasted for decades, dismissing UN reports directly accusing Kagame of committing war crimes in the 1994 Rwandan genocide, and during his infamous involvement in the Second Congo War, which lasted for almost 5 years and was called by some “Africa’s World War,” as it involved 8 African countries and 25 armed militias and caused the death of millions of Africans.
Blair’s response to such accusations directed at him and Kagame would put Niccolo Machiavelli to shame, as he said literally, “Our consultancy is not to tell the people of Rwanda what to do, but to help get done what the president wants.”
The Tony Blair Institute’s accounts show income reaching $121 million in a single year, with much of it from advising what reports described as “repressive”.
The pattern seems consistent: Blair provides Western legitimacy to governments willing to pay for it, while actual democratic reforms remain notably absent from the list of deliverables.
The same Western establishment that positioned itself as guardian of international law regarding various conflicts now promotes Blair for Gaza oversight. Yet Blair’s record demonstrates repeated bypassing of the UN Security Council when it suited Western objectives.
In Kosovo in 1999, Blair established his template: bypassing UN authorization, working with militias whose leaders now face war crimes charges, and claiming humanitarian motives afterward. The NATO bombing campaign never received Security Council approval and killed at least 488 Yugoslav civilians.
That intervention transformed NATO from a defensive alliance into an organization “prepared to initiate war beyond the UN.” Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov continues to reference NATO’s “illegal use of force” in Kosovo when responding to Western criticism.
The rendition operations tell their own story. Blair’s government was involved in the 2004 kidnapping of Abdul-Hakim Belhaj from Malaysia, delivering him to Gaddafi’s torture facilities. The UK government eventually paid £2.3 million in compensation to Sami al-Saadi, though characteristically, it never formally admitted wrongdoing or apologized.
The Gaza Plan: “Investment” or Control?
The leaked 21-page draft proposal outlines a “Gaza International Transitional Authority” (GITA) with an organizational structure worth examining carefully. At the top sits “an international board of billionaires and businesspeople,” while “highly vetted ‘neutral’ Palestinian administrators” occupy the lower administrative positions.
The plan describes Gaza reconstruction as a “commercially driven authority, led by business professionals and tasked with generating investable projects with real financial returns”. Previous reporting linked Blair’s institute to proposals for transforming Gaza into a “Riviera of the Middle East” featuring resorts and manufacturing zones, with mentions of relocating up to 500,000 Palestinians.
Various analysts, both Arab and non-Arab, have expressed concern that the plan is designed to sideline any form of Palestinian governance, in favor of international bodies brought in to carry the load.
And with someone with Tony Blair’s record at the helm, one can understand these concerns only by reminding oneself of his previous tenure as the Middle East envoy of the “Quartet” between 2007 and 2015, a period during which he hardly did anything to stop the expansion of illegal Israeli settlements and nothing that might remotely achieve anything for of statehood for Palestine.
The structure Blair proposes: wealthy foreign decision-makers controlling Palestinian land and resources while Palestinians serve in subordinate administrative roles. This bears a resemblance to governance models from a century ago.
Whether this represents “investment” or simply foreign control with better branding is a question worth considering.
Here’s the conundrum facing Gaza’s Palestinians. Having endured devastating military operations, they now face “reconstruction” overseen by someone whose interventions have consistently produced what results, exactly?
If they accept the Blair plan, they get foreign control disguised as investment, with Palestinians in subordinate roles while “billionaires and businesspeople” make strategic decisions. If they reject it, they risk being portrayed as obstacles to peace and reconstruction, potentially losing access to funding and international support.
The Accountability Gap
Despite the Chilcot Inquiry findings about Britain’s role in the Iraq War, despite compensation paid to rendition victims, and despite documented intelligence manipulation, Blair has never faced legal consequences. Instead, he’s built a consulting empire worth hundreds of millions and has now been appointed to oversee Gaza’s future.
The British government has paid millions in compensation to torture victims without formally admitting responsibility. Blair himself has declined to comment on specifics regarding what he knew about torture programs and when.
This pattern raises questions about international accountability mechanisms. If the architect of the Iraq War faces no consequences, what message does that send about international law?
If involvement in rendition operations results in consultancy opportunities rather than prosecution, what does that suggest about deterrence?
The Accountability Question: The double standard regarding UN authority is worth examining.
The Destruction/Reconstruction Façade
But the pattern seems difficult to ignore. Now I think it’s logical to pose these questions, regardless of political affiliations or personal opinions about the various conflicts discussed here:
- What exactly is Blair bringing to Gaza that couldn’t be provided by someone without his particular history?
- Who benefits from his appointment to this role?
- Does the international community have mechanisms for accountability, or do Western leaders operate under different rules?
Gaza’s Palestinians deserve better than to have their future determined by someone whose previous interventions left trails of destruction across multiple continents. Whether they’ll get better is another question entirely. The pattern has been consistent: promise reform, deliver foreign control, profit from reconstruction contracts, and move on before accountability arrives, or do not respond to it at all.
There’s no particular reason to expect Gaza will be different, unless something fundamental changes about how the international system operates instead of it trying to convince anybody with such a destruction/reconstruction façade, or what one might comfortably call “investment imperialism,” that is being imposed by genocidal force on Gaza.
But for this change to happen, “We the People” worldwide need to wake up and realize who should be in control.
Tamer Mansour is an Egyptian Independent Writer & Researcher.
Hamas official welcomes Arab-Islamic support for movement’s response to Trump plan
MEMO | October 6, 2025
Izzat al-Rishq, a member of Hamas’s Political Bureau, on Monday welcomed a joint statement issued by the foreign ministers of several Arab and Islamic countries, describing it as “important support” for efforts to end Israeli military operations in Gaza and advance negotiations toward a ceasefire.
Speaking to Quds Press, al-Rishq said the ministers’ declaration reinforced the Palestinian position in ongoing talks and could help secure a permanent ceasefire, the withdrawal of Israeli forces, and the entry of humanitarian aid, paving the way for reconstruction under a Palestinian administration backed by Arab and Islamic states.
“We look forward to further Arab and Islamic support to stop the aggression and genocide against our people in Gaza, to end the occupation, and to achieve the aspirations of our people for an independent state with Jerusalem as its capital,” he added.
In their joint statement, the foreign ministers of Jordan, the UAE, Indonesia, Pakistan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Egypt welcomed Hamas’s steps in response to US President Donald Trump’s proposal. The plan calls for ending the war in Gaza, releasing detainees on both sides, and launching immediate negotiations on implementation mechanisms.
The ministers also praised Hamas’s announcement that it is ready to hand over the administration of Gaza to a transitional Palestinian committee of independent technocrats. They stressed the urgency of moving forward on all elements of the proposal to end the humanitarian and political crisis in the enclave.
Seyed M. Marandi: Peace Deal & Another War Against Iran
Glenn Diesen | October 5, 2025
I spoke with Seyed Mohammad Marandi in Sochi about the peace deal being imposed on Gaza, and the US/Israeli preparations for another war with Iran. Marandi is a professor at Tehran University and a former advisor to Iran’s Nuclear Negotiation Team.
The Israel Lobby Wants Thomas Massie Gone. Will Voters Obey?
By Jose Alberto Nino | The Occidental Observer | September 29, 2025
The knives are out for Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), and his political survival could prove whether Congress still answers to American voters or to a foreign lobby with limitless cash.
Pro-Israel Republican megadonors recently set up the MAGA Kentucky super PAC with $2 million specifically to oust Massie. Paul Singer contributed $1 million, John Paulson added $250,000, and Miriam Adelson’s Preserve America PAC provided $750,000. The Republican Jewish Coalition has promised “unlimited” campaign spending if Massie runs for Senate, with CEO Matt Brooks declaring that “if Tom Massie chooses to enter the race for US Senate in Kentucky, the RJC campaign budget to ensure he is defeated will be unlimited.”
President Donald Trump has also jumped into the fray, branding Massie a “pathetic loser” who should be dropped “like the plague.” Overall, a constellation of pro-Zionist forces is mobilizing at full force to unseat Congress’s most principled non-interventionist politician since Ron Paul retired in 2013. In many respects, Massie has taken up Paul’s mantle of foreign policy restraint — a political agenda that has never sat well with organized Jewry. Massie’s legislative track record on foreign policy speaks for itself.
Massie’s Long Track Record of Voting Against Foreign Policy Interventionism
Throughout his congressional career, Massie has established himself as Congress’s most consistent opponent of the neoconservative/neoliberal foreign policy consensus. His principled opposition to endless wars and foreign entanglements has earned him the nickname “Mr. No” — similar to his predecessor Ron Paul — for frequently casting lone dissenting votes against military interventions.
In 2013, Massie introduced the War Powers Protection Act to “block unauthorized U.S. military aid to Syrian rebels.” He argued that “since our national security interests in Syria are unclear, we risk giving money and military assistance to our enemies.” When Obama sought to arm Syrian rebels in 2014, Massie voted against the plan, declaring it “immoral to use the threat of a government shutdown to pressure Members to vote for involvement in war, much less a civil war on the other side of the globe.”
Massie consistently opposed U.S. involvement in Yemen’s civil war, co-sponsoring multiple bipartisan resolutions to invoke the War Powers Resolution and “remove United States Armed Forces from unauthorized hostilities in the Republic of Yemen.” He stated that “Congress never authorized military action in Yemen as our Constitution requires, yet we continue to fund and assist Saudi Arabia in this tragic conflict.”
His opposition to NATO expansion proved equally consistent. In 2017, Massie was one of only four House members to vote against a pro-NATO resolution, explaining that “the move to expand NATO in Eastern Europe is unwise and unaffordable,” and such expansion contradicted Trump’s campaign assertion that “NATO is obsolete.”
Regarding the Russo-Ukrainian war, Massie maintained his non-interventionist stance, receiving an “F” grade from Republicans for Ukraine. He opposed the Ukraine Democracy Defense Lend-Lease Act, multiple aid packages, and efforts to strip Ukraine funding. Massie argued that supporting Ukraine aid was “economically illiterate and morally deficient,” declaring that “the American taxpayers have been conscripted into making welfare payments to this foreign government.”
Most recently, in June 2025, Massie introduced a bipartisan War Powers Resolution with Rep. Ro Khanna to “prohibit United States Armed Forces from unauthorized involvement” in the Israel-Iran conflict. After Trump’s strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, Massie criticized the action as “not Constitutional,” remaining the only Republican co-sponsor of the war powers resolution.
Massie’s Anti-Zionist Streak
Massie’s most politically dangerous positions involve his consistent opposition to pro-Israel legislation, earning him the distinction of being the lone Republican opposing numerous Israel-related measures.
In July 2019, Massie cast the sole Republican vote against a resolution opposing the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement. The resolution passed 398-17, but Massie defended his position by stating he does not support “federal efforts to condemn any type of private boycott, regardless of whether or not a boycott is based upon bad motives” and that “these are matters that Congress should properly leave to the States and to the people to decide.”
In September 2021, Massie was the only Republican to vote against $1 billion in funding for Israel’s Iron Dome defense system. He explained that “my position of ‘no foreign aid’ might sound extreme to some, but I think it’s extreme to bankrupt our country and put future generations of Americans in hock to our debtors.” This vote prompted AIPAC to run Facebook ads stating “When Israel faced rocket attacks, Thomas Massie voted against Iron Dome.”
Perhaps most controversially, on May 18, 2022, Massie cast the lone vote against a resolution condemning antisemitism, which passed 420-1. The American Jewish Committee criticized him, stating that “while Democrats and Republicans united, Rep. Massie, who has also opposed bills on Holocaust education and Iron Dome funding, decided that combating rising hatred is not important.” Massie defended his vote by tweeting that “legitimate government exists, in part, to punish those who commit unprovoked violence against others, but government can’t legislate thought.”
In October 2023, Massie opposed a $14 billion aid package for Israel, proclaiming that “if Congress sends $14.5 billion to Israel, on average we’ll be taking about $100 from every working person in the United States. This will be extracted through inflation and taxes. I’m against it.” When AIPAC criticized him, Massie responded that “AIPAC always gets mad when I put America first. I won’t be voting for their $14+ billion shakedown of American taxpayers either.”
On October 25, 2023, Massie was the sole Republican to vote against a resolution affirming Israel’s right to defend itself following the October 7 Hamas attacks. A month later, on November 28, 2023, he became the only member of Congress to oppose a resolution affirming Israel’s right to exist and equating anti-Zionism with antisemitism, which passed 412-1.
The most explosive moment came in December 2023 when Massie posted a meme of the rapper Drake contrasting “American patriotism” with “Zionism,” implying Congress prioritized the latter. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer called the post “antisemitic, disgusting, dangerous” and demanded he remove it. The White House labeled it “virulent antisemitism.” Republican Jewish Coalition CEO Matt Brooks condemned it, stating “Shame on you @RepThomasMassie. You’re a disgrace to the US Congress and to the Republican Party.”
Massie vs. Trump
Trump’s escalating attacks on Massie reveal the extent to which the sitting president serves pro-Israel interests rather than pursuing genuine ideological differences. The timing and intensity of Trump’s criticism align suspiciously with Massie’s most vocal challenges to Israeli influence in Congress.
In June 2025, after Massie criticized Trump’s Iran strikes as “not Constitutional,” Trump unleashed a scathing Truth Social response calling Massie “not MAGA” and declaring that “MAGA doesn’t want him, doesn’t know him, and doesn’t respect him.” Trump branded Massie a “simple-minded ‘grandstander’ who thinks it’s good politics for Iran to have the highest level Nuclear weapon” and concluded that “MAGA should drop this pathetic LOSER, Tom Massie, like the plague!”
This vitriol represents a dramatic shift from Trump’s 2022 endorsement, when he called Massie a “Conservative Warrior” and “first-rate Defender of the Constitution.” The transformation occurred precisely as Massie intensified his criticism of Israeli influence and foreign aid. Trump’s attacks escalated further after Massie’s explosive June 2024 Tucker Carlson interview where he revealed that “everybody but me has an AIPAC person. … It’s like your babysitter, your AIPAC babysitter who is always talking to you for AIPAC.”
Massie elaborated that “I have Republicans who come to me and say that’s wrong what AIPAC is doing to you, let me talk to my AIPAC person… I’ve had four members of Congress say I’ll talk to my AIPAC person and like it’s casually what we call them my AIPAC guy.” This revelation exposed the systematic nature of Israeli influence over Congress, prompting immediate backlash from pro-Israel organizations and likely contributing to increased donor funding against his re-election campaign.
The pattern makes clear that Trump’s hostility toward Massie stems less from policy disagreements than from his deference to powerful Jewish donors. Although he often claims to oppose “endless wars,” Trump’s attacks on Massie — the most consistent non-interventionist in Congress — expose where his true loyalties lie in advancing the agenda of Jewish supremacist interests rather than pursuing an independent foreign policy. House Speaker Mike Johnson has signaled that GOP leadership will abandon Massie, stating that “he is actively working against his team almost daily now and seems to enjoy that role. So he is, you know, deciding his own fate.”
AIPAC is on the Hunt
AIPAC’s 2024 electoral victories demonstrate the lobby’s willingness to spend unprecedented sums to eliminate critics of Israeli policy. The organization’s success in defeating progressive Democrats and protecting establishment Republicans reveals a coordinated strategy to purge Congress of independent voices. AIPAC will look to replicate its successes against the likes of Israel critics such as Massie.
Against Rep. Jamaal Bowman in New York’s 16th District, AIPAC’s United Democracy Project (UDP) spent $14.5 million opposing Bowman while also propping up challenger George Latimer. Independent media outlet Sludge reported that “the $14.5 million AIPAC’s super PAC has spent in the NY-16 Democratic primary is more than any outside group has ever spent on a single House of Representatives election race.”
The spending was fueled by Republican megadonors channeled through AIPAC, with WhatsApp founder Jan Koum donating $5 million to UDP. Responsible Statecraft noted that “AIPAC effectively acted to launder campaign funds for Republican megadonors into the Democratic primary, where the spending was generally identified in media as ‘pro-Israel,’ not ‘Republican.’” By election day, Latimer-aligned groups had outspent Bowman’s backers by over seven-to-one.
Against Rep. Cori Bush in Missouri’s 1st District, UDP spent over $8.5 million to attack her record on Israel and support her pro-Zionist challenger Wesley Bell. The Bush-Bell primary became one of the most expensive House primaries ever with over $18 million in total ad spending. Bush called it “the second most expensive congressional race in our nation’s history, $19 million and counting” funded by “mostly far-right-funded super PACs, against the interests of the people of St. Louis.”
Even in Republican primaries, AIPAC intervened to protect establishment allies. To defend moderate Rep. Tony Gonzales against challenger Brandon Herrera in Texas’s 23rd District, UDP spent $1 million opposing Herrera in a “two-week ad buy.” The Republican Jewish Coalition added $400,000 in attack ads against Herrera. Combined AIPAC and RJC spending totaled approximately $1.4-1.5 million, helping Gonzales narrowly defeat Herrera by just 354 votes with 50.6% to 49.4%.
These victories came as part of AIPAC’s broader $100+ million spending cycle, with Common Dreams noting that “AIPAC money has already made a significant impact, helping a pair of pro-Israel Democrats defeat progressive Reps. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) and Cori Bush (D-Mo.)—two of Congress’ most vocal critics of Israel’s assault on Gaza—in recent primary contests.”
How Massie’s Race Could Determine the Israel Lobby’s Actual Power
Massie’s 2026 primary represents the ultimate test of whether any politician can survive the full force of pro-Israel opposition. The Kentucky race will determine if AIPAC’s previous victories represent sustainable power or pyrrhic victories that expose the lobby’s long-term vulnerabilities.
Massie’s unique position may prove more defensible than Bowman’s or Bush’s urban districts. His rural Kentucky constituency shows less susceptibility to urban media campaigns and maintains stronger skepticism of foreign entanglements. Moreover, his local roots provide credibility that transcends typical political attacks. The Kentucky representative’s ability to frame opposition as foreign interference rather than domestic policy disagreements could resonate with voters increasingly suspicious of the pro-Israel establishment that dominates Washington’s political scene.
The financial strain of AIPAC’s previous victories may also constrain future spending. The organization’s $100+ million commitment across multiple races represents an unsustainable pace that could face donor fatigue. Each expensive victory exposes the lobby’s methods to greater scrutiny and potential backlash. Progressive groups increasingly highlight AIPAC’s role in primary defeats, potentially mobilizing opposition that limits future effectiveness.
Massie’s survival would demonstrate that principled politicians can withstand pro-Israel pressure through constituent loyalty and grassroots support. His defeat would confirm that no elected official can challenge Israeli interests regardless of their domestic support. The Kentucky race thus represents a pivotal moment in determining whether American foreign policy serves American interests or remains subordinate to foreign influence.
If Massie withstands the assault, it will mark the first crack in the façade of Zionist invulnerability; if he falls, it will prove that American politicians can be bought and buried by World Jewry’s limitless stockpiles of cash.
Why the US is so open about its intentions for Lebanese civil war
By Robert Inlakesh | Al Mayadeen | September 30, 2025
The United States is now openly admitting that it is arming the Lebanese military to fight its own people and that it won’t allow Lebanon to defend itself against the Israelis. This is no mistake and is instead part of a clear-cut strategy, designed to plunge the nation into chaos.
Although Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam has openly followed orders from his American allies, choosing to pursue the disarmament of Hezbollah without any national defense strategy, a move opposed by the majority of the Lebanese public, it seems that the US is still not impressed.
While some have been duped into believing the policy of pursuing disarmament depends on the willingness of the Lebanese military, this way of reading the current American plot is completely wrong. Disarming Hezbollah is just step one in a much more complex strategy.
Since the ceasefire on November 27, 2024, the Zionist regime has continuously bombarded Lebanese territory, anywhere and at any time. They have committed around 5,000 total violations, continuing to expand their military presence in the south of Lebanon, where the Zionist leadership vows to remain indefinitely.
It is crucial at this stage to ask why, especially since airstrikes, specifically those that kill civilians, only complicate the US-assigned tasks of the Lebanese government, bringing both shame and embarrassment, particularly to Nawaf Salam.
One way of looking at the airstrikes is that the Israelis are seeking to degrade the capabilities of Hezbollah and prevent them from rebuilding following the war. Yet, their strikes are simply not effective enough to make a significant dent in this regard, although they may be hitting some sensitive targets on occasion.
This leaves us with the obvious explanation: the ongoing military assault is part of a war of perception which Hezbollah should behave in a very calculated way to deal with. The Israelis achieve two objectives by carrying out more and more provocative violations of Lebanese sovereignty: they project an image of dominance and attempt to bait Hezbollah into responding.
Some would then ask: Why does Hezbollah not respond? A question sometimes asked rhetorically in order to infer that they are too weak to do so.
The answer is quite simple. Hezbollah has put up a limited military front for almost an entire year in support for Gaza, responding to each Israeli escalation in what it considered a calculated manner. Yet all this merely allowed “Israel” to hatch a plot which harmed not only Hezbollah, but Lebanon as a whole. Despite this, the Zionist regime failed to finish the job, and Hezbollah not only survived but fought a defensive war to a stalemate.
If Hezbollah decides to respond in a limited manner to Israeli aggressions, it would provide the perfect excuse for the occupying entity to launch a large-scale military operation which would significantly damage Lebanon. In return, if Hezbollah does not manage to achieve major and overt military victories in such a confrontation, it would be a devastating blow.
In other words, the next confrontation has to be on a much greater scale than anything seen before, a military campaign in which Hezbollah manages to shock not only the Israelis, but the world, and most importantly, the Lebanese people themselves.
The martyred Secretary General of Hezbollah, Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah, often spoke of the media war with the Zionist entity, treating it with great seriousness. This was because public perception shapes not only political outcomes, but also the course of battles on the ground through morale.
Prior to September 2024, the stock of Hezbollah was incredibly high. The public perception was that the Resistance was capable of defeating the Israelis by itself. This is why the end of the war and its results, the renewed occupation of Lebanese lands, brought shock. In reality, Hezbollah’s capabilities were never matching those of the Israelis, yet the tenacity of the Lebanese fighter and the Resistance’s planning created such an impression, especially following the 2006 war.
The perception of Hezbollah’s strength made the Israeli terrorist pager attack and assassination strikes against its leadership all the more devastating, because the public believed such attacks to be impossible.
This is something that the US has since weaponised, with figures like US envoy Morgan Ortagus even declaring that Hezbollah is over. This brings us to her fellow American envoy Tom Barrack’s recent interview with Sky News Arabia.
Barrack explicitly asserted that the US is supplying the Lebanese army to fight its own people, even laughing at the idea that this support is intended to confront “Israel”. While some analysts interpreted Barrack’s statements as ill-advised or mistaken, they couldn’t be further from the truth, there is a reason why he speaks with such confidence.
The U.S. Trump administration understands full-well that the Lebanese army is not capable of removing Hezbollah’s weapons by force alone. The Americans and their Israeli allies may be many things, but they are not naive on this issue. They understand that many strings must be pulled if Hezbollah is actually going to suffer a blow which will lead to significant military degradation.
Part of this strategy is to try and publicly humiliate not only Hezbollah, but also the Lebanese State and people as a whole. Meanwhile, the Israelis are performing their part in this plot and are escalating their provocative actions, now implementing tactics such as deliberately carrying out civilian massacres, like the one that occurred in Bint Jbeil recently. Also, they are now attempting to clear portions of southern Lebanon by issuing evacuation orders before bombing civilian buildings.
What the likes of Nawaf Salam don’t appear to understand is that they are totally disposable in this equation. Meaning that there is even a danger he could be assassinated by the Israelis or Americans in order to pin the blame on Hezbollah and its allies.
Right now, the US and “Israel” are plotting against Lebanon. They will seek to carry out actions which will be just as detrimental, if not more, than what we witnessed last September, and they are under no illusions about whether the Lebanese army could simply disarm Hezbollah for them.
The Israelis are openly seeking the so-called “Greater Israel”, as per their Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s own admission earlier this year. A common misconception about the “Greater Israel Project” is that it would mean occupying Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, parts of Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and even Türkiye, in the same way it did in Palestinian occupied territories.
In fact, the man who first conceived the “Greater Israel” model, Oded Yinon, in his academic article back in 1982, advocated for an Israeli empire, under which the nations of the region would be broken down into sectarian regimes and ethno-states, all of which would be effectively demilitarized and under the de-facto control of the Zionist Entity.
When the Zionist regime occupied southern Lebanon following the 1982 invasion, during which 20,000 people were killed, it relied on the “South Lebanon Army” to carry out its agenda. A similar system was not set up in the occupied West Bank. There, the Zionists instead injected their population to build illegal settlements and Judaize the area, while collaborators managed the territory under Israeli rule.
Similarly, in Syria, the Zionists are not necessarily interested in settling Daraa, for instance, they would much rather demilitarize the entire south, except the collaborator regime they hope to implement in Sweida. Officials in Tel Aviv have also made it clear that they will never tolerate the rebuilding of the Syrian Arab Army; they will only allow a military force comparable to that of Lebanon.
All of this is to say that there is a psychological war being waged on the people of Lebanon and region at large. Hezbollah is still very much militarily capable of taking the fight to the Israelis, but how they do it is of great importance. We know well that the Resistance still possesses considerable capabilities, because we witnessed newly revealed weapons right up until the final days of the war, many of them in clear abundance.
One mistake that the US may be making, however, is that all its rhetoric about Hezbollah could well backfire.
Iran security chief backs Saudi-Hezbollah rapprochement from Beirut
The Cradle | September 27, 2025
Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, Ali Larijani, stated on 27 September that Hezbollah is a “bulwark” against Israeli aggression, rapprochement with Saudi Arabia is to be welcomed, and that the Lebanese people do not need the US as a “guardian.”
Larijani made the statements after arriving in the Lebanese capital on Saturday to attend the anniversary ceremony of the assassination of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah.
During a press conference following his meeting with Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri in Ain al-Tineh, Larijani said Hezbollah “represents a solid barrier against the Israeli entity,” one year after Israel’s devastating war that killed 4,047 Lebanese, including fighters and civilians.
Despite Israel’s air superiority, Hezbollah fighters were able to prevent the invading Israeli forces from moving deep into Lebanese territory.
However, Israeli troops managed to occupy five points on Lebanese territory near the border that they continue to hold.
Since the end of the war, Israel has carried out thousands of airstrikes, including a drone strike on a family traveling by car as they reached their home in Tyre in southern Lebanon earlier this week.
The strike killed Shadi Charara, a car dealer, and three of his daughters. His wife and one of his daughters survived the strike. A man riding a motorcycle nearby was also killed.
“The resistance represents a significant asset for the Islamic nation,” Larijani stated, while praising Nasrallah for recognizing the danger posed by Israel decades ago and developing plans to confront it.
Larijani pointed out that Iran wants countries in the region to cooperate with each other in the face of the Israeli threat, despite previous disagreements. “They must put these aside and make cooperation the basis of their relations.”
As a result, he praised Hezbollah Secretary-General Sheikh Naim Qassem’s efforts to improve relations with Saudi Arabia.
“Saudi Arabia is a sister country to us, and there are ongoing consultations between us. Today is a day of cooperation in confronting a single enemy,” Larijani stressed.
Regarding the deep US influence in the country, Larijani stated that, “The Lebanese people are rational and do not need a guardian, nor do they need the Americans to appoint themselves as their guardians.”
He also addressed US Special Envoy Tom Barrack’s assertion that the US is arming the Lebanese army not to fight against Israel, but to fight Hezbollah.
Larijani said that Barrack is “stirring up discord, sowing division, and causing problems within the country and among its citizens, while the approach adopted by Iran is based on Lebanese officials addressing their internal issues through consensus.”
Regarding Israeli threats, he stressed that Iran is prepared for another war with Israel, but warned that it would be “stupidity” for Israel to launch such a war and that Iran’s response would be severe.
In June, Israel launched an unprovoked war against Iran, killing at least 935 people and targeting the Islamic Republic’s air defense and nuclear sites. Iran responded by hitting Israel with barrages of ballistic missiles and drone strikes.
After meeting with Speaker Berri, Larijani then headed to the Government Palace, where he met with Prime Minister Nawaf Salam.
The two reviewed the latest developments in the region and bilateral relations between the two countries.
Salam emphasized that Lebanese-Iranian relations “must be based on mutual respect for each party’s sovereignty and non-interference in internal affairs.”
Saudi-Pakistan defense pact: Reshaping security architecture in West and South Asia
By Mohammad Molaei | Press TV | September 27, 2025
In the intricate web of West Asian and South Asian geopolitics, where alliances often hinge on the precarious balance of power, energy dependencies, and ideological affinities, the signing of the strategic defense pact between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia marks a pivotal evolution.
This pact represents a calculated maneuver to fortify the alignment of defenses between the two Muslim-majority countries amid waning US commitments. Drawing from operational analyses of similar pacts, like the US-Japan security treaty or the erstwhile CENTO framework, this agreement integrates conventional military interoperability with implicit extended deterrence, potentially altering the calculus of regional power projection.
At its core, the agreement formalizes a mutual defense commitment, stipulating that an armed attack on either party constitutes an assault on both, triggering joint responses under Article 51 of the UN Charter for collective self-defense.
This language echoes NATO’s Article 5 but is tailored to the Persian Gulf’s hybrid threats, encompassing not just conventional invasions but also proxy warfare, cyber intrusions, and ballistic missile salvos. The pact builds on a 1982 protocol that already facilitated Pakistani troop deployments to Saudi Arabia—historically involving up to 20,000 personnel in advisory and training roles—but elevates it to a comprehensive framework for integrated operations.
Militarily, the agreement spans a spectrum of cooperation modalities. Joint exercises will intensify, drawing from existing bilateral drills like the Al-Samsam series, which have honed mechanized infantry maneuvers and anti-tank warfare using platforms such as Pakistan’s Al-Khalid main battle tanks (MBTs) and Saudi M1A2 Abrams variants.
Technology transfers are a cornerstone. Pakistan, with its robust defense-industrial base—including the production of JF-17 Thunder multirole fighters co-developed with China—will share expertise in low-cost unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) like the Burraq, equipped with laser-guided munitions for precision strikes.
In return, Saudi Arabia’s petrodollar-fueled arsenal offers access to advanced air defense systems, such as the THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) interceptors, potentially integrating with Pakistan’s HQ-9/P (export variant of China’s FD-2000) to create layered anti-ballistic missile shields.
Arms procurement and co-production feature prominently, with provisions for joint ventures in missile technology—leveraging Pakistan’s Shaheen-III intermediate-range ballistic missiles (IRBMs) with a 2,750 km reach—and electronic warfare (EW) suites.
Intelligence sharing via secure datalinks will enhance situational awareness, focusing on various threats. Logistically, the pact enables forward basing: Pakistani Special Forces could embed with Saudi Rapid Intervention Forces for counterterrorism operations, while shared maintenance facilities for F-15SA Eagles and AH-64E Apache helicopters streamline sustainment in prolonged conflicts.
This blueprint for operational synergy mirrors how the Persian Gulf Cooperation Council (PGCC) integrates air assets under Peninsula Shield Force, but with Pakistan’s battle-hardened infantry adding asymmetric depth.
Saudi Arabia’s pursuit of this pact stems from a pragmatic recalibration of its security posture, driven by the kingdom’s Vision 2030 imperatives to reduce oil dependency. Riyadh views Pakistan as a Muslim-majority regional powerhouse with a professional army of over 650,000 active personnel, battle-tested in counterinsurgency campaigns against the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and capable of rapid deployment via C-130J Super Hercules transports.
The kingdom’s goals are multifaceted: first, to hedge against US retrenchment, as evidenced by Washington’s equivocal responses to the 2019 Abqaiq attacks, which exposed vulnerabilities in Saudi Patriot PAC-3 batteries despite their 90 percent intercept rates against subsonic threats.
Second, the pact bolsters deterrence against Iran’s symmetrical arsenal, including medium-range ballistic missiles and tactical ballistic missiles, which have ranges covering the Arabian Peninsula. By aligning with Pakistan, Saudi Arabia gains indirect access to a nuclear-capable partner, complementing its own nascent uranium enrichment program under IAEA safeguards.
Economically, it secures preferential access to Pakistani manpower—over 2 million expatriates already remit billions annually—while channeling investments into Pakistan’s defense sector, such as upgrading the Heavy Industries Taxila (HIT) for co-producing Al-Zarrar tanks.
A critical flashpoint is whether the pact extends Pakistan’s nuclear umbrella to Saudi Arabia. Pakistan possesses an estimated 170 warheads, deliverable via Ghauri MRBMs (1,500 km range) or Ra’ad ALCMs (air-launched cruise missiles) from F-16C/D platforms, adhering to a “minimum credible deterrence” doctrine focused on India but adaptable to West Asian contingencies.
The agreement’s text maintains strategic ambiguity—no explicit mention of nuclear sharing—but statements from Pakistani government officials suggest availability “if needed,” implying extended deterrence similar to US commitments to NATO allies.
Analyses indicate this isn’t a formal nuclear-sharing arrangement like NATO’s B61 gravity bombs in Europe; rather, it’s a de facto assurance where Pakistani assets could be forward-deployed in extremis, perhaps via submarine-launched Babur-3 SLCMs from Agosta 90B-class boats.
Saudi funding has historically supported Pakistan’s program, per declassified US cables, but proliferation risks loom under the NPT, which Pakistan hasn’t signed. The pact stops short of a binding nuclear clause to avoid IAEA scrutiny, opting instead for “all necessary means” language that preserves deniability.
The pact’s ramifications cascade across the region, amplifying fault lines and complicating the Persian Gulf’s A2/AD dynamics. For the broader West Asia, it fortifies a new bloc, potentially integrating with the UAE’s Edge Group UAVs or Bahrain’s naval patrols under the Combined Maritime Forces (CMF). This could escalate proxy conflicts in Yemen, where Saudi-led coalitions already employ Pakistani advisors, or in Syria, straining Russian-mediated de-escalation zones.
However, the agreement does not pose any threat to the Islamic Republic, given Pakistan’s role as Iran’s most important security partner, underscored by recent bilateral agreements on border security, counterterrorism, and economic cooperation, including efforts to combat smuggling and joint patrols.
Iran has welcomed the pact as a step toward “comprehensive cooperation among Muslim nations,” reflecting shared interests in regional stability through frameworks like the SCO.
Islamabad’s clarification that the agreement is “defensive and not aimed at third countries” is reassuring, preserving economic lifelines like the Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline (delayed but vital for Pakistan’s energy security). Joint border patrols under the 2019 MoU persist, though the pact might divert Pakistani resources—e.g., diverting FC (Frontier Corps) units from anti-smuggling ops to Persian Gulf deployments.
Open-source indicators reveal keen interest from several nations in acceding to this framework, potentially evolving it into a multilateral shield. The UAE, with its Mirage 2000-9 fleet and ambitions for a “Persian Gulf NATO,” tops the list—Abu Dhabi’s prior defense MoUs with Pakistan (including pilot training) align seamlessly, and sources suggest imminent talks for integration.
Qatar, despite Al Udeid’s US basing, eyes the pact for diversified deterrence post-2022 blockade scars, with indications of exploratory discussions. Egypt emerges as a likely candidate: Cairo’s Sisi administration seeks Saudi funding for its T-90MS MBTs and could contribute expeditionary forces, as noted in geopolitical analyses.
Bahrain and Jordan, already in Saudi-led coalitions, have expressed interest via diplomatic channels, bolstering maritime interdiction in the Strait of Hormuz. Even Oman, traditionally neutral, monitors developments for selective engagement in counter-piracy ops.
Mohammad Molaei is a Tehran-based military affairs analyst.
Tucker Carlson Reveals What Shocked Him While Making 9/11 Docuseries
Glenn Greenwald | September 24, 2025
This is a clip from our show SYSTEM UPDATE, now airing every weeknight at 7pm ET on Rumble. You can watch the full episode for FREE here: https://rumble.com/v6zdjaw-system-upd…
Now available as a podcast! Find full episodes here: https://linktr.ee/systemupdate_
Join us LIVE on Rumble, weeknights at 7pm ET: https://rumble.com/c/GGreenwald
Become part of our Locals community: https://greenwald.locals.com/
‘Peace through diplomacy’ is an excuse for collaboration with the Israelis
By Robert Inlakesh | Al Mayadeen | September 23, 2025
Following what has been widely dubbed as the failure of a recent emergency Arab-Islamic Summit, following the Israeli attack in Doha, many Arab Nations and political actors continue to pursue the concept of “peace through diplomacy”. This is not only a failed strategy, but also disingenuous.
The recent emergency conference, convened as a supposed step towards imposing a price on the Israelis for violating Qatari sovereignty and striking Doha, in a failed assassination attempt against Hamas leaders, has largely been dubbed a failure. Immediately after the conclusion of this summit, the Zionists escalated their terror bombing of Gaza City, and Israeli media announced the beginning of their ground operation to occupy the area.
Similarly, following the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA)’s adoption of the so-called “New York Declaration” on Palestinian Statehood, which is a combined Saudi-French initiative that is bringing about greater Western recognition of Palestine, the Israelis took it as a greenlight to escalate in the occupied West Bank.
Meanwhile, the Lebanese government and a range of ministers have adopted a plan towards disarming Hezbollah. Lebanese Prime Minister, Nawaf Salam, has also publicly stated his desire to normalise ties with the Zionist regime in a CNN interview, while claiming that diplomacy will be a sufficient response to force the Israelis to stop attacking his country.
Perhaps more embarrassingly, Syria’s ruler, Ahmad al-Sharaa, who is being widely mocked for his weak 50-second speech at the recent Arab-Islamic Summit, has now been offered a normalisation agreement by the Zionist regime, according to a report from Axios. This normalisation agreement is being sold as a “security deal”, yet has been compared to the 1979 Egyptian-Israeli normalisation accord.
In Syria, this so-called diplomatic approach will lead only to greater Israeli domination of the fractured nation. The Zionist entity demands that all of Syria south of Damascus be demilitarised, while it remains in the occupied Golan Heights, including the territory they just captured late last year. The Israelis were also revealed by Reuters to be funding around 3,000 militants in the Druze majority area of Suweida.
The Israeli demands in Syria are that they be allowed to have total air dominance and a corridor that would allow direct access to strike Iran, while the authorities in Damascus escalate their efforts to crack down on the Palestinian Resistance and prevent weapons transfers to Hezbollah in Lebanon.
As for the Lebanese government’s approach, the Israelis send their high-ranking officials to tour southern occupied Lebanon and forcefully assert that they will not leave the south of the country. They have carried out over 5,000 violations of the ceasefire agreement over the past year, continue to murder and abduct civilians, while the US-backed rulers in Beirut twiddle their thumbs and complain about Iran allegedly violating their sovereignty.
What is currently taking place is a public humiliation ritual against the Arab leaders, who behave like battered wives who refuse to admit that their rich husbands are abusive narcissists.
The Zionist Entity has bombed Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Egypt, Qatar, Tunisia, and Iran over the past two years. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu openly states that he pursues the so-called “Greater Israel” project, as he occupies more territory in Lebanon and Syria, threatening to annex the occupied West Bank and portions of Gaza too. The Israelis are even now threatening Egypt.
The leaders of the Arab and Islamic countries know all this, yet they continue to speak to their populations as if they are intellectually inferior to them and can’t figure out what is going on. The military spokesperson for the al-Qassam Brigades, Abu Obeida, stated in his last speech that these Arabs and Muslims are the enemies of Gaza and will one day be held accountable. His condemnation didn’t come out of nowhere, as he asserted that the whole Muslim world has failed to even deliver food to the people of Gaza.
Last year, prior to his assassination in Beirut, Sayed Hassan Nasrallah warned the Arab leaders that their complicity will come back to bite them, that they too would fall victim to the Zionists they have been collaborating with, and that nobody will be spared.
Frontline leaders in the battle against the Zionist regime have warned the Arab nations of what is to come, yet all of them decided to ignore these calls. Now, the chickens have come home to roost.
Featured Video
Israelis SUDDENLY Mass Deported From Many Countries
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Elite Western universities are a corrupt, parasitic empire
Instead of high-quality education, these institutions are fostering a global neo-feudal system reminiscent of the British Raj
By Dr. Mathew Maavak | RT | May 30, 2025
In a move that has ignited a global uproar, US President Donald Trump banned international students from Harvard University, citing “national security” and ideological infiltration. The decision, which has been widely condemned by academics and foreign governments alike, apparently threatens to undermine America’s “intellectual leadership and soft power.” At stake is not just Harvard’s global appeal, but the very premise of open academic exchange that has long defined elite higher education in the US.
But exactly how ‘open’ is Harvard’s admissions process? Every year, highly qualified students – many with top-tier SAT or GMAT test scores – are rejected, often with little explanation. Critics argue that behind the prestigious Ivy League brand lies an opaque system shaped by legacy preferences, DEI imperatives, geopolitical interests, and outright bribes. George Soros, for instance, once pledged $1 billion to open up elite university admissions to drones who would read from his Open Society script.
China’s swift condemnation of Trump’s policy added a layer of geopolitical irony to the debate. Why would Beijing feign concern for “America’s international standing” amid a bitter trade war? The international standing of US universities has long been tarnished by a woke psychosis which spread like cancer to all branches of the government.
So, what was behind China’s latest gripe? ... continue
Blog Roll
Recent Comments
loongtip on Report warns that ‘Jewish terr… Craig Nelms on New study shows that toxic gas… loongtip on A Funny Thing Happened on the… loongtip on EU free trade pact on hold as… John Edward Kendrick on Regime Change In Iran Is The F… Bill Francis on Australia Passes New Hate Spee… seversonebcfb985d9 on Australia Passes New Hate Spee… Bill Francis on Britain’s AI Policing Plan Tur… loongtip on Miami Beach Resident Questione… loongtip on Israeli agricultural export co… loongtip on The War On Free Speech In Aust… seversonebcfb985d9 on Scott Ritter Hiding the Domina…
Aletho News- You reap what you sow: Ukraine’s blackout is Zelensky’s failure
- Ukraine Blackouts Caused by Zelensky’s Terrorist Attacks on Russia
- Orban Hits Out at EU Green Light for $1.5 Trillion Ukraine Aid
- World has had enough of confused clowns: Araghchi to Zelensky
- Jordan using Israeli software to monitor journalists, rights defenders: Report
- Israelis SUDDENLY Mass Deported From Many Countries
- Peace Plan Phase 2 Without Phase 1: Can the US Really Bring Peace to Gaza?
- Hamas: Netanyahu’s inclusion in ‘peace council’ threatens justice
- Report warns that ‘Jewish terrorism is out of control’ and could lead to major security escalation
- Lebanese Resistance will inevitably triumph: Former President Lahoud
- If Americans Knew
- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study: Sea Levels Rose 20 Times The Modern Rate During The Roman Warm Period
- As German Gas Storage Dips Dangerously Low…Shortage Hardly Avoidable
- New Study: Brazil’s Relative Sea Level Was 2+ Meters Higher And SSTs 3-4°C Warmer 6000 Years Ago
- Philosopher Schopenhauer: Climate Science Certainty Stems From Stupidity, Ignorance
- New Study: Species Extinction Rates Declining Since 1980 – ‘Climate Change Is Not An Important Threat’
- Denmark Places Climate Protection Above Animal Welfare, Poisoning And Culling Cows
- New Study: Greenland Was 3-7°C Warmer And Far Less Glaciated Than Today 6000-8000 Years Ago
- German Media Report That Current Frigid Weather Can Be Explained By Arctic Warming!
- Berlin Blackout Shows Germany’s $5 Trillion Green Scheme Is “Left-Green Ideological Pipe Dream”
- Modeling Error In Estimating How Clouds Affect Climate Is 8700% Larger Than Alleged CO2 Forcing
Aletho News 