Explaining Arab political failure to challenge Israel through traditional analysis — such as disunity, general weakness and a failure to prioritise Palestine — does not capture the full picture. The idea that Israel is brutalising Palestinians simply because the Arabs are too weak to challenge the Benjamin Netanyahu government — or any government — implies that, in theory, Arab regimes could unite around Palestine. However, this view oversimplifies the matter.
Many well-meaning pro-Palestine commentators have long urged Arab nations to unite, put pressure on Washington to reassess its unwavering support for Israel, and take decisive actions to lift the siege on Gaza, among other crucial matters. While these steps may hold some value, the reality is far more complex, and such wishful thinking is unlikely to change the behaviour of Arab governments. These regimes are more concerned with sustaining or returning to some form of status quo, one in which Palestine’s liberation remains of secondary importance.
Since the start of the Israeli genocide in Gaza on 7 October, 2023, the Arab position on Israel has been weak at best, and treacherous at worst. Some Arab governments even went so far as to condemn Palestinian resistance in UN debates. While countries like China and Russia at least attempted to contextualise the 7 October Hamas assault on Israeli occupation forces imposing a brutal siege on Gaza, countries like Bahrain placed the blame squarely on the Palestinians.
With a few exceptions, it took Arab governments weeks — even months — to develop a relatively strong stance that condemned the Israeli offensive in any meaningful terms.
Although the rhetoric began to shift slowly, the actions did not follow. While the Ansar Allah movement in Yemen (the “Houthis”), alongside other Arab non-state actors, attempted to impose some form of pressure on Israel through a blockade, Arab regimes instead worked to ensure that Israel could withstand the potential consequences of its isolation.
In his book War, Bob Woodward disclosed that some Arab governments told the then US Secretary of State Antony Blinken that they had no objections to Israel’s efforts to crush Palestinian resistance. However, some were concerned about the media images of mutilated Palestinian civilians, which could stir public unrest in their own countries. That public unrest never materialised, and with time, the genocide, famine and cries for help in Gaza were normalised as yet another tragic regional event, not unlike the civil wars in Sudan and Syria.
For 15 months of relentless Israeli genocide that has resulted in the killing and wounding of over 162,000 Palestinians in Gaza, official Arab political institutions remained largely irrelevant in terms of efforts to end the war. The US Biden administration was emboldened by such Arab inaction, and continued to push for greater normalisation between Arab countries and Israel, even in the face of over 15,000 children killed in Gaza in the most brutal ways imaginable.
While the moral failures of the West, the shortcomings of international law and the criminal actions of Biden and his administration have been criticised widely for serving as a shield for Israel’s war crimes, the complicity of Arab governments in enabling these atrocities is often ignored. The Arabs have, in fact, played a more significant role in the Israeli atrocities in Gaza than we often recognise; some through their silence, and others through direct collaboration with Israel.
Throughout the war, reports surfaced indicating that some Arab countries actively lobbied in Washington on behalf of Israel, advocating against an Egyptian-Arab League proposal aimed at reconstructing Gaza without ethnically cleansing its population, the latter being promoted by the Trump administration and Israel.
The Egyptian proposal, which was accepted unanimously by Arab countries at their summit on 4 March, represented the strongest and most unified stance taken by the Arab world during the war. The proposal, which was rejected by Israel and dismissed by the US, helped shift the discourse in America around the subject of ethnic cleansing. It ultimately led to comments by Trump on 12 March during a meeting with Irish Prime Minister Micheál Martin, including, “No one’s expelling anyone from Gaza.”
For some Arab states to actively oppose the only relatively strong Arab position signals that the issue of Arab failures in Palestine goes beyond mere disunity or incompetence; it reflects a much darker and more cynical reality.
Some Arab regimes align their interests with Israel, whereby a free Palestine isn’t just a non-issue, it’s a threat.
The same applies to the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah, which continues to work hand in hand with Israel to suppress any form of resistance in the West Bank. Its concern in Gaza is not about ending the genocide, but ensuring the marginalisation of its Palestinian political rivals, particularly Hamas. Thus, blaming the PA for mere “weakness”, for “not doing enough”, or for failing to unify the Palestinian ranks is a misreading of the situation. The priorities of Mahmoud Abbas and his PA allies are very different: they want to secure their control over the Palestinians, which can only be sustained through Israel’s military dominance.
These are difficult, yet critical truths, as they allow us to reframe the conversation, moving away from the false assumption that Arab unity will resolve everything. The flaw in the unity theory is that it assumes — naively — that Arab regimes inherently reject Israeli occupation and support Palestine.
While some Arab governments are genuinely outraged by Israel’s criminal behaviour and are increasingly frustrated by the irrational policies of the US in the region, others are driven by self-interest, including their animosity towards Iran and the fear of the rising influence non-state Arab actors. They are equally concerned about instability in the region, which threatens their hold on power amid a rapidly shifting world order.
As solidarity with Palestine has expanded from the global South to the global majority, the heads of Arab regimes remain largely ineffective, fearing that significant political change in the region could directly challenge their own positions. What they fail to understand is that their silence, or their active support for Israel, may very well lead to their own downfall in any case.
The phone call on 18 March between Presidents Trump and Putin has happened. It was a success, insofar as it allowed both sides to label the result as ‘positive’. And it did not lead to a breakdown (by virtue of the smallest of concessions from Putin – an energy infrastructure truce) – something easily it could have done (i.e. devolve into impasse – with Trump excoriating Putin, as he has done to Zelensky), given the fantastical and unrealistic expectations being woven in the West that this would be the ‘decider meeting’ for a final division of Ukraine.
It may have been a success too, insofar as it has laid the groundwork for the absent homework, now to be handled by two teams of experts on the detailed mechanics of the ceasefire. It was always a puzzle why this had not been earlier tackled by the U.S. team in Riyadh (lack of experience?). It was, after all, because the ceasefire was treated as a self-creating entity, by virtue of an American signature, that western expectations took flight in the belief that details did not matter; All that remained to do – in this (flawed) estimation – was to ‘divvy out the cake’.
Until the mechanics of a ceasefire – which must be comprehensive since ceasefires almost always break down – there was little to discuss on that topic on Tuesday. Predictably, then, discussion (reportedly) seemed to have turned to other issues: mainly economic ones and Iran, underlining again that the negotiation process between the U.S. and Russia does not boil down to just Ukraine.
So, how to move to ceasefire implementation? Simple. Begin to unravel the ‘cats cradle’ of impedimenta blocking normalised relations. Putin, plucking out just one strand to this problem, observed that:
“Sanctions [alone] are neither temporary nor targeted measures. They constitute [rather], a mechanism of systemic, strategic pressure against our nation. Our competitors perpetually seek to constrain Russia and diminish its economic and technological capacities … they churn out these packages incessantly”.
There is thus much cumulated geo-strategic debris to be addressed, and corrected, dating back many years, before a Big Picture normalisation can start in earnest.
What is apparent is that whilst Trump seems to be in a tearing hurry, Putin, by contrast, is not. And he will not be rushed. His own constituency will not countenance a hastily fudged accord with the U.S. that later implodes amidst recriminations of deceit – and of Moscow again having been fooled by the West. Russian blood is invested in this strategic normalisation process. It needs to work.
What is behind Trump’s evident hurry? Is it the need for breakneck speed on the domestic front to push ahead, before the cumulated forces of the opposition in the U.S. (plus their brethren in Europe) have the time to re-group and to torpedo normalisation with Russia?
Or does Trump fear that a long gap before ceasefire implementation will enable opposition forces to push for the recommencement of arms supplies and intelligence sharing – as the Russian military steamroller continues its advance? Is the fear, as Steve Bannon has warned, that by rearming Ukraine, Trump effectively will ‘own’ the war, and shoulder the blame for a massive western and NATO defeat?
Or, perhaps Trump anticipates that Kiev might unexpectedly cascade into a systemic collapse (as occurred to the Karzai government in Afghanistan). Trump is acutely aware of the political disaster that befell Biden from the images of Afghans clinging to the tyres of departing U.S. transport planes (à la Vietnam), as the U.S. evacuated the country.
Yet again, it might be something different. I learned from my time facilitating ceasefires in Palestine/Israel that it is not possible to make a ceasefire in one place (say Bethlehem), whilst Israeli forces were concurrently setting Nablus or Jenin ablaze. The emotional contagion and anger from one conflict cannot be contained to one locality; it would overflow to the other. It was tried. The one contaminated the implied sincere intentions behind the other.
Is the reason for the Trump haste mainly that he suspects his unconstrained support for Israel eventually will lead him to embrace major war in the Middle East? The world of today (thanks to the internet) is much smaller than before: Is it possible to be a ‘peacemaker’ and a ‘warmaker’ simultaneously – and have the first taken seriously?
Trump and those U.S. politicians ‘owned’ by the pro-Israeli lobby, know that Netanyahu et al. want the U.S. to help eliminate Israel’s regional rival – Iran. Trump cannot both retrench the U.S. as a western hemisphere ‘Sphere of Influence’, yet continue to throw the U.S.’ weight around as world Hegemon, causing the U.S. government to go broke. Can Trump successfully retrench the U.S. to Fortress America, or will foreign entanglements – i.e. an unstable Israel – lead to war and derail Trump’s administration, as all is intertwined?
What is Trump’s vision for the Middle East? Certainly, he has one – it is one that is rooted in his unstinting allegiance to the Israeli interest. The plan is either to destroy Iran financially, or to decapitate it and empower a Greater Israel. Trump’s letter to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei included a two-month deadline for reaching a new nuclear deal.
A day after his missive, Trump said the U.S. is “down to the final moments” with Iran:
“We can’t let them have a nuclear weapon. Something is going to happen very soon. I would rather have a peace deal than the other option, but the other option will solve the problem”.
U.S. journalist Ken Klippenstein has noted that on 28 February, two B-52 bombers flying from Qatar dropped bombs on an “undisclosed location” – Iraq. These nuclear-capable bombers were carrying a message whose recipient “was clear as day; The Islamic Republic of Iran”. Why B-52s and not F-35s which also can carry bombs? (Because ‘bunker-buster’ bombs are too heavy for F-35s? Israel has F-35s, but does not have B-52 heavy bombers).
Then on 9 March, Klippenstein writes, a second demonstration was made: A B-52s flew alongside Israeli fighter jets on long-range missions, practicing aerial refuelling operations. The Israeli press correctly reported the real purpose of the operation – “readying the Israeli military for a potential joint strike with the U.S. on Iran”.
Then, last Sunday, National Security Adviser Mike Waltz boasted that multiple Anglo-U.S. airstrikes “took out” top Houthi officials, making it very clear that this is all about Iran:
“This was an overwhelming response that actually targeted multiple Houthi leaders and took them out. And the difference here is, one, going after the Houthi leadership, and two, holding Iran responsible”.
Marco Rubio elaborated on CBS: “We’re doing the entire world a favour by getting rid of these guys”.
Trump then followed up with the same theme:
“Every shot fired by the Houthis will be looked upon, from this point forward, as being a shot fired from the weapons and leadership of IRAN, and IRAN will be held responsible, and suffer the consequences, and those consequences will be dire!”
“Trump’s menu of options for dealing with Tehran now includes one he didn’t have in his first term: full-scale war – with “nuclear weapons on the table” (the Trident II low-yield option) Pentagon and company contracting documents I’ve obtained describe “a unique joint staff planning” effort underway in Washington and in the Middle East to refine the next generation of “a major regional conflict” with Iran. The plans are the result of a reassessment of Iran’s military capabilities, as well as a fundamental shift in how America conducts war”.
What is new is that the “multilateral” component includes Israel working in unison with Arab Gulf partners for the first time, either indirectly or directly. The plan also includes many different contingencies and levels of war, according to the documents cited by Klippenstein, from “crisis action” (meaning response to events and attacks), to “deliberate” planning (which refers to set scenarios that flow from crises that escalate out of control). One document warns of the “distinct possibility” of the war “escalating outside of the United States Government’s intention” and impacting the rest of the region, demanding a multifaceted approach.
War preparations for Iran are so closely restricted, that even contracting companies involved in war planning are prohibited from even mentioning unclassified portions, notes Klippenstein:
“While a range of military options are often provided to presidents in an attempt on the part of the Pentagon to steer the President to the one favoured by the Pentagon, Trump already has shown his proclivity to select the most provocative option”.
“Equally, Trump’s green light for the Israeli air-strikes on Gaza, killing hundreds, [last] Monday, but ostensibly targetted on the Hamas leadership can be seen as consonant with the pattern of taking the belligerent option”.
Following his successful assassination of Iran’s top general Qassim Suleimani in 2020, Trump seems to have taken the lesson that aggressive action is relatively cost-free, Klippenstein notes.
As Waltz noted in his press interview:
“The difference is these [Yemen attacks] were not pinpricks, back and forth, what ultimately proved to be feckless attacks. This was an overwhelming response that actually targeted multiple Houthi leaders and took them out”.
Klippenstein cautions that, “2024 may be behind us but its lessons aren’t. Israel’s assassination of top Hezbollah officials in Lebanon was largely perceived by Washington to be a resounding success with few downsides. Trump likely took back the same message, leading to his strike on [the] Houthi leadership this week”.
If western observers are seeing all of what’s going on as some repeat of Biden’s tit-for-tat or limited attacks by Israel on Iran’s early warning and air defences, they may be misunderstanding what’s going on behind the scenes. What Trump might now do, which is right out of the Israeli playbook, would be to attack Iran’s command and control, including Iran’s leadership.
This – very certainly – would have a profound effect on Trump’s relations with Russia – and China. It would eviscerate any sense in Moscow and Beijing that Trump is agreement capable. What price then his ‘peacemaker’ ‘Big Picture’ reset were he, in the wake of wars in Lebanon, Syria and Yemen, to start a war with Iran? Does Trump see Iran through some disturbed optic – that in destroying Iran, he is bringing about peace through strength?
Trump’s approach to global affairs diverges sharply from the American establishment’s traditional strategy. Trump does not see America as a “police state.” He is sceptical of NATO, does not support war with Russia, and believes the US military presence in West Asia primarily serves to protect Arab allies. In his view, they should bear the financial burden of that protection.
The American establishment, represented by institutions like the Pentagon and the White House, follows a long-term strategic vision. It maintains hundreds of military bases worldwide and pursues a structured political strategy across various regions.
Trump, by contrast, envisions American leadership within a multipolar world order. He is less concerned with imposing the American system on other nations and more focused on fostering economic alliances that benefit the US. He also seeks to counter the rise of BRICS and prevent alternative economic blocs from challenging the dollar’s dominance. Rather than waging ideological battles, his strategy revolves around economic leverage.
A key example of establishment influence has been USAID, which has historically functioned as a covert tool for advancing American unipolarity. By using soft power tactics, it has helped destabilize nations through coups and colour revolutions. However, under Trump, funding for such initiatives has been slashed, allowing the US to save billions. His approach is more direct—rather than relying on NGOs to influence societies, he prefers sanctions as a means of coercion. This shift weakens American influence at the grassroots level, creating a vacuum that local movements and other powers can exploit.
Trump aims to strengthen the American economy through relative stability rather than confrontation. He opposes prolonged war with Russia, favouring investment over sanctions. Rather than spending $350 billion on Ukraine, he sees greater economic potential in working with Russia, which he does not view as a direct economic competitor. His broader goal is to retract costly foreign commitments and consolidate American economic dominance, using economic leverage—such as tariffs and sanctions—to maintain control. This was evident in his approach to Zelensky, where he set clear conditions for support.
This stance starkly contrasts with that of Europe, which remains deeply hostile toward Russia and relies on US backing to counter it. Trump’s push for increased tariffs on European imports will likely reduce demand for European goods in the US, stimulating domestic manufacturing and bolstering the dollar. His retreat from NATO further exposes contradictions within the alliance, creating strategic openings that others may exploit.
Trump operates like a political tsunami. In Gaza, he has positioned himself as the real power behind the war, stopping it on his terms. Even his controversial depopulation proposal was more of a bargaining tool than a concrete plan. He sees West Asia as secondary to regions like Mexico, Panama, or Greenland. When asked about Iran’s strength, he acknowledges Iran is very strong—suggesting he prefers to focus on nuclear containment rather than military confrontation, much to Netanyahu’s frustration.
Trump also has a tendency towards withdrawal when he sees American involvement as a financial drain. While “Israel” has expanded its influence in Syria, if its actions provoke widespread resistance, and it becomes clear that “Israel” is a source of ongoing conflict, Trump may reconsider US support.
In contrast to the deep state’s approach—where a weakening “Israel” prompts the search for regional substitutes—Trump’s stance is more transactional. If there is no significant opposition, he will stamp “Israel’s” territorial gains. But if the costs outweigh the benefits, he is willing to incrementally remove support from the occupation entity.
The “winds of war” are blowing toward Iran. This is the war for which Israeli donors Sheldon and Miriam Adelson, along with pro-Israel organizations such as AIPAC and the ADL, paid US President Donald Trump hundreds of millions of dollars over two election cycles.
But it’s not only the Israeli lobby banging the war drums; American Evangelicals – especially groups like “Christians United for Israel” – also support war, believing it will “save Israel” from the “Iranian menace.” Evangelical membership in the 119th Congress (2025–27) is high. War with Iran is not (yet) popular in the US, but – just as with Iraq – consent will be manufactured by Washington elites and the media.
Trump’s outreach to Russian President Vladimir Putin to resolve the Ukraine war partly aims to shift the Pentagon’s attention back to West Asia. He assumes that an early 2025 war with Iran will “save Israel” and secure his legacy, letting him focus on “America First” for the rest of his term.
But war with Iran could also backfire disastrously, sink his presidency, and derail the ambitions of 2028 Republican hopefuls like Marco Rubio and J.D. Vance. For starters, should the military campaign encounter any unforeseen backlash – which is highly likely, and the reason the Pentagon has assiduously avoided direct confrontation with Iran – the Democratic Party could retake both chambers of Congress after a US stock market crash and recession triggered by the war.
Iran’s military responses
Iranian leaders have vowed “devastating” retaliation for any attack on their soil. This would likely involve missile strikes against Israeli and US military targets – and possibly infrastructure and economic targets within the occupation state. If Israel uses tactical nuclear weapons against Iran’s nuclear facilities, Tehran will escalate further.
Whether or not nukes are used, war would shock the global economy, send oil prices soaring, and halt maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. The greatest impact will fall on countries most dependent on West Asian oil.
The US economy may be less affected in the short term. Its stock markets, already down 10 percent since Trump’s return to the White House, would decline further – but Trump is gambling that households will not feel the pain. But if the Islamic Republic launches economic warfare that “brings the war home,” political dynamics will change.
Economic warfare
Most Americans are detached from the notion and consequences of war because, since the Civil War, US wars have been fought far from its borders. Even during the World Wars, though American families faced personal loss, the nation did not endure widespread suffering – unlike Britain, which imposed food rationing from 1939 to 1954.
The “Global War on Terror” impacted some communities, but not the country. US troops often joked in Iraq: “We’re at war; America’s at the mall.” Americans kept spending and enjoying life, while Iraqis and US occupation soldiers endured the brutal costs.
Iranian leadership understands this disconnect. The US stock market is a tempting target. In 1929, at the start of the Great Depression, just 2.5 percent of Americans owned stock. Today, about 61 percent of US adults – roughly 160 million people – own shares through private accounts, pension schemes, or retirement plans.
Factoring in children in such households, roughly 200 million Americans are exposed to market fluctuations. Trillions more dollars are invested by corporations, universities, and foreign institutions. The exposure is deep.
The US economy is fragile. Mark Zandi, Moody’s chief economist, warned that the risk of recession is “uncomfortably high and rising.” On 19 March, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell kept interest rates steady, citing slowing consumer spending and growing uncertainty. Trump, fearing economic fallout, raged on Truth Social over the Fed’s refusal to cut rates. He announced retaliatory tariffs set to take effect on 2 April.
Household debt is rising – $18.04 trillion as of Q4 2024 – with increasing defaults on auto loans and credit cards. Americans, like the federal government, spend on credit. Investors borrow against their portfolios with margin loans. If stock values fall, forced selloffs to cover debts could intensify market collapse. “Margin calls” – demands for loan repayments – played a greater role in the ensuing economic turmoil than the 13 percent market drop on 28 October 1929.
The US economy is already strained, and consumers are over-leveraged. A large external shock could push it into a deep recession. Stock markets would plunge, wiping out pension savings and private wealth.
How far markets fall would depend on the force of Iran’s blow. The current 10 percent drop has already hurt. A deeper decline – say, 25 to 50 percent – would cripple the economy, spark layoffs and bankruptcies, and tighten credit. That would suppress consumer spending and crash the housing market, as in 2008.
Tehran’s targets
As Iranian leaders have often repeated, “If Iran cannot sell oil, no one will.” If US or Israeli forces strike Iranian tankers or infrastructure, Tehran is likely to target US economic interests and the oil sectors of any Persian Gulf Arab state that supports the attacks by allowing fighter jets, drones, or missiles to launch from their territories.
The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) may choose to strike Bahrain, which is an obvious military target since it hosts the US Naval Forces Central Command. In addition to military sites, Iran could target the Bahrain Petroleum Company’s refinery, which processes 270,000 barrels per day, along with its marine terminal and oil storage facilities.
The oil farm holds 14 million barrels – ample fuel for a dramatic strike. Iran could also destroy the King Fahd Causeway connecting Bahrain to Saudi Arabia to prevent Riyadh from sending ground troops to suppress unrest among Bahrain’s majority Shia population, as it did during the 2011 uprising.
In Iraq, too, US military bases will almost certainly come under fire. Beyond that, Iran-aligned factions within the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) may attempt to capture the 2,500 US troops still stationed there – not to kill them, but to take them as hostages.
Living captives would be far more valuable, creating a nightmare scenario for Trump and serving as a sharp reminder to Americans – who often forget the wars they once supported – that US troops remain in Iraq more than two decades after the 2003 invasion. These POWs would likely be scattered across the country, making coordinated rescue missions difficult and turning them into bargaining chips in any future negotiations.
Jordan, having allowed Israeli overflights last year in October during Iran’s retaliatory strikes and before that in April, is likely to do so again and could face significant retaliation. In addition to the Zarqa oil refinery, Iranian forces might strike political, military, and intelligence targets. Such attacks would certainly provoke unrest among Jordan’s population, the majority of whom are of Palestinian descent and already harbor grievances against their leadership for its collusion with Tel Aviv.
The UAE, if complicit in the attacks, could face military strikes on its energy infrastructure and power plants, as it experienced during its war with Yemen. The Emirates is particularly vulnerable due to its demographic makeup – about 88 percent of its population consists of foreign workers. If those workers flee following targeted attacks, the country’s economy would be brought to its knees.
Qatar and Oman are likely to be treated differently. Muscat, with its long-standing neutral foreign policy in the region, has maintained warm relations with Iran, and will not likely participate in a US military aggression. Doha also enjoys relatively good relations with Tehran, though it hosts the US Central Command’s (CENTCOM) Al-Udeid Air Base and worked to thwart Iranian interests in Syria. Iran might strike CENTCOM’s headquarters in West Asia, but is unlikely to target other Qatari assets.
Saudi Arabia presents a more complex scenario. Although both Russia and China have encouraged reconciliation between Iran and Saudi Arabia, the kingdom may not remain on the sidelines. If it does participate in hostilities, it would become a high-priority target.
Even if Riyadh stays neutral, Iran might still strike its East–West oil pipeline, which terminates at the port of Yanbu. That pipeline – built in 1982 to bypass the Persian Gulf – delivers over three million barrels per day to Europe.
Yanbu’s port, refinery, and export terminals, some of which are operated in partnership with western firms, would be natural targets. A simultaneous closure of the Strait of Hormuz and disruption of Red Sea traffic would block the export of roughly five million barrels per day. While former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter predicted oil prices could surge to $120 per barrel, Iran might be capable of pushing them as high as $200.
China, when retaliating against Trump’s tariffs, acted strategically. It imports just 7 percent of its pork from the US, but most pork producers are in Republican “red states.” Targeting that sector hurt Trump’s base directly.
While spiking oil prices and global economic turmoil would harm Iran’s allies and the Global South, Iran’s adversaries in the US, UK, Israel, and EU stand to lose the most. If Iran wages a smart economic war, even Evangelicals may start caring more about their grocery bills than hastening the reconstruction of the “Third Temple” and other end-times prophecies.
Former Tunisian President Moncef Marzouki warned that Israel, led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, is seeking to drag the region into a major war by escalating the confrontation with Iran, which could ignite complex internal conflicts in the Middle East.
In a statement to Al-Resalah Net, Marzouki said the current phase is characterised by great instability where the region is experiencing increasing turmoil.
He pointed out that US President Donald Trump is a fickle politician who cannot be trusted and who is being dragged into new wars by Israel.
“The current situation portends an explosion, but the Arab peoples remain calm, and this is what occupies my mind. We are living through a period similar to what we witnessed in 2010, when everything seemed calm before the spark that completely changed the scene,” he said
Marzouki criticised the Egyptian position toward the Gaza Strip, saying,
The Egyptians act as if they are not a party to what is happening, while in reality they are participating in the strangulation of Gaza by continuing to close the crossings and restricting aid.
He added that the Israeli occupation continues its crimes and massacres in Gaza without deterrence, but the situation will not remain as it is, and the time will come to take action and stand up against this unjust reality.
Marzouki concluded by emphasizing that history indicates that the situation will not remain as it is, warning that an Israeli escalation could lead to a regional explosion, with serious repercussions for the entire region.
March 2025 marks the beginning of a fourth year of the military conflict in Ukraine. Kiev, its sponsors in Europe and the United States, are proving unwilling to end the war being waged despite mounting evidence they are facing a major political and military defeat.
Zelensky vs Trump?
The five-year, electoral mandate dating from May 2019 of Volodymyr Zelensky as president of Ukraine expired ten months ago. Yet on February 28, Zelensky staged a widely publicized quarrel with the new US administration in Washington headed by Donald Trump. The administration reacted, in turn, with a dramatic suspension of US arms shipments and sharing of intelligence and satellite data. Without this data, Ukrainian troops are ‘blinded’ because US military specialists have played a key role in helping choose Russian targets and helping operate complex rocket and missile weaponry. Particularly valuable are the images provided, with US government approval, by US commercial satellite imaging company Maxar.
The ‘suspensions’ were very short-lived. A meeting in Saudi Arabia on March 11 between the Kiev government and the Trump administration saw a renewal of the briefly-disrupted partnership between the two after its brief interruption in supplying military data and equipment. The meeting issued a proposal to Russia (better described as a threat) prepared in advance by Washington for a 30-day ‘ceasefire’. Critics in Russia and abroad say the proposal would allow the Ukraine Armed Forces to rest and regroup. If Russia turned it down, the Western powers could then condemn it for refusing peace.
Every serious analyst is pointing out that the ceasefire proposal does not at all address Russia’s well-publicized minimum conditions for a peace settlement. In other words, the plan is something of a trap for Russia. For that reason, it will not see the light of day.
Zelensky was absent from the Ukraine delegation in Saudi Arabia. He remains apprehensive over the prospect that Trump may wish to replace him and could do so at any time. Ukrainian political analyst Kost Bondarenko, who now lives abroad, explained on Telegram on March 4 that Zelensky is no longer listening to anyone, including those in his personal entourage. “He is acting hysterically and capriciously, recognizing only his own claimed righteousness. He doesn’t even listen to Yermak [head of the Office of the President of Ukraine]. His egocentrism has made Ukraine hostage to his whims.”
Europe benefits from the war
Zelensky is seeking more support from his patrons in the European Union and becoming more dependent on them, especially on the government of Great Britain. The latter continues to encourage him to sacrifice the people of Ukraine in a losing war against Russia.
Former Ukrainian (now Russian) political scientist Rostislav Ishchenko said in an interview on March 7 that the only difference between the Trump regime in Washington and the leading governments of the European Union is that ‘liberal’ Europe wants a consolidated West under a ‘liberal’ image while the right-wing, conservative Trump regime wants a united West focused on weakening and paralyzing Russia while simultaneously weakening China.
“Trump’s goal is not to make life easier for Russia. Trump’s goal is to get a peace that is acceptable to America. So far, everything that Trump formulates is absolutely unacceptable to us.”
Another former Ukrainian and now Russian political analyst Andrey Vajra told a Crimea news broadcast in February that the war in Ukraine has helped the European elites to appropriate billions of euros. “Europeans understand perfectly well that the war is lost. But the European elite needs to continue stealing [from weapons supplying and the multitude of forms of ‘aid’]. I have already explained how it is possible to continue stealing billions of euros so long as the killings continue in Ukraine. Far more millions of euros can be had. That’s why the European leaders are clinging to a warmaking Ukraine.”
In early March, the head of German intelligence, Bruno Kahl, stated in an interview with the state-run Deutsche Welle that it would be ‘safer’ for Europe if the war in Ukraine continued for another five years. He criticized the Trump administration, saying the kind of swift end to the war being voiced by Trump “would enable the Russians to focus their energy against Europe”. This suggested ‘long war’ against Russia is the new, official theme of EU leaders as they strive to convince their populations of the need to massively expand military spending.
Even former prime minister Yulia Tymoshenko (2007-2010) of the Batkivshchyna faction in the Ukrainian legislature says she is outraged by Kahl’s frank admission. “Bruno Kahl for the first time officially confirmed what we were so reluctant to believe: At the cost of thousands of Ukrainian lives and the very existence of Ukraine, some people decided on a war to ‘deplete’ Russia and thereby enhance the security in Europe? I did not think that they would dare to say it so officially and openly. This explains a lot,” Tymoshenko doth protest too much. She was a key fomentor of the violent, Maidan coup in February 2014 and an ardent advocate since then of military and political confrontation with Russia.
Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has also stated that a peace agreement could be more dangerous for Ukraine than an ongoing war. “I understand that many people believe that a peaceful solution or a ceasefire is a good idea, but we run the risk that peace in Ukraine would actually be more dangerous than the war that is ongoing now.”
Such pro-war stances are not only due to the fact that Western companies are getting rich on fulfilling military orders. A permanent war in Ukraine appeals to many Western leaders because this would weaken and pre-occupy Russia. “Israel” has long acted on the same principle in the Middle East. It has waged bloody wars in Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon to weaken these countries and prevent them from doing anything to stop “Israel’s” genocide against Palestinians and its occupation of Syrian territory.
Those who justify continued war in Ukraine make two contradictory assertions. On the one hand, they argue that the war has greatly weakened Russia and that the government there may soon collapse. Ukrainians should therefore fight just a little longer to secure ‘victory’. On the other hand, they say that Russia has become too strong and is a threat to overrun more European countries in the future. Ukrainian social networks have coined an ironic term for this contradictory belief system, calling it ‘Russophrenia’ (derived from the word ‘schizophrenia’).
The end of Ukraine’s adventure in Kursk
Disaster has befallen the Ukraine Armed Forces present in the Kursk border region of Russia. Large numbers of Ukrainian troops have become encircled—as many as 10,000 according to some Western media outlets. A March 8 report in a Ukrainian media outlet nervously reassured that the situation in Kursk “is not yet catastrophic”.
The Ukrainian military command did not issue any orders to retreat from threatened encirclements in Kursk. This repeats the experiences with earlier military encirclements in Donbass. These have allowed the Russian army to make steady and continued military advances there.
As reported by the online Politnavigator on March 7, a former advisor to the office of Zelensky, Alexei Arestovich, sees a familiar pattern to events in Kursk. “In dire conditions where encirclement is threatened, only the introduction of reserve troops can help. So we [the Ukraine Armed Forces] proceed as usual: drop in a few reserves removed from other threatened locations. These will most likely be unable to stabilize for any length of time because there are few reserves to draw upon. No one is left. Even worse is to keep the army in encirclements or threatened encirclements for too long, waiting for the political leadership to give an order to retreat. But those orders do not come. This scenario has repeated itself over and over again. We need to stop playing by such scenarios.”
Arestovich lives in exile somewhere in Europe and has said he would be a candidate in a forthcoming election for president of Ukraine should a free election take place.
On March 8-9, Russian troops managed rather easily to contain the remaining Ukrainian forces in Kursk Oblast and cut off re-supply routes. This was partly helped by the spring thaw because Western-supplied military equipment becomes booged down in mud; it is designed primarily for use on paved or improved gravel roads.
Ukrainian opposition blogger Anatoliy Shariy writes that the losses of the AFU in Kursk are huge – some of the biggest losses that Ukrainian servicemen can remember.
The Ukrainian grouping in Kursk was centered around the border town of Suzdha. It is the site of an important pumping and transit station for a natural gas pipeline built during the Soviet era which connects the vast gas fields of eastern Russia to markets in Ukraine and further west in Europe. In January, Ukraine shut down pipeline shipments through Suzdha, drawing sharp protests and threats of counter-measures from Hungary and Slovakia.
An ironic consequence of Ukraine shutting down the pipeline was that Russian soldiers were able to use the now-empty pipeline to advance some 15 kilometers directly into the center of the Ukrainian grouping in Suzdha. They waited days for orders. Russia then surprised and overwhelmed the embedded Ukrainian forces with a multi-pronged attack beginning on March 8. Many Ukrainian soldiers and allied mercenaries ended up stampeding into surrounding minefields.
Russian military correspondent Anna Dolgareva spoke to Russian military scouts in Suzdha and reported, “For six days, the Russian fighters sat inside the pipeline awaiting orders to move. They spent some 24 hours of difficult walking to get there. The pipeline still contained traces of methane gas and so holes were cut in the pipe along the way for ventilation.”
This operation was made possible because Ukraine shut off gas transit causing European countries to buy much more expensive liquefied gas from producers in the United States. Western sanctions against Russia have cost Europe its supply of relatively cheap Russian gas, replaced by shipments of expensive liquefied natural gas from the United States as well as gas from Norway and Algeria shipped by pipeline.
Ukrainian elite on ‘starvation rations’
Representatives of the Ukrainian political elite are today extremely worried about Zelensky’s quarrel with the new US administration that exploded into view in Washington on February 28. For most, funding from the United States is their main source of income.
Since the early 1990s, Ukraine has developed an entire class of government officials and politicians who have ‘monetized’ Russophobia and anti-communism. A key piece of moving up the career ladder has been to act the loudest in stigmatizing the former Soviet Union and modern Russian Federation, and figuring out how best to draw Western funding for such efforts. This scheme has worked well for decades, but now the apparent chaos being sown by the new Trump regime in Washington has upset the old arrangements. The chaos is merely the expression of a governing U.S. regime facing a looming defeat of its proxy war in Ukraine along with its European partners.
Some legislators realize that Zelensky’s harsh outbursts and confrontation with Trump and Trump’s vice president in Washington on February 28 could cost the country dearly, but others are betting on maintaining an aggressive, pro-war rhetoric. They are looking to the British government to help out.
Alexei Arestovich writes that Zelensky’s ‘disobedience’ is based solely on his desire to extract security guarantees for himself and his entourage. He says the problem for the White House is that “providing personal guarantees to thieves risks setting yourself up before American justice.”
Ukrainian economist Oleksiy Kushch writes that for the Ukrainian elite, the era when it could act as a child and demand money from the ‘adult uncles’ in the West is coming to an end. The West is so used to that arrangement that Zelensky’s apparent conflicts with the U.S. administration are bewildering, a kind of ‘revolt against the boss’.
Kushch summarizes Ukraine’s situation after Zelensky’s quarrel with Trump in this way, “Like a teenager who ‘unexpectedly’ has a child and finds all responsibility now rests on him, ‘daddy’ U.S. may threaten to stop helping out as punishment for any ‘disobedience’ while ‘mommy’ Europe promises to continue giving money but not forever.”
The Ukrainian elite has been thoroughly corrupted by years of generous Western ‘aid’ handouts. It no longer knows how to earn revenue and wealth on its own. So if some character named Zelensky becomes an obstacle to the continued flow of ‘daddy’s’ money, he becomes expendable. So much the worse for him.
Russian President Vladimir Putin and his US counterpart Donald Trump have held a phone conversation lasting over two hours, discussing a peaceful resolution to the Ukraine conflict.
The Kremlin reported that the two leaders spoke about a suggested 30-day ceasefire, a prisoner exchange, and maritime security, with Putin responding positively to Trump’s proposals. Both leaders expressed interest in normalizing US-Russia relations, agreeing to continue discussions on global security, economic cooperation, and even cultural exchanges like NHL-KHL hockey matches.
The Kremlin has published a summary on the outcome of the call:
A phone conversation between Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump took place on March 18, 2025.
Reaffirming his commitment to a peaceful resolution of the conflict, President Putin expressed readiness to work closely with American partners on a thorough and comprehensive settlement. He emphasized that any agreement must be sustainable and long-term, addressing the root causes of the crisis while considering Russia’s legitimate security interests.
Regarding President Trump’s initiative for a 30-day ceasefire, the Russian side highlighted key concerns, including effective monitoring of the ceasefire across the entire front line, halting forced mobilization in Ukraine, and stopping the rearmament of its military. Russia also noted serious risks due to Kiev’s history of undermining previous agreements and drew attention to terrorist attacks carried out by Ukrainian militants against civilians in the Kursk region.
It was emphasized that a crucial condition for preventing further escalation and working toward a political-diplomatic resolution is the complete cessation of foreign military aid and intelligence sharing with Ukraine.
In response to Trump’s recent request to ensure the safety of Ukrainian troops encircled in Kursk Region, Putin confirmed that Russia is guided by humanitarian considerations. He assured his counterpart that Ukrainian soldiers who surrender will be granted safety and treated in accordance with Russian laws and international humanitarian norms.
During the conversation, Trump proposed a mutual agreement between both sides to refrain from striking energy infrastructure for 30 days. Putin welcomed the initiative and immediately instructed the Russian military to comply.
Putin also responded constructively to Trump’s proposal regarding maritime security in the Black Sea, and both leaders agreed to initiate negotiations to further refine the details of such an arrangement.
Putin informed Trump that on March 19, Russia and Ukraine would conduct a prisoner exchange involving 175 detainees from each side. Additionally, as a goodwill gesture, Russia will transfer 23 severely wounded Ukrainian soldiers who are currently receiving medical treatment in Russian hospitals.
Both leaders reaffirmed their commitment to continuing efforts toward resolving the Ukraine conflict bilaterally, incorporating the proposals discussed. To facilitate this, Russian and American expert groups will be established.
Putin and Trump also discussed broader international issues, including the situation in the Middle East and the Red Sea region. They agreed to coordinate efforts to stabilize crisis areas and enhance cooperation on nuclear non-proliferation and global security, which, in turn, would improve the overall state of US-Russia relations. A positive example of such cooperation was their joint vote at the United Nations on a resolution regarding the Ukraine conflict.
Both leaders expressed mutual interest in normalizing bilateral relations, recognizing the shared responsibility of Russia and the United States in ensuring global security and stability. In this context, they explored various areas for potential cooperation, including discussions on mutually beneficial economic and energy partnerships.
Trump supported Putin’s idea of organizing hockey matches in the US and Russia between players from the NHL and KHL.
The presidents agreed to remain in contact on all discussed matters.
US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin have agreed that the first step towards ending the Ukraine conflict should be an “energy and infrastructure ceasefire,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt has revealed. The leaders reached the agreement during a 2.5 hour phone conversation on Tuesday.
According to the readout of the phone call published on X by Leavitt on Tuesday, both leaders concur that the conflict must conclude with a lasting peace. They also emphasized the importance of strengthening bilateral relations.
“The leaders agreed that the movement to peace will begin with an energy and infrastructure ceasefire, as well as technical negotiations on implementation of a maritime ceasefire in the Black Sea, full ceasefire and permanent peace,” the transcript reads.
The Kremlin has confirmed that Putin supported Trump’s proposal for Russia and Ukraine to halt strikes on energy infrastructure for 30 days, and instructed his military accordingly.
According to the readout, Moscow and Washington have agreed to hold relevant negotiations “immediately in the Middle East.”
Aside from Ukraine, the two heads of state are said to have discussed the situation in the Middle East as well as potential cooperation with a view to preventing future conflicts in the region.
Another topic high on the two leaders’ agenda was the “need to stop proliferation of strategic weapons” globally, according to the White House press secretary.
“The two leaders agreed that a future with an improved bilateral relationship between the United States and Russia has huge upside,” including but not limited to “enormous economic deals and geopolitical stability,” the readout concludes.
Neoconservatism began to take root in the 1970s as strength through militarism and an interventionist foreign policy were increasingly seen as the path to peace. Ideological Manicheanism and narratives of peace through strength challenged more traditional concepts of security that focused on mitigating the security dilemma. Human rights, rather than restraining the use of force, were discovered as a weapon that would legitimize the removal of restraints on the use of force.
I had a conversation with Alastair Crooke and Alexander Mercouris about the geoeconomic confusion in Europe. The US is repositioning itself as the unipolar world order has ended, and multipolarity is already here. The Europeans have no strategy and the policies subsequent lack direction and reason. In Isreal, society has polarised to the extent that political and societal instability will become a challenge to national security.
Over the weekend President Trump ordered a massive military operation against the small country of Yemen. Was Yemen in the process of attacking the United States? No. Did the President in that case go to Congress and seek a declaration of war against the country? No. The fact is, Yemen hadn’t even threatened the United States before the bombs started falling.
Last year, candidate Trump strongly criticized the Biden Administration’s obsession with foreign interventionism to the detriment of our problems at home. In an interview at the Libertarian National Convention, he criticized Biden’s warmongering to podcaster Tim Pool, saying, “You can solve problems over a telephone. Instead they start dropping bombs. Recently, they’re dropping bombs all over Yemen. You don’t have to do that.”
Yet once in office, Trump turned to military force as his first option. Since the Israel/Hamas ceasefire plan negotiated by President Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff, Yemen has left Red Sea shipping alone. However, after Israel implemented a total blockade of humanitarian relief to citizens of Gaza last week, Houthi leaders threatened to again begin blocking Israel’s Red Sea shipping activities.
That was enough for President Trump to drop bombs and launch missiles for hours, killing several dozen Yemeni civilians – including women and children – in the process.
After the attack, Trump not only threatened much more force to be used against Yemen, but he also threatened Iran. His National Security Advisor Mike Waltz added that the US may start bombing Iranian ships in the area, a move that would certainly lead to a major Middle East war.
Like recent Presidents Bush and Obama, candidate Trump promised peace after four years of Joe Biden’s warmongering and World War III brinkmanship. There is little doubt that with our war-weary population this proved the margin of his victory. Unfortunately, as with Bush and Obama, now that he is President, he appears to be heading down a different path.
The Republican Party is gradually becoming a pro-peace, America first party, but the warmongers and neocons of the old line in the Party are not going to let go so easily. Unfortunately many of these dead-enders have found their way to senior positions in Trump’s Administration, with voices of restraint and non-intervention nearly nowhere in sight among his top tier of advisors.
To solve the Yemen problem we must understand it: Russian and Chinese ships, for example, are not being threatened because they are not enabling the Israeli demolition of Gaza. The slaughter there has been facilitated with US money and US weapons. It is the US doing Israel’s bidding both in Gaza and in the Red Sea that is painting a target on us and unnecessarily putting our troops at risk of retaliation.
The US government, starting with Biden and continuing now with Trump, seems eager to make this our war even though, as Rep. Thomas Massie pointed out over the weekend, Red Sea shipping is of minor importance to the US economy.
In a real “America first” foreign policy we would be following the Russian and Chinese lead and staying out of the conflict. It’s not our war. End US military involvement in the Middle East and our troubles disappear. It really is that simple.
Hezbollah’s Secretary-General Naim Qassem said on 9 March that Israeli forces currently occupying south Lebanon will inevitably face resistance if they do not withdraw.
“I tell the Israelis, if you remain at these points, this resistance will not let you continue there,” Qassem stated on Sunday.
“If the occupation continues, it must be confronted by the army, the people, and the resistance,” despite some people wanting “liberation through diplomacy,” the resistance leader added.
“We committed to the [ceasefire] agreement while the enemy violates it … it assaults people far from the border in their cars and in their homes,” he went on to say. “The ceasefire agreement is the one announced and distributed, and there is no secret agreement or clauses under the table.”
“The resistance is fine and continuing, but it was wounded and hurt and made great sacrifices … We had a security exposure and some shortcomings, and we are conducting an investigation to learn lessons and hold people accountable,” Qassem said.
The Hezbollah chief commented on the recent entry of hundreds of settlers into south Lebanon under Israeli army protection, calling “it the greatest evidence that we are not facing aggression in a single phase, but rather [an Israeli expansionist] project from the ocean to the Gulf.”
Israeli forces continue to occupy Labbouneh, Mount Blat, Owayda Hill, Aaziyyeh, and Hammamis Hill, despite the ceasefire implementation and withdrawal deadline expiring on 18 February.
Tel Aviv has violated the ceasefire agreement over 1,300 times with non-stop attacks and infiltration of Lebanon’s airspace since the deal was signed in November last year.
Israel claims to be acting on its rights within the deal by preventing Hezbollah from rearming itself. However, the agreement signed by Beirut does not include anything about Israeli forces having the right to attack the country, instead stipulating that the resistance’s presence and military infrastructure must be dismantled by the Lebanese army south of the Litani River in south Lebanon.
Tel Aviv accuses Hezbollah of having not fully withdrawn to the north of the Litani River, as per the agreement. It also accuses the Lebanese resistance of trying to reconstitute its forces.
A Lebanese soldier was killed by Israeli forces on Sunday when they opened fire at citizens in the border town of Kfar Kila. Another Lebanese soldier was shot in the leg and kidnapped on the same day.
On Friday, Israeli warplanes launched more than 20 air raids, targeting valleys and forested areas on the outskirts of Zebqin, Beit Yahoun, Al-Aishiyeh, Al-Rayhan, Ansar, and Al-Bissariya.
Peter Gøtzsche reviewed every randomised mammography screening trial ever conducted for the Cochrane Collaboration. Cochrane’s headline is that, assuming a 15% mortality reduction, one woman in 2000 avoids dying of breast cancer over ten years. Ten are overdiagnosed and treated. Two hundred experience false alarms.
But that headline assumes the reduction. When Gøtzsche looked only at the trials with adequate randomisation — the higher-quality ones — the reduction disappeared. No effect on breast cancer mortality. No effect on all-cause mortality.
This is the Cochrane finding, published in the establishment’s own database of systematic reviews.
No woman being asked to consent to a mammogram this week knows it.
That is why the new Unbekoming paperback exists. … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News 