Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Decapitation attacks don’t work against strong countries

By Lucas Leiroz | March 2, 2026

A new war has begun in the Middle East. After months of tension, the US and Israel launched an attack against Iran on February 28th. With the failure of negotiations for a nuclear agreement, war seemed inevitable, and many analysts anticipated that both sides were merely preparing for an imminent conflict, which proved true.

The Israeli-American attack was an attempt to “decapitate” the Iranian government. The country’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, was killed, along with almost his entire family, in a bombing of his residence and office. There were also serious violations of humanitarian law with attacks against a primary school, resulting in the deaths of over one hundred children.

Unlike previous cases where Israel attacked Iran, this time the Islamic Republic reacted immediately – and not only against Israel. All US-allied countries in the Middle East have been – and continue to be – targeted by Iranian missiles and drones in a relentless bombing campaign. Israel, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Iraq, Jordan, Oman, and even British bases in Cyprus have been targeted by Iran.

Tehran is trying to inflict as much damage as possible to all military and energy infrastructure that enables US and Israeli operations. Oil facilities in the Gulf are being destroyed, as well as ships linked to Israel or the West in the Strait of Hormuz – which is currently only partially open, with Iran allowing passage only to ships from certain partner countries.

It is clear that the US and Israel were not prepared for such a profound reaction from Iran. American and Israeli authorities seemed to expect a late and moderate reaction, as occurred in the Twelve-Day War. The intensity and frequency of the Iranian attacks have caused a kind of partial “strategic paralysis” in the US and Israel – as well as in the affected allied countries – which simply could not anticipate the bombings to activate security measures efficiently.

Media reports indicate that the US approached Iran through the Italian government to suggest a ceasefire agreement, which was promptly rejected. There seems to be no interest on the part of Iran in de-escalating the conflict in the coming days or weeks. The situation becomes particularly tense considering that it involves not only military and strategic factors, but also issues of national pride and patriotic sentiments, considering the assassination of the Supreme Leader and civilians, including children.

American authorities, including President Donald Trump himself, publicly stated that the operation had achieved its objective of eliminating the Iranian leadership and that from that moment on it would be up to the local Iranian population to fight against state forces and complete a total regime change – thus seeking so-called “Iranian freedom.” However, the popular reaction was in the opposite direction, with increasing popular support for the Iranian retaliation.

This miscalculation on the part of the US and Israel is typical of their military mentality focused on decapitation attacks and quick assaults. The US is accustomed to short-duration wars, rapid invasions, causing high destruction to the enemy and promptly evacuating without significant attrition. Similarly, Israel, being a small country with limited resources, has always maintained a strategy of decapitation attacks, attempting to eliminate the leadership of anti-Zionist countries and armed groups in a fast manner and with minimal military effort.

However, this strategy is extremely limited. The US has been successful in operations against small countries in Latin America and some ‘failed states’ in Africa, but has always suffered when facing prolonged wars of attrition, such as in Vietnam or Afghanistan. Similarly, Israel has not even managed to neutralize Hamas and Hezbollah, which are non-state militias, by carrying out their decapitations in recent years. All this reveals the clear limitations of this type of strategy.

Iran is a country of considerable size, with over 90 million inhabitants and a complex political structure consolidated since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Popular support for the state is widespread – otherwise, the country would have already undergone some regime change, considering that the West constantly promotes mass protests and attempts at color revolutions there. Countries with such structure and complexity cannot be easily destabilized by quick decapitation operations.

Furthermore, it is important to remember that Khamenei was almost 90 years old and suffering from advanced cancer. Obviously, he did not control the entire Iranian chain of command alone, as there were many other high-level officials responsible for the local decision-making process. The authorities were already preparing for Khamenei’s replacement, as his death from natural causes was expected, so the impact of the “decapitation” was simply null.

In fact, the conflict seems to have already crossed the point of no return. Iran has shown that it has not been intimidated by the US and Israel and has made it clear that it will continue to target the entire regional infrastructure of the US, Israel and their allies, even if this means a widespread regional war. What Tehran seems to be doing is seeking a safe situation for itself, with sufficient demonstration of power and damage to its enemies, so that it can then engage in negotiations again in the future – the classic strategy of “escalating to de-escalate”.

Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert.

You can follow Lucas on X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram.

March 2, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on Decapitation attacks don’t work against strong countries

Next Iranian leader should be killed too if hostile to US – Lindsey Graham

RT | March 2, 2026

The US should assassinate those who come to power in Iran if they remain hostile toward American interests, according to veteran war hawk Senator Lindsey Graham.

The targeted killing of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and other senior officials was the opening part of a US-Israeli regime change operation launched on Saturday.

In a Fox News interview on Sunday, Graham pushed for continued political assassinations abroad. “This regime is in its death throes. Finish them off!” he said. “The ultimate safety comes when people in charge of Iran don’t want to kill us.”

“I don’t know who is going to take over Iran after this regime collapses but I know this. If you want to be a friend to America, we’ll be a friend to you. If you wanna keep this crap up, then you will pay the same price [as] the ayatollah,” Graham added, citing decades of Iranian support for anti-American militancy.

President Donald Trump’s interventionist approach in Iran and elsewhere sets “the golden standard” for US foreign policy that even President Ronald Reagan could not achieve, Graham claimed. He urged Trump to “unleash the American military with Israel” on Lebanon’s Iran-aligned Hezbollah “tonight.”

Cuba should also be targeted, Graham said, claiming Havana’s “days are numbered.” The US should also pressure Saudi Arabia, custodian of Islam’s holiest sites, to “recognize the one and only Jewish state,” he added.

Support for Israel has been a longstanding US strategic policy in the Middle East under both Democratic and Republican administrations.

Weeks before the joint attack on Iran, US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee insisted that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “does not want a war with Iran” and ridiculed the notion that “tiny little Israel is pushing the US into something it does not want to do.” He also denied that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was conducted in pursuit of Israeli interests, insisting that “zero” American troops were ever put on the ground for Israel.

March 2, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on Next Iranian leader should be killed too if hostile to US – Lindsey Graham

Iran security chief says ‘no negotiations with US,’ confirms readiness for ‘long war’

The Cradle | March 2, 2026

The Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, Ali Larijani, declared on 2 March that the Islamic Republic “will not negotiate with the United States” as the regional war rages on for a third straight day.

“Trump’s wishful thinking has dragged the whole region into an unnecessary war and now he is rightly worried about more American casualties. It is indeed very sad that he is sacrificing American treasure and blood to advance Netanyahu’s illegitimate expansionist ambitions,” Larijani said in a social media post.

The declaration came as a refutation to a Wall Street Journal report claiming that, hours after US-Israeli strikes halted negotiations, Larijani had pushed to resume nuclear talks with Washington through Omani mediators.

In a separate post, Larijani said Iran is prepared for a prolonged war, unlike the US.

Following the killing of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in US-Israeli strikes on 28 February, Larijani emerged as a central figure in Iran’s security and military leadership.

While Larijani has been managing Iran’s retaliation to the attack, he is not part of the three-person interim council established to lead the country until a successor is elected.

The council met for the first time on 1 March, shortly after the killing of Khamenei, to ensure government continuity as the country declared a 40-day mourning period.

The supreme leader was killed alongside a number of Iran’s top military and security leaders, including IRGC Commander-in-Chief Mohammad Pakpour, Defense Minister Aziz Nasirzadeh, and Armed Forces Chief of Staff Abdolrahim Mousavi, as well as several of Khamenei’s family members – his daughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, and grandchild.

The unprovoked US-Israeli attacks that began on 28 February have so far resulted in the killing of at least 555 people across Iran.

That number includes at least 180 killed in a single Israeli strike on a girls’ elementary school in Minab, with the vast majority being students aged 7-12.

UNESCO condemned the massacre as a grave violation of international humanitarian law, stressing the protections granted to civilians, especially children.

The joint US-Israeli aggression – dubbed ‘Operation Epic Fury’ by the US, and ‘Operation Roaring Lion’ by Israel – has carried out roughly 2,000 strikes across 131 locations in Iran, targeting key political, military, economic, and civilian infrastructure.

Following Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) announcement of Operation True Promise 4 – targeting US bases in the Persian Gulf region – Gulf states condemned Iran’s retaliatory missile strikes on US bases within their territory, calling them violations of sovereignty, with all Gulf states reporting the interception of Iranian missiles.

Oman warned the US-Israeli assault had undermined diplomacy just as a nuclear deal was “within our reach,” urging Washington not to escalate further, as Russia denounced the US-Israeli attack as “unprovoked.”

March 2, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on Iran security chief says ‘no negotiations with US,’ confirms readiness for ‘long war’

Gas prices spike amid fears of Middle East supply shock

RT | March 2, 2026

Gas markets around the world were rattled on Monday, with benchmark European natural gas prices rising sharply and broader energy markets on edge after Middle East tensions increased the risk to supplies via the critical Strait of Hormuz.

European benchmark gas futures surged by around 50% – their biggest single day move since March 2022 – after LNG tankers largely stopped transiting the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow waterway between Iran and Oman that carries about a fifth of global oil and gas shipments, over the weekend.

The spike was compounded by a drone strike on QatarEnergy’s major LNG complex at Ras Laffan, which forced production to be halted.

Crude markets also rallied, with Brent futures climbing to multi-month highs as the escalation further constrained energy flows from the region.

Across the Gulf, other energy sites have also been hit or temporarily shut, with producers suspending parts of their operations as a precaution. Saudi Arabia has reportedly paused activity at its Ras Tanura refinery following the attacks. With pipeline alternatives limited and shipping routes through the area stalling, traders are now pricing in the risk that supply lines could remain disrupted for an extended period.

Analysts warn that the turmoil could amount to the most serious shock to gas markets since the 2022 energy crisis. The EU is seen as particularly exposed. The bloc has already faced repeated jumps in energy costs since it scaled back Russian oil and gas imports following the escalation of the Ukraine conflict. Moving away from relatively cheap Russian pipeline gas has forced the bloc to lean more heavily on LNG deliveries, especially from the US. Now, with the heating season ending but storage sites less full than usual, the region requires substantial LNG imports over the summer to rebuild inventories ahead of next winter.

The rally comes as US President Donald Trump has indicated that military operations against Iran could continue for several weeks, while a number of major maritime insurers are preparing to stop covering war risks for ships entering the Persian Gulf.

Military strikes launched by the US and Israel against Iran on Saturday have shown no sign of easing. The intense attacks have reportedly killed Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and other senior officials, including the head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, while Tehran has responded with airstrikes against Israel and several Gulf states hosting US military assets. In a further sign of regional escalation, Lebanon’s Hezbollah has entered the fray with cross‑border attacks on Israeli military positions, prompting retaliatory airstrikes on the group’s infrastructure and command sites.

Analysts, including Goldman Sachs, estimate that a month‑long halt to shipping through the Strait of Hormuz could send European gas prices up by as much as 130% from current levels, putting renewed pressure on households and industry.

Kirill Dmitriev, Russia’s presidential envoy and head of the country’s sovereign wealth fund, argued that the latest price jump highlights the cost of Europe’s decision to move away from Russian fuel. In a social‑media post, he said EU gas prices “could more than double soon” and claimed that the bloc’s “strategic blunder of avoiding cheap and reliable Russian gas is backfiring.”

March 2, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Comments Off on Gas prices spike amid fears of Middle East supply shock

Daniel Davis: U.S. Miscalculation – War Not Going as Planned

Glenn Diesen | March 1, 2026

Lt. Col. Daniel Davis is a 4x combat veteran, the recipient of the Ridenhour Prize for Truth-Telling, and is the host of the Daniel Davis Deep Dive YouTube channel. After the second day of the war, Lt. Col. Davis discusses why the war against Iran is not going as planned and Iran has too many advantages.

Daniel Davis Deep Dive:    / @danieldavisdeepdive  

Follow Prof. Glenn Diesen:

Substack: https://glenndiesen.substack.com/

X/Twitter: https://x.com/Glenn_Diesen

Patreon:   / glenndiesen  

Support the research by Prof. Glenn Diesen: PayPal: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/glenn…

Buy me a Coffee: buymeacoffee.com/gdieseng Go Fund Me: https://gofund.me/09ea012f

Books by Prof. Glenn Diesen: https://www.amazon.com/stores/author/…

March 1, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Video | , , , | Comments Off on Daniel Davis: U.S. Miscalculation – War Not Going as Planned

Murdering Khamenei Will Kill Trump’s Presidency

By Ian Proud | Strategic Culture Foundation | March 1, 2026

Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei was assassinated in what is being described in western media as a joint airstrike operation. Even though the Israeli air-force carried out airstrikes in and around Tehran, it is clear that these were supported by the U.S. military. As such, the U.S. is complicit in the murder of the Head of State of a sovereign nation.

And this unilateral military action once again proved both that the United Nations Charter has lost its value and that the UN Security Council is now broken.

In his opening remarks to the Security Council, Secretary General António Guterres condemned the military strikes by the U.S. and Israel, which also condemning the Iranian response, citing Article 2 of the UN Charter.

“All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”

The enormous and ongoing military strikes against Iran were clearly in breach of that Article.

In its response to the Security Council, Iran’s Representative cited Article 51 of the UN Charter, which states that “nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individuals or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.” Article 51 is one of only two exceptions to the general prohibition on the use of force by UN members set out in Article 2.

The strikes were all the more cynical for taking place part way through talks moderated by the government of Oman. Indeed, Guterres hinted at this in his remarks, saying:

“The U.S. and Israeli attacks occurred following the third round of indirect talks between the U.S. and Iran mediated by Oman.

Preparations had been made for technical talks in Vienna next week followed by a new round of political talks.

I deeply regret that this opportunity of diplomacy has been squandered.”

Pakistan’s representative at the Council was more blunt, saying that “diplomacy has once again been derailed as these attacks have happened right in the middle of negotiations.”

Indeed, the strikes confirmed that the UN Security council has become completely unable to take measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.

On the 80th anniversary of the founding of the UN Secretary General Guterres warned that “fragile” legitimacy of the Security Council could endanger global peace if it remains gridlocked and fails to fulfil its primary purpose.

All of the the western nations around the UN Security Council table last night showed themselves to be weak and silent, in the face of American’s military might.

As one, they criticised Iran’s unprovoked attacks on Gulf states, as Iranian ballistic missiles targeted U.S. military sites in Bahrain, Qatar, the UAE and Kuwait, while also targeting Israel. Self evidently, Iran was targeting U.S. military installations in all of those countries and. Indeed, the U.S.’ fifth fleet Headquarters in Bahrain was struck by at least one ballistic missile. Yet civilian sites also got hit, including in the UAE and in Bahrain.

However, there was no mention at all of the U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran in the statements of western nations at the Security Council, as if they feared U.S. reprisals if they spoke out. Not a single word from the French, the Latvians, the Danes, the Greeks, even the Bahrainis, only that Iran murdered its citizens and should not be allowed to acquire a nuclear bomb.

In the end the acting UK Permanent Representative, James Kariuki, who I can tell you from personal experience is the most arrogant and puffed up British diplomat that I ever met, said that:

“Iran must refrain from further strikes, and its appalling behaviour, to allow a path back to diplomacy.”

The sitting President of the UN Security Council, the United Kingdom (the U.S. takes over the Presidency today) did not utter a single word about the USA or Israel. No attempt, as the country convening the meeting, to seek common ground and some agreement on the way forward.

Britain’ approach was merely to blame Iran in what the Russian Federation representative described in his intervention as ‘victim blaming’. I already knew that Britain had given up diplomacy in 2014, but this appeared yet another nail in a coffin which the UK refuses to bury as it pretends to be a nation of diplomacy. It is not. Britain is now a nation of warmongers without the troops to fight.

While final confirmation of the fact had yet to be provided at that time, the Prime Minister of Israel and President Trump were already celebrating the possible killing of Khamanei. ‘The dictator is gone,’ Netanyahu crowed.

In his social media statement, President Trump called on Iranian people to rise up and take over their country.

Yet within hours, sources within the CIA were already leaking reports that Khamenei may simply be replaced by IRGC hardliners.

As I have pointed out before, rather than fomenting revolution, unilateral military action against Iran may have the opposite effect and mobilise Iranian resistance.

This idea was stated with great clarity by Professor Robert Pape of Chicago University who said:

“With each passing day of regime-targeting airstrikes, we lose control over the political dynamics they unleash.

It becomes less about individual leaders and more about national survival. Less about dissent and more about resistance.

Imagine if a foreign power struck Washington and called on Americans to overthrow their government. Would citizens rally against their leaders — or against the foreign attacker?”

Iran is a country of 92 million people with an army of over 610,000. It is a tightly controlled state and as we saw in January is more than capable and ready to stifle internal dissent, including through violent means. It also does not have an oven-ready opposition lined up in the wings that can walk in unopposed and miraculously take over the country. To suggest that it does takes us into Bay of Pigs territory.

Having already kidnapped the Head of State of one sovereign nation already this year, the United States of America has now murdered another, Ayatollah Khamenei. This will unleash asymmetric threats against the U.S. and all of its allies that Donald Trump will not be able to control. If this military action drags out inconclusively, and I predict it will, then the mid-terms may prove catastrophic for Trump. I predict that the Iranian regime will outlast his.

March 1, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Murdering Khamenei Will Kill Trump’s Presidency

Larry Johnson: The U.S. Will Exhaust Itself & Lose War Against Iran

Glenn Diesen | February 28, 2026

Larry Johnson is a former intelligence analyst at the CIA who also worked at the US State Department’s Office of Counterterrorism. Johnson discusses why the US will lose the war against Iran.

Read Larry Johnson’s Sonar21: https://sonar21.com/

Follow Prof. Glenn Diesen: Substack: https://glenndiesen.substack.com/

X/Twitter: https://x.com/Glenn_Diesen

Patreon:   / glenndiesen  

Support the research by Prof. Glenn Diesen: PayPal: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/glenn…

Buy me a Coffee: buymeacoffee.com/gdieseng Go Fund Me: https://gofund.me/09ea012f

Books by Prof. Glenn Diesen

February 28, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Video, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on Larry Johnson: The U.S. Will Exhaust Itself & Lose War Against Iran

Why are Americans killing and dying for Israel, again?

By Tarik Cyril Amar | RT | February 28, 2026

Israel and its US auxiliaries have attacked Iran. In terms of international law and elementary justice, things are clear beyond the slightest doubt: the attack is a war of aggression – but to be fair, in Israel’s case that hardly makes a difference anymore.

With ‘highlights’ including apartheid, ethnic cleansing, unlawful detention, torture, sexual violence, and genocide, Israel has such an extensive and constantly growing record of, literally, every crime under international law, including human-rights and humanitarian law (or the law of armed conflict), that one more or less hardly seems to matter anymore. This state is a monster, and monsters will monster as long as they can.

The US, of course, is no spring chicken either when it comes to treating international law – really, any law – as a doormat and brutally, gleefully violating the most basic ethics, the kind of simple rules normal people intuitively recognize, such as “don’t murder, lie, or steal.”

Indeed, while Israel can easily claim to be the single most criminal, indeed evil country in the world, the US wins the most-powerful-rogue-state prize hands down. There is – empirically, quantifiably – no other country that combines such ingrained and increasingly explicit scorn for law and morality with such brute power and perpetual violence. Before the current assault on Iran, the kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro was just the last proof of that fact, so glaringly obvious that it woke up even some Western commentators.

If some things are too obvious to merit further discussion, others are more intriguing. Let’s start with the greatest mystery: Why is the US joining – really, obeying – Israel and its powerful American lobby once again in going to war in the Middle East? Was Iraq 2003 not enough of a disaster? Are the American elites really congenitally unable to learn?

In terms of actual US interests, war against Iran makes no sense at all. Iran is not close to a nuclear bomb and, as a matter of fact, has a religiously and ethically based (hard to grasp in Washington, I know) explicit policy against acquiring one. And even if Iran were building such weapons or seeking a state of being “latently” able to do so as urgently needed insurance against permanent Israeli and US aggression, Washington would gain nothing and risk very much by going to war.

On the other hand, it was precisely the JCPOA agreement with Iran, destroyed by the US during the first Trump presidency, that proved empirically that the issue of Iranian nuclear energy use can be resolved well by compromise. As to recent, hysterical US claims about other types of WMDs and “intercontinental missiles,” it is time to no longer give such crude, dumb lies the time of day. Enough with the propaganda already.

Regime change? So, please could someone explain why installing a washed-out Pahlavi princeling – if it ever were to work, that is – in Tehran is good for Americans? Spoiler, no one can. At least not honestly. Do I hear someone say geopolitics? Oh, that would mean the “genius” geopolitics of risking a long war with great damage to the US and its regional allies? Then, perhaps it’s all about plunder? Yes, true, the US simply loves plundering. Historically speaking, the whole country is built on it, just like Israel. But even plunder on its own despicable terms only makes sense if you turn a profit. Good luck with that while sinking more gazillions into war-for-Israel.

And that brings us to the only explanation that does make sense, even if in a very grim way: The US, as in almost all Americans, has zero interest in war with Iran. As little as in a proxy war with Russia and a Cold War with China, both strategies, by the way, doomed to fail. In all three cases, the vast majority of Americans would only stand to benefit from peaceful and cooperative relationships.

But Washington chooses permanent conflict and war against Iran anyhow. The reason is that US policy in the Middle East – and not only – has been captured by Israel and its lobby. As John Mearsheimer, both doyen of explaining international relations by national interests (the theory of Realism) and co-author of the standard work on the Israel Lobby, has long acknowledged, Israel’s influence on the US is real, contradicts American interests, and forms an exception to the theory of realism in that Washington is constantly hurting its own country.

For reasonable observers, this case is closed. When devastating the Middle East, the US is acting not in its own genuine national interest but the perverse conception that Israel has of its national interest: subjugating and, if needed, destroying all sovereign states in its neighborhood so as to create and preserve Israeli domination and even ‘Greater Israel’, a nightmare of ‘Lebensraum’ for Zionist settlers from, at least, Egypt to Iraq.

But, again, why? This is where the Epstein scandal makes a difference – or should do so – to unbiased minds. We must acknowledge that Jeffrey Epstein was not “merely” a very rich and perverse criminal with far too many friends in high places but an agent of Israel, whether with a direct affiliation to its dreaded Mossad service of spying, murder, and subversion or not. His core operation served to gather extremely compromising blackmail material on large swathes of the elites of the US and the West more generally. FBI agents, we now know, assessed that Trump himself is among those trapped in this manner. If anything, frantic – and also, again, criminal, efforts – by Trump’s Department of Justice and his head of the FBI to purge the files of references to the current president and his friends only provide further corroborating evidence that Trump is under Israel’s control.

Remember ‘Russiagate’ (really, of course, Russia Rage)? The irony! Russia was never remotely close to (or even trying) to having a US president under its thumb. That was all BS. Yet, in the end, ‘Russiagate’ did do two things: it gave Trump a (fundamentally realistic if exaggerated) sense of having been a victim of a smear campaign and, among voters, it helped Trump make his furious comeback, without which he would not now be in power. The delusion and mass hysteria of ‘Russiagate’ – which was that famous American thing, a nothing-burger – paved the way for the power that really controls Trump and really does enormous damage to America: Israel and its lobby.

Will Americans ever free themselves from the one state and network that have really run history’s most successful subversion and state-capture operation on them? Who knows? We know that it would take more than putting an end to Epstein-like blackmail. If anything, Trump’s bitter enemies, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, have only recently shown us that the American “elite” is enthralled to Israel and its crimes also for reasons ranging from being bribed to sharing the vile insanity of Zionism. If the US ever wants its independence back from Israel, all of that will have to go.

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

February 28, 2026 Posted by | Corruption, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on Why are Americans killing and dying for Israel, again?

Did Israel Just Forfeit Its ‘Right To Exist’? — Carlson’s Interview with Huckabee

By Robert Inlakesh | The Palestine Chronicle | February 28, 2026

Key Takeaways

  • Senior political figures openly endorsed a Nile-to-Euphrates territorial vision.
  • The “Greater Israel” concept is no longer fringe rhetoric.
  • Israel’s borders remain undeclared while territorial expansion continues.
  • Legal justifications rooted in Balfour and UNGA 181 are increasingly strained.
  • The demand to recognize Israel’s “right to exist” faces growing scrutiny.

The Mainstreaming of ‘Greater Israel’

There is no nation on earth whose government constantly demands its critics acknowledge its ‘right to exist’ as does Israel; this is because it seeks the world’s acquiescence as a means of enabling the indefensible. In truth, nobody, short of Christian Zionists and Jewish Supremacists believe Israel has a right to exist.

In Tucker Carlson’s recent interview with US Ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, the idea of Israel’s legitimacy was not only touched upon, but completely unraveled through a basic series of questions. Instead of furiously clashing with the self-described Christian Zionist, all Carlson did was ask serious follow-up questions and demand answers.

Since then, the fallout from what was a trainwreck of an interview for Huckabee has triggered a wave of backlash from countries throughout the region. The US ambassador triggered this backlash after affirming his belief that Israel is entitled to all of the land between the River Nile and the Euphrates River, as part of its biblical right to exist.

This enormous land grab is what is known as the ‘Greater Israel Project’, once dubbed an outlandish conspiracy theory. ‘Greater Israel’ would include all of Lebanon, Jordan, Palestine, most of Syria, along with parts of Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and even Turkiye. Therefore, it is no wonder that a US ambassador expressing his belief that Tel Aviv is entitled to all of this territory drew the ire of the entire region.

However, an even more important development came only days later, receiving much less media attention. The leader of the Israeli opposition, former Prime Minister Yair Lapid, expressed his own belief that Israel should seize all of the territory between the Nile and the Euphrates. Pegged as the more liberal and moderate opponent of Israeli Premier Benjamin Netanyahu, Lapid argued that the territory should be seized only when the right “security” predicament presents itself.

Even though Lapid’s comments did not draw the same kind of backlash from the Arab world’s leadership, his open confession of belief in a biblical right to all of ‘Greater Israel’ is a more important and damning development than the comments of Huckabee. This clearly demonstrates that the entire mainstream Israeli political establishment seeks to achieve this vision.

The Loss of Legitimacy

As pointed out during Tucker Carlson’s interview with the US ambassador to Israel, the infamous Balfour Declaration was written by British Lord Arthur Balfour to Lord Walter Rothschild. An important fact that is often never brought into question as the Balfour Declaration is often cited as a legal document justifying Israel’s existence. Instead, it was a document between two men.

From there, Israeli propagandists will point to later British government declarations as cementing this ‘right to establish a Jewish State in occupied Palestine. Finally, there is the 1947 United Nations General Assembly resolution 181 that is held up as Israel’s de facto birth certificate. This, of course, ignores the fact that Israel was only granted 56% of the land, yet seized nearly 80% of the entire territory.

However, all of this is now irrelevant to the question of Israel’s alleged legitimacy and ‘right to exist’. The reason for this is very simple: the British sought to grant the territory of occupied Palestine, and so too did the UNGA resolution 181. No legal document exists to legitimize the occupation of Syrian and Lebanese lands, as the Israelis continue to expand their borders into these neighboring nations.

Which brings us back to the alleged ‘biblical’ right to existence that the US ambassador, Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu, and opposition leader Yair Lapid have all expressed their belief in. The Israelis have historically occupied Egyptian territory, and many Israeli politicians, including current ministers in the Likud Party’s coalition government, have expressed their desire to return to Egypt once again.

The Politics of the ‘Right to Exist’

Israel has never declared its borders, and since 1967 has occupied territory from both Syria and Lebanon, in violation of international law. At this current moment, it is capturing more and more land in southern Syria on a near-daily basis.

Therefore, Israel, as a nation that has no definable borders and whose political leadership, along with its society, believes in its biblical right to seize the territory belonging to its neighbors, has no legal basis to exist as it does today. It has committed genocide, apartheid, mass ethnic cleansings, and operates a system of total Jewish Supremacy in all the land it has seized, through war.

In addition to this, the Zionist movement has actively worked, especially since October 7, 2023, to not only undermine the United Nations as a whole, but to replace it. Yet turns around and cites a UNGA resolution as its ‘legal right to exist’. It violates all known diplomatic norms, having attacked the former Iranian embassy in Syria, bombarded Doha despite its status as a US ally, while ignoring a UN Security Council resolution calling for a ceasefire in Gaza back in 2024.

The only argument that can be made for the continued existence of Israel as it functions today is an ideological one. This means that only two categories of human beings fit into this camp, Jewish Supremacists who believe in a biblical title to the land, and their Christian Zionist allies, who also provide a similar, theologically grounded argument.

There is no evidence that the majority, or even a plurality, of Christians believe in the concept of a ‘Greater Israel’, despite the best efforts of Christian Zionist lobby groups – the most powerful of which operate in the United States. In other words, a very small portion of the global population believes in this biblical interpretation. Even more troubling for the Zionist movement is that its settler colonial project was founded and led for much of its history by atheists.

If we are to define Israel by its current borders, which are undeclared and forever expanding, then there simply is no basis for arguing its existence, unless you do so from a theological perspective. As demonstrated through the questions offered to Ambassador Huckabee, who is himself a Christian pastor, there is no way of demonstrating that the Jewish population, or at least the majority of those Jewish people living in occupied Palestine, are directly related to the Israelites of the bible. In fact, all of the available DNA evidence would suggest that the Palestinians are more closely blood related to that population.

There is no nation on earth today that operates a system of ethno-religious supremacy as Israel does, no nation that violates international law as Israel does, nor is there another nation that bases its legitimacy on isolated and out of context passages from religious texts like Israel does either.

The reason why pro-Israel advocates are constantly demanding that everyone validate their legitimacy and ‘right to exist’ is simple: the affirmation of their flimsy arguments is what provides them the basis to continue behaving as the out-of-control regime that Israel is.

What Israel’s ‘right to exist’ comes down to is the belief that it should be allowed to dispossess millions of Muslims, Christians, and other indigenous peoples of their lands, in order to establish a system of domination. That ethnic cleansing is its right, the acquisition of territory via war is its right, and that committing mass murder against anyone who fights back is also their right.

Israel’s biblical ‘right to exist’ is just as valid as its right to kill entire populations it deems to be ‘Amalek’. If they do have that right, then so too does the so-called “Islamic State” terrorist organization.

The arguments made by Daesh (ISIS) and Israel for their ambitions to establish ever-expanding regimes of tyranny both carry the exact same level of historical and factual legitimacy. That is to say, neither argument carries any weight, beyond it being the belief of an isolated group of extremists – amongst the global population – who believe in a warped religious ‘right’ and that their theological arguments make them superior to all other human beings.

– Robert Inlakesh is a journalist, writer, and documentary filmmaker. He focuses on the Middle East, specializing in Palestine.

February 28, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , , , , | Comments Off on Did Israel Just Forfeit Its ‘Right To Exist’? — Carlson’s Interview with Huckabee

Lebanon: Between sovereignty and the mirage of normalization

By Ali Abou Jbara | The Cradle | February 26, 2026

The smoke had barely lifted from the latest Israeli bombardment of south Lebanon when another conversation began circulating in Beirut. While border villages buried their dead and families searched through rubble, a parallel discourse surfaced in studios and on digital platforms: normalization with Israel presented as a viable political path.

The ongoing war on Lebanon, marked by unprecedented Israeli escalation, daily raids, and widespread destruction, exposed more than military vulnerability. It revealed that certain voices inside the country no longer conceal their position toward Tel Aviv.

They now speak openly of public normalization as the cure for Lebanon’s crises – even as Israeli warplanes violate Lebanese skies, despite the so-called ceasefire. What is marketed as pragmatism begins to resemble political surrender.

Prominent personalities have amplified this shift. Journalist Marcel Ghanem declared live on his program “Sar al-Waqt” on MTV that he was considering speaking directly with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and suggested repealing Lebanese laws that criminalize dealings with Israel.

Digital platforms followed the same trajectory. “Hona Beirut” circulated videos of Israelis sending populist messages to Lebanese audiences – “We want peace with Lebanon. We want to visit Beirut and enjoy fattoush and shawarma” – carefully packaged to soften the image of a state whose aircraft continue to strike Lebanese territory.

Political figures moved even further. MP Paula Yacoubian stated publicly: “If salvation comes through Israel, let it come but save us.” Charles Jabbour, head of the Lebanese Forces (LF) party media apparatus, argued that Israel does not occupy Lebanon and does not attack the Lebanese, claiming instead that it monitors Hezbollah to ensure implementation of past agreements. He concluded: “If Hezbollah wins, Lebanon loses. If Israel wins, Lebanon wins.”

Such statements are deliberate. They substitute national consensus with partisan calculus and recast normalization as responsible governance.

Expansion as governing doctrine

Advocates of a “quick peace” treat Israel as a state seeking stability. The political current in Tel Aviv suggests something else entirely.

Under Netanyahu and his alliance with ultra-religious and nationalist forces, the “Greater Israel” vision operates as a strategic direction.

On 22 September 2023, Netanyahu stood before the UN General Assembly (UNGA) and presented a map that includes Gaza and the occupied West Bank as part of Israel, using the biblical name “Judea and Samaria” instead of the West Bank – in a symbolic dedication to the annexation project.

His coalition partner, Finance Minister and leader of “Religious Zionism” Bezalel Smotrich, had stated in 2016 that Israel’s borders “must extend to Damascus,” and appeared in Paris in  March 2023 in front of a map that considers Jordan part of the “Land of Israel.”

Since Menachem Begin and the Likud party came to power in 1977, the concept of “Greater Israel” has morphed into a political program based on settlement expansion and changing demographic realities. This current is based on interpretations from the Book of Genesis that consider the “Promised Land” to extend from the Nile to the Euphrates. Even Israel’s first prime minister, David Ben Gurion, wrote in the 1930s that establishing a state on part of the land would serve as a first stage, not an endpoint.

Following Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, expansionist language hardened. Military operations broadened in Gaza and the occupied West Bank while strikes intensified in Syria and Lebanon. “Security depth” expanded to encompass regional theaters.

On 21 February 2026, US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee said in an interview with Tucker Carlson that, under a biblical interpretation of land promised in Genesis, it “would be fine if [Israel] took it all,” implicitly extending Israel’s reach across much of West Asia – remarks that sparked sharp regional condemnation.

Maps circulated by proponents of this project extend beyond historic Palestine. They incorporate Lebanon, Jordan, most of Syria, half of Iraq, and territories in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and even Kuwait.

Against that strategic horizon, Lebanese normalization rhetoric begins to feel profoundly detached from the lived reality of the country. Border villages remain scarred, Lebanese airspace is violated without consequence, and sovereignty is subjected to daily erosion, yet normalization is presented as transactional diplomacy, detached from geography and history.

It is precisely here that the Lebanese debate turns unsettling. What does it mean to pursue “peace” with a project whose declared maps stretch beyond its recognized borders? How does a state whose skies, waters, and land are routinely breached convince itself to trust assurances from a government that treats expansion as a generational mission?

The occupied West Bank as precedent

The occupied West Bank offers a concrete case study. Since the 1993 Oslo Accords, the settler population has grown from roughly 250,000 to more than 700,000. Hundreds of settlements and outposts now fragment the territory. Israeli Energy Minister Eli Cohen has described this as imposing “de facto sovereignty” – gradual annexation without formal declaration.

Land confiscations, bypass roads, settlement blocs, and armed settler protection have eroded the territorial basis for Palestinian statehood. Smotrich openly advocates annexation and rejects Palestinian sovereignty. Netanyahu presides over what observers describe as the most right-wing government in Israel’s history, with settlement expansion central to its agenda.

Three decades of negotiations unfolded alongside continuous territorial transformation. Diplomatic processes advanced in parallel with irreversible changes on the ground. This is how “peace” is managed when it is a tool to strengthen control, not to end it.

Despite this record, similar assumptions appear in Lebanese discourse. MP Camille Chamoun of the Free Patriots Party says he does not believe Israel has an interest in violating international agreements and Lebanese borders.

MP Sami Gemayel, head of the Kataeb Party, suggests that relations with Israel and western countries may protect Lebanon. Even Lebanese actress and writer Carine Rizkallah said on the TV program Al-Masar that she hoped there would be no new war with Israel and that “it’s time to end these problems between the two countries.”

The irony is that Lebanese rhetoric promoting normalization leans on an assumption of good faith from the other side, even though the occupied West Bank continues to show how such assumptions unfold in practice. There, decades of agreements, conferences, and international sponsorship did not halt expansion; they unfolded alongside it, as settlements multiplied, land was fragmented, and entire areas were quietly absorbed into a new reality.

If this is where the occupied West Bank has arrived after years of accords and external guarantees, on what basis is Lebanon encouraged to trust similar assurances? The experience is not abstract or distant. It is ongoing, visible, and instructive for anyone willing to look.

Regional patterns of influence

The broader region reinforces this reading. After the fall of the previous Syrian government on 8 December 2024, Israeli influence expanded in southern and central Syria, capitalizing on security vacuums and fragmentation. Strategic corridors between northern Syria and Israeli ports strengthened. Control over the occupied Golan Heights and adjacent water resources deepened.

Turkiye adopted a confrontational stance toward Israeli expansion, warning that the absence of clear red lines destabilizes Syria and opens space for broader intervention. Ankara expanded its diplomatic engagement on Palestine, strengthened regional alliances, and emphasized deterrence, demonstrating that even governments with formal ties to Israel are wary of unchecked expansion.

Across neighboring states, internal divisions have created entry points for influence. Settlement expansion in the occupied West Bank, strikes in Syria, and sustained violations in Lebanon reflect an interconnected strategy.

Normalization premised on unilateral concession narrows strategic space. In regional practice, asymmetrical engagement tends to consolidate the stronger party’s position.

Lebanon operates within that same environment. Any official normalization would unfold against Israel’s strategic framework and military advantage. Expectations of reciprocal restraint lack precedent in current regional dynamics.

Lebanon’s historical record

Lebanon’s experience with Israeli aggression remains documented. In April 1996, Israeli forces bombed a UN base in Qana, killing more than 100 civilians who had sought shelter. In September 1982, the Sabra and Shatila massacre occurred under the watch of the Israeli army. The 1982 Israeli invasion reached Beirut, and south Lebanon remained under occupation until 2000, liberated only through sustained resistance.

The July 2006 war resulted in more than 1,200 Lebanese deaths, extensive infrastructure destruction, and the displacement of nearly one million people. Airspace violations continued long after hostilities subsided.

Following Operation Al-Aqsa Flood and Hezbollah’s decision to open a northern support front, strikes on southern villages resumed, placing Lebanon within a wider expansionist frame.

In this context, normalization proposals detach policy from cumulative experience. They assume recalibration without structural change. Historical precedent suggests otherwise.

Legal foundations

Lebanon’s stance toward Israel is codified in law. Since 1955, the Boycott of Israel Law has prohibited commercial, cultural, and political dealings with the Israeli enemy. The law remains in force and constitutes a foundational element of Lebanese state policy.

The penal code criminalizes espionage and communication with the enemy, including cooperation that provides political, media, or moral benefit. In contemporary circumstances, public statements or digital content that promote normalization may fall within this framework if deemed to confer advantage. Penalties can include imprisonment and fines.

Given ongoing Israeli violations of Lebanese sovereignty, normalization carries national security implications under existing legislation. Judicial and security institutions retain authority to investigate potential breaches.

This legal architecture reflects accumulated historical experience rather than abstract doctrine.

Sovereignty under pressure

The present debate concerns strategic direction under sustained pressure. An expansionist project operates openly in the region. Lebanon’s historical memory remains recent.

Calls for normalization at a moment of ongoing aggression raise structural questions about sovereignty, deterrence, and long-term stability. Strategic environments shaped by military asymmetry rarely reward unilateral accommodation.

Lebanon faces a clear dilemma. Defending sovereignty requires political coherence and deterrent capacity. Pursuing normalization without reciprocal structural change invites further testing of borders and institutions.

The chosen trajectory will shape more than just diplomatic posture. It will define how the state positions itself within a region undergoing forced transformation.

February 27, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , , , | Comments Off on Lebanon: Between sovereignty and the mirage of normalization

US fears Iran war will ‘deplete’ air defenses stretched thin by Ukraine, Israel: Report

The Cradle | February 26, 2026

Military officials and lawmakers in Washington have warned that a prolonged war with Iran could stretch US military stockpiles of air defense interceptor missiles “to the brink and make the country more vulnerable,” POLITICO reported on 26 February.

“Gen. Dan Caine, the Joint Chiefs of Staff chair, has raised concerns about the military’s shortage of air defense interceptors since January,” POLITICO wrote, citing a person familiar with the matter.

“But the fears have magnified in recent weeks as the Pentagon amassed the largest military buildup in the Middle East since the Iraq War,” the magazine added.

Since returning to the White House a year ago, US President Donald Trump has won praise from Israelis while supporting the genocide in Gaza and overseeing a massive expansion of US military operations, including in Venezuela, Yemen, and Nigeria.

Crucially, Trump ordered US warplanes to join Israel’s 12-day war on Iran to bomb Tehran’s nuclear sites in June 2025.

Interceptor missiles were used not only to protect US forces from Iranian and Yemeni counterattacks but also to protect Israel from Iran’s barrages of ballistic missiles and drones.

During these operations, US forces “burned through” significant numbers of Standard Missile-3s, Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) interceptors, and Patriot missiles, POLITICO observed.

Since then, the Pentagon has been unable to replenish its interceptor stocks due to the complexity and slow pace of their production.

Six current and former US officials and members of Congress told POLITICO of their widespread worries that a sustained war with Iran could deplete remaining US air defenses and “leave tens of thousands of American troops in the region unprotected against Tehran’s missile salvos.”

An Israeli intelligence official stated on Thursday that the US only has the capacity to sustain four or five days of intense aerial assault on Iran, the Times of Israel wrote, citing the Financial Times (FT).

Israel is pushing for a major war, claiming that limited US strikes on Iran could only “embolden the regime,” the Times of Israel added.

Since January, President Trump has assembled what he called an “armada” of US naval ships with accompanying war planes in the region in preparation for a possible renewed attack on the Islamic Republic.

Analysts have suggested that Iran will retaliate much more strongly in the event of a second war, including against US bases in the Gulf, leading to a much longer and more devastating war than last June.

“Do we have enough interceptors to sustain a retaliation?” said the person familiar with the talks. “We don’t have a discretely focused objective. Is it regime change or is it [just] ballistic missiles?”

A US military spokesperson responded to the POLITICO report by saying its weapons stockpiles are sufficient.

“The Department of War has everything it needs to execute any mission at the time and place of the president’s choosing and on any timeline,” said spokesperson Sean Parnell.

However, some US lawmakers say that the defense industry is not producing enough Lockheed Martin-built Patriot interceptors or RTX’s Tomahawk long-range missiles, nor quickly enough.

“There have been urgent calls for reforms in procurement, but the net result is that we are seemingly unable to meet all of the needs for defense production – for Ukraine, for our partners in the Middle East,” said Richard Blumenthal, a Democratic congressman.

“It may be problematic to think about moving Patriot missile interceptor systems from the Middle East because now we’re going to have to protect our embassies, not to mention our bases,” he added.

The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a Washington think tank, estimated the US had used up to 20 percent of the Standard Missile-3 interceptors and between 20 and 50 percent of its THAAD missiles.

February 26, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on US fears Iran war will ‘deplete’ air defenses stretched thin by Ukraine, Israel: Report

John Mearsheimer: The Case for a Nuclear Iran

Glenn Diesen | February 25, 2026

John J. Mearsheimer is the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, where he has taught since 1982. Prof. Mearsheimer argues why Iran should be considered a rational actor, and why Iran should develop nuclear weapons as the ultimate deterrent.

Follow Prof. Glenn Diesen:

Support the research by Prof. Glenn Diesen:

Books by Prof. Glenn Diesen

February 26, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Video, Wars for Israel | , , , | Comments Off on John Mearsheimer: The Case for a Nuclear Iran

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »