Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

US mulling new pressure tactic on Iran – WSJ

RT | February 11, 2026

The US is considering seizing tankers carrying Iranian oil in a bid to push Tehran toward a deal on its nuclear program, the Wall Street Journal has reported, citing American officials.

Washington has long accused Iran of seeking nuclear weapons, while Tehran has maintained that its program is strictly civilian. The US has seized several vessels transporting Iranian oil in recent months as part of a broader campaign targeting sanctioned tankers linked to Venezuela. The ships are part of an alleged ‘shadow fleet’ used to move crude from heavily sanctioned countries to China and other buyers.

Senior officials in the administration of US President Donald Trump have debated whether to confiscate Iranian vessels but have stopped short of acting, wary of retaliation from Tehran and potential disruption to global oil markets, the WSJ reported on Tuesday. The option, one of several under discussion at the White House to pressure Tehran into agreeing to limits on its nuclear program, faces significant hurdles, US officials told the outlet.

Iran would likely retaliate against any stepped-up US enforcement campaign by seizing tankers carrying oil from American allies in the region, which could send oil prices sharply higher, posing political risks for the White House, the WSJ said. The US Treasury Department has sanctioned more than 20 vessels allegedly involved in transporting Iranian oil this year, potentially making them candidates for seizure.

When asked about the possibility of the US boarding tankers linked to Iran, a White House official told the outlet that Trump favors diplomacy but has a range of options available if negotiations fail.

The report comes amid rising tensions between Tehran and Washington, with the US recently deploying additional naval and air assets to the region. Washington has demanded that Iran accept a “zero enrichment” policy and has repeatedly suggested it could resort to military action if diplomacy fails, while Tehran insists that enrichment is its legal right, grounded in sovereignty and national dignity.

Speaking to RT’s Rick Sanchez on Tuesday, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Tehran is fully committed to a diplomatic settlement with the US while simultaneously bracing for the possibility of renewed conflict. However, he argued that “there is no solution but a diplomatic solution,” stating that technology and progress cannot be destroyed through bombings and military threats.

February 11, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Wars for Israel | , , , | Leave a comment

Iran Willing to Dilute Enriched Uranium If US Lifts All Sanctions

By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | February 9, 2026

A top Iranian official said that Tehran would be willing to dilute its stockpile of highly enriched uranium if Washington agrees to remove sanctions completely.

Iran’s atomic energy chief, Mohammad Eslami, proposed that Tehran would dilute its 60% enriched uranium to a lower level if “all sanctions would be lifted in return.” Iran is estimated to have 400-600 kg of highly enriched uranium. Eslami explained that Tehran was unwilling to sell or transfer the nuclear material to a third country.

American and Iranian officials met for talks in Oman last week. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Iran is “very serious in negotiations” and is eager to “achieve results”. However, he said, “There is a wall of mistrust towards the United States, which stems from America’s own behaviour.”

Tehran says it is willing to agree to a deal with Washington that imposes restrictions and inspections on its civilian nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief and the US abandoning its aggressive policy towards Iran.

Washington and Tel Aviv are seeking a far more expansive agreement that includes restrictions on Tehran’s nuclear and missile programs, as well as Iran cutting ties with its allies in the region. The White House has demanded that Tehran eliminate its nuclear enrichment program and limit the range of its ballistic missiles.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is set to meet with President Donald Trump on Wednesday to ensure Washington does not sign a deal with Tehran that violates Tel Aviv’s redlines. Israeli officials have told the White House that Tel Aviv could launch a strike on Iran if the US agrees to a deal that does not include restricting Tehran’s missile program.

Iran has ruled out signing an agreement on the terms proposed by the US and Israel. President Donald Trump has threatened to attack Iran if Tehran does not sign a new deal with the US.

February 9, 2026 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , , | 1 Comment

Iran Adamantly Rejects US Attempt to Control Upcoming Negotiations Over Iran’s Nuclear Program

By Larry C. Johnson | SONAR | February 5, 2026 

What a day!! Lots of negotiation and non-negotiation action on the Iranian front. In the span of two hours, starting at 1 pm and ending around 3 pm eastern time, the world was whipped sawed with news that the bilateral negotiations between Iran and the US was cancelled — that was the 1 pm news — and then, at 3 pm, the talks were back on. The initial reports that the meeting in Oman would not take place cited Iran’s reaction to a US demand that Iranian ballistic missiles and Iran’s support for groups like Hamas and Hezbollah must be on the agenda or there would be no negotiations. Without a moments hesitation, Iran barked back and said, “Ok, no meeting.”

Axios reported that US officials were surprised by Iran’s reaction and scrambled to come up with a response to Iran. Within two hours, the US retreated and accepted Iran’s position that the Friday meeting in Oman would only address nuclear bombs and uranium enrichment. Iran won this first round.

While all of this was taking place, Pentagon officials announced that the US carrier strike force had shot down an Iranian drone that was flying towards the USS Abraham Lincoln again… No word about the make and model. Three days ago, Iran successfully overflew the USS Abraham Lincoln and showed the video footage on Iran’s Press TV. I think Pete Hegseth and his team of sycophants were embarrassed by that episode and decided to retaliate with force.

And if that was not enough, Iran dispatched a bevy of small boats to harass what the press described as a US tanker navigating the Strait of Hormuz. I think Iran was simply trying to remind the US that it is serious about taking action against the US military and economic presence in the Persian Gulf if the US acts on its threat to attack Iran.

Danny Davis, Doug MacGregor, and I have heard active duty military officers in recent days insist that any Iranian attacks would be easily repulsed by US forces in the region. We all think that those officers do not understand the full capabilities of the Iranian navy and air force to overwhelm US defenses with a combination of drone and missile swarms if the US carries out an attack on targets inside Iran. King Solomon, writing in Proverbs, accurately described this attitude… Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.

If the US is going to attack Iran it will want to launch in the next two weeks because Russian and Chinese warships are headed to the area to participate in the annual Iran-Russia-China joint-naval military exercise. Iran, Russia, and China are scheduled to hold their joint naval military exercise, known as Maritime Security Belt 2026 (the eighth edition of the series), in the northern Indian Ocean (including areas near the Gulf of Oman and Arabian Sea) in late February 2026. Iranian Navy Commander Rear Admiral Shahram Irani announced on January 31, 2026, that the exercise will involve units from Iran’s regular navy (Nedaja), the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Navy, and naval forces from China and Russia.

February 6, 2026 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Trump’s war posturing against Iran traces back to Bush’s infamous 2002 ‘axis of evil’ speech

By Ivan Kesic | Press TV | January 31, 2026

On January 29, 2002, US President George W. Bush’s State of the Union Address infamously branded Iran as part of an “axis of evil,” marking a rhetorical escalation that hardened a decades-long policy of confrontation and laid the groundwork for the persistent crises that continue to threaten regional stability today.

The twenty-fourth anniversary of Bush’s “axis of evil” speech came this week amid a starkly familiar backdrop: US naval “armada” massing in the Persian Gulf and renewed threats of military action from Bush’s successor, Donald Trump.

This moment is not an aberration but the continuation of a sustained, multi-decade strategy aimed at isolating and pressuring the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The policy did not originate with Bush but in the sanctions regimes of the 1990s, significantly shaped by pro-Israeli lobbying efforts within the United States.

It hardened with the rise of neoconservative thinkers who favored regime change over containment – a doctrine vividly applied to Iraq.

Throughout a campaign of disinformation and propaganda regarding weapons of mass destruction, the leveraging of exiled terrorist groups, and a consistent narrative of Iranian threat have been employed to maintain the so-called “maximum pressure.”

As history echoes in January 2026, with a Republican administration again aligning with an Israeli Likud regime to confront Iran, the patterns of the past illuminate the perilous present.

Defining Speech: January 29, 2002

Bush’s State of the Union address fundamentally reshaped the US posture toward Iran in ways that his predecessors had deliberately avoided.

In that speech, Iran was labeled a nation that “aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people’s hope for freedom.”

By grouping Iran with Iraq and North Korea as part of an “axis of evil,” the infamous and widely condemned declaration decisively rejected any tentative diplomatic outreach that had briefly flickered after the September 11 attacks.

During that period, symbolic gestures, such as candlelight vigils in Tehran, and behind-the-scenes communication channels suggested Iran’s conditional cooperation in Afghanistan.

However, the “axis of evil” label extinguished these nascent contacts. It signaled that the hostile administration in Washington would view Iran not as a potential partner, even tactically, but as a permanent adversary and a primary target in the global “war on terror.”

Crafted within a circle of advisors known for their overt pro-Israeli leanings, the phrase was immediately and enthusiastically embraced by the Israeli regime, which saw it as a long-sought alignment of US rhetoric with its own strategic goals.

The speech institutionalized a framework of hostility that would dictate policy for years, replacing the previous administration’s fluctuating approach with one of unambiguous confrontation.

Dual containment and the sanctions regime

Long before the “axis of evil” rhetoric, the framework for isolating Iran was carefully constructed during the Bill Clinton administration under the policy of “dual containment,” which targeted both Iran and Iraq.

From its inception, this policy was heavily influenced by pro-Israeli lobby groups in Washington. Even as Clinton’s foreign policy team was forming, concerns arose about appointees from the Carter administration who were deemed insufficiently sympathetic to these interests.

Warren Christopher, who was appointed Secretary of State, was initially viewed with caution but ultimately became a key architect of a hardened stance toward Iran.

Christopher, who had served as chief negotiator of the Algiers Accords and was criticized by some Iranian officials, developed a personal animosity toward Iran.

He publicly labeled Iran an “outlaw nation,” a “dangerous country,” and one of the “principal sources of support for terrorist groups worldwide.”

This rhetoric provided a public rationale for an escalating series of economic sanctions designed, in his words, to “squeeze Iran’s economy.”

A powerful proponent of this policy was Martin Indyk, former research director at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)-affiliated Washington Institute for Near East Policy, who served on the National Security Council and later as Ambassador to Israel.

Under his guidance, the threefold accusations of sponsoring terrorism, opposing regional peace efforts, and pursuing weapons of mass destruction became the unwavering justification for punitive measures against the Islamic Republic.

A fierce competition emerged in Congress to demonstrate increasing hostility toward Iran, with figures like Senator Alfonse D’Amato pushing for ever-tighter sanctions – often propelled by direct lobbying from AIPAC, which acted as the “locomotive” behind the legislation.

This culminated in the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA) of 1996, which aimed to penalize foreign companies investing in Iran’s energy sector. Later reports revealed that the explicit goal of the act was regime change in Iran.

Neoconservatives and the preference for military solutions

The arrival of the Bush administration marked a significant shift in the philosophy underlying US foreign policy – though not in its ultimate objective.

By the late 1990s, while the corporate world and some pragmatic diplomats began questioning the efficacy of unilateral sanctions, a new faction with immense influence pushed for a more radical and hard-nosed approach.

This neoconservative wing, closely aligned with Likudist ideology in the occupied Palestinian territories, viewed sanctions and containment as too slow and unreliable.

They regarded military force as a faster, more effective means of dealing with hostile states.

Key figures such as Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, and Douglas Feith – all with longstanding ties to pro-Israeli think tanks and advocacy groups – assumed senior roles within the Pentagon and advisory boards.

Their worldview was crystallized in the 1996 policy paper A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm, prepared for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, which advocated attacking Iraq to reshape the regional landscape.

For these strategists, patient pressure through sanctions was secondary to the transformative potential of direct military action and regime rollback.

While initially focused on Iraq, Iran remained a firm subsequent target.

They argued that only the forceful removal of threatening regimes could guarantee American and Israeli security, a belief that came to define the administration’s response after the September 11, 2001 attacks.

Iraqi precedent: Destruction as a model

The neoconservative doctrine found its first full-scale application in Iraq. The 2003 invasion, premised on bogus claims of weapons of mass destruction that were later proven false, fulfilled a long-held goal to eliminate the Saddam Hussein-led Ba’athist regime.

The architects of the invasion were not satisfied with only regime change but aimed for the comprehensive degradation of Iraqi power.

After two major wars and over a decade of crippling sanctions, Iraq’s state apparatus and military-industrial base were utterly destroyed.

Some proponents openly described the objective as returning Iraq “to the pre-industrial era,” a stark admission that the goal extended beyond disarmament to eliminating Iraq’s capacity to function as a modern, sovereign regional counterweight.

The devastating consequences – civil strife, the rise of takfirism, and immense human suffering – were regarded as collateral damage within a broader strategic vision.

For those advocating confrontation with Iran, the Iraqi campaign served as both a template and a warning. It demonstrated the overwhelming military power the US could deploy to dismantle a state, while also exposing the catastrophic instability that could follow.

Nevertheless, the ability to reduce a perceived enemy to a state of permanent weakness was noted, informing the maximalist pressure later applied to Tehran.

Propaganda arsenal: Lies and manipulations

Building and sustaining public and international support for relentless pressure on Iran required a sustained campaign of allegations and propaganda.

The core accusations remained consistent: pursuit of nuclear weapons, support for terrorism, and an implacable hostility to peace in the region.

These charges were amplified through a symbiotic network of government officials, pro-Israeli lobbying organizations, sympathetic media outlets, and designated “experts.”

Sensational – and fabricated – stories were regularly fed to the press. In the early 1990s, reports frequently citing unnamed intelligence sources or anti-Iran groups aboad claimed that Iran had purchased nuclear warheads from Kazakhstan or was on the verge of developing a bomb, claims repeatedly debunked by international inspectors and the countries involved.

Media outlets with particular editorial stances published alarming estimates, suggesting Iran was only years or even months away from nuclear capability – deadlines that continually receded as each passed without incident.

The language used was deliberately inflammatory, with senior officials referring to Iran’s “evil hand” in the region and describing it as a “rogue state.”

This ecosystem ensured that any Iranian attempt at diplomatic outreach or confidence-building was overwhelmed by a pre-existing narrative of deceit and malign intent, making substantive dialogue politically untenable in Washington.

Useful tool: MKO role in anti-Iranian propaganda

A particularly revealing aspect of the propaganda and pressure campaign has been the relationship with the Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO), a terror cult with offices scattered across Europe and the US.

Designated by the US State Department as a terrorist organization due to its history of violent attacks, including against Americans in the 1970s, Iranian officials and civilians in the 1980s, and its alliance with Saddam Hussein during the Imposed War, the terror group nonetheless found influential supporters and was eventually de-listed by Hillary Clinton.

Despite its cult-like structure and lack of popular support inside Iran, the MKO managed to gain an active lobbying and public relations operation in the United States and Europe.

Senior members of the US Congress, especially those with strong pro-Israeli records, championed the group, inviting its representatives to testify and attending its rallies, arguing it represented a “democratic alternative” to the Islamic Republic.

The MKO’s utility was cynically acknowledged; one Congressman stated, “I don’t give a s*** if they are undemocratic… They are fighting Iran, which is… a terrorist state. I say let’s help them fight each other.”

This usefulness peaked in August 2002, when an MKO front held a press conference in Washington to “reveal” the existence of two secret nuclear facilities in Iran at Natanz and Arak.

While these facilities were not in violation of Iran’s safeguards agreement at the time, the revelation – intelligence reports suggest originating with Israeli intelligence and channeled through the exiles – provided the perfect pretext to demand intrusive new inspections and escalate international pressure.

Thus, the MKO served as a deniable cut-out for disinformation and a persistent amplifier of the baseless and sham accusations against the Iranian government.

Unbroken chain: Policy sustained to the present day

The strategic imperative to confront Iran has proven remarkably durable, transcending individual US administrations and enduring significant geopolitical shifts.

This hostile and bellicose policy remains intact today. In January 2026, the situation closely mirrors earlier cycles of tension between Tehran and Washington, dating back to decades of US hostility and a failed “regime change” project.

US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, leading a Likud-dominated coalition, are once again employing military threats against Iran after failing miserably in June last year to dismantle the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The US military has reportedly amassed naval and air forces around Iran’s perimeter, announced by Trump himself, a show of force reminiscent of previous escalations.

This military posture is accompanied by an intensification of a long-standing economic stranglehold, as the Trump administration enforces so-called “ultimate pressure” sanctions with renewed vigor, targeting critical sectors and aiming to sever Iran’s access to the global financial system entirely.

The foundational grievances remain unchanged: allegations of building a “nuclear weapon,” despite Iran’s continued adherence to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) framework after its earlier collapse, and support for regional allies.

Last month, Trump and Netanyahu backed deadly riots and terrorism in Iran, and then threatened to attack Iran if “lethal force” was used against the rioters, arsonists and terrorists. After the riots ended, the focus shifted back to the non-existent “nuclear weapon.”

The tools have expanded beyond diplomatic isolation and covert pressure. Recent reports from within Iran detail how externally backed groups, employing tactics and rhetoric similar to the MKO terrorist cult, sought to exploit domestic unrest by spreading incendiary propaganda and inciting violence, apparently aiming to destabilize the country.

The alignment between the Trump administration and the Likud regime in Tel Aviv remains as close as ever, with both viewing the other as a vital partner in a long-term struggle.

Just as in 2002, diplomatic overtures from Tehran aimed at easing tensions are dismissed or met with increased demands.

The legacy of the “axis of evil” speech has created a foreign policy paradigm that has locked the US and Iran into a perpetual cycle of confrontation, where the mechanisms of pressure – economic warfare, military threat, and the use of terrorist groups – have proven easier to sustain than to dismantle, continually pushing the region toward the brink of war.

What Trump is doing today is simply a continuation of Bush’s policy, which was also carried forward by Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden. The policy remains unchanged.

January 31, 2026 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Iran, China and Russia sign trilateral strategic pact

By Ranjan Solomon | MEMO | January 29, 2026

In a dramatic geopolitical development this afternoon, Iran, China and Russia formally signed a comprehensive strategic pact, marking one of the most consequential shifts in 21st-century international relations. While the full text of the agreement is being released in stages by the three governments, state media in Tehran, Beijing and Moscow have acknowledged the ceremony and described it as a cornerstone for a new multipolar order.

The pact comes against the backdrop of decades of growing cooperation between these three states. Iran and Russia earlier concluded a 20-year Comprehensive Strategic Partnership Treaty designed to deepen economic, political, and defence ties, and to blunt the impact of Western sanctions — a treaty that was signed in January 2025 and entered into force last year.  Meanwhile, Iran and China have been bound by a 25-year cooperation agreement first signed in 2021, aimed at expanding trade, infrastructure, and energy integration.

What makes today’s signing significantly different, and newsworthy, is that it explicitly combines the three powers in a coordinated framework, aligning them on issues ranging from nuclear sovereignty and economic cooperation to military coordination and diplomatic strategy.

Officials in Tehran described the pact as a joint commitment to “mutual respect, sovereign independence and a rules-based international system that rejects unilateral coercion,” echoing similar statements issued by Beijing and Moscow.

What the pact represents

This agreement does not – at least from the initial public texts – constitute a formal mutual defence treaty akin to NATO’s Article 5, obligating one to defend the others militarily. Past pacts between Iran and Russia always carefully stopped short of a binding defence guarantee.  Instead, the pact appears to link three major powers in a broader geopolitical coalition defined by shared opposition to Western military dominance and economic coercion.

Central to the agreement is a unified stance against reimposition of sanctions on Iran tied to its nuclear programme under the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Tehran, Beijing and Moscow have previously issued joint statements rejecting European attempts to trigger “snapback” sanctions, and have declared the UN Security Council’s considerations of the nuclear deal terminated.

This trilateral pact is therefore as much about diplomatic leverage and strategic narrative as it is about concrete defence or economic mechanisms.

Immediate regional and global consequences

The pact’s signing coincides with heightened tensions between the United States and Iran. President Donald Trump has reiterated threats of military action against Iran absent a negotiated settlement on its nuclear activities, even deploying a US carrier strike group to the Middle East theatre.  Against that backdrop, this new strategic pact serves both Tehran and its partners as a buffer against unilateral US military pressure. By presenting a united front, the three governments aim to compel Washington to negotiate from a position of constraint rather than dominance.

For the Middle East, the balance of power is reshaping. Iran, long isolated by Western policies — now claims the protection of two permanent members of the UN Security Council. This will embolden Tehran’s regional posture in theatres such as Iraq, Syria and the Persian Gulf, and complicate conventional deterrence strategies exercised by the United States and its Gulf allies.

For Europe, the pact undercuts Brussels’ ambitions to retain independent influence in Middle Eastern diplomacy. European powers have repeatedly attempted to revive elements of the JCPOA and threaten punitive measures against Tehran, but coordination by Iran, China and Russia has thwarted those efforts, exposing Europe’s diplomatic limitations in a world less anchored to Western consensus.

Economic repercussions

Economically, the deal signals deeper integration among three of the world’s most significant non-Western economies. Russia and China have already worked on investment protection and bilateral trade agreements designed to sidestep Western financial systems, such as SWIFT, which have been used as vectors for sanctions.  A trilateral pact potentially accelerates the creation of alternative financial mechanisms and trade routes that further bleed Western economic leverage.

Iran — sitting on vast energy resources — gains broader access to markets and investment, especially as China continues its Belt and Road initiatives and Russia seeks alternatives to sanctions-laden European markets. In combination, these developments portend increased trade flows and reduced vulnerability to the US dollar-centric financial system.

Military and strategic dynamics

Although not a formal alliance, the pact strengthens military cooperation among the trio. China and Russia have conducted regular joint naval drills in the Indian Ocean and Gulf waters — exercises that Iran has participated in as well, signalling interoperability and shared security interests.

Strategically, the pact will likely lead to more coordinated defence planning and intelligence sharing, even if it stops short of a binding treaty that compels military intervention. For the United States and NATO partners, this raises the stakes in multiple regions: any escalation with Iran now risks broader strategic responses involving Beijing and Moscow, increasing the threshold for conflict and reducing the effectiveness of unilateral threats.

Longer-term global impact

In the long term, the pact accelerates the multipolar restructuring of international relations. For decades, the United States and its allies have dominated the architecture of global governance — from trade regimes to security pacts. A structured alignment of Iran, China and Russia signifies an alternative axis that challenges Western hegemony not through ideological competition but through pragmatic power balances.

Whether this pact evolves into a deeper defence agreement, or stays as a diplomatic and strategic framework, remains to be seen. What is indisputable is that the world’s power centre is shifting — not towards a simple “East vs West” dichotomy, but towards a more contested, multipolar world order where diplomatic leverage, economic resilience and military signalling converge in new and unpredictable ways.

January 29, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

Criminal Conspiracy: How the U.S. and Israel Turned Iran into a Proving Ground for Bloody Experiments

By Mohammed ibn Faisal al-Rashid – New Eastern Outlook – January 29, 2026

The January events in Iran were not merely unrest—they were a meticulously planned special operation to destabilize a sovereign state, carried out in the best traditions of American and Israeli imperialism.

Hypocrisy as a Weapon

The very same regimes that turned Gaza into a giant open-air cemetery have suddenly become concerned about the “well-being” of Iranians. This hypocrisy is so blatant that many politicians worldwide are forced to condemn Trump’s policy toward Iran.

Just now, the U.S. President announced that U.S. Navy warships are heading toward Iran “just in case.” The Republican made this statement to reporters aboard Air Force One. “You know, we have many ships heading in that direction—just in case. We have a large fleet moving that way, and we’ll see what happens. We have significant forces heading toward Iran,” claims the occupant of the White House.

Iran in the Crosshairs—Why Now?

Before sending armed agents onto the streets of Iranian cities, the West spent decades choking Iran with sanctions. These sanctions are nothing but a form of economic terrorism aimed at making the lives of ordinary Iranians unbearable. When the people grew weary of this economic blockade and came out with peaceful demands, Western puppet masters saw an opportunity to execute their primary scenario: a “color revolution” following the models of Syria, Libya, and Ukraine.

Why are the U.S. and Israel so obsessed with Iran? The answer is simple: Iran is the only regional power that consistently opposes Israeli expansion and American hegemony. Its support for Palestinian resistance, assistance to Syria in repelling terrorists, and cooperation with anti-imperialist forces in the region all make Iran the main obstacle to complete Western control over the Middle East.

The Propaganda Machine

Western media have become a propaganda apparatus no different from Goebbels’ Ministry of Propaganda. Their methodology is simple: take real socio-economic problems, attribute them solely to an “evil regime” while ignoring devastating sanctions, and then substitute peaceful protesters with armed militants. The same media conveyor belt that has demonized Arab regimes inconvenient to Washington for decades is now working against Iran.

Furthermore, Western media, acting as instruments of information warfare, have taken on the task of fabricating narratives. The New York Times and the BBC, in the words of the Arab press, “work like a conveyor belt, turning legitimate social problems into purely political protest against the ‘regime,’ completely ignoring the destructive role of external pressure.”

Direct Involvement is an Open Secret

The direct involvement of intelligence agencies long ago ceased to be a secret. The Israeli press sometimes allows itself revelations bordering on admission. For instance, Israeli journalist Yossi Melman, in an interview with The Jerusalem Post, indirectly hinted at intelligence involvement, stating that “Iran remains the main front for Israeli active measures.” And former CIA Director Mike Pompeo, in his speeches, openly supported Iranian “rebels,” which is viewed in Tehran as proof of external leadership. Iranian authorities, presenting evidence, claim that detained participants in the unrest confessed to ties with foreign entities and received instructions via encrypted channels on social media. Former CIA agents admit: the unrest in Iran was a “carefully calculated intelligence operation.” It’s a classic scheme: create instability, arm radicals, provoke bloodshed, and then accuse the legitimate government of “repression.”

Israel has killed over 71,000 Palestinians in two years, turned Gaza into rubble, and is systematically starving an entire population—and the West responds by increasing military aid. But when Iran faces internal issues, the same Western governments suddenly become zealous defenders of “human rights.” Where were their calls for “freedom” when Saudi Arabia was bombing Yemen? Where was their condemnation when Israel killed journalists?

Chemical Weapons Accusations: A Tired Playbook

Accusations of chemical weapons use are a favorite fairy tale of Western intelligence agencies, already used to justify the invasion of Iraq and attempts to overthrow the Syrian government. No evidence, only baseless assertions picked up by the media. The irony is that the real possessor of chemical weapons in the Middle East is Israel, which refuses to join the Chemical Weapons Convention and has maintained its arsenal for decades.

Methods of Subversion

Internet restrictions in Iran are portrayed by Western media as “suppression of free speech.” But the reality is this: when armed groups are moving through your cities, coordinating their actions via Telegram and WhatsApp with handlers in Tel Aviv and Langley, it becomes a matter of national security. Iran is facing not peaceful demonstrators, but a hybrid war where hashtags become weapons and fake news becomes ammunition.

Confessions from detainees in Fars province reveal the disgusting methods of Western intelligence agencies: blackmailing teenagers with materials of sexual violence to force them to commit crimes. Are these the very “values” that the U.S. and Israel export to the Middle East? Where is the moral superiority they love to preach about?

Destroying Solidarity: A Strategic Goal

The lie about deploying “non-Iranian forces” to suppress protests has a clear objective: to shatter the long-standing bonds between the Iranian people and resistance movements in the region. The U.S. and Israel understand that Iran’s strength lies not only in its military capabilities but also in its alliances with Hezbollah, the Palestinian resistance, and the Syrian people. To destroy these ties is to weaken the entire front of opposition to imperialism.

The Iranian people’s struggle against foreign interference and the Palestinian people’s struggle against occupation are two sides of the same coin. Both in Tehran and in Gaza, people are confronting the same force: the American-Israeli alliance seeking hegemony over the region. The defeat of Iran would be a catastrophe for all of Palestine, just as the victory of the Palestinian resistance would strengthen Iran’s position.

A Proving Ground for Hybrid War

Iran has become a proving ground where the latest methods of hybrid warfare are being tested. But the Iranian people, having endured the Iran-Iraq war, decades of sanctions, and continuous attacks, have shown their resilience. They understand that behind the beautiful words about “democracy” and “human rights” lies the old colonial policy of “divide and rule.”

A Call for Solidarity

The Arab world must learn from Iran’s experience. Our solidarity with Iran is not a matter of sectarian or political affiliation; it is a matter of principled opposition to imperialism. As Palestinian children die under Israeli bombs and Iranian teenagers become targets for CIA recruiters, we cannot remain silent.

The U.S. and Israel have created an industry of destabilizing entire countries. Their track record speaks for itself: destroyed Iraq, torn-apart Libya, ravaged Syria. Now they want to add Iran to this list. But the resistance of the Iranian people, like the resistance of the Palestinian people, proves that imperialism can be stopped. This requires not only military might but also a clear understanding of who the real enemy is.

The enemy is not “Western values” or “another civilization.” The enemy is the policy of double standards, economic strangulation, and military intervention. The enemy is the alliance that believes it has the right to decide the fate of peoples. Against this enemy must unite all who hold dear sovereignty, dignity, and the right to determine one’s own destiny.

Iran has held firm. Palestine continues the struggle. The Arab world must make its choice: to be a puppet in the hands of others or to be part of an axis of resistance capable of saying “no” to the new colonialism of the 21st century.

Muhammad ibn Faisal al-Rashid, Political Scientist, Expert on the Arab World

January 29, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Progressive Hypocrite, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Trump and Iran, War or Negotiations?

By Samyar Rostami – New Eastern Outlook – January 26, 2026

Although the likelihood of a US attack on Iran has greatly increased. If Iran shows widespread strength and resistance, the Americans will retreat. Iran’s response to military attacks will certainly be more severe and comprehensive than in previous cases.

In the national security document published in Trump’s second administration, like the previous two documents, the national defense of the United States is characterized, as it includes the defense of the territory, the defense of the people, the defense of the political system, and the defense of the economy.

Iran’s position was also prominent in previous documents. In that document, the name of Iran was repeated six times, and it was one of the greatest threats to US national security. It was proposed, and in addition, in two other cases, it referred to the threat of Iran.

In the latest document, the number of these references has been reduced to three. In the new document, direct reference to Iran’s nuclear program has been almost eliminated. But the issue and role of waterways is still prominent in this document; in fact, this time the name of the Strait of Hormuz is explicitly mentioned and emphasized in the new document.

The new US national security document depicts Iran in the general framework of “weakening” and does not actually mention Iran as a fundamental threat. But this does not mean that the United States no longer considers Iran a threat.

War or negotiations

The behavior of the Trump administration, namely in recent months, has been not only in rhetoric but also in practice anti-Iranian, from pressuring European governments to activate the snapback mechanism to supporting Israeli military actions, seizing ships suspected of carrying weapons to Iran, and even actions such as seizing ships off the coast of Venezuela.

Given the current state of US-Iran relations, the US has two options: moving towards an agreement or adopting a military option, but Washington’s desire is to stop Iran’s nuclear capability without falling into the quagmire of eternal wars.

The issue of negotiations had been stalled since the 12-day war because Tehran refuses to return to negotiations before receiving the necessary guarantees from the US about not starting another attack against Iran by Israel or the US and having the right to enrich uranium.

Not all Trump officials and aides share the same view and approach, and some believe that negotiating with Tehran will increase Iran’s legitimacy. Within the administration, it seems that some are willing not to move towards a military option before diplomatic solutions are exhausted.

Also, the United States, which previously adopted a policy of “maximum pressure campaign,” still claims to protect the rights of the Iranian people. In this regard, Donald Trump has now imposed a 25% customs tariff on any country that has trade relations with Iran, which could have a negative impact on Iran’s economic relations. Trump also called for illegal actions, including the occupation of government institutions, by asking Iranian protesters to continue the protests and even promised that help was on the way.

The United States is also using the protests inside Iran as a tool to gain more concessions from Tehran in any possible agreement.

Iran’s readiness for diplomacy and defense

Previously, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi had emphasized that the United States and the regime would not achieve a different result by repeating the previous failed experience. “Iran is much more prepared than the 12-day war,” he said, adding, “I hope the wise option will be chosen. We will prepare diplomatic and economic options.”

In a situation where an average of $10 billion was allocated annually for the import of basic goods, the government came to the conclusion that economic surgery should be performed in this area; the preferential currency should be eliminated for consumers.

The protests in Iran have been carried out peacefully since early January by a group of people and trades in response to currency fluctuations and the living conditions. The government announced that it recognizes these protests and efforts to address these concerns are ongoing. However, after a week and on January 8-9, the protests by terrorist elements turned into riots in cities, destroying government, public, relief, and mosques.

Iranian authorities have made mass arrests of terrorist elements in team houses and terrorist cells, and they even have documents about the connections between these terrorist elements and the United States and Israel.

In the view of government spokeswoman Fatemeh Mohajerani, the peaceful protests of the people were subjected to a terrorist attack. Also, Brigadier General Ahmad Ali Goodarzi, Commander of the Faraj Border Guard, announced the identification and destruction of 3 terrorist teams before they entered the country at the country’s borders and the discovery of weapons and ammunition from them.

Amir Saeed Iravani, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Iran in the United Nations, stated in a letter to the Security Council and the Secretary-General of the UN: “The Islamic Republic strongly condemns the continuous, illegal, and irresponsible behavior of the United States of America in coordination with Israel to interfere in Iran’s internal affairs through threats, incitement, and deliberate encouragement of instability and violence.”

Also, internal cohesion among political groups and figures in Iran is established and stable. Apart from the words and positions of the Leader of Iran, the representatives of the Islamic Consultative Assembly (Parliament) considered the government’s decision (end of the consumption chain) a courageous act and an important step.

The parliament speaker, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, said, “At this time, the responsibility of us as Iranian officials is to confront the enemy in the economic war.”

From the perspective of Hassan Rouhani, if a foreign aggressor wants to abuse the protest within the family, the family members will put aside the difference and break the aggressor’s hand.

In fact, from Tehran’s perspective, Iran is ready for both war and negotiation. That means fair, honorable, and equal negotiations with mutual respect and based on mutual interests are still the priority, not giving orders and dictating. Iran also has preconditions.

Although the US has greatly increased its forces in the region. Iran’s military forces are also at the peak of defensive readiness and are ready to confront any aggression and evil of the enemy against Iran. Therefore, any action must face retaliation from Iran.

The amount of oil sales in the past 14 months in the form of export shipments has been record-breaking. The creation of new restrictions on the sale of Iranian oil does not create any serious restrictions on Iran’s oil sales processes.

Outlook

It seems that the US is paying special attention to shaping a soft transformation and a colorful and internal revolution in Iran, along with hard threats as a means of pressure. But internal cohesion among political groups and figures in Iran is established and stable.

Although the likelihood of a US attack on Iran has greatly increased. If Iran shows widespread strength and resistance, the Americans will retreat.  Iran’s response to military attacks will certainly be more severe and comprehensive than in previous cases.

In the meantime, Washington’s failure in the direction of the hard programs could make the path of interaction or resolution of issues between Iran and the United States, in the new framework, more complex.

Samyar Rostami is а political observer and senior researcher in international relations.

Follow new articles on our Telegram channel

January 26, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Leave a comment

Latest US-backed regime change operation in Iran hits the wall

By Samuel Geddes | Al Mayadeen | January 17, 2026

Having bombed the country in 2025, “Israel” and the US seemed to think that provoking street violence would have more success at collapsing the Iranian state. Instead, it fizzled almost instantly.

We have been here at least half a dozen times in the past two decades. Street protests in Iran over an internal economic, social or political issue emerge, gather a degree of momentum in urban areas and the Western propaganda system declares that the protests have “shifted” from their initial focus, to calls for the repudiation of the Islamic Revolution and the end of the political system it created. European and American politicians issue their empty statements of solidarity with the Iranian people and unilaterally decide that the Islamic Republic has “lost its legitimacy,” that its fall is simply a matter of “when,” not “if.” We have seen this narrative played out often enough to recognize it never survives contact with the real world.

The source of the persistent delusion that the Islamic Republic is about to fall comes not only from the Euro-American elite class wishing it to be so, but also from its deferral to the “analysis” of segments of the diaspora whose own political objectives are detached from reality.

Whether it is protests over the government’s handling of the economy, energy blackouts, or the water crisis, most external observers are incapable of viewing each individual issue through any lens other than that of regime change.

This time around the US and Israelis, in coopting the protests to destabilize the country through street violence, have not even bothered to hide their involvement. It has also not helped the West’s case that it is now feigning “humanitarian concern” for the rights of Iranian citizens while it has spent more than two years facilitating the ongoing slaughter and starvation of Gaza’s population. Any observer following both issues can detect the dissonance and conclude what is motivating the frantic calls to escalate the situation into military intervention. That is, the desire to crush a state and society that has resisted Western dominance for more than four-and-a-half decades.

The brazenness of the West’s affected concern for the well-being of the Iranian public is particularly galling in light of the sanctions. If Iranians’ living standards were really of any concern to Washington, London or Brussels, they would start by unconditionally ending their economic strangulation in effect against the country. The truth is that the suffering and misery engendered by the sanctions is entirely the point. As well as stifling the development of an independent state outside the globalized-Western economy, the siege is specifically intended to make living conditions unbearable for the average Iranian so that they are incentivized to undermine the Islamic Republic. The continuation of the sanctions is a barely disguised punishment of the Iranian public for not pursuing the West’s geopolitical goal of regime-change for them.

Were it not glaringly obvious to the Trump administration before the latest unrest, it surely is now that the exiled political diaspora most actively pushing for the fall of the Islamic Republic through Western military action are entirely incapable of political organization. Even the least crazed fan of the defunct Pahlavi dynasty is pathologically hostile to the terrorist personality cult of the MEK, as much as they are to the Islamic Republic itself. There simply is no political alternative, to say nothing of whether it even has any domestic support, waiting to replace the Islamic Republic.

Flush from the “success” of his abducting Venezuelan president Maduro, Trump seemed temporarily convinced he might have a similar option here, to carry out a meaningless military stunt for which he can take credit and declare “victory.” His problem is that there is no level of open military action against Iran that would allow him to do this without igniting a regional war that destroys the global economy.

This realization, if he has come to it, would explain his backtracking on the red lines he set, that any executions would trigger US attacks. If a controlled, stage-managed performance is his goal, as it almost always is, then the confrontation with Iran leaves him with no viable option but to back down.

The absence of any realistic military option has now seen both the US and Europe revert to their standard tactic; the intensification of the sanctions they have used to punish the Iranian people. Trump’s latest declaration of a 25% tariff on any country trading with Iran is his way of giving himself an off-ramp, for now, from a crisis that is largely of his making.

January 17, 2026 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Leave a comment

“Real men go to Tehran” — The Zion-Con fantasy of regime change in Iran

By Junaid S. Ahmad | MEMO | January 16, 2026

“Anyone can go to Baghdad. Real men go to Tehran.”

It is difficult to imagine a sentence that more perfectly distils the arrested adolescence of American neoconservatism. Equal parts locker-room bravado and imperial hallucination, the phrase belongs to the same intellectual ecosystem as Rambo sequels, Tom Clancy paperbacks, and the enduring belief that history naturally submits to men armed with air superiority and a television-ready talking point.

The slogan has circulated for decades among Washington’s most aggressively incurious minds. Iraq was merely the appetizer. Tehran was always the entrée — the Everest of regime change, the final boss in a video game played by men who have never once paid the price of defeat.

Iran is not different merely because of its size, its population, or its terrain — though the Zagros Mountains are far less forgiving than the streets of Fallujah. Iran is different because it has refused, stubbornly and at enormous cost, to internalise the post–Cold War catechism: accept American primacy, subcontract your sovereignty, and call the arrangement “integration into the international order.”

For the ‘Zion-Cons’ — Zionist neoconservatives — this refusal is not simply strategic defiance. It is psychological heresy.

The theology of regime change 

Neoconservatism is not a foreign-policy framework. It is a belief system. Like all theologies, it comes equipped with sacred texts, sanctioned demons, and end-times fantasies. Iran occupies a unique place in this cosmology: simultaneously an ideological abomination and a geopolitical temptation too intoxicating to abandon.

The Islamic Republic represents everything neocon thought cannot tolerate — an independent regional power immune to Western legitimacy rituals, rooted in a civilizational memory more than a millennium older than Washington itself. That it is also openly hostile to Israel, and persistently aligned with Palestinian resistance, elevates Iran from problem to obsession.

This obsession is always framed as concern. Concern for democracy. Concern for women’s rights. Concern for regional stability. Yet the concern follows a suspiciously selective pattern. It spikes when Iranian women protest. It flattens when women in Gaza are buried beneath concrete and shrapnel. It demands sanctions in the name of “helping the Iranian people” while celebrating the annihilation of Iran’s middle class as a strategic achievement.

This is not hypocrisy. It is architecture.

Sanctions are not a failed alternative to regime change; they are its slow-motion variant. When bombing proves politically inconvenient, starvation becomes policy. When diplomacy threatens stabilisation, diplomacy must be sabotaged. Engagement is dangerous precisely because it works. The objective is not reform. The objective is obliteration.

Israel’s strategic mirage

For Israel’s security establishment, Iran is the final unresolved obstacle in a region otherwise disciplined into submission. Egypt neutralised. Syria pulverised. Iraq shattered and held together with duct tape. Lebanon perpetually destabilised. Only Iran remains intact and intolerably autonomous.

The idea that Israel’s posture toward Iran has ever been defensive borders on parody. The fear is not that Iran will strike tomorrow; it is that Iran will exist coherently ten years from now.

This explains the fixation on Iran’s air defences, its scientists, its infrastructure. The logic is brutally simple: a state that cannot defend itself cannot act independently. A state that cannot act independently can eventually be wrecked, partitioned, and remade.

But here the fantasy collides with reality. Iran is not Syria. It is not Libya. It is not Iraq circa 2003 — hollowed out by sanctions and ruled by a dictatorship so despised that collapse felt like relief. Iran, like all societies, contains fractures and rivalries. But fragmented societies do not automatically disintegrate. Quite often — especially under existential threat — they consolidate. External assault does not reliably dissolve states. Sometimes it forges them.

The opposition mirage

Every regime-change project requires a hero. In Iran’s case, while ritualistic nods are made toward protesters with genuine grievances, the starring role is awkwardly reserved for an exile aristocracy whose Twitter/X followings vastly exceed their domestic relevance.

Reza Pahlavi is marketed like a Silicon Valley prototype: sleek, Western-approved, and permanently “almost ready.” His appeal thrives in think tanks, donor salons, and Israeli conference halls. Inside Iran, his name provokes neither mass devotion nor visceral hatred — just indifference at best, uncontrollable laughter at worst.

This is the core contradiction of Washington’s Iran policy: regime change without revolution; installation without legitimacy; democracy without the inconvenience of mass politics.

The resulting strategy is perversely elegant in its cynicism — wait for collapse while ensuring no alternative survives long enough to govern.

Civil war option

What follows regime collapse? Zion-Con discourse treats the question like a software update users will sort out later. Something, it is assumed, will emerge. Something manageable. Something vaguely liberal.

History offers no such reassurance

Iran’s disintegration would not yield a liberal republic — and it is not meant to. It would yield precisely what Zion-Cons privately welcome: centrifugal violence, ethnic fragmentation, militia economies, refugee flows that would make Syria look like a rehearsal dinner. Kurdish separatism. Baloch insurgency. Nuclear insecurity. The scenario reads less like a transition plan than a controlled demolition spiralling out of control.

For Washington and Tel Aviv, this is not a deterrent. It is an acceptable – perhaps even desirable – outcome. A broken Iran is preferable to a strong one, even if the shards cut indiscriminately.

The masculinity problem

“Real men go to Tehran” is not merely rhetoric. It is theatre. It reflects a masculinity crisis at the heart of American empire — a compulsion to prove relevance through violence because legitimacy has evaporated.

Short wars. Clean optics. Cinematic strikes. The problem with Iran is that it refuses to follow the script. There is no “Mission Accomplished” banner waiting in the Persian Gulf. There is only attrition, retaliation, and the dawning realisation that power is not a substitute for strategy.

The endgame nobody admits

The scarcely concealed truth is that regime change in Iran is not primarily about Iran. It is about preserving Zionist hegemony in the region. An Iran that survives sanctions, absorbs pressure, and refuses submission is contagious. It teaches others that defiance is survivable.

That lesson is intolerable

So, the fantasy endures. The slogans recycle. The men who went to Baghdad insist they are wiser now — just before deliberately repeating the same catastrophe, only on a grander scale.

But Tehran is not a sequel. It is a reckoning. And this time, the audience will not be so forgiving.

January 16, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Former Head of Israeli Military Intelligence Directorate: There’s a ‘very significant influence operation by the US’ in Iran

The Dissident | January 14, 2026

Recently, the Israeli newspaper Maariv interviewed the head of the Military Intelligence Directorat in Israel from 2018-2021, Tamir Hayman, who revealed that the United States currently has a “Significant Influence Operation” on the ground in Iran.

In the interview, Hayman said, “If the question is, is there zero operation right now? The answer is no, because there is already an operation. There is currently a very significant influence operation by the US” referring to the current unrest happening in Iran.

He added, “The sequence of news that is received from within Iran, rumors that are coming, videos that are coming, there are many things that are happening that have no explanation. It could be a coincidence, and it could be something else. Simply put, an influence effort is an effort that operates primarily in the cyber realm, and in the realm of local disruption and subversion, and there are some.”

Along with this, Tamir Hayman, acknowledged that U.S. sanctions were the cause of the economic issues that in Iran that sparked the initial protests in Iran which are apparently being exploited by American and Israeli intelligence, saying, “there is the attempt, as we heard tonight from Trump, that this is a path of negotiation with the Americans, that this is really the only thing that can save the Iranian economy, the lifting of sanctions”.

This comment comes at the same time that Tamir Morag, the Diplomatic Correspondent for the Netanyahu-linked Channel 14 in Israel, reported that “foreign actors are arming the protesters in Iran with live firearms, which is the reason for the hundreds of regime personnel killed.”

American and Israeli officials have been fairly open about the fact that Israeli intelligence is currently operating on the ground in Iran, with the former Secretary of State and CIA director, Mike Pompeo saying, “Happy New Year to every Iranian in the streets. Also, to every Mossad agent walking beside them” and the Israeli Heritage Minister, Amichai Eliyahu saying, “When we attacked in Iran during ‘Rising Lion’ we were on its soil and knew how to lay the groundwork for a strike. I can assure you that we have some of our people operating there right now”.

But now, Tamir Morag has revealed that there are “very significant influence operations by the US” in Iran, which include “operates primarily in the cyber realm, and in the realm of local disruption and subversion” and according to Tamir Morag, apparent operations to arm protestors in Iran to kill Iranian government officials.

Referring to the protests in Iran, the U.S. government connected private intelligence firm Stratfor, wrote, “the United States may also try to intervene, such as by covertly helping to organize the protesters”, something that is apparently already underway through American “influence operations”.

January 14, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Iran’s Mass Protests /Patrick Henningsen & Lt Col Daniel Davis

Daniel Davis / Deep Dive – January 12, 2026

January 13, 2026 Posted by | Video, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Only Way For America To ‘Help’ Iran Is To Lift the Crushing Sanctions

The Dissident | January 12, 2026

On Truth Social, Donald Trump recently promised to “help” protestors in Iran, saying, “Iran is looking at FREEDOM, perhaps like never before, The USA stands ready to help!!”

By “help”, Trump meant unleashing a new American/Israeli bombing campaign in the country to enact regime change. According to the New York Times, “President Trump has been briefed in recent days on new options for military strikes in Iran as he considers following through on his threat to attack the country for cracking down on protesters, according to multiple U.S. officials familiar with the matter.”

In reality, the only way Trump can “help” the people of Iran is by removing the sanctions on the country, which were placed on the country with the explicit goal of causing economic collapse and a mass uprising, leading to regime change in Iran.

In its early days, the Obama administration ramped up sanctions on Iran in a “maximum pressure” campaign.

As journalist Max Blumenthal uncovered, Richard Nephew, who coordinated the sanctions on Iran under the Biden administration, in his sadistic book, “The Art of Sanctions” boasted that because of the sanctions, “Iran’s economy went from GDP growth of 3 percent to a 6.6 percent contraction between 2011 and 2012 . Iranian unemployment and inflation remained in the double digits. In 2012, Iran’s currency depreciated threefold in a matter of weeks, resulting in the hemorrhaging of Iranian hard-currency reserves.”

Nephew boasted in the book that the intention was to destroy Iran’s economy, while running propaganda operations designed to trigger unrest against the government due to the economic situation, writing:

The United States took its surgical sanctions approach a step further in June 2013 with a carefully structured set of sanctions on Iran’s automotive sector, denying Iran the ability to import manufacturing assistance but not spare parts for existing autos or whole cars themselves. Iranian manufacturing jobs and export revenue were the targets of this sanction, undermining the Iranian government’s attempt to find non-oil export sectors and ways of employing 500,000 Iranians.

All the while, the United States expanded the ability of U.S. and foreign companies to sell Iranians technology used for personal communications, helping ensure that the Iranian public had the ability to learn more about the dire straits of their country’s economy and to communicate

Richard Nephew boasted that the sanctions were intended to cause “income inequality and inflation” in Iran in order to “drive up the pressure on the Iranian government from internal sources”, boasting:

With Iran’s population technically able to purchase such goods and imports still flowing in, but with the exchange rate depriving most people of the practical benefit of being able to purchase these goods, only the wealthy or those in positions of power could take advantage of Iran’s continued connected- ness. Hard currency streamed out of the country while luxuries streamed in, and stories began to emerge from Iran of intensified income inequality and inflation . This was a choice, a decision made on the basis of helping to drive up the the pressure on the Iranian government from internal sources.

He also boasts that the sanctions deprived Iranians’ ability to purchase medical equipment and “directly contributed to the deprivation of the Iranian rial”, writing:

In Iran, for instance, there were reports throughout 2012 and 2013 that medicine and medical devices were unavailable not because their trade was prohibited but rather because they cost too much for the average Iranian due to shortages and the depreciation of the Iranian currency. The United States and its partners, through sanctions, directly contributed to the depreciation of the Iranian rial and, consequently, played some part – even if unintentional- in the creation of this problem.

In 2015, Obama ended the “maximum pressure campaign” against Iran through the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which loosened sanctions in exchange for Iran limiting its nuclear enrichment, much to Benjamin Netanyahu’s dismay, leading him to give a speech in front of the United States Congress in an attempt to stop the deal. [The US failed to actually implement their side of the deal. In the end the EU never resumed normal trade either.]

Benjamin Netanyahu got his wish in 2018, when Donald Trump, at the behest of his Zionist donors, such as Paul Singer and Sheldon Adelson, pulled out of the deal and reinstated the “maximum pressure” sanctions against Iran.

Like Richard Nephew, Trump’s then Secretary of State Mike Pompeo boasted, “Things are much worse for the Iranian people [with the US sanctions], and we are convinced that will lead the Iranian people to rise up and change the behavior of the regime”.

Human Rights Watch documented at the time that the renewed sanctions on Iran were, “severely limiting Iranian companies and hospitals from purchasing essential medicines and medical equipment from outside Iran that residents depend upon for critical medical care” and “directly impacted families’ purchasing power, contributing to inflation rates of around 30 percent”.

This time, as Human Rights Watch documented, the sanctions were even harsher than the previous sanctions under the Obama administration, “including doing things like designating some Iranian financial institutions not previously designated and that were previously used to facilitate food, medicine and medical imports”.

Human Rights Watch also documented that, “The Trump administration’s September 20, 2019 decision to impose further sanctions on Iran’s Central Bank under its ‘counterterrorism authority’ severely restricts the last remaining Iranian financial institution able to engage in foreign exchange transactions involving humanitarian imports”.

Elliott Abrams, the Zionist architect of the Trump’s administration’s Iran sanctions, boasted to Israel Hayom that because of the Trump administration’s sanctions, “At the end of Trump’s term, Iran was facing bankruptcy” adding, “If Trump had received four more years, the regime would have faced a choice between economic collapse and mass uprising or halting the nuclear program.”

The Biden administration continued Trump’s sanctions on Iran at the behest of the Israel lobby, never renegotiating the Iran deal.

Since getting into office, Trump has ramped up the sanctions on Iran even further, signing an executive order in February that sanctioned any country that buys oil from Iran with the intention to “drive Iran’s export of oil to zero”. The White House statement in February bragged that the sanctions were intended to “restore maximum pressure on the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran” and “impose maximum economic pressure” on Iran.

In June Al-Monitor reported, “The Trump administration announced … what it called its most extensive set of Iran-related sanctions since 2018, targeting a ‘vast shipping empire’ involved in transporting oil and petroleum products from Iran and Russia” which, “target more than 115 individuals, entities and vessels across 17 different jurisdictions, including the United Arab Emirates, India, Turkey, Singapore and Switzerland.”

Just as Richard Nephew, Mike Pompeo, and Elliott Abrams boasted would happen, the sanctions helped cause the economic collapse that sparked the current protests, which were soon exploited by the U.S. and Israel to enact their desired regime change campaign.

If, Trump really cared about helping Iranians, he would end his “maximum pressure” campaign on the country, but instead, he cares about launching a regime change war at the behest of Benjamin Netanyahu.

January 12, 2026 Posted by | Deception, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries