Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Iran asserts sovereign rights over Hormuz fiber-optic routes

Al Mayadeen | May 18, 2026

Tehran has signaled that, under Iran’s sovereign rights over its territorial seabed, the country could regulate optical fiber cables crossing the Strait of Hormuz through permits, oversight mechanisms, and transit fees, highlighting the strategic importance of the waterway in global communications and finance, Iran’s Fars News Agency has reported.

Iran could require sovereign permits, impose oversight measures, and levy fees on subsea communications infrastructure passing through the strategic waterway, as per the report.

The report underscores the growing geopolitical importance of undersea digital networks alongside the strait’s longstanding role in global energy transit.

Fiber-optic cables routed through the Strait of Hormuz facilitate more than $10tn in daily financial transactions worldwide, the news agency reported, citing a report by the UK-based Policy Exchange research center. The corridor reportedly serves as a critical link connecting Gulf states, Asia, and Europe through high-capacity telecommunications systems.

Iran’s subsea leverage

The agency further warned that any disruption involving protected dense wavelength division multiplexing (DWDM) cables in the strait could trigger substantial economic fallout, with losses potentially reaching tens or hundreds of millions of dollars per day through direct and indirect impacts on regional and global markets.

The report comes as Iran is reportedly looking to expand its control over the Strait of Hormuz by eyeing the vast network of subsea communication cables running beneath the vital waterway amid the US-Israeli ongoing threats.

Following a successful demonstration of leverage during recent US-Israeli aggression, Iranian officials and state-linked media are now focusing on underwater internet infrastructure that carries major volumes of global digital and financial traffic between Europe, Asia, and the Gulf.

Iranian authorities are discussing plans to impose charges on international companies using submarine internet cables that pass through the Strait of Hormuz. Iranian military spokesperson Ebrahim Zolfaghari stated on X last week, “We will impose fees on internet cables.”

Media outlets said the proposal could require major technology firms, including Google, Microsoft, Meta, and Amazon, to follow Iranian regulations regarding cable operations in the region. Reports also suggested submarine cable operators could face licensing fees, while maintenance and repair activities may be limited to Iranian companies.

Several of the companies referenced have financial interests tied to cable systems operating through the Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz. However, it remains uncertain whether those specific routes pass directly through Iranian territorial waters.

At the same time, Iranian media have hinted at the possibility of disruptions to subsea cable traffic, raising concerns about the vulnerability of infrastructure responsible for trillions of dollars in global data transmission and international internet connectivity.

Strait of Hormuz gains new strategic importance

Concerns over renewed US-Israeli aggression have intensified following US President Donald Trump’s return from China, with Tehran increasingly emphasizing the strategic tools it possesses beyond conventional military capabilities, CNN reported.

The latest rhetoric highlights the growing geopolitical significance of the Strait of Hormuz not only as a major energy corridor but also as a critical digital passageway. Iran appears intent on converting its geographic position into broader economic and strategic influence.

Subsea communication cables are essential to the modern global economy, carrying most international internet and data traffic. Any major disruption could affect banking operations, military communications, cloud computing systems, AI infrastructure, remote work networks, online gaming platforms, and streaming services worldwide.

Dina Esfandiary, Middle East lead at Bloomberg Economics, said Iran’s messaging is intended to showcase its leverage over the strategic waterway and protect the Islamic Republic from future aggressions.

“It aims to impose such a hefty cost on the global economy that no-one will dare attack Iran again,” she said.

Concerns over potential cable attacks

A number of key intercontinental subsea cables pass through the Strait of Hormuz. According to Mostafa Ahmed, a senior researcher at the UAE-based Habtoor Research Center, international operators have historically avoided Iranian waters because of long-standing security concerns. Instead, many cables are concentrated near the Omani side of the strait.

Still, Alan Mauldin, research director at telecom research company TeleGeography, noted that two systems, Falcon and Gulf Bridge International (GBI), cross Iranian territorial waters.

Although Iranian officials have not directly threatened to damage the cables, Tehran has repeatedly warned Washington’s regional allies that it possesses multiple ways to respond to pressure. Experts say this reflects a broader pattern of asymmetric tactics employed by the Islamic Republic.

Ahmed warned that Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC), equipped with combat divers, mini-submarines, and underwater drones, could pose a threat to underwater communications infrastructure. He said a major strike on subsea systems could trigger a “digital catastrophe” affecting multiple regions simultaneously.

Global economic risks

Countries along the Gulf could experience severe internet disruptions in the event of cable damage, potentially affecting banking systems and critical oil and gas exports. Ahmed also noted that India could face significant interruptions to internet traffic, placing billions of dollars in outsourcing services at risk.

Because the Strait of Hormuz serves as a major digital corridor connecting Asian hubs such as Singapore with European cable landing stations, disruptions could also slow financial trading and international transactions between Europe and Asia. Some areas in East Africa could even experience internet outages.

Experts further warned that similar tactics in the Red Sea by the Yemeni Armed Forces could magnify the threat.

In 2024, three subsea cables were damaged after a vessel hit by Yemen’s resistance movement dragged its anchor across the seabed while sinking. According to Hong Kong-based HGC Global Communications, the incident disrupted nearly 25% of internet traffic in the surrounding region.

Despite these risks, TeleGeography said cables running through the Strait of Hormuz represented “less than 1% of global international bandwidth as of 2025.”

Undersea cable warfare has deep roots

The strategic importance of underwater communication lines dates back to the 19th century. The first transatlantic telegram was transmitted in 1858, carrying a 98-word message from Britain’s Queen Victoria to US President James Buchanan that took more than 16 hours to arrive.

Today, modern submarine fiber-optic cables can transmit enormous amounts of information at extraordinary speeds. According to the International Cable Protection Committee, a single optical fiber can carry data equivalent to around 150 million simultaneous phone calls.

The targeting of undersea communication infrastructure is also not new. During World War I, Britain cut Germany’s key telegraph cables in one of the conflict’s earliest moves, isolating German military communications.

While most modern cable failures cause limited disruption because traffic can be rerouted through alternative networks, experts caution that a large-scale attack today would carry far greater consequences due to the world’s heavy dependence on digital connectivity.

Repair operations could also become more difficult during ongoing regional instability. Maintenance vessels must remain stationary for long periods while fixing damaged cables, making them vulnerable in conflict zones. Mauldin said only one of the five repair ships usually operating in the region currently remains inside the Gulf.

Iran looks to the Suez Model

Iranian media outlets have defended the proposal to charge for subsea cables by citing international maritime law, particularly provisions within the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

Although Tehran signed but never formally ratified the convention, many legal experts regard parts of it as customary international law. Article 79 of UNCLOS allows coastal states to set conditions for cables and pipelines entering their territorial waters.

Iranian commentators have compared the initiative to Egypt’s management of the Suez Canal, which hosts numerous subsea cables connecting Europe and Asia and generates substantial annual revenue through transit and licensing fees.

“Of course, for existing cables, Iran has to abide by the contract that had been made when the cable was laid,” said Irini Papanicolopulu, a professor of international law at SOAS University of London. “But for new ones, any state, including Iran, can decide if and under what conditions, cables can be laid in its territorial sea.”

Esfandiary said Tehran may have previously understood its strategic leverage over the strait only in theory, but recent developments appear to have reinforced its confidence.

Now, she said, Iran “has discovered the impact.”

May 18, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Wars for Israel | , , , | Comments Off on Iran asserts sovereign rights over Hormuz fiber-optic routes

UAE fuelling African conflicts while evading accountability, SWP finds

Al Mayadeen | May 17, 2026

A newly published report by the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP) has delivered a critical assessment of the United Arab Emirates’ role in African conflicts, describing Abu Dhabi as a systematic spoiler that arms proxy forces, manipulates diplomatic processes, and bears significant responsibility for some of the world’s worst humanitarian crises, all while facing virtually no political consequences from its Western partners.

The report, authored by researchers at one of Europe’s most influential foreign and security policy think tanks, which directly advises the German government and Bundestag, calls on Berlin and its European partners to fundamentally reassess their relationship with the UAE.

Sudan: The clearest case

The report presents Sudan as the most devastating example of Emirati interference. The UAE is identified as the most important military, logistical, and financial backer of the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), the paramilitary group whose war against the Sudanese Armed Forces has produced what the UN reports as the world’s largest humanitarian crisis, with 33.7 million people dependent on aid, over 15 million displaced, and widespread extreme hunger.

The RSF’s conduct has been particularly brutal. The report details targeted violence against non-Arab minorities, including sexual violence, mass killings, attacks on medical facilities, and hostage-taking, primarily directed at groups such as the Masalit and Zaghawa.

When the RSF captured El-Fasher in North Darfur in October 2025, a UN fact-finding mission described its actions against the civilian population as bearing the hallmarks of genocide.

Emirati support for the RSF continued even after Iranian strikes on the UAE, with numerous cargo flights departing from Emirates airports to Ethiopia, apparently to ferry supplies across the border to RSF positions.

A UN panel of experts documented 458 flights involving heavy transport aircraft from Emirati military airports or the transhipment hub of Bosaso to eastern Libya between October 2024 and the end of 2025, 239 of them bound for Kufra, a key hub for RSF resupply, in likely violation of UN arms embargoes on both Libya and Darfur.

A proxy model built on plausible deniability

The UAE rarely deploys its own forces. Instead, it operates through a carefully constructed network of local proxies, private military contractors, and logistical intermediaries. Beyond the RSF in Sudan, its partners include Khalifa Haftar’s Libyan Arab Armed Forces, the Puntland Maritime Police Force in Somalia, and, in a departure from the pattern, the Ethiopian government during its war against the Tigray people.

The report details how the UAE recruited and deployed hundreds of Colombian mercenaries to Sudan via an Emirati security firm, with the US government noting in 2025 that these fighters had served as infantry, artillery personnel, drone pilots, and even trained children for combat.

Supplies to the RSF have been routed through LAAF-controlled Libya, Chad, Kenya, Uganda, and Rwanda, with Abu Dhabi deploying financial leverage to secure cooperation, including a 1.5 billion dollar loan to Chadian President Idriss Déby in 2023.

The UAE also profits from gold smuggling networks in conflict zones, with members of the ruling family reported to have personal ties to both Haftar and RSF commander Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo.

Why the UAE intervenes

SWP identifies several overlapping motives. Economic interests are central, as state-owned logistics giants DP World and AD Ports Group have port and infrastructure projects across the continent, and military interventions serve to protect access to trade routes and strategic resources.

But economics alone do not explain the pattern. The report points to the UAE’s drive to outcompete Saudi Arabia for regional influence, a rivalry that has only sharpened since Riyadh forced Abu Dhabi out of southern Yemen.

Ideological opposition to the Muslim Brotherhood also shapes policy, with the UAE consistently backing actors who suppress Islamist movements. Personal enrichment through resource networks and ruling family ties to conflict actors adds a further layer.

Diplomatic manipulation

The report scrutinises the UAE’s use of diplomatic engagement as cover, whereby Abu Dhabi participates in international peace processes while simultaneously intensifying support for belligerents.

In September 2025, the UAE joined the Sudan Quad format alongside Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the United States, signing joint commitments to end external support for conflict parties. According to US intelligence reporting, however, the UAE was actively intensifying support for the RSF at the same time.

The UAE also pledged 200 million dollars at a February 2025 humanitarian conference and a further 500 million dollars at a US conference in 2026, while contributing only around 33 million dollars to the UN-coordinated humanitarian plan.

In November 2025, Emirati Minister of State Lana Nusseibeh spent four days meeting with Members of the European Parliament in Brussels. Nusseibeh’s endeavor was successful, as a Parliament resolution on Sudan adopted at the same time made no mention of the UAE’s support for the RSF, following opposition from the European People’s Party to amendments tabled by left-wing parliamentary groups.

The same pattern played out during the Berlin Libya Process in 2019-20, when the UAE pledged to halt arms transfers to Libyan conflict parties but continued them regardless. Transport aircraft flew from the Emirates to eastern Libya on the very day of the Berlin conference in January 2020.

European silence, eroded accountability

The report stresses that Western governments, including Germany, have consistently refused to name the UAE publicly in international forums, despite substantial documented evidence of its role in fuelling conflicts. No UN Security Council member has explicitly raised Emirati support for the RSF in formal meetings, either.

This reluctance, SWP argues, is not incidental but reflects a broader calculation in which trade ties, security cooperation, the UAE’s close relationship with “Israel,” and the strategic goal of preventing Abu Dhabi from drifting further toward China or Russia have consistently outweighed accountability concerns.

The UAE’s open disregard for the UN embargo on Libya from 2014 onward, the report notes, likely encouraged other states to adopt a similar approach, with the same dynamic now being repeated in Sudan.

Five recommendations

SWP outlines five concrete steps for Germany and its European partners:

  • First, Abu Dhabi should be named explicitly in international forums rather than referenced in vague language about “external actors.”
  • Second, EU financial sanctions should be expanded and applied more consistently where Emirati actors have documented embargo violations.
  • Third, German arms export policy toward the UAE requires a fundamental review, given the documented transfer of German-chassis military equipment to conflict zones.
  • Fourth, anti-money-laundering enforcement should be tightened, with greater focus on Emirati financial centres as hubs for conflict economies and sanctions evasion.
  • Fifth, the strategic partnership Germany has maintained with the UAE since 2004 should, at a minimum, be suspended unless Abu Dhabi demonstrably reorients its policy toward de-escalation.

The report concludes that the war on Iran, mounting tensions with Saudi Arabia, and growing reputational vulnerabilities have made the UAE more susceptible to European pressure than at any previous point, and that this window should not go unused.

May 17, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism | , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on UAE fuelling African conflicts while evading accountability, SWP finds

Saudi Arabia is pulling Europe toward a “Gulf Helsinki” deal with Iran — because Washington failed

By Tamer Ajrami | MEMO | May 17, 2026

When military power fails to impose “deterrence,” oil becomes politics. And the Strait of Hormuz is now writing Gulf security rules instead of the Pentagon.

With Hormuz still closed and the emergency oil stock releases used to calm markets running down, prices are moving _ no matter how much some people deny it _ toward a new surge. The real problem is not the price as a number. It is the chain reaction: gasoline and diesel, shipping and insurance, raw materials, and then inflation that travels from Asia to the United States. And even if the strait opened tomorrow, the damage would not vanish. Supply chains do not reset overnight, and parts of the oil and petrochemicals flow would take time to recover.

In my previous Middle East Monitor article, I said clearly that Gulf states “have nothing but to talk to Iran now”. That was not idealism or goodwill. It was hard security math: the old formula is eroding. Bases do not protect the way people assumed, and guarantees shrink the moment they face a real test. Today, this is no longer an argument. It is a reality driven by markets before politics.

Trump and China: A visit without a lifeline — and Time is against him

Trump’s attempt to turn to China produced no clear exit. Not because Beijing is powerless, but because it sees the issue in simple terms: open the strait through practical understandings, and negotiate with Iran on realistic terms.

The problem is that Washington still wants a “surrender” wrapped in diplomatic language. Iran sees no reason to give that for free as it holds leverage in a global energy shock.

This is the core of Trump’s trap: he can say whatever he wants, but he cannot cancel economics. Markets do not negotiate. They punish.

That is why countries are now moving on two tracks: a unilateral track to protect their own interests, and a collective track to design a new framework that prevents the next shock. Saudi Arabia is stepping forward to lead the collective track, not because it loves “mediation” as a headline, but because the cost of ongoing chaos has become higher than the cost of a deal.

A New “Helsinki Act” — But without the Human Rights Basket

According to Western reporting, Saudi Arabia is floating something close to a “Gulf Helsinki Act” arrangement with Iran—modeled on the Helsinki process of the mid-1970s during the Cold War. It would not be just a Saudi–Iran deal. It would extend to the Gulf and the European Union, aiming to lock in non-aggression, structured economic normalization, and monitoring and implementation mechanisms.

The original Helsinki process was built around four “baskets”: security and non-aggression; economic cooperation; human rights and self-determination; and follow-up mechanisms. In the Middle East, copying the third basket is unrealistic. The region’s unwritten rule is non-interference. Here, states do not use “human rights” language as a tool to destabilize each other internally. So, the Saudi approach seems to focus on three practical baskets: security and non-aggression, economic cooperation and stable energy flows, and verification/implementation.

It is a practical logic: if you want an agreement that can survive, you do not plant a delayed bomb inside it.

The Hard Question: Can a Deal work without the United States?

Here is the central dilemma. A Gulf–EU–Iran non-aggression arrangement without the United States creates a dangerous gap: the Gulf and Europe commit to non-aggression, Iran commits too, but Washington and Israel still retain the ability to strike Iran. What does the agreement do then? Does it become a nice document that collapses at the first air raid?

On the other hand, bringing Washington into the deal is not easy either. The US is struggling to produce a quick bilateral agreement with Iran to end the crisis, so why would it accept a broader framework that limits its freedom of action?

This opens a third, more sensitive option: Gulf states and Europe “bypass Washington” in practice. That would mean refusing the use of their airspace and territorial waters for any military or intelligence activity against Iran. And maybe refusing to enforce sanctions that destabilize the region and recreate the Hormuz shock. This is not a small move. It would be a strategic shift.

The UAE: A Different Vision — and a Dangerous Ceiling

The Gulf is not unified on strategy. Other reporting suggests Emirati efforts to push a coordinated Gulf military “response” against Iran. The problem is not the idea of response by itself. The problem is the ceiling of objectives.

If the goal is limited deterrence to reduce escalation, that is one thing. But if the goal mirrors Netanyahu and Washington _ regime change, dismantling Iran’s nuclear program, destroying its ballistic capabilities, and reshaping Iran from the inside _ that is a long war. And the Gulf does not have the luxury to absorb its costs.

Most importantly, the idea of “escaping Hormuz” through alternative pipelines is not a real solution. If peace collapses, fields, ports, and energy infrastructure across the region remain within range. And Bab al-Mandab can become another choke point. In the end, the issue is not a pipeline or a port. It is a sustainable peace that prevents the drone and the missile before it “manages” the price.

Whoever Ends the War Ends the Chaos

A way out starts from one point: ending the US–Israeli confrontation with Iran through a realistic understanding; then building a regional framework similar to “Helsinki” that locks in non-aggression, protects economies, and prevents a repeat of the strait crisis.

Saudi Arabia is trying to “hold the story together” because Washington entered, got stuck, and now wants to exit; while the Gulf cannot afford to sit between Iran’s leverage and America’s disorder.

The choice is clearer than ever: either a settlement that closes the door on choke-point warfare, or a longer crisis that bankrupts markets before it bankrupts armies. The Gulf; whether it likes it or not; no longer has the option to “wait”.

May 17, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on Saudi Arabia is pulling Europe toward a “Gulf Helsinki” deal with Iran — because Washington failed

Trump’s Failed Mission to China

By Larry C. Johnson | SONAR21 | May 15, 2026

The Beijing circus is over and Donald Trump’s talks with Xi Jinping produced nothing more than some pleasing photo ops and some performative diplomacy with no substantive accomplishments.

There was no final communique at the end of Trump’s two days of meetings with Xi Jinping. Instead, we are left to rely on the statements from each government. When you parse the two statements, the two readouts diverge significantly, and the gaps are as informative as the overlaps. When you compare what each side claims was discussed you can see what actually transpired at the summit.

The divergence between the two readouts is stark and strategically deliberate. Here is a precise accounting of what the White House emphasized that China’s Foreign Ministry either omitted entirely or mentioned only in the vaguest terms:

1. The Iran War and Nuclear Weapons — Omitted by China

This is the most consequential gap. The White House readout stated explicitly:

The two sides agreed that the Strait of Hormuz must remain open to support the free flow of energy. President Xi also made clear China’s opposition to the militarization of the Strait and any effort to charge a toll for its use, and he expressed interest in purchasing more American oil to reduce China’s dependence on the Strait in the future. Both countries agreed that Iran can never have a nuclear weapon.”PBS

The Chinese readout, by contrast, merely said that “the two sides discussed the Middle East conflict” without offering any further details — no mention of the Strait, no mention of tolls, no mention of Iran’s nuclear program, and no acknowledgment of any agreed position on any of those issues. YouTube

This gap is enormous. The White House is asserting that China agreed Iran can never have a nuclear weapon and opposed Iran’s toll regime. That White House is spinning this as significant Chinese concessions that Beijing clearly did not want attributed to it publicly. However, according to a reliable source with access, Xi firmly rejected Trump’s request that China apply pressure on Iran and help open the Strait of Hormuz.

2. Fentanyl — Omitted by China

The White House readout specifically noted that the two sides discussed “addressing fentanyl precursor flows into the United States” — a longstanding US demand that China reduce the flow of chemical precursors used to manufacture fentanyl. The Chinese readout made no mention of fentanyl whatsoever, which is consistent with Beijing’s longstanding position that it has already done enough on the issue and resists framing it as a bilateral problem. Komo News

3. Agricultural Purchases — Omitted by China

The White House noted that the two presidents discussed “increasing Chinese purchases of U.S. agricultural products.” China’s readout spoke only in general terms about trade being “mutually beneficial” and made no specific commitment to agricultural purchases. YouTube

4. Market Access for US Businesses — Framed Very Differently

The White House described the meeting as centered on “expanding market access for American businesses into China and increasing Chinese investment into US industries.” China’s readout framed this entirely differently — as China “opening its door wider” on its own terms, not as a response to US demands for market access.

5. The Business Delegation — Treated Asymmetrically

The White House noted that “leaders from many of the United States’ largest companies joined a portion of the meeting,” treating it as a substantive commercial engagement. The Chinese readout mentioned that Trump “asked each of the business leaders who were traveling with him to present themselves to President Xi” — framing it as a courtesy introduction rather than a substantive business discussion. YouTube

6. Taiwan — The Mirror Image Problem

The most telling asymmetry runs in the opposite direction on Taiwan. The White House readout did not mention Taiwan at all, while China centered its entire readout on Xi’s Taiwan warning. Trump declined to answer a reporter’s question about whether he and Xi had even discussed Taiwan. Rubio told NBC News that the US was “not asking for China’s help with Iran” — a comment that implicitly pushes back on what the White House readout seemed to suggest about Chinese cooperation. The National DeskBreitbart

The Bottom Line

Both sides released statements detailing what Trump and Xi discussed, but they only overlap in limited areas. The statements diverge most sharply on Iran — where the US claims specific Chinese commitments that China refused to acknowledge — and on Taiwan, where China made explicit warnings that the US declined to even mention. NPR

The pattern is diplomatically classic: each side published the readout that serves its domestic political needs and advances its negotiating position. China wanted the world to see Xi issuing stern warnings on Taiwan. Washington wanted the world to see China agreeing that Iran can never have a nuclear weapon and opposing Iran’s toll regime. Whether either claimed concession is real — or merely asserted — is precisely what makes the readout divergence so revealing.

The Strategic Framework

Xi opened with a sweeping philosophical framing: “Transformation not seen in a century is accelerating across the globe, and the international situation is fluid and turbulent.” He posed three questions to Trump directly: Can China and the United States overcome the Thucydides Trap and create a new paradigm of major-country relations? Can we meet global challenges together and provide greater stability for the world? Can we build a bright future together for our bilateral relations? Wikipedia

Xi announced the two leaders had “agreed on a new vision of building a constructive China-U.S. relationship of strategic stability,” defining it precisely: “Constructive strategic stability means positive stability with cooperation as the mainstay, healthy stability with competition within proper limits, constant stability with manageable differences, and lasting stability with expectable peace.” He said this framework “will provide strategic guidance for China-U.S. relations over the next three years and beyond” and stressed: “Building a constructive China-U.S. relationship of strategic stability is not a slogan. It means actions in the same direction.” Wikipedia

Trade and Economics

Xi stated that “China-U.S. economic and trade ties are mutually beneficial and win-win in nature. Where disagreements and frictions exist, equal-footed consultation is the only right choice.” He said the economic and trade teams had “produced generally balanced and positive outcomes” at preparatory talks the prior day, and that “China will only open its door wider. U.S. businesses are deeply involved in China’s reform and opening up.” Wikipedia

Military and Diplomatic Channels

Xi called on the two sides to “make better use of communication channels in the political and diplomatic and military-to-military fields” and to “expand exchanges and cooperation in areas such as the economy and trade, health, agriculture, tourism, people-to-people ties and law enforcement.” Wikipedia

Taiwan — The Sharpest Language in the Readout

Xi was unambiguous: “The Taiwan question is the most important issue in China-U.S. relations. If it is handled properly, the bilateral relationship will enjoy overall stability. Otherwise, the two countries will have clashes and even conflicts, putting the entire relationship in great jeopardy. ‘Taiwan independence’ and cross-Strait peace are as irreconcilable as fire and water. Safeguarding peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait is the biggest common denominator between China and the U.S. The U.S. side must exercise extra caution in handling the Taiwan question.” Wikipedia

International Issues

The readout notes that the two presidents “exchanged views on major international and regional issues, such as the Middle East situation, the Ukraine crisis, and the Korean Peninsula” — but offered no further detail on any of those topics in the official Chinese text. Wikipedia

APEC and G20

The two presidents agreed to support each other in hosting a successful APEC Economic Leaders’ Meeting and G20 Summit this year. Wikipedia

Wang Yi’s Closing Assessment — May 15

Foreign Minister Wang Yi told state media: “This was an important meeting in which the two heads of state engaged in in-depth communication and achieved substantial outcomes,” calling it “a historical meeting.” He particularly touted progress on trade and economic issues. China’s Foreign Ministry also confirmed that President Xi Jinping will visit the United States this fall at the request of President Donald Trump.

As far as Iran is concerned, the Chinese and Russians are working behind the scenes — using Pakistan as a frontman — to erect a new security architecture for the Persian Gulf. The current effort is to convince Saudi Arabia and Qatar to effectively cut military ties with the US and enter into a strategic agreement that will be guaranteed by Russia and China. If Saudi Arabia and Qatar persist with prohibiting the US to use their bases and air space for a new set of attacks against Iran, the US may be compelled to call off planned strikes.

Video interviews

May 16, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, Video | , , , , | Comments Off on Trump’s Failed Mission to China

In letter to UN, Yemen calls for end to blockade, sabotage by US, allies

Press TV – May 12, 2026

Yemen has written to the United Nations, calling for an end to over 10 years of blockade of the country and urging cessation of aggressive measures targeting the nation by the US and its allies.

Deputy Foreign Minister Abdulwahid Abu Ras denounced continuation of the “unjust blockade” in a letter addressed to the UN secretary general and the world body’s Security Council, Yemen’s official Saba news agency reported on Monday.

Continuation of the blockade, he added, “does not serve international peace and security.”

Saudi Arabia and its Arab allies launched the blockade as part of a full-scale war on March 26, 2015, with military, political, and logistical support from the United States and other Western states.

The war went on to claim the lives of tens of thousands of Yemenis, while consistently falling short of its main objective of restoring power to Yemen’s former Riyadh-friendly government.

The government had fled the country amid a power struggle, prompting Yemen’s popular resistance Ansarullah movement to start running state affairs.

Following a fragile UN-brokered ceasefire that was clinched in 2022, the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Israeli regime waged many rounds of wholesale aggression against Yemen.

The attacks would seek to cripple Sana’a’s capability to stage solidarity strikes against Israeli targets in response to Tel Aviv’s war of genocide on the Gaza Strip.

According to the Yemeni official, “The continued hostile activities of the United States and its proxies will inflict greater damage on the region, and their consequences will be catastrophic.”

“The state of ‘neither war nor peace’ is no longer acceptable under any circumstances.”

May 12, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , | Comments Off on In letter to UN, Yemen calls for end to blockade, sabotage by US, allies

Islamabad’s post-war push: A new Gulf security order takes shape

Regional powers are moving quickly to fill the vacuum before Washington can reassert control

By F.M. Shakil | The Cradle | April 22, 2026

US President Donald Trump’s decision to extend the ceasefire with Iran at Pakistan’s request has given Islamabad more time to push for a broader settlement between Washington, Tel Aviv, and Tehran. Yet even as diplomacy inches forward, the war has already triggered a deeper shift across West Asia.

A Pakistan-brokered truce is now tied to a broader regional realignment. Persian Gulf states, long dependent on Washington’s military shield, are openly questioning whether that shield still works. In its place, a new conversation has emerged: one centered on regional defense cooperation led by Muslim-majority states rather than the US.

Iran signaled cautious optimism last week about joining a second round of talks in Islamabad. Reports had suggested Tehran might refuse to attend after a US naval assault on an Iranian vessel in the Strait of Hormuz, but Trump’s decision to extend the ceasefire has bought negotiators more time.

That development reportedly pushed Pakistan’s army chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir, to press Washington for a ceasefire extension and an easing of the blockade. Trump’s decision to prolong the truce has partly addressed Iran’s conditions for rejoining negotiations, although the blockade remains in place.

Munir, who concluded a three-day visit to Tehran last week, has remained in direct contact with Trump while Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif has carried out parallel diplomacy in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkiye.

Yet another obstacle to an agreement is the status of the enriched uranium that Iran possesses. Latest updates reveal that both Russia and China have offered to store Iranian uranium to address a major US demand for a peace agreement.

A regional order without Washington

Parallel to the peace effort, intense diplomacy is underway between Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkiye, and Egypt over a possible “Muslim” replacement for the US-led Gulf security architecture.

A quadripartite meeting on the sidelines of the Antalya Diplomacy Forum, held from 17–19 April in Turkiye, reportedly focused on lowering tensions and building a new regional security structure. Sources speaking to The Cradle say there is now broad support for an “internal security apparatus” rooted in economic integration and defense coordination.

Ankara has proposed what it describes as an “organized regional security platform” built around the idea that regional states, not outside powers, should be responsible for defending West Asia.

The urgency behind those discussions is easy to understand.

Several Arab states, particularly Saudi Arabia and Qatar, now believe that US bases in the Persian Gulf have become liabilities rather than assets. After Iranian strikes damaged or destroyed multiple US military facilities in the region, Gulf governments began to question whether the US presence protects them or simply turns them into targets.

Zahir Shah Sherazi, executive vice president of Bol News, tells The Cradle:

“Targeting the US bases and installations in the Gulf states, where American outposts were located, was a strategic and insightful military tactic of Iran that exposed the true nature of Washington. The Gulf nations came to understand that the US is unable to safeguard them, as its primary focus lies on the Zionist state and its expansionist ambitions.”

Sherazi states that the concept of a Greater Israel stems from the expansionist designs of the Zionist state, which is working on it in the West Bank, Lebanon, Gaza, and Syria under US protection. This situation, he argues, has worried the Gulf states, and even Turkiye is at risk of clashing with Israel in Syria and Lebanon.

These apprehensions led to the formation of a NATO-like force in West Asia, not to counter Iran but Israel’s expansionist designs. He says Iran may join this force after its war, making it a strong military alliance against the US and Israel.

Sunni alliance or regional deterrent?

Not everyone sees the proposed force in the same way.

Imtiaz Gul, executive director of the Center for Research and Security Studies (CRSS), tells The Cradle that the project could end up functioning as a Sunni coalition rather than a genuinely regional defense structure.

In his view, the force may ultimately suit both Washington and the occupation state because it could be used to contain Iran while protecting the oil-rich Arab monarchies.

“This force is perceived as a facilitator of the Abraham Accords, as it is designed to fortify regional alliances and counteract Iranian influence in the Middle East. This coterie may emerge as an alternative security arrangement, specifically for Saudi Arabia, as the US military bases have become liabilities rather than functioning as a protective umbrella for the Gulf and Arab states.”

Concerning the prospects of this force, Gul is not so optimistic. He is of the view that such an organization could not effectively assume the responsibility of regulating this region.

“It is a highly intricate issue that is both challenging and difficult to implement due to several internal differences and conflicting interests, such as the ongoing tensions between Iran and Turkiye, with Saudi Arabia and Egypt, which complicate any potential regulatory efforts.”

US bases become a burden

Even as Trump signals a possible drawdown of US military operations in West Asia, Washington continues to expand its military footprint.

Trump has suggested that thousands of US troops could leave Iraq and Syria by September 2026. Yet his administration has also sent an additional 2,500 marines to the region.

That contradiction has reinforced Russian warnings that “the US and Israel can use the peace talks to prepare for a ground operation against Iran, as the Pentagon continues to increase US troop numbers in the region.”

Gul believes a large-scale US withdrawal from Gulf bases would leave the occupation state more isolated. Without those facilities, Tel Aviv would lose much of the logistical and intelligence infrastructure that underpins its military reach across the region.

He argues that Washington will maintain a military foothold in West Asia for as long as it sees Israel as vulnerable.

A recent report by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) urged the Pentagon to reassess its Gulf basing strategy once the war with Iran ends. The report argued that Bahrain and the UAE should remain key hubs for US naval power, while other facilities may create more problems than advantages.

AEI suggested that Washington rely more heavily on Greece and Cyprus instead of accommodating Turkiye. It also argued that the US should deepen its presence in Somaliland rather than maintain extensive deployments in Saudi Arabia and Oman.

According to the Middle East Institute (MEI), US forces remain stationed in the UAE, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, and Qatar. Roughly 50,000 troops are spread across 19 known sites.

“The US security umbrella became more of a liability, directly threatening the sovereignty of the host countries, especially since these bases were implicated in the attack on Iran. Although Iran is not a threat to the GCC’s sovereignty, it is assaulting the US bases from which the US attacks Iran,” Gul says.

Pakistan moves in as Gulf protector

Pakistan deployed 13,000 troops and a fleet of 10 to 18 fighter jets, including advanced platforms such as the JF-17 “Thunder” Block III and J-10CE fighters, at King Abdulaziz Air Base in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia.

Sherazi goes further. He argues that despite its military superiority and technological edge, Washington has already been forced to abandon some positions in Saudi Arabia and Qatar because of Iranian retaliation.

“Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan have established strong connections in trade and defense collaboration. Qatar appears to be signaling its intention to join this Saudi–Pakistan defense mechanism. Saudi Arabia and Qatar have also declared that their territories will not be used for actions against Iran.”

Pakistan has already started positioning itself as an alternative security guarantor for the Gulf monarchies.

Islamabad and Ankara are also deepening military cooperation. Pakistan is involved in the KAAN stealth fighter program, while Turkiye is providing support in drone technology, training, and military equipment.

There is also growing speculation that Iran may quietly support parts of this regional transition. One of Tehran’s key demands in recent negotiations with Washington was reportedly the closure of US military bases across the region.

“Almost all Middle Eastern nations, except for a few like the UAE, support an indigenous security mechanism in the region due to the US-Israel collusion that has caused significant bloodshed among Arab nations,” Sherazi says.

“Now is the time for a robust force to end the barbarity of the Zionists and their supporters.”

April 22, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Islamabad’s post-war push: A new Gulf security order takes shape

After Islamabad: How the Global South Is Reshaping Eurasian Geopolitics

By Abbas Hashemite – New Eastern Outlook – April 21, 2026

The developments surrounding the “Islamabad Talks” underscore a broader geopolitical realignment in which Pakistan, China, and other regional powers are deepening their strategic and economic integration, accelerating the rise of a Global South-led order while exposing the waning influence of the US and its traditional allies.

Behind-the-Scenes Realignment of the Global South

The Islamabad Talks 1.0, apparently ineffective, actually reshaped Global South alignment unfolding behind the scenes. In reality, the backstage transpirations during the Islamabad Talks 1.0 were more consequential than the US-Iran peace negotiations. Pakistan’s deployment of military troops and jets to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the dispatch of its first transit shipment to Uzbekistan via Iran, and Aramco’s show of intent to finalize a $10 billion investment in an oil refinery in Gwadar, in partnership with OGDCL, PSO, GHPL, and PPL, were all extraordinary developments.

Obviously, all that did not happen by chance; these developments reflect a deepening strategic alliance between Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Iran. The timing of these events suggests that all the players involved were already prepared for their integration in a rising Global South alliance but were merely constrained by the international and regional geopolitical environment. Pakistan’s deployment of troops in KSA has made it a key security provider for the country, a service that other Gulf nations might soon seek as well. However, Pakistan cannot provide security services to other nations solely without China’s collaboration, which is its major partner in intelligence, technology, reconnaissance, and strategy.

Evolving Security Architecture in the Gulf Region

The United States is one of the key security providers in the Gulf. However, during the recent Iranian attacks on the Gulf nations and Israel’s attack on Doha in September, 2025, the United States failed to defend these states. Therefore, the Arab Peninsula would soon get rid of the US fighter jets, satellite coverage, intelligence penetration, and defense mechanisms by replacing them with Pakistani and Chinese security apparatus. This would make Pakistan a key security provider in the region.

Economic Corridors and the Emerging Eurasian Connectivity

The expected finalization of the Saudi-Pakistan oil refinery deal is also a remarkable move for the success of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) and Gwadar. This development will enable international shipping to refuel at Gwadar, granting Pakistani consumers a 20% price cut on oil. This oil refinery, probably connected to Saudi Arabia via an undersea pipeline, will also smash the relevance of the I2U2, giving it leverage over its regional rivals.

Moreover, the opening of the Pakistan-Iran-Uzbekistan transit route underscores the opening of the Central Asian markets to the whole world via Pakistan and Iran, a move that will strengthen Central Asian and South Asian economies and relations. Just like the CPEC, the BRI connects many corridors via Afghanistan and Iran. China’s goal is to connect all these projects internally. This is the future that the entire region is looking forward to.

Decline of Western Influence and the Rise of a Multipolar Order

It also suggests that the “Islamabad Talks” were more about signaling to Washington and its allies that the international order has altered than about US-Iran peace. Many US allies have already abandoned it in this war of choice. Italy and Spain, for instance, have denied the US the approval to use their bases in the Mediterranean. Both countries have also joined South Africa’s case in the ICC, alleging Israel of genocide. Britain, France, Greece, Italy, Spain, and Germany have refused to militarily assist the US in opening its blockade of the Strait of Hormuz.

Chinese diplomacy is already in full swing, with the Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez in China to strengthen bilateral economic and strategic relations. The Taiwanese opposition leader Chen Li-wun also visited Beijing, expressing the desire for a “peaceful” resolution of the bilateral dispute, stating that the Taiwan Strait will no longer be a focal point of the potential conflict and will certainly not become a “chessboard for outside forces to intervene in”.

With prospects of a second round of Islamabad Talks, which are expected to take place on Tuesday, emerging, concerns are mounting over the possible collapse of US-Iran peace efforts, which could trigger a renewed and more intense phase of conflict between the two sides. Furthermore, there are speculations that the US and Israel could use these negotiations to reorganize. However, the current circumstances suggest that the US is not in a position to initiate a ground invasion or any other military campaign against Iran, as it failed to open the Strait of Hormuz despite almost 40 days of continuous bombing on Iran. In addition, the United States stands militarily and diplomatically isolated over the issue of US-Iran, as none of its European allies have supported it militarily or diplomatically.

This war has made the United States an irrelevant and isolated international power. The whole agenda of the war has now shifted to opening the Strait of Hormuz, which was already open before the war. The US President Donald Trump is also happy that China will no longer provide weapons to Iran, which it already says it did not provide. This illustrates that the Islamabad Talks 2.0 is just to provide the United States with a face-saving way to get rid of the burden of this war, which Trump, acting as a “mad king,” started as a regime change operation, and a “God’s Plan” has ended up in expediting the decline of the US as a global superpower.

However, despite these unfavorable conditions and circumstances, there is always a possibility that the mad king might receive another directive from his Zionist master to go for a ground invasion of Iran. Although it is highly unlikely, counterintuitive, and counterproductive, as it would be a suicide mission for the United States, leading to the death of thousands of troops and causing the loss of billions of dollars, it is still expected from a person under the influence of the Zionist leader Benjamin Netanyahu.

The US President Donald Trump has already sacrificed the US hegemony to establish the Kingdom of Zionism. His ill-witted decisions have provided Russia, China, and the middle powers with an opportunity to replace the US as a global hegemon. It will also result in further strengthening the BRICS as an international alliance, replacing Western organizations and alliances. In sum, the US-Iran war has hastened the rise of a Global South-led world order and exposed fissures in the Western alliance.

April 21, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , | Comments Off on After Islamabad: How the Global South Is Reshaping Eurasian Geopolitics

The prospect of an expanded and far more violent war

By Kurt Nimmo | Another Day in the Empire | April 18, 2026

… Earlier this month, Israeli minister Bezalel Smotrich declared an official start to the Greater Israel project. He included Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine in the project. Since the establishment of Israel in 1948, Zionists have strived to weaken neighboring states, dismantle their military capacity, and worked to reshape the balance of power in West Asia. The original plan called for occupying and ethnically cleansing the entirety of Palestine, all of Jordan, south Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq, the Sinai Peninsula in Egypt, and northern Saudi Arabia.

The Nazis had a similar plan during their occupation of Europe in the Second World War. It was called the “Greater Germanic Reich” (Großgermanisches Reich). In the autumn of 1933, Adolf Hitler made plans to annex territories including Bohemia, parts of western Poland, and Austria to Germany. He also aimed to create satellite or puppet states that would lack independent economies or policies. Nazi racial theories classified the Germanic peoples of Europe as part of a racially superior Nordic subset within the broader Aryan race, which they considered to be the sole true bearers of civilized culture.

In Deuteronomy, the Jewish God chooses Israel to be his holy (kadosh) and treasured (segulah) people. Deuteronomy 14:2 states God has chosen the Jews “to be a people for Himself, a special treasure above all the peoples who are on the face of the earth.” According to the Torah, “Eretz Israel” (“Land of Israel” in Hebrew), now defined as “Greater Israel,” was “given” to the “children of Abraham” and serves as the basis for “a merger of religious fundamentalism and modern political ethno-nationalism, whereby ancient texts are used to justify a modern military expansionist state.” In regard to Lebanon, the Zionists believe Greater Israel extends up to the Sidon and Litani rivers.

According to Amichai Friedman, a rabbi in the Israeli Army, “This land is ours, the whole land, including Gaza, including Lebanon,” while Daniella Weiss, a Jewish ethnonationalist and former mayor of Kedumim, called for the “invasion of Lebanon” immediately after the war in Gaza. Lebanon-born Israeli journalist Edy Cohen posted to social media that areas of Lebanon, including Faraya and Kesrouan, will also suffer the fate of Gaza, that is to say ethnic cleansing, massacres, and wholesale theft of land, homes (those not demolished), and infrastructure. … Full article

April 18, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The prospect of an expanded and far more violent war

Saudi Arabia Urges US Back to Iran Talks as Other Oil Routes Face Risk

Sputnik – 14.04.2026

Saudi Arabian officials are warning the US that its move to impose a blockade on Iranian ports following failed negotiations could backfire, triggering even wider global energy disruption, according to media reports.

Trump aims to pressure Iran into loosening its grip over the Strait of Hormuz, but Saudi officials are reportedly actively urging the US to return to negotiations with Iran over fears that the Bab al-Mandeb — which handles about 10% of global crude and liquefied natural gas shipments — may also be threatened.

The kingdom has managed to maintain oil exports near pre-conflict levels [Tanker-tracking data and market reports show Saudi crude oil exports averaged about 3.3 million barrels per day in March 2026, about half of previous exports] by rerouting crude across its territory to Red Sea ports, bypassing the Strait of Hormuz.

But that alternative route would become vulnerable, putting a large share of Saudi exports at risk, since Iran has signaled that if its own oil flows are restricted, it could retaliate by disrupting other key shipping lanes.

Iran’s potential leverage lies in its regional alliances, especially with Houthi forces in Yemen, who control territory near the Bab al-Mandeb. These groups have previously demonstrated their ability to disrupt maritime traffic through missile and drone attacks and are widely seen as a strategic reserve that Iran could activate if tensions escalate further.

Besides physical disruption, the ripple effects on global markets would potentially drive up insurance costs, force ships to reroute, and create supply delays — all of which could push energy prices higher.

April 14, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Wars for Israel | , , , | Comments Off on Saudi Arabia Urges US Back to Iran Talks as Other Oil Routes Face Risk

Iran demands reparations from Arab states

RT | April 14, 2026

Iran has demanded that five Arab states hosting US bases pay reparations for American and Israeli airstrikes on its territory.

In a letter to the UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres on Monday, Iranian envoy Amir Saeid Iravani argued that Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, the UAE, and Jordan had allowed the US to use their territory to attack Iran and, in some cases, were directly involved in “unlawful armed attacks targeting civilian objects.”

Iravani added that the Arab states “should make full reparation to the Islamic Republic of Iran, including compensation for all material and moral damage sustained as a result of their internationally wrongful acts.”

The Gulf states had previously demanded that Iran be held liable for war damage, a claim Iravani rejected as “legally untenable and fundamentally divorced from the factual and legal realities.”

The US and Israel launched strikes on Iran on February 28, stating that the goal was to dismantle Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs. The attacks killed dozens of senior officials, including Iran’s longtime supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, as well as more than 1,300 civilians. In addition to military sites, the US and Israel targeted energy infrastructure, bridges, universities, and schools.

Iran responded by striking US bases in the region and civilian infrastructure in Gulf states, including oil and gas facilities, airports, and seaports. Tehran said the strikes were an exercise of its right to self-defense.

April 14, 2026 Posted by | War Crimes, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Iran demands reparations from Arab states

One martyr, 5 injuries in US attack on Iraqi border crossing with Iran

Al Mayadeen | April 4, 2026

On Saturday, Major General Omar Al-Waeli, head of the Iraqi Border Ports Authority, confirmed the martyrdom of one person and injuries to five others following an attack on the Shalamcheh border crossing with Iran.

Al Mayadeen’s correspondent in Basra reported that movement at the crossing has been completely suspended, adding that US warplanes targeted the Iranian passport hall at the border point.

Since the onset of the US-Israeli war on Iran, American attacks have relentlessly targeted Iraq, including Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) units and centers.

PMF martyr, injruies in US attack earlier today

Earlier today, the PMF reported that its 45th Brigade, part of the Jazira Operations Sector, was attacked at the al-Qaim border crossing. The assault left one PMF member martyred, four others injured, and one Ministry of Defense employee wounded.

In response to the repeated aggression, the Iraqi Cabinet directed the armed forces and the Popular Mobilization Forces to defend themselves and respond to any attacks on their positions.

The cabinet also instructed the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to submit an official complaint to the UN Security Council, condemning the attacks and demanding they be stopped.

Iraqi Resistance calls for action against US-Israeli regional allies

Similarly, the Iraqi Resistance Coordination Committee praised the Iraqi people’s positions in support of the Axis of Resistance, while calling for punitive measures against countries that enable US-Israeli aggressions in the region.

In a statement, the Committee said that “the alignment of the rulers of Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE with the criminality of the Zionist-American enemy against the Islamic Republic and their betrayal of the honorable free people of Iraq represent the height of baseness and vileness.”

It stressed that this “requires a firm deterrent response from the Iraqi government,” adding that such measures should begin with “punishing Jordan in particular, as it serves as a launch point for enemy aircraft targeting the fighters of the Popular Mobilization Forces and Iraqi security forces,” calling for “the complete closure of the land border crossing and the suspension of Iraqi oil grants.”

The Committee also stated that the Iraqi Resistance has avoided harming Kuwait’s economic interests and infrastructure while targeting US forces in the country. It further called for avoiding harm to Qatar’s interests, excluding US bases, “in appreciation of Doha’s responsible positions toward the Palestinian cause and the Axis of Resistance.”

April 4, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on One martyr, 5 injuries in US attack on Iraqi border crossing with Iran

IRGC decries attack on US embassy in Riyadh, says executed by ‘Israel’

The US Embassy in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia (File photo by AFP)
Al Mayadeen | April 4, 2026

The Islamic Revolution Guard Corps’ (IRGC) has rejected accusations that it was responsible for an attack on the US Embassy in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, emphasizing instead that it was a false flag operation carried out by the Israeli entity.

In Statement No. 54 of Operation True Promise 4, the IRGC’s Public Relations Department condemned the attack on the embassy, which was reported by The Wall Street Journal, stressing that, recalling the Israeli occupation’s regional strategies, “this action was certainly carried out by Zionists.”

The IRGC confirmed that the Iranian Armed Forces’ target list has been clearly identified, adding that Iran had already informed neighboring countries of the necessary warnings to “prevent further escalation.”

The IRGC also warned that West Asia “must remain vigilant against provocations from the American–Zionist current,” which aims to destabilize and destroy the region.

A series of false flags

Iran has repeatedly stressed that its operations target US-Israeli military assets and affiliated infrastructure in the region and across the occupied territories in Palestine, quickly pointing out false flags and highlighting ongoing enemy attacks that seek to disturb regional harmony.

It has also delineated target lists for its tit-for-tat retaliations for attacks on its civilian infrastructure, including US assets in the region. The US embassy in Riyadh was not among them.

Only yesterday, the IRGC condemned the targeting of water desalination plants in Kuwait, asserting that the Israeli entity “is behind this cowardly act of aggression aimed at sowing discord.” On Monday, a Kuwaiti power and desalination plant was also struck, killing an Indian worker and causing significant material damage.

Kuwaiti authorities were quick to attribute the attack to Iran, but Tehran squarely denied involvement and blamed “Israel,” with the spokesperson for Iran’s Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters describing the incident as “evidence of the enemy’s depravity and malice,” saying it forms part of broader efforts to inflame tensions and undermine regional stability.

Similarly, following a fire at Saudi Aramco’s Ras Tanura refinery in early March, an Iranian military source told Tasnim News Agency that the attack was “an Israeli false flag operation” aimed at distracting regional countries from “Israel’s” strikes on civilian sites inside Iran, stressing that “Aramco facilities have not been among the targets of Iranian attacks so far.”

April 4, 2026 Posted by | Deception, False Flag Terrorism | , , , , | Comments Off on IRGC decries attack on US embassy in Riyadh, says executed by ‘Israel’

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »