Nuclear Apartheid: Iran’s Rise Exposes the NPT Fraud and the West’s Israel Exception
By Freddie Ponton – 21st Century Wire – April 29, 2026
The fight over Iran’s vice presidency at the 2026 NPT Review Conference looked procedural only if one ignored the history that walked into the room with it. The United States, the United Kingdom, speaking for France and Germany, Australia, and the United Arab Emirates objected to Iran’s appointment, yet Iran kept the post after a Non-Aligned Movement nomination and no blocking vote was forced, exposing a basic fact that now hangs over the treaty system. The United Arab Emirates did not merely object but formally and unequivocally disassociated itself from Iran’s election, while citing Tehran’s continuous violations of its safeguards obligations.
That moment is crucial because it revealed a shrinking gap between Western power and Western authority. The states that still dominate military alliances, financial coercion, and media narratives could denounce Tehran in New York, but they could not turn denunciation into institutional compliance, and they could not persuade the wider diplomatic field that their understanding of non-proliferation deserved automatic deference. What looked like a dispute over one vice presidency was in fact a public measure of a much deeper revolt against selective enforcement.
The bargain they broke
The deeper story begins in 1995, when the NPT was indefinitely extended on the basis of a broader political package that included the Resolution on the Middle East. That resolution called on all states in the region that had not yet done so to join the treaty and place their nuclear facilities under full-scope IAEA safeguards, and the UN Secretariat background paper explicitly records that the resolution was an essential element of the outcome on which indefinite extension was secured.
The 2010 Review Conference reaffirmed that point in unusually clear language. It said the 1995 resolution remained valid until its goals were achieved, recalled the importance of Israel’s accession to the treaty and the placement of all its nuclear facilities under comprehensive safeguards, and endorsed concrete steps toward a 2012 conference on a Middle East zone free of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. The conference never delivered what it promised, and Algeria’s 2026 working paper now states bluntly that Israel’s stance helped render the 1995 resolution “devoid of substance,” while the UN Secretariat paper records that many states saw the failure of implementation as seriously undermining the treaty itself.
The Israeli exception
That is why so much of the Global South reads the current crisis through Israel rather than through Iran alone. The UN Secretariat background paper states in neutral terms that all states of the Middle East except Israel are parties to the NPT and that all states in the region except Israel have undertaken to accept comprehensive IAEA safeguards, giving documentary form to the asymmetry that the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) and Arab states have been protesting for decades.
NAM’s own recent language is harsher because the political implications are harsher. At the 2024 IAEA General Conference record, Uganda speaking on behalf of NAM warned that a selective approach undermined the viability of the safeguards regime, expressed great concern over Israel’s acquisition of nuclear capability, and called for a total prohibition on nuclear-related transfers and assistance to Israel, while the April 2026 NAM statement to the UN Disarmament Commission again demanded that Israel renounce nuclear weapons, accede to the NPT without precondition or delay, and place all its facilities under full-scope safeguards.
That continuity was reaffirmed in the Kampala Declaration, which carried the same line through 2025 and closed the institutional bridge to the April 2026 NAM position. For the movement, this is not a side file or an ideological hobbyhorse. It is the living proof that the rules are preached as universal and applied as political.
The South’s quiet revolt
Once that history is acknowledged, the so-called silence of NAM and many Global South states on Iran’s vice presidency stops looking like ambiguity and starts looking like discipline. They did not need to issue sentimental declarations of love for Tehran in order to refuse a Western effort to re-police multilateral legitimacy, because the issue before them was larger than Iran’s image and deeper than one nomination. It was whether the same powers that had tolerated, normalized, or materially shielded the Middle East’s only non-NPT nuclear exception would now be allowed to decide who is morally disqualified from procedural office inside the treaty system.
That is why the resistance was institutional rather than theatrical. After dismissing the objections as baseless and politically motivated, Iran disassociated itself from the election of the United States as vice president, and according to one contemporaneous account, from Australia’s as well, turning the confrontation into a mirror held up to the old order. The 2025 report of the sixth session of the conference on a Middle East zone free of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction said Israel’s refusal to join the NPT and submit all its facilities and activities to comprehensive safeguards undermined the credibility of the non-proliferation regime and imposed additional burdens on regional states, while the same report condemned attacks on Iran’s safeguarded nuclear facilities as a grave threat to the credibility of the NPT and the integrity of the entire IAEA safeguards regime.
In that setting, refusing to let Washington, London, Paris, Berlin, and Canberra define the boundaries of legitimacy was not indulgence toward Iran, but a defense of sovereign equality against a one-sided nuclear order.
What their objection revealed
The objections from the United States, the E3, and Australia therefore boomeranged. They were intended to isolate Iran, but they instead illuminated the moral exhaustion of a bloc that speaks in the language of non-proliferation while presiding over an order in which disarmament obligations are endlessly deferred, nuclear sharing and modernization continue, and Israel’s opaque arsenal remains politically protected from the universality routinely demanded of others. The analysis from the European Journal of International Law (EJIL) long ago captured the pattern by showing how NAM kept international attention on Israel’s nuclear status and how double standards around Israel helped fuel resistance inside the regime, and the documents gathered since then show that this reading did not fade but hardened.
Australia’s place in this picture is revealing precisely because it is less central than Washington or the E3 and yet moved in lockstep with them against Iran’s vice presidency. That choice placed Canberra inside a camp that could still object loudly but could no longer command consent, and it tied Australia to a diplomatic posture that much of the Global South now experiences as selective guardianship rather than principled stewardship. The same is true of the E3, whose claim to defend the treaty sounds increasingly thin when the documentary record shows decades of unfinished obligations on the Middle East file and continued Western insistence that the burden of credibility falls primarily on disfavored treaty members rather than on the region’s protected exception.
A treaty stripped bare
What emerged in New York, then, was not simply a quarrel over Iran. In fact, we all witnessed the exposure of a treaty order whose founding compromise on the Middle East has been repeatedly postponed, diluted, and evaded, until many of the states asked to keep faith with the system now see the system itself as compromised at the core. The 2026 UN Secretariat paper, the 2026 Algeria submission, the April 2026 NAM statement, the 2024 IAEA record, and the 2025 IAEA safeguards resolution all converge on the same underlying reality that Israel’s non-accession, unsafeguarded status, and continuing exceptional treatment have become inseparable from the crisis of NPT credibility.
That is why Iran’s vice presidency is so significant, because it marks the point at which a large part of the non-aligned world stopped pretending that the greatest danger to the treaty’s legitimacy begins and ends in Tehran, and instead used procedure to register a quieter but more consequential judgment that the deeper non-proliferation crisis lies in a regime that punishes some, excuses others, and then demands respect for the imbalance it created.
On April 27th, the West could still denounce, but could no longer decide; and that, more than the vice presidency itself, is the message now being sent from the Global South to Washington, the E3, and Australia.
Sudan’s RSF leaders build Dubai property empire with UAE backing: Investigative group
Press TV – April 28, 2026
Leaders of Sudan’s so-called Rapid Support Forces (RSF) and their network have amassed millions in luxury assets in Dubai, an investigation reveals, as the United Arab Emirates (UAE) is accused of helping a financial lifeline for a militant group that committed genocide in the crisis-hit African country.
A detailed investigation by the Sentry, a US investigative group, showed that individuals tied to the RSF, led by Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, also known as Hemedti, have accumulated more than 20 high-end properties in Dubai worth £17.7 million.
The report further exposed a sprawling “paramilitary-industrial complex” stretching across Africa and West Asia, with the UAE functioning as a critical hub for both wealth storage and financial operations linked to the militant group.
The probe by the Sentry maintained that the UAE acted as a “safe haven” for RSF leaders and their relatives, as well as for wealth derived from smuggled Sudanese gold.
After seizing Darfur’s largest gold mine back in 2017, Hemedti and his network reportedly leveraged UAE-based companies to convert illicit gold into hard currency, taking advantage of Dubai’s booming gold trade.
“In addition to arming the militia, the UAE allows the RSF to base part of its paramilitary-industrial complex in Dubai. Our investigation shows the Dagalo family has also found a safe haven for its wealth in the Emirates,” Nick Donovan, senior investigator at the Sentry, said.
Leaked real estate records also indicate that properties linked directly to the RSF network are worth about £7.4 million, while assets held by sanctioned associates add another £10.3 million to it. Among them are luxury six-bedroom villas near Dubai’s Meydan racecourse acquired through a UAE-registered firm – Prodigious Real Estate Management Supervision Services – tied to an individual sanctioned by the United States for supplying funding and military equipment to the RSF.
According to the probe, Dagalo family members clustered in these compounds, while Hemedti’s wife purchased land worth £627,000 in the vicinity of Trump International Golf Club six months into Sudan’s war.
Sanctioned RSF-linked figure Mustafa Ibrahim Abdel Nabi Mohamed is also reported to own a £516,000 apartment in Burj Khalifa.
The RSF – commanded by Hemedti and his sanctioned brothers – has been accused by both the United Nations and the US of atrocities amounting to genocide, including during an assault on El Fasher in the Darfur region.
Despite mounting evidence, the UAE, widely seen as the militant group’s chief foreign backer, “categorically rejects” claims that it has provided “weapons, funding, trainers or logistical support to the RSF.”
Citing a separate report last week, the Sentry also said that UAE-backed Colombian mercenaries played a decisive role in the fall of El Fasher.
Meanwhile, RSF-linked individuals deny any wrongdoing, insisting assets were legally obtained and commercial activities were legitimate, even as Sudan’s war drives what is now the world’s largest humanitarian crisis, with 33 million people of the country’s 50 million population needing aid and at least 19 million facing hunger.
The RSF, which has been fighting the Sudanese army over the past few years, currently controls large swathes of the country’s southwestern territories, including most of the region of Darfur.
The militants captured el-Fasher on October 26, 2025, with reports saying they massacred thousands of civilians who failed to flee the city.
A UN fact-finding mission found that RSF actions in el-Fasher show “hallmarks of genocide” against the Zaghawa and Fur ethnic communities.
Despite denials by the UAE, several reports have suggested that the Persian Gulf Arab country supports RSF militants in Sudan in a bid to get access to gold and secure control over Red Sea shipping lanes, as well as agricultural land.
How Israel moved Hermes 900 drone production to Serbia to hide from Iranian missiles
By Ivan Kesic – Press TV – April 25, 2026
The Israeli regime has quietly embarked on an effort to relocate production of its most important long-range strike drone – the Hermes 900- outside the occupied territories.
In Serbia, it has found its latest and most controversial partner. The strategy is simple: protect Tel Aviv’s supply chain from Iranian ballistic missiles.
On March 7, 2026, Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić made a cryptic announcement. Serbia, he said, would soon open a factory for “the most serious drones in the world” with a foreign partner from the Israeli regime.
By early April, reports had uncovered the full scope of the deal. Elbit Systems – the largest military company in the occupied territories and a firm repeatedly named by UN experts as profiting from the ongoing genocide in Gaza – had agreed to establish a joint drone production facility in Šimanovci, just thirty kilometers west of Belgrade.
The factory, which could begin operations as early as late April 2026, is designed to produce two types of unmanned aerial vehicles, including a long-range model capable of flying at altitudes exceeding six kilometers.
While most media attention has focused on the emerging arms race between Serbia and Croatia, a far more consequential story has gone largely unreported.
What makes this deal particularly significant is not merely the technology transfer or the financial terms, but the strategic logic driving it.
The Israeli regime, having suffered devastating losses of its Hermes 900 fleet during the recent US-Israeli war of aggression against Iran, is desperately seeking to diversify its production base – outside the reach of Iranian retaliation.
Serbian factory: Details of the 2026 agreement
The joint venture agreement between Elbit Systems and Serbia’s state-owned Yugoimport SDPR gives the notorious Israeli arms company a controlling 51 percent stake, while the Serbian partner holds the remaining 49 percent.
According to documents obtained by some journalists and confirmed by two independent sources close to the military industry, the factory will produce two distinct drone types.
The first is a short-range model with a high payload and rotary wings, designed for tactical reconnaissance and strike missions in confined operational environments.
The second is far more advanced: a long-range model, faster and capable of operating at altitudes exceeding six kilometers, making it suitable for deep-penetration surveillance missions well beyond Serbian borders.
A source familiar with the deal described the long-range drone as “more advanced” than the Pegasus, a combat reconnaissance drone that Serbia already produces domestically.
“It has a higher flight altitude and greater operational autonomy,” the source explained. “The essence of the whole story is the transfer of technology, because our engineers will also work on it. This drone is actually the crowning glory of the entire project.”
Experts from Utva, an aircraft factory owned by the SDPR, will also be involved in the production process, a clear indication of significant investment in local technical expertise.
The planned site of the factory has itself become a source of controversy: a facility owned by Pink Media Group, the media empire of Željko Mitrović, a businessman with close ties to Vučić’s ruling party.
Following the publication of investigative reports, Pink Media Group issued a denial, claiming that neither Mitrović nor any entity associated with him had participated in negotiations or leased any facility for the project.
However, the denial did not address the documentary evidence or the two independent sources that confirmed the arrangement. The question of the factory’s precise location remains unresolved.
Serbian-Israeli cooperation: Weapons, spyware, and political connections
The drone factory agreement is merely the latest chapter in a rapidly deepening relationship between Belgrade and Tel Aviv that encompasses weapons trade, intelligence technology, political consulting, and diplomatic alignment.
The value of ammunition and weapons exports from Serbia to the Israeli regime has increased by an astonishing 42 times since 2023, reaching 114 million euros by the end of 2025, according to available evidence.
The vast majority of these exports were conducted through Yugoimport SDPR, the same state-owned company now partnering with Elbit on the drone factory.
Beyond conventional weapons, the partnership extends into the shadowy realm of surveillance and espionage technology.
Serbian authorities have used forensic products purchased from the Israeli company Cellebrite to unlock and extract data from mobile devices belonging to journalists and social media activists.
A new spyware tool designated “NoviSpy” has been deployed to infect these devices, enabling the Serbian internal security service to monitor and suppress critical voices.
The methods employed bear the unmistakable signature of Israeli technology and training. The personal connections between the two regimes run deep.
Asaf Eisin, an Israeli consultant, has been described as the main architect of Vučić’s victorious election campaigns.
His role extends beyond mere political consulting; he is widely considered Vučić’s secretive strategist, providing the Serbian president with the kind of sophisticated campaign management techniques developed in the occupied territories.
The Serbian opposition has characterized Eisin as an “agency for winning elections,” and his track record across multiple political campaigns in the Balkans supports this assessment.
In September 2024, while the Israeli regime faced increasing international isolation over its genocidal actions in Gaza, the regime’s president, Isaac Herzog, paid an official visit to Belgrade, meeting with top Serbian officials.
The timing was significant: the Israeli regime was under diplomatic pressure worldwide, yet Vučić welcomed Herzog as a gesture of solidarity.
Foreign policy analysts noted that Serbia saw this as an opportunity to demonstrate its alignment with Washington’s closest West Asian ally, a calculated move to curry favor with the incoming Trump administration.
This alignment was formalized in September 2020 through the Washington Agreement, in which Serbia committed to opening a chamber of commerce office and a state office in Jerusalem al-Quds.
The move was hailed in Tel Aviv as “an important and courageous step,” while critics noted that it placed Serbia firmly on the side of the occupation and against Palestinian sovereignty.
The United Arab Emirates, which normalized relations with the Israeli regime in 2020, has emerged as a significant investor in Serbia, while also serving as a conduit for technology transfer and military cooperation.
The connection to the UAE, brokered through the same Washington Agreement, has created an axis that runs from Abu Dhabi through Tel Aviv to Belgrade.
This triangular relationship has allowed Serbia to access advanced defense technologies while providing the Israeli regime with a European production and logistics hub.
Elbit Systems: A company surrounded by global controversy
Elbit Systems, the Israeli military firm at the center of the Serbian drone factory deal, has accumulated a staggering record of international controversies spanning human rights violations, financial divestment campaigns, grassroots activism, and legal challenges.
The company generates approximately 90 percent of its revenue from military activities and is deeply integrated into the Israeli regime’s military apparatus, making it a focal point of criticism amid the ongoing genocide in Gaza or the occupied West Bank.
One of the longest-running controversies concerns Elbit’s involvement in infrastructure tied to the Israeli occupation, particularly the surveillance systems installed along the separation wall in the occupied West Bank.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued an advisory opinion in 2004 declaring the wall contrary to international law, yet Elbit continued to supply technology for its operation.
This triggered early international backlash. In 2009, Norway’s sovereign wealth fund divested from Elbit, with the finance minister stating at the time: “We do not want to finance companies that contribute so directly to violations of international humanitarian law.”
Similar decisions followed from Danish and Swedish financial institutions.
The Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement has made Elbit a primary target, noting that the company’s technology contributes directly to horrendous human rights violations against Palestinians in Gaza and the occupied territories.
These campaigns have achieved tangible results. HSBC withdrew its investment from Elbit in 2018 after the company acquired IMI Systems, which manufactures cluster munitions.
In 2026, a major Canadian investment arm divested from Elbit following sustained protests over its role in supplying equipment used in the Gaza genocide.
A UN Special Rapporteur report published in June 2025 listed Elbit among companies profiting from the genocide in Gaza. The report specifically mentioned drones developed and supplied by Elbit, describing how they operate alongside warplanes during bombing campaigns, used to monitor Palestinians and gather intelligence on targets.
The report concluded that “drones, hexacopters and quadcopters have become ubiquitous killing machines in the skies over Gaza.”
Direct action activism has targeted Elbit facilities worldwide. In the United Kingdom, groups such as Palestine Action have broken into and occupied Elbit-linked sites. The 2024 Filton facility break-in caused significant damage and led to arrests and high-profile court cases.
In 2025, Elbit closed a UK facility after sustained protests, a symbolic victory for activists demonstrating that reputational and military costs can affect even large arms firms.
In Spain, a steel shipment linked to Elbit’s subsidiary IMI Systems was canceled following protests. In France, the government barred Israeli military firms, including Elbit, from displaying offensive weapons at the Paris Air Show in 2025, citing the genocide in Gaza.
In 2025, a NATO-affiliated procurement agency barred Elbit from contracts due to a corruption investigation, suggesting that the company’s liabilities extend beyond activist campaigns into formal military-sector governance.
Meanwhile, in North Macedonia, Elbit’s involvement in “Safe City” surveillance systems has raised concerns about mass surveillance, transparency, and potential misuse, extending the ethical debate beyond armed conflict into civil liberties and digital rights.
Hermes 900: Capabilities and role in the aggression against Iran
The Hermes 900 unmanned aerial vehicle, produced by Elbit Systems, has proven to be the most important drone in the Israeli regime’s inventory for long-range strikes, and its performance during the recent US-Israeli aggression against Iran demonstrated both its strategic value and its acute vulnerabilities.
As a medium-altitude, long-endurance platform, the Hermes 900 can remain airborne for over 30 to 40 hours, operating at high altitudes that allow it to monitor vast areas without requiring frequent refueling.
This endurance is enhanced by satellite communications, enabling beyond-line-of-sight control and real-time data transmission across distances that would be impossible for ground-controlled systems.
The drone’s long-range capability made it particularly suitable for surveillance missions far from Israeli-occupied territories, including monitoring Iranian military infrastructure and tracking the movements of the Axis of Resistance forces throughout the region.
The Hermes 900 is equipped with sophisticated intelligence-gathering systems, including electro-optical and infrared sensors, synthetic aperture radar, and signals intelligence tools.
These allow it to detect troop movements, missile systems, and communication signals, even at night or in poor weather conditions.
Crucially, the Hermes 900 can designate targets using laser systems and relay precise coordinates, enabling fighter jets or other platforms—including long-range cruise missiles—to conduct strikes based on the intelligence it gathers.
This targeting capability made the drone a critical component of the regime’s aggression against Iranian infrastructure during the war that began on February 28, 2026.
The cost to the Israeli regime was still catastrophic. The largest number of Israeli drones shot down during the recent aggression were of the Hermes 900 type—approximately 20 units, with several more downed in 2025.
No official figure exists for how many Hermes 900 units the Israeli regime originally possessed, but estimates place the number in the dozens, somewhere between 25 and 50.
Some military analysts estimate that the attrition rate for the Hermes 900 fleet may have exceeded 80 percent during the unprovoked war of aggression.
The blow was so severe that the Israeli Air Force reportedly avoided deploying its remaining units over Iran for extended periods, effectively ceding the skies to Iranian air defenses and forcing Tel Aviv to rely on less capable platforms.
This degradation of Israel’s most important long-range surveillance and targeting asset represented a strategic victory for Iran’s air defense network, which had demonstrated the ability to detect, track, and destroy even the most advanced unmanned platforms.
Strategic logic: Foreign production as a hedge against Iranian retaliation
The timing of Serbia’s drone factory agreement with Elbit Systems is not coincidental.
The contract was signed in August 2025, a month and a half after the first US-Israeli aggression against Iran, when it became clear to Tel Aviv that Iranian ballistic missiles could threaten domestic production facilities.
The Israeli regime has since been insisting on peripheral supply chains, offering its clients relatively outdated surveillance technologies while using the arrangement to secure aircraft platforms for new aggressions throughout the region.
This strategy is not new. According to military analysts, the Israeli regime agreed to cooperate with India on Hermes 900 production as early as 2018 through a joint venture between Adani Defence & Aerospace and Elbit Systems, with a dedicated UAV facility in Hyderabad becoming operational in December 2018 for producing components.
By approximately 2020, this facility had expanded to assembling and exporting Hermes 900 units, making India the first production site outside the occupied territories.
Military analysts estimate that India produced approximately 20 of the estimated 50 Hermes 900 drones in the Israeli fleet, meaning that nearly 40 percent of Tel Aviv’s long-range unmanned surveillance capability was manufactured outside the occupied territories, a significant hedge against the vulnerability of domestic production facilities to Iranian retaliation.
In 2024, India formally fielded its own version, the Drishti-10 Starliner, with the first indigenously assembled unit delivered to the Indian Navy in January 2024.
The Swiss experience with Hermes 900 production has been far less successful, offering a cautionary tale for Serbia. Switzerland acquired the drones in 2015 but required extensive modifications through the Swiss partner RUAG to enable safe operation in civilian airspace.
The integration of a detect-and-avoid system proved extremely difficult, leading to repeated delays that pushed full operational capability to around 2029.
Some delivered drones could not meet expected performance standards, and one notable incident involved structural issues that caused a drone to break apart during testing.
The Swiss government was forced to scale back its requirements, abandoning certain advanced features while costs continued to rise.
Parliamentary committees raised doubts about whether RUAG and Elbit could fix ongoing problems, with some officials discussing potential cancellation.
For a neutral country like Switzerland, the deal also sparked debate about whether such partnerships compromise neutrality or align the country too closely with foreign military-industrial interests.
Brazil’s experience offers a different set of challenges. While the Hermes 900 is assembled locally through AEL Sistemas, a Brazilian subsidiary of Elbit, the program has been plagued by technical reliability issues.
Multiple crashes have occurred, including one during the 2024 floods in Rio Grande do Sul when a drone used in rescue operations crashed due to a technical problem.
In March 2026, another Hermes 900 crashed during a military exercise in Mato Grosso do Sul, reportedly leaving the Brazilian Air Force with only one operational unit at the time.
These incidents have raised concerns about fleet fragility and whether Brazil is over-reliant on a complex foreign system that it does not fully control.
Even with local assembly, critical components, software, and maintenance expertise remain tied to Israeli suppliers, creating a structural dependency that critics argue limits Brazil’s technological sovereignty.
Serbian gamble: Risks and domestic opposition
Within Serbia, the drone factory agreement has generated significant controversy.
Military observers point out that Elbit will retain complete control over intellectual property, meaning that while Serbian workers may assemble drones, the country will not gain the ability to independently produce or replicate the systems.
Petar Vojinović, an aviation analyst, explained that the most likely arrangement gives Elbit control over sales and intellectual property, with Yugoimport merely participating in production and collecting revenue percentages from sales.
“It is expected that Elbit will retain complete control over the intellectual property,” he noted.
“Thus, Elbit’s intellectual property will be protected, and Serbia will most likely not be able to produce or replicate the drones that will be manufactured.”
Other analysts emphasized that the key issue is knowledge transfer, arguing that If part of the development and production occurs in Serbia, it means training personnel, access to technology, and the possibility of further development without complete dependence on partners.
The political dimension of the deal has also drawn sharp criticism. UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese, during a visit to Serbia in March 2026, described Serbia as “one of Israel’s strongest and most determined allies, without any shame.”
Serbian civil society organizations have raised concerns that by hosting an Elbit production facility, Serbia could become a legitimate military target in any future conflict involving the Israeli regime.
Unlike Croatia, which has secured its position through NATO and EU membership, Serbia remains outside both alliances, lacking the protective umbrella that would deter potential retaliation.
The Serbian people are widely critical of their authorities, with many claiming that officials are reaping lucrative commissions from such controversial agreements.
The fact that the factory may be located on property associated with a media mogul closely tied to the ruling party has only intensified suspicions about corruption and self-dealing.
While Vučić has portrayed the deal as a triumph of Serbian diplomacy and technological advancement, critics see it as a risky alignment with a pariah regime that could expose Serbia to diplomatic isolation or worse.
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.”
UAE to close its flagship Burj Al Arab hotel for 1.5 years after Iranian strikes
Press TV – April 15, 2026
The United Arab Emirates is to close its flagship Burj Al Arab hotel for one and a half years amid a sharp drop in tourist visits to the Persian Gulf country, caused by Iran’s retaliatory attacks against US bases in the region, a report says.
The Wednesday report by Middle East Eye said that Burj Al Arab’s owner company said in a statement a day earlier that it would begin a lengthy refurbishment operation amid a drop-off in tourism activity in the UAE and the wider region as a result of Iranian operations.
The Reuters news agency also quoted a staff member of the hotel as saying that guests with prior bookings will be accommodated in alternative nearby hotels during the closure period.
The famous sail-shaped hotel which is located in the city of Dubai, suffered damage from the unsuccessful interception of an Iranian drone in March, when Iran was carrying out attacks on US bases and interests in regional countries.
The attacks came after the US and Israel launched an aggression on Iran, bombing civilian targets across the country.
Iran swiftly responded by targeting US bases and companies across the region, including in the UAE, a key US ally in the region that allowed its soil to be used for attacks against the Islamic Republic.
Burj Al Arab’s owner company admitted in its statement that Iranian attacks on the UAE and other countries in the Persian Gulf had caused an exodus of foreign expats and tourists from the region.
Reports say that Iranian reprisal attacks have caused stock markets in Dubai and Abu Dhabi to lose more than $120 billion since the start of the US-Israeli aggression on Iran in late February.
The UAE has also been forced to cancel some 18,400 flights over the period.
Iran carried out nearly 1,500 attacks on targets in the UAE, reports suggest, making the country the second most notable target of such attacks after the Israeli regime over March and early April.
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.
Sri Lanka secures supplies of Russia oil – minister
RT | April 7, 2026
Sri Lanka will purchase crude oil from Russia after reaching an agreement with Moscow amid the energy crisis spurred by the Middle East conflict, the island nation’s transport minister, Bimal Rathnayake, has said.
Rathnayake told TASS on Monday that “energy is our priority today,” adding that the US-Israeli war on Iran has triggered a disruption in supplies to Sri Lanka.
“Russia’s deputy energy minister [Andrey Rudenko] visited Sri Lanka a few days ago. The deputy foreign minister has also visited Sri Lanka. They reached an agreement on oil supplies to the country,” Rathnayake told the news agency.
He added that the first crude supplies from Russia are expected in mid-April.
“Technical work is currently underway at the company level, and financial issues are being discussed, how to conduct transactions. But at the political level, almost everything has been done,” the minister said.
Rathnayake added that although Sri Lanka exports tea to Russia, a good “logistic system” is essential for crude imports.
Mayura Neththikumarage, a top Ceylon Petroleum Corporation (Ceypetco) official, said last week that the island nation has only two places where fuel can be unloaded. Ceypetco is the only refiner in Sri Lanka.
Neththikumarage has also indicated that fuel shipments for April and May have been secured and that prices might come down marginally in June.
The South Asian nation gets most of its crude from the United Arab Emirates (UAE), though refined petroleum products are imported from India and Singapore, Bloomberg reported.
In March, Sri Lanka received 38,000 tons of fuel from India.
Colombo has hiked fuel prices and imposed rationing to address the supply disruption.
After the Middle East conflict erupted, Russia expressed willingness to be a key energy partner for South Asian nations, including India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka.
Bilateral trade between Russia and Sri Lanka stood at $700 million in 2024.
Under fire, Moscow and Tehran close ranks
US–Israeli escalation is accelerating, rather than weakening, the Russia–Iran axis, reshaping the Caspian into a contested strategic corridor.
By Hazal Yalin | The Cradle | April 6, 2026
Hours after the US and Israel – increasingly referred to in some circles as the “Epstein coalition” – attacked Iran on 28 February, Russia’s Foreign Ministry issued a sharply worded response, describing the assault as “a deliberate, premeditated, and unprovoked act of armed aggression against a sovereign and independent UN member state, in direct violation of the fundamental principles and norms of international law.”
When interpreting diplomatic texts in general – and Russia’s statements in particular, given its near-obsessive adherence to traditional diplomacy – the importance of terminology is often overlooked. The concept of “aggression” is not an ordinary one; it signifies a violation of the very spirit of the UN Charter, especially Article 2(4).
A firm response to aggression
Just as significant as its use is its absence elsewhere. Aside from Russia, North Korea, and Cuba, no other state initially used the term “aggression” in condemning the attack—not even China, which only adopted the wording after 2 March.
This framing has been consistent across Russian statements and in President Vladimir Putin’s diplomatic readouts. At the same time, Moscow has walked a careful line in its engagement with Persian Gulf monarchies.
While avoiding endorsement of Iranian strikes on US and Israeli-linked targets in the Gulf, Russian officials have repeatedly stressed that the central issue remains US–Israeli aggression—and that criticism of Iran cannot be allowed to obscure this.
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov captured this balance on 5 March during the Ambassadorial Roundtable on the Ukraine crisis. While opposing Iranian strikes on Gulf states and questioning their military utility, he warned that “Simply saying that Iran has no right to do anything effectively means openly encouraging the United States and Israel to continue what they are doing.”
In line with this approach, Russia (and China) did not veto the UN Security Council resolution on 11 March condemning Iran. However, Russia’s permanent representative to the UN, Vasiliy Nebenzya, stated that the resolution was one-sided and “confused cause and effect.”
This stance is largely linked to the UAE’s critical role in facilitating capital movement for Russia under western sanctions.
Israeli irritation and escalation
Such an uncompromising definition of aggression – and the Kremlin’s apparent decision to avoid even routine contact with the Israeli government – was never likely to pass unnoticed in Tel Aviv.
The first notable rupture came via an interview with Israeli army spokesperson Anna Ukolova on Radio RBK. Referencing reports that Israel had hacked Tehran’s traffic cameras to track Iranian officials, she was asked whether similar access existed in Moscow. Her response was striking:
“The elimination of key figures – the leadership of all these proxy groups, including Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei – already demonstrates that we possess quite formidable capabilities, and that no one who seeks to do us harm will go unscathed.”
“Then again, the question is: Who would want to do us harm? I hope that, at this moment, Moscow does not wish Israel ill. I want to believe that.”
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s extremist government has traditionally adopted a cautious and diplomatic stance in relations with Russia. Even if it had decided to shift toward open hostility, one would expect it to do so through diplomatic, economic, or even, at most, fifth-column activities within Russia. Ukolova’s direct threat – drawing a parallel of “elimination” against the Russian leadership – was unprecedented.
Attack on Bandar Anzali
The remark itself might have been dismissed as bluster were it not followed by something far more consequential: Israel’s reported strike on Iran’s Bandar Anzali Port on the Caspian coast.
The attack was first reported on 18 March by Israel’s Channel 12 as an “unusual attack” carried out 1,300 kilometers from Israeli territory.
Curiously, western media remained silent on the matter for some time. In Russia, Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov initially stated on 20 March that he had no information about it. When asked how Moscow would view a situation where the conflict escalated to engulf the Caspian Sea region, he said: “Russia would view it extremely negatively.”
Later that same day, Russia’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova confirmed the strike, warning that the Caspian Sea basin has always been regarded “as a safe zone of peace and cooperation. The aggressors’ reckless and irresponsible actions pose a threat of dragging Caspian states into an armed conflict.”
She also stressed that Bandar Anzali is “an important trade and logistics hub that is actively used in Russian–Iranian trade, including for food deliveries. The strike has affected the economic interests of Russia and the other Caspian states that maintain transport communications with Iran via that port.” Two days later, Peskov noted that the conflict was “showing a tendency to expand its boundaries.”
Because there is a general tendency to follow events through the lens of London or Washington, The story only gained wider traction on 24 March, when the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) ran it as a headline: “Israel Hits Russian–Iranian Weapons Smuggling Route in the Caspian Sea.”
Casting a sovereign logistics corridor as “smuggling” recodes the strike as pre-emptive policing rather than escalation. The same report noted that the attack threatened Iran’s food supply and signaled Israel’s capacity to inflict broader civilian hardship – language that treats civilian suffering as a strategic message.
Russia’s public response was strong – and predictably so – for two reasons.
The Caspian legal order
First, the legal status of the Caspian Sea. Unlike other bodies of water, the Caspian falls outside the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Its governance is defined instead by the 2018 Convention on the Legal Status of the Caspian Sea, agreed upon by its five littoral states.
Under this framework, all decisions concerning the Caspian must be made jointly by the five littoral states – Russia, Iran, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan. Non-littoral states are prohibited from maintaining a military presence (Article 3/6), and littoral states cannot allow their territory to be used for aggression against one another (3/7). Navigation security is a shared responsibility (3/9).
An attack carried out by a non-littoral actor via the Caspian undermines not only these provisions but the broader stability they are meant to guarantee.
While no explicit breach of Articles 3/6 or 3/7 has been formally identified, the presence of Israeli, US, and British military and intelligence networks – particularly in Azerbaijan – is widely acknowledged. This latent infrastructure adds a further layer of tension.
The strike on Bandar Anzali directly engages Article 3/9. It represents a breach of navigational security by an external actor, placing responsibility on all littoral states. Yet, aside from Russia and Iran, none have responded – an omission that speaks as loudly as any formal position.
Trade routes and strategic depth
The second factor is more straightforward: geography. The Caspian is the primary trade corridor between Russia and Iran, and Bandar Anzali is one of its key nodes.
This trade is not limited to civilian goods. Since the signing of the “comprehensive strategic partnership agreement” on 17 January 2025, it is widely understood that military logistics also transit this route.
The agreement was signed in Moscow on 17 January 2025 by Russian President Vladimir Putin and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian. It was approved by the Russian State Duma on 8 April 2025, signed by Putin on 21 April 2025, approved by the Iranian parliament on 21 May 2025, endorsed by the Guardian Council on 11 June 2025, and entered into force on 2 October 2025.
As previously noted by The Cradle, the agreement is not a binding mutual defense pact but a statement of strategic intent. Russia’s threshold for military support hinges on legal framing – specifically, whether an action qualifies as “aggression” in terms Moscow recognizes. Iran, for its part, has resisted any arrangement that would allow foreign military use of its territory.
Still, the agreement is far from symbolic. It outlines extensive cooperation in defense, security, and intelligence, and explicitly commits both sides to countering third-party interference across the Caspian, Central Asia, the Caucasus, and West Asia.
Articles 4, 5, and 6 set out broad military and security cooperation frameworks, while Articles 4/1 and 4/2 specifically formalize intelligence exchange, experience-sharing, and operational coordination between the two countries’ security and intelligence services.
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.”
Official reveals evidence of Arab states’ involvement in US-Israeli war on Iran
Press TV – April 3, 2026
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei has revealed hard evidence on the involvement of some Persian Gulf Arab states in the unprovoked US-Israeli aggression against the Islamic Republic.
In a post on social media platform X on Friday, Baghaei published photos of a drone, which was shot down in southern Iran on Thursday, noting that only two regional states possess this drone, without naming them.
“This drone was downed by our brave armed forces over the beloved city of Hafiz and Saadi, Shiraz,” he said, referring to the two prominent Persian poets.
“It could be another (hard) evidence of direct participation and active complicity of some states of the region in US-Israel crime of aggression and war crimes against Iran,” Baghaei said.
The spokesman demanded “clarification” by “either of the TWO STATES of the region that are the users of this drone!”
The downed drone initially appeared to be an American MQ-9. However, military experts say it is actually a Wing Loong-2 drone, which is operated by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
Last month, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Iran’s neighboring countries should “promptly” clarify their position regarding their role in the “slaughter” of Iranian civilians by the Israeli regime and the United States.
In a post on his X account in mid-March, Araghchi said hundreds of Iranian civilians, including children, have been killed in Israel-US bombings.
“Reports claim that some neighboring states that host US forces and permit attacks on Iran are also actively encouraging this slaughter,” the top Iranian diplomat stated.
He said positions should be promptly clarified on the mass killing of Iranian civilians.
The US and Israel started the latest round of unlawful military aggression on Iran on February 28, some eight months after they carried out unprovoked attacks on the country.
The attacks led to the martyrdom of Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei and hundreds of Iranian civilians, including women and children, as well as several senior military commanders.
Iran has carried out extensive retaliatory attacks on US assets in the region and on locations in the Israeli-occupied territories since the very first day of the US–Israeli aggression.
The Islamic Republic says it respects the sovereignty and territorial integrity of its neighbors and that its reprisal attacks are directed at US assets and bases on their soil.
It has also warned regional countries not to allow their territory to be used for attacks against Iran.
Bahrain faces scrutiny for opposition crackdown after detainee killed
Al Mayadeen | April 3, 2026
A Bahraini man detained during last month’s missile strikes on the kingdom has died in custody under contested circumstances, sparking renewed scrutiny of the country’s security practices amid wartime tensions.
Mohammad al-Mousawi, a Bahraini national who was detained as Bahrain came under attack from Iran, disappeared for several days before his family was contacted and asked to retrieve his body from a military hospital, relatives said. They reported that his body bore multiple injuries, including slash marks, bruising, and wounds on the soles of his feet.
His death has quickly become a flashpoint in the country, with critics accusing authorities of reverting to tactics used to suppress protests during the 2011 uprising.
Bahrain, which hosts the US Navy’s Fifth Fleet, has detained dozens of individuals since the outbreak of the war, including people accused of:
- filming strikes and demonstrations,
- expressing support for Iran against US-Israeli aggression
- alleged espionage.
“They want to make sure nobody challenges the state’s narrative and silence any voices not telling the story of the war how they want it to be told,” said Sayed Ahmed al-Wadaei of the Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy, a London-based advocacy group.
Bahraini Interior Ministry dismisses clear evidence
The Interior Ministry claimed al-Mousawi had been arrested on suspicion of spying for Iran, an allegation his family denies. Authorities also dismissed circulating images of his injuries as “inaccurate and misleading,” while insisting that the country is acting to protect national security.
In a statement, the government rejected accusations of sectarian discrimination, saying all actions were carried out in accordance with the law and that independent bodies are responsible for investigating claims of abuse.
Al-Mousawi had previously spent around 11 years in prison as part of a 21-year sentence on charges widely regarded as false, including accusations of arson and alleged membership in a “terrorist cell”. His family and rights groups have clarified that these charges are false and fabricated.
Severe abuse evident on al-Mousawi, Bahrain denies the obvious
A relative and a close family friend said Mohammad al-Mousawi disappeared on March 19 after attending prayers with two companions who also remain missing. Both spoke to the Associated Press on condition of anonymity, citing fears of reprisals. Rights groups have long accused Bahraini authorities of carrying out enforced disappearances.
On March 27, the family said they were called to collect his body. A relative who viewed it at the morgue reported signs of severe abuse, including injuries consistent with whipping using cables, as well as apparent electrocution and cigarette burns.
The Associated Press reviewed images of the body that showed marks consistent with accounts from five witnesses who said they saw it in person, all speaking anonymously. Bahrain’s Interior Ministry said al-Mousawi had been held by the National Security Agency, whose arrest powers were restored in 2017 after being revoked following the 2011 unrest.
The Ministry dismissed the images as “inaccurate and misleading,” while a military hospital attributed the death to a heart attack. His family said he had no known preexisting conditions. Ahmed Banasr of Physicians for Human Rights said the injuries were consistent with blunt force trauma, noting that wounds on the soles of the feet suggested abuse rather than a fall or fight.
Bahrain’s long record of repression, violence seeps into al-Mousawi’s case
Human rights organizations say the detention and death of Mohammad al-Mousawi mark a new phase in Bahrain’s long-running crackdown on opposition, which peaked during the 2011 protests. That year, the ruling Al Khalifa family suppressed mass demonstrations with support from Saudi and Emirati forces.
“It remains to be seen how far the government will go in its crackdown on people,” said exiled Bahraini activist Maryam al-Khawaja, whose father is imprisoned in Bahrain. “What we are witnessing now is certainly far more severe than in recent years,” she added.
Since the start of the war on Iran, at least 41 people, including migrant workers, have been arrested on accusations of publishing images of Iranian strikes. Some face charges of “treason”, which can carry penalties ranging from life imprisonment to the death penalty. In one case, 21-year-old Hussein Futeil and a friend were detained after posting videos of themselves waving a portrait of Iranian leader Sayyed Ali Khamenei during a protest outside the US Embassy.
According to his father, Naji Futeil, the two briefly reappeared after hours of questioning before Hussein later informed his family he faced five charges, including misuse of social media, incitement of hatred, and treason. Rights advocates say the cases reflect a broader effort to silence opposition, with Sayyed Ahmed al-Wadaei stating authorities aim to ensure no one challenges the state’s narrative.
UAE rejects report claiming it is ready to join war on Iran to reopen Hormuz
MEMO | April 2, 2026
The United Arab Emirates has rejected reports suggesting that it is willing to join the war against Iran in order to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, saying such claims are misleading and do not reflect its actual position.
In a statement issued by the UAE Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Abu Dhabi said: “Recent reporting suggesting a shift in the UAE’s posture is misleading.” The ministry stressed that the UAE maintains a defensive posture focused on protecting its sovereignty, population and infrastructure, while reserving the right to self-defence against what it described as “ongoing unlawful and unprovoked attacks.”
The statement came in response to a report by The Wall Street Journal, which claimed that the UAE “is willing to join the fight” to reopen the strategic waterway by force.
Abu Dhabi said that the Strait of Hormuz remains a vital artery for the global economy and reiterated that freedom of navigation there must be preserved. However, it stopped far short of endorsing direct participation in the war, instead saying it is prepared to support collective international efforts to safeguard maritime security, in coordination with partners and in line with international law.
The UAE’s denial also undercuts claims that Gulf Arab states have been pushing US President Donald Trump and Israel to escalate the conflict. Those narratives appear increasingly detached from reality. The Financial Times reported that Saudi Arabia has become deeply frustrated with Trump’s erratic handling of the war, including threats to strike Iranian infrastructure, suggestions that Gulf states should pay for the conflict and repeated uncertainty over Washington’s endgame.
The same FT report said Riyadh blames Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government for igniting the conflict and fears being left to deal with the consequences of a wounded but more militarised Iran. It also reported growing Saudi unease over the lack of clear US strategy, as well as anger at Trump’s public remarks about Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman.
Rather than cheering escalation, Gulf states appear increasingly disillusioned with Washington and alarmed by the fallout from a war they did not want. The UAE statement and Saudi frustration together suggest that the region’s Arab powers are far more concerned with containing the conflict than joining it.
READ: Qatar’s emir warns Trump of ‘serious consequences’ from war with Iran
Featured Video
Israeli Military Medics Are Training On Dead Americans
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
A decade of lies: The US-funded biolab denial saga
RT | May 15, 2026
Russia’s allegations that the US funded clandestine biological laboratories near its borders – claims denied until recently by Washington – have remained a persistent flashpoint in the steadily deteriorating relationship between Russia and the West for nearly a decade.
The biolabs affair was revealed in a 2017 exposé by RT that questioned a shady US military tender seeking the genetic material of living Russians. Over the years, Moscow has raised allegations against Washington of conducting clandestine bio-research, including potential WMD development and illicit human testing, in a network of labs located across multiple nations, the bulk of which operated in Ukraine. The claims were met with a blanket denial in the West, which repeatedly dismissed them as “Russian propaganda.”
This abruptly changed the past week when US Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard said that her department had identified more than 120 US-funded biological laboratories in 30 countries, with over a third of them located in Ukraine. The agency is now working to “identify where these labs are, what pathogens they contain, and what ‘research’ is being conducted to end dangerous gain-of-function research that threatens the health and wellbeing of the American people and the world,” according to Gabbard.
RT looks back at the timeline of the biolabs saga and the US denial of its existence until now. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Trump’s Failed Mission to China
- Iranian military official warns ‘safe’ US targets now within range
- US Funded Network of High-Security Biolabs in Ukraine
- US’s war of choice on Iran imposed avoidable costs on Americans: FM
- Russia-West Confrontation Fast Approaching /Dmitry Polyanskiy
- Intelligence Agency Investigating CIA Whistleblower Allegations, Official Confirms
- AIPAC Favorite Ed Gallrein Wants to Bring Back the Draft
- A decade of lies: The US-funded biolab denial saga
- Mainstream US media complicit in selling Gaza genocide, sweeping new analysis finds
- US Overseas Biolabs Probe Aims to Rein in ‘Deep State’ Bureaucracy
- If Americans Knew
- Israel kills a Hamas leader, plus 3 women, 1 child, and others (during “ceasefire”) – Daily Update
- We Can’t Curb Nuclear Proliferation If We Don’t Acknowledge Israel’s Nukes
- 43,000 people in Gaza suffered life-changing injuries since October 2023: WHO
- Israel’s 7 October narrative under fresh scrutiny after army accused of deleting footage
- Ex-CENTCOM chief headlines lavish Israeli-American Council gala
- Israel’s 7 October rape hoax gets a 300-page reboot
- Chants of ‘death to Arabs,’ calls for destruction of Al-Aqsa Mosque in racist Jerusalem Day march
- What Fuels My Revolutionary Optimism This Nakba Day
- Gaza elders who survived the Nakba reflect on being displaced by Israel again, 78 years later
- Israel (with US assistance) perpetuates the Nakba; Palestinians remain resilient – Daily Update
- No Tricks Zone
- How Once Hardcore Climate Alarmist Lucy Biggers Realized It Was All A Scam, Brainwashing
- German Expert: “No Climate Crisis” …”Warming Generally Better For Humanity”
- New Paleo Research: Modern ‘Climate Change’ Has Had No Apparent Impact On Precipitation Patterns
- 90% Subsidized… Bielefeld Germany’s €7 Million Hydrogen Garbage Truck Fleet Sits Idle
- New Study: Declining Trends In 1980-2023 Tropical Cyclone Frequency, Accumulated Energy
- 46 IPCC Scientists Break Rank, Publicly Challenge Long-Standing Dogmatic Climate Claims
- Another Study Links Warming To Cloud Forcing, Shortwave Radiation, Natural Atmospheric Circulation
- Wind Energy Is Toxic, Hazardous To Human Health, Scientific Review Shows
- Oversupply Of Volatile Solar Energy Leads To Record NEGATIVE Prices!
- New Study: Extreme Heat Records, Heatwaves, Extreme Cold Records Declining Across US Since 1899
Aletho News 