As Cheney’s chief adviser and enforcer – “Dick Cheney’s Dick Cheney” – Libby provided a direct channel to the White House for the “intelligence” produced by Feith’s office and Chalabi’s purported “defectors,” much of which then appeared in speeches by the vice president and other top administration officials, without being vetted through the normal intelligence processes. Libby became notorious in the intelligence community for his frequent visits to CIA headquarters to question – some say harass – analysts about their work, culminating in frantic, last-minute efforts to include a particularly dubious piece of intelligence linking Saddam to al-Qaida in Secretary of State Colin Powell’s infamous address to the U.N. General Assembly on the eve of the invasion.
Book review: Boiling Point, How America Brought War to Ukraine
By Tim Kirby | Strategic Culture Foundation | November 14, 2026
Did Vladimir Putin just wake up one day on the wrong side of the bed and decide to invade Ukraine in February of 2022 or is there a lot more to this single decision that has been reshaping the 21st century geopolitical landscape? Obviously, from the way that I just posed the question you can see that I am on the side that views the causes for the war in Ukraine to be very deep, long-term, historical and consciously nefarious, and most importantly, not from within the halls of the Kremlin. So it was a pleasure to take a look at the book “Boiling Point, How America Brought War to Ukraine” by author Stephen Kinzer, who like myself, also believes that the real reasons behind military conflicts around the world are not what CNN and the BBC have been telling you. The main thesis of this book was stated clearly by its creator; the war “may have been illegal, but it was definitely not unprovoked.”
Financing terror with American wealth since 1945
The thing that unites terrorists, journalists, and activists is that they all have to be financed by ‘someone’ in order to keep their activities going. Kinzer rightfully points out that the terror acts of Stepan Bandera, and others of his ilk, right after WWII, used for the vague goal of destabilizing the USSR, were only worth the American money if one wanted to usher in a Cold War. It is true that at the time communist revolutionary action was still a hot commodity. Right after the big war ended there would be a whole wave of mid-century red revolutions, and thus the USA did need to defend itself from a similar fate. But did financing Bandera actually provide this defense, or instead did it only justify commie terror against the capitalists even more so?
It is important to note that the Russians often refer to the post Maidan regime in Kiev as the “Banderite Regime” because this one particular mass murderer of civilians sits atop the pantheon of Ukrainian heroes. Bandera could have been left to history as one of many ugly faces that sided with Hitler and committed atrocities, but sadly, Washington chose to keep the PR campaign for this figure going for nearly a century now. Ukrainian nationalism has always been a well-financed tool to be used against Russia, and that is why old murderous Stevie gets a lot of hype and peaceful poets do not. Ukrainian nationalism that is not to be used as cannon fodder against the Kremlin has no value to Washington.
This doubling down on celebrating Hitler’s terrorists as national heroes is one of the reasons why, beyond pragmatic ‘demilitarization’, the Kremlin has wanted ‘denazificiation’ of Ukraine since the very beginning of the Special Military Operation. This is not a factor of “everyone I don’t like is a Nazi” but an actual core factor in Putin’s decision making. It is critically important that the author of Boiling Point put major focus on the financing of terror against Russia for generations without any long-term logic that could be justified to the American people who paid for it.
The Cold War should have ended in 1991
Boiling Point exceptionally sheds light onto the fact that NATO expansion was a cause for the war in Ukraine that almost everyone saw coming, even in the West. Since the end of the Cold War in 1991 all of the Kremlin’s pleas to keep NATO far from its borders were ignored. And, by 2008 it had already been mostly decided that Ukraine and Georgia were going to be prepped to become alliance members.
If one views the West as the benevolent bringer of prosperity, democracy, puppies and rainbows then NATO expansion should not have been seen as a threat. However, the Russians saw Serbia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya etc. all being blown to bits by the benevolent ones for dubious reasons. Kinzer does a good job of expressing how the Kremlin saw all of these NATO expansions as a massive growing threat that was being designed to ultimately and finally destroy Russia and Russians entirely. The whole ‘Biolab’ network and now ‘Torture Chamber’ scandal are very strong evidence that the Russians were correct on this point. The fact that numerous Western politicians have claimed that the war in Ukraine is good because Russia is being weakened while NATO troops are not dying (in large numbers) is a great thing from a cost/benefit analysis standpoint, only proves Kinzer’s point completely.
All color revolutions are stained by foreign influence
Perhaps 30 years ago in a pre-internet world we could be logically so naïve as to see color revolutions as being as natural of a phenomenon as rain or a sunset, but the times have changed. As I often say in my public speeches, “people don’t rise up themselves, they are risen up by outside forces” and the various revolutions in Ukraine are no exception. Oliver Stone’s “Ukraine on Fire” provides an excellent break down of just how the ironically named Revolution of Dignity, or in common parlance The Maidan, was orchestrated and executed by the West including Washington. Boiling Point also includes material about this critical aspect of why the War in Ukraine started, if there wasn’t money being pumped into a nationalist anti-Russian revolution in Kiev, things would have remained the way they were; calm and neutral. But then again, over time perhaps a ‘Resurgent Russia’ could have begun to drag Ukraine back home with soft power. That was something the Russophobes in the West could not accept under any circumstances. Supposedly, one criticism of Boiling Point is that it gives the Ukrainian side themselves, including the masses, no agency in these broad historical events. This criticism must come from a highly biased or extremely naïve schmuck, for countries do not commit suicide and act in direct contrast to their national interest when they have agency.
Biden could have negotiated, but didn’t
In December of 2021 the Russians submitted a list of demands for consideration in terms of how to redraw the security architecture of Europe. This was done in theory to make everyone happy and avoid war. As history notes Team Biden and their mighty Autopen unilaterally rejected every one of the Kremlin’s points without even discussing them or providing an explanation. The global hegemon does not negotiate with oil-pumping aboriginals, and thus the final chance for peace was thrown into the dumpster of history thanks to our good old friend hubris. Ironically, it looks like the exact same Kremlin security talking points are at least being humored and discussed by the American side as we speak. Potentially two million lives have been lost and many more millions displaced all for this whole theatre of the absurd to come full circle, right back to the discussions that should have happened in December, 2021.
A good thorough read
Boiling Point, How America Brought War to Ukraine by Stephen Kinzer presents a well-organized autopsy of the terrible foreign policy decisions that have led us to the bloody war in Ukraine and verge of nuclear apocalypse, especially from the American side. This book really explains to the reader what the media consciously does not. Give it a try.
Israel Revives The ‘Iranian Assassination Threat Against Trump’ Deception In A Desperate Bid To Restart The War
By Justin K.P. | The Dissident | November 14, 2026
Israel is clearly desperate to get Trump to restart the Iran war, and is pulling out every deception it can to further that goal.
The New York Times reported on November 3rd that “Israel has shared intelligence with the United States asserting that Iran is considering the use of chemical weapons against its adversaries”, a clearly fabricated claim, with the New York Times noting that “American officials see the Israeli intelligence as part of a pressure campaign by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government to persuade the Trump administration to return to major combat operations against Iran”, and that Gulf countries that Israel shared the “intelligence” with “believe Israel is trying to push the United States and its partners to return to a more intense phase of the war.”
With the recycled WMD deception clearly not working, Israel has moved on to another deception that historically has worked in getting Trump to ratchet up the war with Iran, the claim that Iran is going to kill him.
The Miriam Adelson-funded outlet Israel Hayom writes that , “The prospects of reaching an agreement between the US and Iran, even a preliminary one, have diminished significantly in recent days, partly because of intelligence the Mossad provided to the CIA indicating that Iran intends to target President Donald Trump and senior members of his administration. Senior Israeli and American officials told Israel Hayom that the threats were among the main factors behind Trump’s recent shift in his approach to negotiations with Tehran”.
Fabricated claims of an Iranian assassination attempt against Trump have been the primary deception used by Israeli intelligence and its Neo-conservative allies in the U.S. to draw Trump into the Iran war.
As journalists Max Blumenthal and Ken Silva exposed, the Iran assassination deception was first created by the FBI on the campaign trail of 2024, where FBI assets staged a sting operation entrapping Pakistani national Asif Merchant into supposedly agreeing to assassinate Trump for Iran.
“A closer look at the Merchant case reveals that at the very least… it was a highly controlled FBI sting operation that never posed a threat to Trump. More nefariously, records and whistleblower disclosures indicate that Merchant may have been the patsy in a case totally fabricated by the undercover agents”, Ken Silva noted.
All parties involved in the supposed “assassination attempt” outside of Asif Merchant were either undercover FBI assets or agents.
As Max Blumenthal documented, “Almost as soon as Merchant entered the US, the FBI introduced him to a confidential informant posing as a potential business partner and operating under the alias, Nadeem Ali. The informant had served as translator for the US military during its occupation of Afghanistan … Though Merchant did not propose any crimes, the FBI wiretapped a meeting between him and the informant, Ali, in a hotel room on June 3, 2024. There, Merchant was taped making a supposed ‘ finger gun’motion while mentioning an unspecified ‘opportunity’ … According to the FBI, Merchant had outlined a highly complex plot which required the hiring of two hitmen… Virtually penniless, Merchant was forced to gather the cash from an anonymous ‘associate,’ according to the DOJ indictment. Next, the FBI informant took him on a winding journey from Boston to New York City, where he allegedly handed the money to two other FBI informants posing as hit men.”
Israel capitalized on this apparent entrapment operation and took it a step further, making baseless claims that Iran was somehow involved in the serious assassination attempts against Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania, and at Mar-a-Lago.
As journalist Max Blumenthal reported:
On June 15, 2025, days after launching an unprovoked war on Iran, Netanyahu took to Fox News to manipulate Trump into joining the assault. The Israeli leader appeared to know exactly which psychological vulnerabilities to exploit.
“These people who chant death to America, tried to assassinate President Trump twice,” Netanyahu declared, asserting without a shred of evidence that Iran was behind both the Butler assassination attempt and the one at Mar a-Lago.
“Do you have intel that the assassination attempts on President Trump were directly from Iran?” a visibly startled Fox News host Bret Baier asked.
“Through proxies, yes. Through their intel, yes. They want to kill him,” stated Netanyahu with a cocksure gaze.
Following this deception, and the June 2025 bombing of Iran for Israel, the White House tweeted an image of Trump with the caption, “I was the hunted, now I’m the hunter,” apparently using the fabricated Iranian assassination threat to justify the war for Israel.
Prior to the launch of the war in Iran in February, Benjamin Netanyahu and his Neo-conservative allies such as Lindsey Graham heavily focused on the fabricated claims of Trump facing assassination attempts from Iran to get him to launch the war.
Reuters reported that shortly before starting the war with Iran, “Netanyahu, determined to move forward with an operation he had urged for decades, argued that there might never be a better chance to kill Khamenei and to avenge previous Iranian efforts to assassinate Trump”, adding that “the call amounted to the Israeli leader’s closing argument to his U.S. counterpart” and that “the three sources briefed on the call said they believed it … was a catalyst for Trump’s final decision to order the military on February 27 to move ahead with Operation Epic Fury.”
Lindsay Graham similarly focused on this deception in his attempt to get Trump to launch the war with Iran, with the Wall Street Journal reporting that, “On Iran, Graham likened Iran’s leader to Adolf Hitler and told Trump that Iran was in a historically weak position. They talked about the regime’s efforts to assassinate Trump in 2024” in a report on Graham’s attempt to get Trump into the war.
Graham apparently concluded that the assassination deception was the most effective in convincing Trump, with the Wall Street Journal reporting that Graham “spoke with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, coaching him on how to lobby the president for action. Netanyahu showed the president intelligence that persuaded Trump to go ahead, Graham said”, an apparent reference to the phone call reported on by Reuters where Netanyahu honed in on the assassination deception.
Israel yet again revived the deception in August of this year, when Trump flew out of Turkey based on fabricated Israeli claims of another Iranian assassination attempt.
According to the Washington Post :
U.S. intelligence officials were skeptical of an Iranian assassination threat against President Donald Trump that was relayed by Israel and prompted an extraordinary clandestine maneuver that saw him secretly fly out of Turkey in an alternate military aircraft, current and former U.S. officials familiar with the intelligence said.
The assassination threat was relayed by the Israeli government to the CIA, where analysts did not view the intelligence as compelling and conveyed that skepticism to Trump administration officials, one of the officials said.
Another official called the reports of threats against Trump’s life “Israeli-derived, not U.S.-generated, and viewed as low confidence.”
“Some U.S. intelligence officials saw Israel’s sharing of the warning about threats to Trump’s life as designed less to inform than to influence the president’s decision-making and U.S. policy in the region,” the report added.
It is more than clear that the current Israeli “intelligence sharing” is nothing more than a recycling of the deception that has had so much success in goading Trump into war with Iran in the past.
The only question remaining, if Trump is not convinced, will Israel continue with simply fabricated intelligence reports, or will they grow desperate enough to resort to a false flag operation? Only time will tell.
Araghchi: Failure to punish aggressors against Iran endangers all nations
Press TV · November 13, 2026
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has warned that failure to hold the US and Israel accountable for their aggression against Iran would undermine international law and put every country’s security at risk.
In an article published by Kyodo News, Araghchi reiterated that the US-Israeli attacks against Iran “constitute a clear violation of the prohibition on the use of force and an infringement of Iran’s sovereignty”.
“The US military attack on Iran had no authorization from the Security Council, nor can allegations of possible future threats, in themselves, provide a sufficient legal basis for invoking self-defense,” he added.
The minister warned that implications of such a violation of international law extend “far beyond Iran’s security or the balance of power in the Middle East”.
“What is ultimately at stake is the credibility of an international legal order designed to prevent states from resorting to force at will,” Araghchi said.
“If power is permitted to prevail over law, Iran will not be the only casualty. The foundations of the international legal order, and the authority of the UN Charter itself, will also be at risk.”
Iran’s top diplomat warned that if aggressor states are not held accountable, “no country’s security can be taken for granted”.
He stressed that the prohibition on the use of force is “a binding obligation that applies equally to all states” and not a concession that powerful states make to weaker ones.
Araghchi also emphasized that the US must end its aggression against Iran, respect Iran’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and provide reparation for the damage caused by the unlawful, unjustified strikes.
They are “matters of legal obligation, not political goodwill”, he stated.
Referring to attacks on schools, sports stadiums, civilian infrastructure, and nuclear facilities subject to International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards in Iran, Araghchi said these attacks must also be examined in light of the rules of international humanitarian law.
“Parties to an armed conflict are required to distinguish between military targets and civilians, refrain from disproportionate attacks, and take all feasible precautions to minimize harm to civilians and civilian infrastructure.”
He also stressed that Iran “retains the right of self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter in response to an armed attack”.
The US and Israel launched another round of aggression against Iran on February 28, some eight months after carrying out unprovoked attacks on the country.
Iran swiftly retaliated by launching barrages of missiles and drones at the Israeli-occupied territories, as well as US bases and interests across the region.
Iran tells UN Security Council to stop reversing roles of ‘aggressor and victim’
Press TV · November 13, 2026
Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations has slammed Western members of the Security Council for their “hypocrisy and double standards,” demanding that the United States immediately end its war of aggression and lift its illegal naval blockade if it is genuinely committed to diplomacy.
Addressing a Security Council meeting on Friday regarding rising tensions in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, Gholamhossein Darzi stressed that the root causes of the current situation are the unprovoked wars of aggression launched by the US and the Israeli regime on June 13, 2025, and February 28, 2026.
“The US is the aggressor, not the victim,” Darzi declared, condemning the assassination of Iran’s Leader Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, senior officials, and nuclear scientists.
He emphasized that the Council must direct its demands at the aggressor, not the victim, and called on the US to cease all illegal threats and comply fully with the UN Charter.
Detailing the devastating civilian toll of the US-Israeli bombing campaigns, the Iranian envoy noted that over 5,000 innocent Iranians have been killed, including 254 children and 251 women.
He specifically highlighted egregious war crimes committed by US forces, including a Tomahawk missile strike on a school in Minab that martyred 168 children, and an attack on a stadium in Lamerd that killed at least 21 civilians.
Darzi also condemned US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth for declaring “no quarter, no mercy”—a blatant violation of international humanitarian law—and cited President Donald Trump’s repeated threats to destroy Iran’s civilian bridges and power plants.
The ambassador emphasized that the insecurity surrounding the Strait of Hormuz is a direct consequence of these American crimes.
“The US cannot bomb Iran, violate its sovereignty, target civilian infrastructure, impose a military and naval blockade, and deploy illegal coercive schemes like ‘Operation Economic Outcast’ and ‘Task Force Iron Gate’ to collectively punish 90 million people, and then expect the Strait of Hormuz to return to normal as if nothing happened,” he stated.
Warning to aggressors
While affirming that Iran has never closed the door to diplomacy and has entered negotiations in good faith over the past two years, Darzi noted that Washington has consistently chosen aggression over dialogue, creating deep mistrust.
“If Washington is truly committed to a diplomatic solution, it must immediately and unconditionally end its aggression, provide credible guarantees of non-repetition, respect Iran’s sovereign rights, lift the naval blockade and all other unlawful unilateral coercive measures, and demonstrate its real commitment to diplomacy in practice,” he said.
Issuing a warning to the Council, Darzi added: “Let me be explicit and clear: Any renewal of the aggressive war by the US and the Israeli regime will be met with an immediate, decisive, and unwavering response; a response that will target the source of the aggression, wherever it may be.”
Darzi also firmly rejected UNSC Resolution 2817 (2026), calling it a politically motivated abuse of the Council’s authority that legitimizes aggression and denies Iran’s inherent right to self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter.
Furthermore, he sharply criticized remarks by the representatives of Bahrain and the Persian Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), accusing certain regional states of complicity in war crimes.
By providing their territory, airspace, and military bases to the US and Israel, these states have facilitated the aggression and bear international responsibility, he argued, adding that they are legally obligated to fully compensate Iran for all material and moral damages inflicted upon the country.
China, Russia demand end to war
The UNSC meeting also saw strong backing for Iran’s position from China and Russia, both of whom emphasized that the war of aggression against Iran must end immediately and that there is no alternative to negotiations.
China’s Ambassador Fu Cong stated that the conflict must be decisively ended, noting that “there are no winners in war and conflict.”
He stressed that the precondition for resolving regional issues is an immediate ceasefire, the cessation of the illegal use of force, and a halt to unilateral military actions.
Fu urged all parties to act with a sense of responsibility toward their people and history, and to reach a comprehensive ceasefire as soon as possible rather than returning to armed confrontation.
He also praised the mediation efforts of Qatar and Pakistan, encouraging the US and Iran to firmly choose peace and resume dialogue to reach a comprehensive agreement.
Russia’s Deputy Ambassador Anna Evstigneeva was even more direct in identifying the root cause of the crisis.
“The root cause of these developments is clear. In late February, the US and Israel launched an aggression against Iran,” she declared.
She highlighted the targeting of Iranian civilians, specifically mentioning the shock the world felt over the killing of more than 150 children in a missile strike on a school in Minab.
She also condemned the assassination of Iran’s Leader and senior officials, as well as the targeting of civilian nuclear infrastructure, which created a direct risk of a nuclear catastrophe.
Evstigneeva stressed that only fair and honest negotiations can resolve the crisis, expressing Russia’s readiness to provide all necessary assistance to achieve tangible results.
In contrast to the calls for an end to aggression, representatives from the US, France, and the UK repeated their familiar anti-Iran rhetoric, completely ignoring the US-Israeli wars of aggression that triggered the current crisis.
Jennifer Lockett, the US Deputy Representative to the UN, blamed Iran for the regional instability without mentioning a single word about Washington’s and Tel Aviv’s attacks on Iran.
She claimed that Iran’s missiles, drones, and naval mines in the Strait of Hormuz threaten global energy and food security, urging the Council to hold Iran accountable for its actions.
The French and UK ambassadors similarly aligned with Washington, accusing Iran of destabilizing activities while failing to condemn the initial acts of aggression against Iranian sovereignty.
Disgraced neocons Feith & Libby: stop whining about ‘endless war’
For some reason the Washington Post thinks we care about what these Iraq War architects have to say about anything
By Jim Lobe | Responsible Statecraft | November 12, 2026
Apparently, it takes the prospect of ending the war on Iran to get the blood running hot in aging and otherwise reclusive neoconservatives — particularly those whose tenures as key architects of the 2003 Iraq invasion and subsequent occupation were both short-lived and disastrous.
Douglas Feith, who served as undersecretary of defense for policy (2001-2005), and Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney’s powerful national security adviser and chief of staff (2001-2005), co-authored an op-ed published Monday by the Washington Post entitled “’Endless wars’ is a catchy phrase, not a reason to shift policy.”
Evoking the wartime steadfastness demonstrated by Abraham Lincoln in the Civil War; Winston Churchill – naturally, these are neoconservatives, after all — against the Nazis, Dwight Eisenhower in Korea; and Ronald Reagan in concluding the Cold War, the duo urged America to steel itself for more war.
“None of these leaders wanted endless sacrifice and risks, but none buckled for fear of them,” they wrote, suggesting a parallel with the current war on Iran. “Each understood that an enemy’s willingness to endure a long struggle does not make one’s own ‘endless’ resistance foolish.”
In assessing the wisdom behind their words, some context may be in order.
First, the authors, both proteges of the “Prince of Darkness,” Richard Perle, who served as chairman of the Defense Policy Board in the run-up to the 2003 Iraq invasion, are dyed-in-the-wool, hard-core neoconservatives in that they believe as much, or perhaps more, in Israel’s exceptionalism as they do in America’s. Their Middle East policy preferences have long paralleled those of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his right-wing Likud Party.
Their institutional associations since their departures from government in 2005 tend to confirm their Israel-centrism. Feith has been a senior fellow at the neoconservative Hudson Institute, while Libby, who was also based at Hudson for many years, is currently serving as a distinguished fellow at the Foundation of Defense of Democracies (FDD).
A survey by RS of four commonly used AI programs in April found that both organizations were among the five think tanks that were “the most prominent in promoting military action” against Iran across mainstream and social media in the six months leading up to the current war that was launched by massive air strikes against key targets across Iran on February 28. FDD, whose original submission to the IRS when it was founded in 2001 described its mission as “enhance(ing) Israel’s image in North America…,” ranked number one in promoting military action in all four programs.
Second, both Feith and Libby may be best known for their roles in shaping, manipulating, distorting, leaking, and promoting fabricated intelligence – often in close cooperation with Iraqi expatriate Ahmad Chalabi and his Iraqi National Congress — that would justify the invasion and occupation of Iraq and rally public opinion behind that enterprise. Feith created offices in the Pentagon whose missions were to collect and disseminate any information that suggested a cooperative relationship between Saddam Hussein’s regime and al-Qaida and major advances in Iraq’s alleged (but non-existent) nuclear-weapons program.
Third, both authors left their government service under a cloud, if not in disgrace. Libby’s was the most spectacular fall. In October 2005, he was indicted by a federal grand jury resulting from an investigation into the leak of the covert identity of a CIA operative, Valerie Plame, as part of an apparent effort by Libby and his boss to discredit her husband, a former U.S. ambassador who had publicly exposed the falsity of a key administration claim regarding Saddam’s alleged nuclear-weapons program. Libby resigned his positions immediately following his indictment, was subsequently convicted by a jury of making false statements and sentenced to 30 months in prison, which President George W. Bush later commuted. He received a full pardon from President Donald Trump in 2018.
Feith — who, besides his collaboration with Chalabi, had overseen a number of other fiascoes during his tenure, including the disastrous de-Baathification program in Iraq — resigned in August 2005, by which time it had become clear that the occupation faced a serious insurgency. He may be best known, however, for the characterization applied to him by then-U.S. Central Command chief Gen. Tommy Franks, who led the invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq, as “the f*cking stupidest guy on the planet.”
Given that context, it’s no wonder that both men appear to have preferred the relative tranquility and obscurity of those Washington “think tanks” where their colleagues share the same or very similar world views, and “groupthink” rules the roost, much as it did during the heyday of neoconservative power during Bush’s first term. Perhaps somewhat chastened by their failures, they have seemingly been reluctant to engage in the public square in recent years.
Indeed, over the past decade, Libby had published only one op-ed in any of the country’s three most influential national newspapers, and that was back in 2021 on the evils of China’s “Covid wrongdoing,” as the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page editors called it. As for Feith, he hadn’t published a single op-ed in the Journal, the Washington Post, or the New York Times since 2015.
Until Trump launched the war against Iran on February 28, that is. That apparently got the old juices going, with Jeff Bezos’ recalibrated editorial pages of the Washington Post serving as willing host. On March 9, Feith broke his silence with the giddy title, “Trump is trying something new in Iran. Hold on tight.” Then, after Trump signed a dreaded ceasefire agreement, he evidently felt compelled to warn that “The Iran deal comes with a familiar false promise.” On September 10, he extolled his glory days in “The 9/11 response got the most important thing right.”
Libby was not as prolific. But on September 18, he co-authored an op-ed in the Post calling, among other things, for the destruction of “Iran’s major oil production and export facilities, as the Allies did to Germany and Japan in World War II” and for “ground troops” to seize Iran’s “coastline or the regime’s enriched uranium stockpiles…”
And now, on the very eve of Veterans/Armistice Day, these two strategic geniuses have taken once again to the Post’s op-ed page to earnestly warn us against listening to those who have grown weary of “endless wars.”
It’s time to thank them for their service.
Jim Lobe is a Contributing Editor of Responsible Statecraft. He formerly served as chief of the Washington bureau of Inter Press Service from 1980 to 1985 and again from 1989 to 2015.
CENTCOM rejects Israeli claims of preparations for new Iran attacks
Al Mayadeen | November 14, 2026
The US military dismissed an Israeli broadcaster’s account of preparations for renewed attacks on Iran, describing the report as “pure speculation”, Anadolu reported
The dispute centers on claims by Israeli public broadcaster KAN that Washington alerted regional partners to the possibility of another round of operations while deploying additional military assets.
Among the reported deployments were approximately 200 aerial refueling aircraft stationed across Europe and the Middle East. KAN also said the aircraft carriers USS George Washington and USS George H.W. Bush were already in the region, with a third vessel, identified as the USS Roosevelt, expected in the Arabian Sea soon.
Asked by Anadolu about the report, a US Central Command (CENTCOM) official said there were no updates to the positioning of American forces in the Middle East.
KAN alleges warnings delivered through military channels
Beyond its deployment claims, KAN cited an unnamed US official as saying that CENTCOM advised “Israel” to prepare for the possibility of military operations against Iran restarting soon.
According to the broadcaster, Israeli military representatives based in the United States received the message. It further alleged that Washington contacted Gulf countries through security channels with similar warnings.
Those reported communications and deployment figures formed part of KAN’s account, which CENTCOM subsequently rejected in its response to Anadolu.
Your Shopping Bag Runs Through Hormuz
By Larry C. Johnson | SONAR21 | November 14, 2026
Every morning the cable networks put up the price of Brent and a graphic of a tanker, and every evening the experts reassure us that the oil is still flowing, more or less. Crude is the scoreboard everyone watches. It is also the wrong scoreboard.
Iran has hit roughly fifty ships in and around the Strait of Hormuz since September 1, most of them tankers. Against a world fleet of more than 8,000 tankers, that is a rounding error. Washington’s reassurance machine will tell you exactly that. What it won’t tell you is that a good share of what moves through the strait isn’t crude at all. It’s the stuff the modern economy is actually made of: the feedstocks for plastics, the methanol for chemicals, the urea and ammonia for fertilizer. And those markets are far less forgiving than oil.
If you want to know what Iran’s tanker campaign really costs, stop looking at the gas pump. Look in your kitchen.
What actually comes out of the Gulf
Start with plastic. The Middle East is the world’s largest exporter of polyethylene, the most widely used plastic on the planet. In 2025 the region shipped 18.7 million tons out of global exports of 43.8 million tons, more than 40 percent of the world total. According to ICIS, about 84 percent of the region’s polyethylene capacity depends on the Strait of Hormuz to reach the sea. Polypropylene and ethylene glycol, the raw material for polyester and PET bottles, follow the same route.
Then the feedstocks. Before the war, nearly 1.2 million barrels a day of naphtha moved through Hormuz, meeting 60 to 70 percent of Asia’s import needs, according to S&P Global. Asia’s steam crackers turn that naphtha into ethylene and propylene, the building blocks of nearly every plastic you own. The Gulf also supplies most of the propane and butane that feed Asia’s other plastics plants.
Then the chemicals. The Middle East exported more than 17 million tons of methanol in 2025. Iran alone shipped well over 9 million tons, and roughly 70 percent of China’s methanol imports came from the region. And fertilizer: by CRU’s count, nearly a third of global urea exports, 44 percent of sulfur exports and almost a fifth of ammonia exports pass through or originate west of the strait.
That’s the cargo Iran is shooting at. Not just oil, but the raw material for packaging, textiles, car parts, medical supplies and the fertilizer that grows the world’s food.
Why plastic bleeds faster than oil
Crude has escape hatches. Saudi Arabia can push oil across the peninsula to Yanbu, and the UAE can pipe it to Fujairah. Governments keep strategic petroleum reserves for exactly this kind of emergency. Petrochemicals have none of that. There is no strategic polyethylene reserve. Nobody stockpiles methanol for national security. And the giant plants at Jubail, Ras Laffan and Ruwais sit on the Gulf coast, built to load ships, not pipelines. As one analyst put it to Argaam, most petrochemical products cannot be rerouted the way crude can.
The ships are also more fragile, financially speaking. A VLCC hauling two million barrels at today’s freight rates can swallow a war-risk premium of several million dollars and still make money. The smaller product tankers, chemical tankers and gas carriers that move naphtha, methanol and LPG earn far less per voyage. Brokers noticed back in June that clean tankers were being scared off by insurance costs that crude carriers shrugged off. Every Iranian strike pushes those premiums up again, and the smallest, least profitable ships are the first to stop coming.
The buyers can’t easily switch, either. Asia’s crackers were built around Gulf naphtha. Some can burn more LPG instead, but that flexibility is limited, and the LPG comes through the same strait. When the naphtha stops, the crackers cut rates or declare force majeure. S&P put it bluntly: naphtha has moved beyond economics, and availability is now the core concern.
The numbers show it. UN data comparing April 2026 with a year earlier show Middle East methanol exports down 80 percent, urea down 83 percent and ammonia down 75 percent. Even polypropylene, the least affected of the twelve commodities the UN tracked, fell 24 percent.
The September head fake
Washington had a good September, or thought it did. With the US Navy escorting traffic down a southern route along the Omani coast, Gulf oil flows through Hormuz recovered to more than 81 percent of prewar levels, according to Kpler. The victory laps were drafted.
Iran read the same numbers and responded the way it said it would. The International Maritime Organization counted 34 confirmed attacks on ships between September 28 and October 27. On a single Sunday in October, six commercial vessels were hit, the most in one day since the war began. By mid-October, just seven tankers crossed the strait in a day, fewer than half the weekly average. The IRGC now announces, with some relish, that tankers using routes it hasn’t approved keep “striking mines.”
Here’s the part that matters for petrochemicals. Iran doesn’t need to sink a single chemical tanker to choke the chemical trade. It only needs to make each transit risky enough that the owners of small, low-margin ships stay home. The crude may limp through under Navy escort. The naphtha, methanol and polymers ride on the ships least able to bear the risk.
Who gets the bill
Asia first. Japan, South Korea and India depend on imported Gulf feedstocks, and their crackers have spent the year cutting rates or declaring force majeure. China’s polyethylene output in April fell 8.2 percent from a year earlier because its naphtha-fed crackers couldn’t get enough feedstock. S&P Global Market Intelligence estimates the disruption has taken nearly 20 percent of global ethylene capacity and as much as 40 percent of Asian naphtha supply off the market. Europe, whose crackers also run on naphtha, is not far behind.
Then everyone else. Polyethylene prices nearly doubled between the end of February and April. Dow and Celanese raised prices. Plastic is in the packaging for your groceries, the dashboard of your car, the syringes at your hospital and the polyester in your shirt. When the price of the resin doubles, it doesn’t stay in the chemical industry. It works its way onto store shelves, quietly, a few cents at a time.
And then there is food. Urea, ammonia and sulfur are not plastics, but they ride the same strait and suffer the same insurance math. Farmers who pay more for fertilizer either pass it on or plant less. Either way, you pay.
In fairness, there is one winner. American petrochemical producers, sitting on cheap shale gas along the Gulf Coast, have enjoyed a windfall as buyers scramble for resin that doesn’t pass through Hormuz. So if you were wondering who benefits from this war, check the quarterly earnings in Houston.
Two years, if everything goes right
Don’t take my word for how long the hangover lasts. Take the word of the man who runs the world’s biggest oil company. Speaking in London on October 5, Aramco chief executive Amin Nasser said the world entered this crisis with almost 10 billion barrels of oil in storage and has since lost nearly 3 billion barrels of supply, roughly half of what would normally have moved through Hormuz. Less than 6 billion barrels of commercial inventory remain, he said, and most of that is not practically available. His verdict: “Until Hormuz fully re-opens and confidence returns, the crude reality is that pressure at both ends of the barrel will intensify. Even then, replenishing inventories while meeting demand could take up to two years.” He repeated the warning in Riyadh a week later.
Note the conditions. Two years starts only after the strait fully reopens, and only if confidence returns. Every Iranian strike since then has pushed that starting gun further back.
And Nasser was talking about crude, the commodity with all the advantages. Crude has strategic reserves to draw on, a 7-million-barrel-a-day East-West pipeline to Yanbu and a Saudi upstream that Nasser says remains fully intact. Petrochemicals have none of those cushions. There is no strategic reserve of naphtha or methanol to refill. The plants that make them sit on the Gulf coast with no pipeline around the strait. If the best-protected product in the Gulf needs two years to get back to normal after the shooting stops, you can do the math on polyethylene yourself.
Except that the escape hatch is now under fire too. The East-West pipeline is carrying about 4 million barrels a day of Saudi crude to Yanbu, roughly 4 percent of global supply, and it is the main reason Saudi Arabia has avoided the fate of its neighbors. The Houthis know it. On Thursday they claimed strikes on a pumping station along the pipeline, the oil facility at Yanbu and an Aramco building in Riyadh. On Friday they claimed another pumping station, along with Riyadh’s King Khalid International Airport. My sources tell me pumping station 11 was destroyed. Riyadh, as usual, has confirmed nothing.
This is not the first time. In September, attacks on the pipeline set fires at three pumping stations, and Saudi Arabia shut down the entire line as a precaution before rigging bypasses. The pipeline has 13 pumping stations, and every one taken out cuts how much crude reaches the Red Sea. So the one alternative route Nasser was counting on, the one he said kept Brent from hitting $200, is being taken apart one station at a time. Two years was the optimistic case. It assumed the bypass would hold.
The math Washington skipped
The planners who started this war modeled oil. They had the SPR, the escort plan and the pipeline workarounds. What they apparently didn’t model was that the Persian Gulf is also one of the world’s great chemical plants, and that its output has no pipeline, no reserve and no Navy escort sized to protect a fleet of small, uninsurable ships.
Iran figured that out. Its tanker campaign doesn’t have to win at sea. It only has to keep the strait dangerous enough, long enough, for the world to run short of the things that are made from what passes through it. Each strike resets the insurance clock and keeps the small ships away for another month.
So the next time someone in Washington tells you the oil is still flowing, ask them about the naphtha, the methanol and the polyethylene. Then go look at the price of a pack of diapers. That’s where this war is being lost.
Trita Parsi: Trump’s Swiss Cheese Iran Plan & U.S. Break with Israel?
Glenn Diesen | November 12, 2026
Trita Parsi is the co-founder and Executive Vice President of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. Follow his excellent Substack: https://tritaparsi.substack.com/
Follow Prof. Glenn Diesen:
Substack: https://glenndiesen.substack.com/
X/Twitter: https://x.com/Glenn_Diesen
Patreon: 
/ glenndiesen
Support the research by Prof. Glenn Diesen:
PayPal: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/glenn…
Buy me a Coffee: buymeacoffee.com/gdieseng
Go Fund Me: https://gofund.me/09ea012f
Buy Diesen merchandise: https://diesen-shop.fourthwall.com/en…
00:00 The Current State of the Iran War
02:55 Escalation Risks and Political Dynamics
06:11 The Swiss Cheese Scenario
08:54 Iran’s Response and Regional Implications
11:51 The Dilemma of U.S. Sanctions
15:06 The Future of U.S.-Iran Relations
18:08 The Multipolar World and Sanctions Efficacy
20:56 Israel’s Position and Regional Stability
23:49 The Saudi-Yemen Conflict and U.S. Involvement
26:58 The Shift in U.S. Foreign Policy
29:50 Conclusion and Future Outlook
Why a New European Security Architecture Will Be Born Through War
By Prof. Glenn Diesen | November 12, 2026
As the world has shifted from unipolarity to multipolarity, the security architecture must also change to ensure peace. From Europe to the Middle East and East Asia, existing security architectures are collapsing, and new arrangements are needed to prevent great-power wars that could destroy humanity. The problem is that new security architectures have historically been established only after major wars that have shattered the previous status quo.
War as the Catalyst for Change
After the Napoleonic Wars, the Concert of Europe was established and organised relations from 1815 to 1914. After the First World War, a new security architecture was developed with the League of Nations, yet it collapsed in 1939 with the outbreak of the Second World War. After the Second World War, the United Nations was established to manage relations and develop shared international law. Yet, throughout the Cold War, we had a dual system, as the international system was organised under the UN, while the bipolar international distribution of power organised competing alliance systems under NATO and the Warsaw Pact.
When the Cold War came to an end, the dual system continued to exist. The West initially signed agreements for a new, inclusive pan-European security architecture based on indivisible security and without dividing lines, as outlined in the Charter of Paris for a New Europe in 1990 and the establishment of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) in 1995 – both based on the Helsinki Accords of 1975. Yet, these agreements were hollowed out by expanding NATO as an instrument of hegemonic peace, creating a new Europe without Russia as the largest country in Europe. The redivision of Europe and the undermining of the principle of indivisible security have been at the heart of the conflict between NATO and Russia for the past three decades, and this was the trigger for the Ukraine War.
New security architectures are historically born through war, as the former status quo disappears and there is a recognition of the need to establish a system to avoid war and build peace. Institutions are usually effective and problem-solving in their early phases, as their objectives are clear. In the later stages, they become decadent and institutionalised, consumed by bureaucracy and institutional self-preservation, while resisting adaptation to new realities. NATO’s transformation is an interesting example of an effort at institutional adaptation and self-preservation, as open debates focused on finding a new purpose for the military bloc that had lost its Soviet adversary – with the slogan for embracing internationalism and expansionism being “out of area or out of business”.
Europe Searching for a Role in the Multipolar World
All the major actors are finding new roles in the multipolar world. China and Russia are taking the lead in establishing a new geoeconomic architecture and political institutions such as BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation to facilitate a greater role for rising powers in the multipolar world. The US seeks to preserve or revive its former hegemonic position, yet is reluctantly adjusting to new realities by shifting its focus to the Western Hemisphere and East Asia.
The Europeans are the most reluctant to adjust to new realities, as their former role as the principal partner of the US in an international system defined by collective hegemony ensured Europe’s unity and relevance. There is also a lack of options in terms of what Europe can transition towards, as the US provided Europe with an economic model, security model, and political model, and was indeed the pacifier that ensured unity on the continent over the past decades. The Europeans can throw their full weight behind the US and face vassalage, although the failure to diversify their ties will only weaken Europe further, while a retreating US will see Europe as increasingly less relevant in the new world. Alternatively, Europe must adjust to a new international distribution of power and find unity through a geoeconomic logic of collective bargaining power and the pursuit of collective technological sovereignty. Yet, a geoeconomic Europe must adjust to realities and seek connectivity with the other centres of power – which includes Russia.
This will not happen. The institutions of the former status quo, such as NATO, are still present, which keeps alive the hope of returning to the unipolar order. On 6 November 2026, the EU foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, made this argument explicitly as she dismissed Russia’s call for reforming the European security architecture, stating: “We already have European security architecture in place. NATO and the European Union both have their respective roles. We must make sure Ukraine is integrated into this architecture.” The massive war in Europe, which could quickly spiral into nuclear war, did not seem to affect her assessment of the stability of the former status quo.
War is Coming
As history has demonstrated, former security architectures remain in place long after they have outlived their function and decadence has set in. In an act of desperation and self-delusion, the Europeans embrace absurd narratives of being confronted with another Hitler to reinvent a purpose for the outdated and decadent security architecture that no longer provides security. Unwilling to accept new realities and discuss a new European security architecture, the Europeans will choose war as their Ukrainian proxy army collapses on the battlefield. Any pathway to peace that entails recognising the security concerns of Russia has been rejected as it will undermine the former hegemonic security architecture. As in the past, a new security architecture will be built after the coming war between Europe and Russia – if we survive it.
Featured Video
Genocide-linked firm handles Britons’ NHS data
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
Book Review
Book review: Boiling Point, How America Brought War to Ukraine
By Tim Kirby | Strategic Culture Foundation | November 14, 2026
Did Vladimir Putin just wake up one day on the wrong side of the bed and decide to invade Ukraine in February of 2022 or is there a lot more to this single decision that has been reshaping the 21st century geopolitical landscape?
Obviously, from the way that I just posed the question you can see that I am on the side that views the causes for the war in Ukraine to be very deep, long-term, historical and consciously nefarious, and most importantly, not from within the halls of the Kremlin. So it was a pleasure to take a look at the book “Boiling Point, How America Brought War to Ukraine” by author Stephen Kinzer, who like myself, also believes that the real reasons behind military conflicts around the world are not what CNN and the BBC have been telling you. The main thesis of this book was stated clearly by its creator; the war “may have been illegal, but it was definitely not unprovoked.” … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- UK must be ready to strike Russian Arctic – ex-PM
- Fico’s Two Red Lines: Russian Energy and the Next Ukraine Loan
- Thousands rally for banned NATO-skeptic presidential candidate
- Ukraine Settlement and New European Security Architecture Must Go Hand in Hand – Kremlin
- Book review: Boiling Point, How America Brought War to Ukraine
- Israel Revives The ‘Iranian Assassination Threat Against Trump’ Deception In A Desperate Bid To Restart The War
- US rewrites history to dodge blame for illegal war on Iran: Foreign Ministry spokesperson
- TURBO CANCER DATA from Ontario, Canada (OHIP Insurance Billing Data)
- Iran warns France not to fall for Israeli false-flags operations
- Poland and Bulgaria put brakes on Ukraine weapons funding
- If Americans Knew
- No, Christians did not invent Zionism
- Hakeem Jeffries & Chuck Schumer: Conduits for Israel Lobby Dark Money
- DAILY UPDATE: Latest essential news on Palestine, Israel, & region
- Aid organizations in Gaza are pulling back, leaving hundreds of thousands of Palestinians without food
- 1.4 Million People in Gaza Live in Tents. Winter Storms Can Be a Death Sentence.
- Israel Used a U.S.-Made Missile to Kill Six at Gaza’s Nasser Hospital
- Congress Might Sneakily Use Lame Duck to Deeply Intertwine the U.S. and Israeli Militaries
- DAILY UPDATE: Latest essential news on Palestine, Israel, & region
- 9-month-old baby dies from severe cold in Gaza, 1st cold-related death this winter: Health Ministry
- Israel Kills over 12, Injures Many Across Gaza
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study: Barents Sea Temperatures Were Warmer And Sea Ice Less Extensive In The 1700s Than Today
- German Authorities Start Initiative To Evaluate Public Register For Climate “Disinformation” Spreaders!
- Zonal Asymmetry of Temperature Change in the Antarctic Circumpolar Current
- New Study: The Net Fossil Fuel Contribution To Rising Atmospheric CO2 Has Been Zero For 500 Years
- Germany’s Green Energy Transition Becoming Increasingly Expensive…Another 6 Trillion Euros!
- Sudden Stratospheric Warming, Powerful El Niño Combination May Lead To Extreme Europe Cold, Energy Crisis!
- Two New Studies Find Thwaites Glacier Melt Cannot Be Driven By Human Activity Or A Warming Ocean
- E-Cars Reduce CO2 Emissions By Only 41% Compared To Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles
- Predictions Made By Renowned Climate Professor Over Past Decades Have Been Proven To Be Poor
- New Study Suggests Large Regions Of The Pacific Ocean Have Been Cooling For The Last 80 Years
