Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Wired for War: Pax Silica is AI slavery disguised as strength

RT | June 27, 2026

The EU has signed on to ‘Pax Silica’, a US initiative seemingly designed to shut China and others out of the global AI supply chain and extract resources from Europe for the benefit of Washington’s military-industrial complex.

“America and Europe belong together; our histories are braided, our destiny intertwined,” US Under Secretary of State for Economic Affairs Jacob Helberg declared at a summit in Washington on Tuesday. “But we share more than a past. We share a purpose – to build a future that answers to our values and is worthy of our inheritance.”

What is Pax Silica?

Representatives from the EU, Germany, and Greece signed the pact at Tuesday’s summit, bringing the total number of ‘Pax Silica’ signatories to 19. They are:

  • Argentina
  • Australia
  • Chile
  • European Union
  • Finland
  • Germany
  • Greece
  • India
  • Israel
  • Japan
  • The Netherlands
  • Norway
  • Qatar
  • Republic of Korea
  • Singapore
  • Sweden
  • The Philippines
  • United Arab Emirates
  • United Kingdom

‘Pax Silica’ evokes imperial Rome in both name and practice. Its signatories agree to “partner on strategic stacks of the global technology supply chain,” including raw materials, energy, logistics, semiconductor manufacturing, computing, software, and models. They pledge to reduce “excessive dependencies” on nations that “undermine innovation and fair competition,” – an implicit reference to China – and “protect sensitive technologies and critical infrastructure from undue access, influence, or control,” – again, a reference to China – in exchange for access to this “full stack of technological advancements that are shaping the AI economy.”

The pact is largely the creation of Helberg, a China hawk and former adviser to Palantir CEO Alex Karp, whose growing power RT has already covered in our ‘Wired for War’ series.

Jacob Helberg and Palantir Technologies CEO Alex Karp attend the Hill & Valley Forum 2025 in Washington DC, April 30, 2025 ©  Getty Images;  Jemal Countess

Who is in Pax Silica and who is against it?

Notably absent from the list of signatories is France, where President Emmanuel Macron has spent years pushing for “digital sovereignty.” France, and Europe more broadly, he argues, need to end their reliance on American technology and develop homegrown alternatives. To that end, the French government has ditched US-made videoconferencing software, swapped Microsoft Windows for Linux, traded Palantir’s data analytics software for the French-developed ChapsVision, and invested public funds in Mistral AI – one of the continent’s few promising AI companies.

Does Pax Silica undermine national digital sovereignty?

Pax Silica is explicitly opposed to the notion of digital sovereignty. In a blog post published immediately after Tuesday’s summit, Helberg declared the concept “backward and counterproductive.” A world of sovereign nations building their own AI ecosystems, he wrote, would be “a planet of subscale clones, each heroically reconstructing last year’s breakthrough while the breakthrough itself moves on without them.”

Instead, Pax Silica members can pool their resources, with each nation playing to its own strengths. “One partner’s compute meets another’s minerals, a third’s talent, a fourth’s capital, and the result is not a sum but a multiplication,” he wrote.

On the surface, Helberg’s sales pitch makes sense. The Netherlands is the home of ASML, which manufactures 100% of the world’s most advanced EUV semiconductor lithography machines; Israel is a chip design and military tech superpower; Australia has the world’s fourth largest rare earth mineral reserves. By bringing these countries into a formal pact, the US denies China access to these spoils and shares them among its allies instead.

Who does Pax Silica empower most?

In reality, Pax Silica is less of a partnership and more of an imperialist resource grab. Washington’s partners provide raw materials, logistics, knowledge, and labor, but the US currently controls 75% of the world’s compute – the processing power necessary to build, train, and run large-scale AI workloads. Ultimately, the American companies that control this raw power will decide how it is used.

While this compute will be theoretically made available to Pax Silica signatories, the treaty is carefully worded to remind them that full access is not guaranteed. The US, it states “will endeavor to provide access to trusted partners to the full stack of technological advancements that are shaping the AI economy.” Washington is obligated only to try, not to do.

Chained by the pact to Washington’s new Cold War against China, the Europeans cannot look to Beijing if they end up shut out of US computing infrastructure. Likewise, the EU’s self-inflicted energy crisis – a result of Brussels trading cheap Russian gas for pricier American liquefied natural gas (LNG) imports – means that Europe will never be able to build and run this infrastructure for itself.

How does Palantir stand to benefit from Pax Silica?

Pax Silica undoubtedly serves the US geopolitical aim of isolating China – and possibly Russia – and strangling its technological growth, but it also serves the interests of Palantir and its fellow defense-tech behemoths, some of whom have admitted that their growth model depends on military confrontation with Beijing and a potential world war in the Indo- Pacific.

Palantir needs all the computational horsepower and raw materials it can get to power its autonomous weapons and AI operating systems, and if relations between the West and China deteriorate to the point of military conflict, the company stands ready to supply the weapons that will be used by the US military.

Karp has recently called on the US to prepare for a three-front war against China, Russia, and Iran; Palantir’s marketing material includes images of its ‘Gotham’ operating system tracking the movements of Chinese warships in the South China Sea. A representative of America’s Frontier Fund – which invests in Palantir – told a panel in 2023 that in the event of a “kinetic event in the Pacific…some of our investments will 10x, like overnight.”

“Great power competition with China remains top of mind as we continue to invest in moving more of Palantir’s mass west of the international date line,” the company’s operations chief, Shyam Sanka, said during a 2024 earnings call.

Although Helberg left Palantir last year to take his position at the US State Department, he spent the previous year working for Palantir and the American government at the same time. While still advising Karp, Helberg served on the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission, from 2022 to 2024. In this role, he lobbied for increased tariffs on Beijing, a ban on TikTok, and the exclusion of China from the global AI supply chain.

How have China and Russia responded to Pax Silica?

Beijing has not directly addressed Pax Silica, with the Chinese Foreign Ministry instead calling on the US and its partners to “adhere to the principles of a market economy and fair competition and work together to maintain the stability of the global supply chain.” The ministry has directly condemned previous efforts by the US to lock China out of the tech supply chain, including the US-Japan-South Korea-Taiwan ‘Chip 4 Alliance’. Beijing has referred to this coalition of chipmaking nations as a brazen attempt by Washington to “dominate the global semiconductor production and supply chain.”

The Russian government has not commented on Pax Silica, but Moscow likely views any moves that increase the West’s power vis-a-vis its main trading partner with concern. Russia’s own access to rare earths and energy is not imperiled by the pact, with Russian mining CEO Andrey Trenin writing last year that Russia’s “path to a sovereign integrated AI industry must begin with [its] unique Arctic rare-earth metal deposits” and the creation of investment zones in the country’s frozen north.

Pax Silica: Membership is a security risk

By signing the pact, the Pax Silica states are signing up for great power competition and all of the risks it carries. In some cases, signatories are risking more than economic sovereignty. In the Philippines, which signed the pact in April, work has already begun on a 4,000-acre ‘Economic Security Zone’ on the island of Luzon where a number of key AI-related industries will be based.

The US initially wanted sovereignty over the zone and diplomatic immunity, but Manila rejected Washington’s demands. Negotiations over the zone’s status are still ongoing, but even if the Philippines retains full sovereignty over the area, Filipino nationalists fear that its role as a node in the US military’s AI supply chain could open the Philippines up to retaliation from China.

Helberg has written off these worries as “disinformation,” claiming that concerns over sovereignty risk delaying the Pax Silica project. However, they must be widespread if Helberg felt compelled to pen a 1,200-word blog post writing the concept of digital sovereignty off as a “trap.”

A warning from Middle Earth

Palantir derives its name from the obsidian seeing stones in JRR Tolkien’s ‘The Lord of the Rings’, through which the dark lord Sauron communicates with his vassals and spies on his enemies. In their dealings with the company, and with Washington, European proponents of Pax Silica would do well to remember how, in the film adaptation of the novel, the wizard Gandalf responds to Saruman’s use of a Palantir: “there is only one Lord of the Ring… And he does not share power!”

June 27, 2026 Posted by | Sinophobia | , , | Comments Off on Wired for War: Pax Silica is AI slavery disguised as strength

Israeli occupation forces advance in southern Lebanese towns after truce deal with Beirut

Press TV – June 27, 2026 

Israeli forces have carried out new attacks on several towns in southern Lebanon, in a new escalation immediately after a US-brokered peace agreement was reached between Beirut and Tel Aviv.

Israeli occupation forces advanced toward the outskirts of the southern Lebanese town of Kfar Shuba under the cover of heavy machine-gun fire on Saturday, according to local reports.

Earlier, Israeli forces detonated a stun grenade near the town of Kfar Tebnit, causing alarm among residents.

The occupying regime’s warplanes also struck a location in the border town of Markaba overnight, according to Lebanon’s state-run National News Agency (NNA).

The attacks follow an announcement by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio saying a 14-point agreement had been reached between Lebanon and Israel.

Israel’s ambassador to Washington, Yechiel Leiter, welcomed the agreement, claiming that under its terms, “Hezbollah is out.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also praised the deal, describing it as a major achievement and a significant step toward advancing Israel’s objectives in Lebanon.

Netanyahu further stated that Israel would not allow Lebanese residents to return to areas within the so-called security belt under Israeli control and insisted that Israeli forces would remain in the occupied parts of southern Lebanon.

Lebanese lawmaker Hassan Fadlallah strongly criticized the framework, warning that Lebanese authorities would not be able to implement it without dragging the country toward “civil war.”

Since 2 March, when Israel launched its latest round of aggression against Lebanon, at least 3,600 people have been killed and more than 11,000 wounded, according to Lebanese authorities.

In response, the Lebanese resistance movement Hezbollah has continued military operations against Israeli forces, saying resistance remains necessary as long as attacks and occupation persist.

The Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), signed by Iran and the United States in June, includes provisions calling for an end to Israeli attacks on Lebanon and respect for the country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

June 27, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Illegal Occupation | , , , , | Comments Off on Israeli occupation forces advance in southern Lebanese towns after truce deal with Beirut

Abelardo De la Espriella’s Victory Renews Pressure on Venezuela

José Niño Unfiltered | June 26, 2026

Colombia elected Abelardo de la Espriella as its next president on June 21, 2026, delivering the country’s leadership to a man who spent nearly a decade publicly calling for the violent overthrow of Venezuela’s socialist government. His victory over leftist Senator Iván Cepeda by fewer than 250,000 votes marks a dramatic rightward shift for a nation that shares a porous 1,400-mile border with Venezuela and hosts millions of Venezuelan refugees.

De la Espriella takes office on August 7, 2026. If Brazil’s November presidential election delivers Flávio Bolsonaro to the Planalto Palace, the two largest nations bordering Venezuela will be governed by leaders who have explicitly endorsed forceful regime change in Caracas. Combined with the apparent willingness of acting Venezuelan President Delcy Rodríguez to cooperate with Washington, the conditions may finally exist for completing what the Trump administration attempted and failed to accomplish in 2019.

De la Espriella’s hostility toward Caracas is neither recent nor cautious. He first articulated his position on Venezuela during a 2018 appearance on Peruvian TV personality Jaime Bayly’s Miami television program. According to to his own subsequent writings, he urged Venezuelans to commit tyrannicide against Nicolás Maduro. Days later he published a column titled “Death to the Tyrant” in Barranquilla’s El Heraldo, writing that “the death of Nicolás Maduro becomes necessary to guarantee the survival of the Republic.”

When U.S. forces captured Maduro in January 2026, de la Espriella publicly celebrated, claiming he had predicted it years earlier. He sold the American operation not as an “invasion” but as “the arrest of an international criminal and head of the Cartel de los Soles,” arguing that Washington acted according to the law due to Venezuela’s alleged lack of institutional legitimacy.

His campaign platform explicitly called for a renewed military alliance with Washington. In February, De la Espriella announced that he would immediately begin “bombing the camps of the narco-terrorists and spraying drug crops,” adding that “this cannot be done without a strategic alliance with the United States and the State of Israel.” He marketed this as a 90-day security plan modeled on Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele’s approach, promising to retake national territory through joint task forces, aerial bombardment of criminal camps, fumigation of 330,000 hectares of coca, and the construction of 10 mega-prisons in remote jungle locations. He has also promised to establish American military bases on Colombian territory as part of a comprehensive security restructuring.

Colombia may soon find a partner in this posture across its longest border. Five months after de la Espriella’s inauguration, Brazilians will decide their own presidential election. Flávio Bolsonaro, son of former President Jair Bolsonaro, has made Venezuela the centerpiece of his campaign against incumbent Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.

When Maduro was kidnapped in January, Flávio immediately seized on the moment. He posted that “Venezuela has become one of the most extreme examples of how an authoritarian regime can destroy a nation,” calling Maduro a “narcoterrorist.” At the time, his brother Eduardo texted him saying “you are elected president, because we know that a lot of things will come out of Maduro,” predicting that Maduro’s capture would expose Lula’s ties to the Venezuelan regime.

At CPAC in March 2026, Flávio displayed a photograph of Lula embracing Maduro to a crowd that booed loudly. He accused Lula of maintaining ties with leftist dictatorships through the São Paulo Forum, which he described as a network linking Lula, Cuban communism, and drug cartels. Brazil’s Supreme Court opened an investigation into Flávio for defamation, which he denounced as political censorship.

Flávio took Lula to task for “publicly criticizing President Trump’s actions on Venezuela, Iran, Cuba, and the fight against drug trafficking.” He pledged that under his presidency, Brazil would serve as a reliable U.S. partner rather than an opponent on these issues. Reuters polling in late October shows Flávio and Lula locked in a statistical tie heading into the October first round.

What these leaders propose is not new. Washington reached for it in 2019. The Trump administration’s first attempt to topple Maduro collapsed in spectacular fashion. National Security Adviser John Bolton appeared at a January 28, 2019 press conference at the White House with a notepad reading “5,000 troops to Colombia,” held visibly in front of cameras while announcing new oil sanctions against Venezuela’s state company PDVSA—signaling Washington’s interest in using Colombian territory as a staging ground for military pressure on Caracas. Colombia’s Foreign Minister Carlos Holmes Trujillo Garcia said his government had no knowledge of what the note meant.

On February 23, 2019, a U.S.-backed humanitarian aid plot from Cúcuta ended in violence when Venezuelan security forces blocked the convoy with tear gas and rubber bullets. According to a USAID Office of Inspector General report, only 8 of 368 metric tons of aid actually reached Venezuela—the rest was distributed inside Colombia or shipped to Somalia.

The failure at Cúcuta had a quieter companion in Brazil. The Brazilian military establishment proved decisive in blocking regional intervention. Vice President Hamilton Mourão, a retired general, stated flatly that “under no circumstances” would Brazil allow the U.S. to use its territory for military action against Venezuela. He emphasized that “nobody is betting on a military solution.”

Brazil’s Vice President Hamilton Mourão stated firmly that the United States could not use Brazilian territory to invade Venezuela. Senior Brazilian military figures similarly warned against being drawn into a conflict that could make their forces a buffer between American and Venezuelan troops. The military’s resistance held even as President Jair Bolsonaro gave ambiguous public signals, while gesturing toward all options, he acknowledged that the possibility of intervention was “near-zero.”

That said, what failed in 2019 may succeed in 2027 because Venezuela’s current leadership appears willing to cooperate with Washington in ways Maduro never would. A CIA authored classified assessment, reported by the Wall Street Journal, identified Delcy Rodríguez as the best suited candidate to lead a transitional government. Days after Maduro’s capture, Rodríguez was sworn in as acting president on January 5, 2026. On January 15, CIA Director John Ratcliffe traveled to Caracas for a two-hour meeting with Rodríguez—the highest-ranking Trump administration official to visit Venezuela since Maduro’s removal—to deliver the message that “the United States looks forward to an improved working relationship.” The meeting came at the personal urging of President Donald Trump, who had spoken with Rodríguez by phone the previous day and called her “a terrific person,” writing on Truth Social that “we are making tremendous progress, as we help Venezuela stabilize and recover.”

The optics devastated hardline Chavistas. Mario Silva, host of the flagship pro-government propaganda program La Hojilla on state television VTV, accused Rodríguez of treason. In a May 2026 broadcast, he accused her inner circle of negotiating Venezuela’s future with Washington “behind the movement’s back.” He reportedly went further in a YouTube video, suggesting that Rodríguez was the only figure in the Venezuela government in touch with the CIA prior to January 3.

If such allegations prove to be true, smart money suggests Rodríguez would fold under sustained pressure from a multinational coalition. Trump has already removed her from DEA and OFAC sanctions lists despite the DEA having classified her as a “priority target” for drug trafficking as recently as 2022. She oversaw the deportation of diplomat Alex Saab directly to the United States after the Maduro government had fought for years to free him.

The Latin American Right has been ascendant for half a decade. Javier Milei in Argentina. Daniel Noboa in Ecuardo. José Antonio Kast in Chile. Now Abelardo de la Espriella in Colombia. If Flávio Bolsonaro wins Brazil’s November election, the two largest economies bordering Venezuela will both be governed by leaders who have explicitly endorsed American pressure campaigns against Caracas.

De la Espriella’s campaign pledged to restore the cooperative relationship with Washington that existed before Gustavo Petro. Flávio Bolsonaro has promised to align Brazil with U.S. pressure campaigns. With Rodríguez already meeting CIA directors in Caracas and following Washington’s orders on matters like Saab’s deportation, the path toward a final resolution of Venezuela’s political crisis may be shorter than anyone anticipated.

What Brazil’s generals blocked in 2019 may prove irrelevant in 2027 if Flávio Bolsonaro controls the presidency and appoints loyalists to military commands. What Colombia’s Ivan Duque hesitated to support may become explicit policy under de la Espriella. And what Maduro would never accept, Rodríguez appears willing to negotiate.

The question is no longer whether a multinational coalition will pressure Venezuela toward elections. The question is whether Rodríguez will call those elections voluntarily or wait until Colombian and Brazilian forces mass on her borders with American backing.

One thing is clear: the political crisis in Venezuela is far from over.

June 27, 2026 Posted by | Aletho News | , , , , , , | Comments Off on Abelardo De la Espriella’s Victory Renews Pressure on Venezuela

Israel furious at Trump over Turkey, Syria to invade Lebanon – w/ Col. Macgregor

Mario Nawfal | June 26, 2026

June 26, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Video, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , | Comments Off on Israel furious at Trump over Turkey, Syria to invade Lebanon – w/ Col. Macgregor

IRGC says it struck US military positions, warns of broader response

Al Mayadeen | June 27, 2026

Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC) Navy said it targeted US military sites across the region in response to American aggression against Iran’s coastline, warning that any further attacks would prompt a significantly broader retaliation.

In a statement, the IRGC said the strikes came after the United States allegedly carried out air assuaults against Iran’s coastal areas under the pretext of responding to incidents involving navigation in the Strait of Hormuz.

IRGC cites Strait of Hormuz and ceasefire commitments

The IRGC stressed that Washington violated its commitments under the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding, arguing that Article 5 requires coordination with Iran on maritime monitoring and navigation through the Strait of Hormuz.

The statement also linked the latest developments to continued Israeli violations of the ceasefire in southern Lebanon.

Warning of wider retaliation

The IRGC said navy had delivered an “appropriate response” by targeting US military sites and warned that any repeat of American attacks would be met with a much broader military response.

The force stressed that it remains prepared to respond to future actions targeting Iranian territory or interests.

Earlier, US Central Command (CENTCOM) reported that it launched attacks on Iranian military targets after accusing Tehran of attacking a commercial vessel transiting the Strait of Hormuz, while Iranian media reported explosions near the southern port city of Sirik following warning fire directed at vessels in the strategic waterway.

June 26, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on IRGC says it struck US military positions, warns of broader response

Iran mocks US for ‘solving’ domestic hunger problem, lecturing others on issue

Press TV – June 26, 2026

Iran has mocked the United States for “solving” its domestic hunger problem by simply stopping reports while lecturing other countries on the issue.

Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei made the remarks in an X post on Friday after US President Donald Trump claimed that Iran has “a hunger problem” and his deputy JD Vance alleged that the country’s unfrozen assets could help “feed” its people.

Baghaei cited a report by the World Hunger Education Service that found more than 47 million people in the United States, including 1 in 5 children, cannot consistently access or afford enough nutritious food to live healthy lives.

He further referred to another report by the NGO Feeding America that said 47 million Americans struggle daily with hunger.

“The ‘solution’ from US authorities? In September 2024, the USDA (US Department of Agriculture) quietly terminated its 30-year-old annual report on household food insecurity — effectively ending the official tracking and acknowledgment of hunger in America,” the spokesman said.

“So, after ‘solving’ domestic hunger by simply stopping the reports, Washington now feels qualified to lecture the world about hunger elsewhere.”

Baghaei added, “Charity begins at home — and it is desperately needed there.”

The latest Household Food Security report released by the US Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service for 2024 revealed that 47.9 million people lived in food-insecure households last year.

One in seven households (13.7 percent) in America experienced food insecurity, or lack of access to an affordable, nutritious diet, in 2024, according to the report. About 14.1 million American children lived in households that experienced food insecurity in 2024, a slight increase from the 13.8 million children reported in 2023.

The findings highlighted a deepening crisis in the US amid cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which enables low-income households to afford more healthy foods and boosts families’ food purchases.

Because the USDA’s 2025 survey data which would have been released in 2026 was canceled, no official government data on hunger for 2026 is available.

However, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York has stepped in to fill the gap. In a report released in May 2026, the New York Fed presented new findings on food insecurity based on its Survey of Consumer Expectations.

The New York Fed survey found a “remarkable increase in food insecurity,” particularly among lower-income, lower-educated households, and households with young children.

The survey noted that between late 2025 and early 2026, the share of households reporting they had to skip meals or had insufficient food rose.

For households earning under $50,000 a year, the rate of those reporting not having enough food or kids missing meals reached 19.7% in early 2026, up from 16% in late 2025.

Nationwide, the share of households with limited or uncertain access to adequate food more than doubled from 4% in June 2020 to 10% in early 2026.

June 26, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Progressive Hypocrite | , | Comments Off on Iran mocks US for ‘solving’ domestic hunger problem, lecturing others on issue

Trump’s war on Iran becomes ‘most unpopular conflict’ in US history

The Cradle | June 26, 2026

An analysis of 153 public opinion surveys across seven major wars has concluded that the US-Israeli war against Iran is the most unpopular conflict in US history, surpassing the Vietnam War’s previous record, Responsible Statecraft (RS) reported on 26 June.

The report indicates that public support for the conflict has plummeted to a net negative 32 percent, dropping below the previous historical low of negative 31 percent recorded during the Vietnam War.

This finding directly contradicts testimony by US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who claimed during an April Senate hearing that the conflict maintained the support of the US public.

The analysis highlights three unprecedented ways that the war on Iran broke historical records in terms of unpopularity.

The first is that the war began with a net negative support from the very start, with the war launching with negative 13 percent public support.

The second is that the war has generated historic disapproval, currently holding the lowest level of public support of any major war in US history.

Finally, the war was defined by constant opposition throughout, making it the first where opponents outnumbered supporters for the entire duration of the fighting.

Researchers noted a significant “support gap” in the data, which utilized historical Gallup polls and recent Economist/YouGov surveys.

While 67 percent of Republicans polled expressed general support for the war, 54 percent of that same group called for a deal to end the war as quickly as possible.

Among the general US public, net support for prolonging the war rather than ending it immediately stood at negative 52 percent.

A recent Strength In Numbers/Verasight poll published on 24 June revealed that 59 percent of US adults back the agreement to end the war on Iran, while only 24 percent opposed it.

Respondents of the survey showed a deep skepticism about the outcomes of the war, with only 18 percent saying that the US has achieved its stated goals.

A Reuters/Ipsos poll released on 23 June revealed that only 24 percent of US citizens believed the war with Iran was worth its costs, while 50 percent said the war was not worth it.

This widespread disapproval has driven US President Trump’s approval rating to around 34 percent, marking an all-time low for his second term.

June 26, 2026 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , | Comments Off on Trump’s war on Iran becomes ‘most unpopular conflict’ in US history

The Middle East is wringing its hands of Washington. Finally

By Martin Jay | Strategic Culture Foundation | June 25, 2026

The unintended consequences of Trump’s Iran Deal are too many to list. Chief among them is that Trump’s own buffoonery has injected cash and power into the regime in Iran that it could only have previously dreamt of. But the “unconditional surrender” deal has also probably destroyed the petrodollar – leading, most likely, to a faster demise of the US as what was once called a “superpower”, or even sometimes the superpower. Trump’s idiotic outburst of “unconditional surrender” is, of course, the greatest irony of the entire fiasco, given that it is Trump who is on his knees and has given Iran so much simply to open the Straits of Hormuz, simply to bring down the global price of oil.

Yet what happens now in the region, both to Israel and the GCC countries? For Israel, many leading commentators like Alistair Crooke claim that its people are in a state of shock and that it will take some time before they wake up after the party the night before and realise that things got a little out of hand and that a certain process of cleaning up and repair needs to take place. Crooke and others even go further and believe that Israel can no longer continue to indulge itself in the delusional notion of ’Greater Israel’ – i.e. having regional ambitions of hegemony beyond its borders – and needs to recalibrate its goals, starting with the admission that it is not winning its war with Hezbollah in Lebanon. There is a general consensus among analysts that most Israelis are in a state of shock about how the war in Iran was lost, how America itself didn’t and couldn’t deliver on its military promises, and how even the IDF is no match for Hezbollah. This will take some time for them to sink in – that Israel has simply overstretched itself both politically and militarily, and that the reality is that it is in a deep hole and perhaps a solution might be to stop digging.

But a period of sombreness and solace is hardly what Netanyahu has in mind, and it is likely now that he will become a silent enemy of Trump, who needs him to stop fighting in Lebanon. This relationship between Washington and Israel will also come under strain and enter a new period of saliency, which might briefly mean Congress voting to withhold Israel’s funding, to remind Bibi and his coalition partners who really is the superpower (to coin Bill Clinton’s comment once in the White House when Bibi attended a press conference).

What is perhaps even more worrying is the region and how America now retreats. It is inconceivable that US forces will return to the dozen or so military bases in the Gulf, as it is unthinkable that those elites will keep the cash flowing into Wall Street. Indeed, a bundle of $3 trillion USD which Saudi Arabia and the UAE had earmarked for the US AI sector will now not make it, as those countries no longer have the cash flow in their economies, with hotels in Dubai only catering to about 10 percent capacity. Trump’s war literally sent missiles to these new economies, and the Donald cannot complain now that this cash will not make it to the US.

Yet remarkably, Trump is still dreaming. He is still delusional about who he is and what America currently is, and seems to be stuck with his own ideas which feel like they’re from the 1970s rather than 2026. What we are witnessing in the Middle East is the beginning of the end. The loss of the petrodollar and the GCC countries with their fast cash feels like the first domino falling for the old empire, while Trump obsesses with tiny minutiae details which take up time posting on social media late at night. In the last days of the Roman Empire, its emperor was said to have been concerned about “Rome” – but this was not a reference to a crumbling civilisation, but to his pet chicken of the same name. When we see the puerile, juvenile row between the diminutive Georgia Meloni and Trump, there is a sense of déjà vu with Rome. A row on X which Meloni keeps alive for days might be seen as incongruous to the bigger picture of the US and EU falling into the abyss, with the EU being such a dog’s breakfast that even bankrupt Britain wouldn’t even want to re-join it now, despite most Brits in polls conceding Brexit was a failure.

The recent comments by the Saudi foreign minister might signal that KSA and the UAE are looking for a completely different defence set-up which might actually bypass the US altogether. Other countries like Turkey, Pakistan and Egypt are stepping forward and taking on the challenge by themselves, while leading the anti-Israel doctrine. It is rumoured that Bibi complained to Trump recently about Turkey’s tough talking, but Trump told him to forget about even thinking about hitting the NATO country, as it is simply out of Israel’s league – or words to that effect. But Turkey is the new enemy of Israel. That ball has been rolling for some time.

June 26, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Middle East is wringing its hands of Washington. Finally

Prof Seyed Marandi: WILL the US COLLAPSE the GLOBAL ECONOMY?

Daniel Davis / Deep Dive – June 25, 2026

June 25, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Video, Wars for Israel | , , , | Comments Off on Prof Seyed Marandi: WILL the US COLLAPSE the GLOBAL ECONOMY?

How Darializa Avila Chevalier Is Different From Other Elected Progressives

By Justin K.P. | The Dissident | June 25, 2026

Among the Zohran Mamdani endorsed progressives to win primaries in New York, Darializa Avila Chevalier, who defeated 5-term Congressman Adriano Espaillat in NY congressional district 13, has faced the most backlash from mainstream media across the spectrum for old social media posts.

While I certainly don’t agree with her on every issue and disagree with some of the statements made in the tweets, they do show that on some important issues, she is different from other elected progressives within the Democratic Party.

In this article, I will showcase how on some important issues, Darializa Avila Chevalier seems more willing to take on the establishment than other elected democrats.

She Will Actually Withhold Her Vote For Establishment Democrats

One positive that came from Darializa Avila Chevalier’s old tweets is the fact that she- unlike other elected progressives- won’t sheepdog the left into voting for corporate democrats.

“Y’all really sitting here talking about how we HAVE to vote for one rapist over the other rapist,” Chevalier said about the 2020 election between Donald Trump and Joe Biden.

She similarly refused to vote for Biden in 2020 over his long history of supporting war crimes, writing, “I’ve voted in every election since I turned 18, but you’re out of your mind if you think I’m voting for a war criminal” in reference to Joe Biden.

She similarly wrote, “Y’all clearly don’t want my vote, so I guess y’all ain’t getting it” in reference to the establishment, pro-war Democratic Party in 2020.

If Darializa Avila Chevalier stays on this trend, it shows that she will not follow the “vote blue no matter who” mantra that other elected progressives have, and actually withhold support for corporate, pro-war, establishment democrats.

She’s Actually Anti-Zionist

Another positive about Darializa Avila Chevalier is that she’s an actual anti-Zionist, opposing the full occupation of Palestine and Zionism, instead of only opposing the Benjamin Netanyahu government, or sticking to two-state solution fantasies.

In response to a question about the Palestinian resistance, Chevalier correctly said, “The premise of that question, to me, ignores the 75 years of occupation that the Palestinian people have been subjected to and the conditions that folks were living under before this genocide began”.

She similarly has a long history of activism in support of Palestine and boycotting Israel. She “joined Students for Justice in Palestine in 2014 after a summer internship in the West Bank city of Nablus” and “co-founded Columbia University Apartheid Divest (CUAD), a campaign aimed at coercing the Ivy League school to cut financial ties with Israel”.

She has said , “I’m an anti-Zionist full stop”.

She has also been willing to criticize the liberal zionism of other elected progressives like Bernie Sanders and AOC, saying “I’m no fan of Bernie’s liberal Zionism to be clear” and was critical of “Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, for voting ‘present’ on Israeli military funding.”

She Opposed The Proxy War In Ukraine

Darializa Avila Chevalier also differentiates herself from other elected progressives by opposing the proxy war in Ukraine, correctly stating that it was provoked by the United States, and that the war was a racket for the military industrial complex.

In response to a question asking why the United States was involved in Ukraine, she correctly said, “Cause the Cold War ended, and we’ve been bullying Russia ever since. Also, war is lucrative for these sociopaths”.

More Interesting Than Your Average Democrat

Whether one agrees with Darializa Avila Chevalier’s politics or not, there is no doubt she seemingly is more bold than other elected progressives on important issues like opposing the corporate democratic party, opposing Zionism, and opposing all neocon policies, including things like the Ukraine proxy war.

Whether Darializa Avila Chevalier will stick to these positions or not is yet to be seen, but as of now, it seems she is a far more interesting and subversive politician than the average democrat or even average progressive democrat.

June 25, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , | Comments Off on How Darializa Avila Chevalier Is Different From Other Elected Progressives

Strait of Hormuz as strategic red line: Why Iran must confront Oman’s corridor plan and Trump’s threats

Press TV | June 25, 2026

The strategic calculus surrounding Iran’s ongoing negotiations with the United States within the framework of the memorandum of understanding (MoU) has reached a critical juncture.

Two concurrent developments demand a comprehensive and resolute response: Oman’s unilateral announcement of a separate shipping corridor through the Strait of Hormuz and President Donald Trump’s continued military threats against the Islamic Republic.

Taken together, these developments represent a concerted attempt to undermine Iran’s sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz and weaken the fundamental security guarantees that give diplomatic engagement its meaning and value.

For Iran, the Strait of Hormuz is far more than a source of economic leverage; it constitutes a cornerstone of national security, a critical component of its deterrence posture, and a vital mechanism for preventing future acts of aggression.

The Strait of Hormuz: A matter of national sovereignty

The Strait of Hormuz represents one of the most strategically significant maritime chokepoints in the world, through which approximately 20 percent of global oil supplies transit. For Iran, control over this waterway is intrinsically linked to national security, economic sovereignty, and the capacity to deter any form of external aggression.

The recent visit of Iran’s parliament speaker and lead negotiator, Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, to Muscat appears to have been exploited by Oman under US pressure to advance an agenda that directly contradicts Iran’s sovereign rights over the strategic waterway.

Oman’s unilateral announcement of a separate route requiring only coordination with the International Maritime Organization (IMO) constitutes a calculated maneuver to undermine Iran’s legal and legitimate authority over the Strait.

This action was taken without any coordination with Tehran and coincides with mine-clearing operations based on the memorandum signed between Iran and the United States.

The strategic logic suggests that by creating an alternative corridor, Oman has offered vessels a route that avoids Iran’s jurisdiction, effectively normalizing a system where Iran’s role in administering the Strait becomes irrelevant.

The timing is particularly significant. As mine-clearing operations proceed, Omani authorities have directed vessels toward this alternative corridor, whose route poses serious safety risks and is unacceptable, according to Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guards Corps Navy.

This effectively undermines one of Iran’s most significant bargaining chips – the ability to control access through the Strait and ensure compliance with its security requirements.

IRGC’s warning: An essential but insufficient first step

In response to this challenge, the IRGC Navy issued a timely warning that “the only authorized routes for vessels’ passage through the Strait of Hormuz are the ones announced by Iranian authorities.”

The statement emphasized that “vessel traffic outside these routes is prohibited and highly dangerous,” adding that “coordination with the IRGC Navy via Channel 16 is mandatory for passage through the Strait of Hormuz.”

This response demonstrates Iran’s readiness to protect its sovereignty and maintain its authoritative position over one of the most critical energy chokepoints in the world.

However, as a purely military response, it is insufficient to address the full scope of the challenge. The Omani initiative is fundamentally a political maneuver, and it requires a coordinated response that includes diplomatic, legal, and security dimensions.

The existential implications cannot be overstated. The threat to Iran’s national security, the assassination of the Leader of the Islamic Revolution, and the imposition of two illegal and unprovoked wars through the use of hostile American bases and the cooperation of Arab countries are not matters that can be ignored within diplomatic engagement.

The primary means of preventing their recurrence is firm control over the Strait of Hormuz. If Iran permits this condition to be eroded through political maneuvering, it risks losing a critical deterrent mechanism without receiving commensurate concessions in return.

Trump’s threats: A direct violation of clause 1

Concurrent with the challenge to Iran’s legal authority over the Strait, Trump has once again threatened that if Iran does not act according to his whims, he will impose war once again.

These statements go far beyond psychological warfare intended to weaken the morale of Iranian negotiators or serve domestic political purposes. They constitute a direct violation of Clause 1 of the memorandum signed by him and the Iranian president last week, which calls on signatories to “refrain from the threat or use of force against each other.”

Trump’s threat to “blow up the country, launch a full ground invasion to take it over, and assassinate Iranian negotiators” represents an explicit violation of the agreement.

When combined with the Zionist regime’s insistence on continuing its occupation of Lebanese territory – itself a clear violation of the memorandum’s provisions regarding the cessation of hostilities on all fronts – the pattern becomes unmistakable. The enemy is systematically testing the limits of Iran’s commitment to the negotiation process while violating its fundamental provisions.

The statement by US Treasury Secretary describing the $30 billion in frozen assets and sanctions relief as a “temporary carrot” that can be withdrawn whenever desired demonstrates that, from the enemy’s perspective, what it believes it will ultimately obtain from Iran far exceeds what it is offering during the negotiation process.

This perception must be neutralized through both the words and actions of Iranian officials.

The strategic importance of the Strait in the negotiations

The Strait of Hormuz’s importance extends beyond economic considerations. It serves as the primary mechanism for creating practical guarantees for the fulfillment of Iran’s conditions within the memorandum, similar to what occurred in Lebanon and immediately revealed its consequences. Control over the Strait enables Iran to compensate for war damages, provide security against future aggression, and prevent the passage of military and hostile vessels.

The memorandum commits Iran “to arrange for the safe passage of commercial vessels through the strait, with no charge for 60 days.” The subsequent joint statement with Oman “agreed to establish a joint working group to negotiate the future administration of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz.”

However, Oman’s unilateral action effectively preempts this negotiation process by establishing a separate corridor that bypasses Iranian authorization.

The implementation of what Oman has announced would constitute a clear example of the enemy achieving through the political process what it failed to achieve through military means during the Third Imposed War.

If realized, it would increase the enemy’s appetite to obtain through diplomacy what it was unable to secure through all-out military aggression, a precedent that would embolden further violations of Iran’s sovereignty.

Available responses and strategic options

Various measures exist for responding to this new challenge, each with its own implications:

First, suspending mine-clearing operations would signal that Iran’s commitment to safe passage is conditional on recognition of its authority over the Strait. This would maintain pressure on global shipping and demonstrate that Iran retains the capacity to disrupt traffic if its sovereignty is not respected.

Second, imposing restrictions on vessel passage that deviate from Iranian-designated routes would enforce Iran’s jurisdictional claims directly. The IRGC Navy has already warned that “ships’ movement through other routes is dangerous and prohibited,” establishing the basis for enforcement actions.

Third, military action against violating ships, while potentially escalatory, would demonstrate Iran’s determination to protect its sovereignty. The IRGC Navy has already stated that “any vessel found in violation will be subject to enforcement measures,” establishing a credible deterrent against hostile entities.

Fourth, announcing a halt to negotiations or postponing the next round would signal that these developments have fundamentally altered the basis for continued engagement. This would be particularly appropriate given that Trump’s threats directly violate Clause 1 of the memorandum.

Fifth, escalating the political response through diplomatic channels while the armed forces maintain their deterrent posture. As the points above indicate, the first response by the IRGC Navy is timely and appropriate but insufficient; political responses must be added within the framework of the diplomatic negotiation process.

The risk of precedent and the nature of the enemy

What is at stake extends beyond the immediate question of the Strait. If Oman’s unilateral action is permitted to stand, it would establish a precedent that Iran’s sovereignty can be circumvented through coordinated political maneuvering.

That would fundamentally alter the balance of power in the region, demonstrating that Iran’s strategic assets can be neutralized through diplomatic means rather than requiring military confrontation.

The enemy’s objective in these negotiations appears to be:

1. Gaining access to Iran’s 60-percent enriched material

2. Obtaining complete intelligence regarding the remaining nuclear infrastructure and facilities

3. Reopening the Strait of Hormuz on terms favorable to the United States and its allies

4. Securing economic breathing space for the world and the United States

5. Preserving the Republican Party’s position in the November midterm elections

In return, Iran is offered temporary concessions such as oil exports, lifting the naval blockade, and releasing some assets, whose total financial value of approximately $30 billion is of very limited significance when compared with the strategic importance of Iran’s tools and capabilities, especially the Strait of Hormuz and the unified Resistance Front.

The comparison with Lebanon is instructive. When Iran demonstrated commitment to the ceasefire, it was met with continued Israeli occupation and attacks, demonstrating that the enemy seeks to exploit Iranian goodwill rather than reciprocate it.

The inadequate response to these violations, alongside discussions about the return of IAEA inspectors and Iran’s failure to publish a fact sheet regarding the agreement, increases ambiguity in public opinion and leads to greater polarization.

A coherent strategy for the negotiations

Iran’s response to these challenges must be coordinated, multifaceted, and proportionate to the gravity of the developments. The armed forces’ response, while necessary, must be supplemented by political actions within the diplomatic framework.

Several principles should guide this approach:

First, Iran must maintain its position that control over the Strait of Hormuz is non-negotiable and essential for national security. Any arrangement that circumvents Iranian authority must be rejected absolutely.

Second, the perception that Iran can be pressured into abandoning its strategic assets through diplomatic engagement must be countered through concrete actions that demonstrate the costs of violating Iran’s sovereignty.

Third, the link between the negotiation process and the security situation, including the Strait of Hormuz and the Resistance Front, must be maintained. Concessions on one issue cannot be made in isolation from progress on others.

Fourth, Iran must articulate clearly that the threatening rhetoric by US officials constitutes violations of the memorandum and will be met with appropriate responses, including the possibility of suspension or postponement of the negotiations.

Fifth, Iran should leverage the extraordinary strategic importance of the Strait of Hormuz as the primary means of providing security guarantees and preventing future aggression. The existential threat against Iran’s national security demands that sovereignty over the Strait be maintained as a fundamental condition of any agreement.

The path forward requires rejecting the assumption that these challenges can be addressed through military responses alone.

The coordinated political and diplomatic maneuvering by the United States, its regional allies, and Oman demands a comprehensive response that integrates the armed forces’ capabilities with political diplomacy. Anything less would signal weakness and encourage further violations of Iran’s sovereignty and the terms of the memorandum.

Ultimately, Iran’s position must be clear: the Strait of Hormuz remains under Iranian authority, and any route that does not coordinate with Iran is unacceptable and will face appropriate measures.

The negotiations should not appear as an opportunity for the enemy to achieve through political means what it could not achieve through illegal war of aggression.

Iran’s strategic assets – the Strait of Hormuz, the Resistance Front, and its nuclear capabilities – are not negotiable items but fundamental components of the country’s national security that must be preserved.

The burden lies with the other parties to demonstrate their commitment to the agreement and respect for Iran’s sovereignty through their actions, not merely words.

June 25, 2026 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Comments Off on Strait of Hormuz as strategic red line: Why Iran must confront Oman’s corridor plan and Trump’s threats

House to vote on proposal ending $3.3bln in military aid to ‘Israel’

Al Mayadeen | June 25, 2026

A rare House vote on US military assistance to “Israel” is expected to force lawmakers to publicly defend or reject continued funding for the Israeli military, amid growing domestic debate over Washington’s role in the region.

A report by Responsible Statecraft stated on Wednesday that the proposal, introduced by Representative Thomas Massie, would remove $3.3 billion allocated to the Israeli military from federal spending legislation. Although the amendment faces long odds in the Republican-controlled House, the vote is expected to serve as a measure of congressional willingness to reassess one of Washington’s longest-standing foreign aid commitments.

The amendment targets funding contained in the National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, which finances State Department operations, international assistance programs, and foreign military support.

Massie amendment reflects shifting political landscape

The vote comes amid increasing public scrutiny of unconditional US military support for “Israel”, particularly following the wars on Iran and Lebanon and Washington’s involvement in the negotiating process with Iran.

Tehran and Washington inked a series of ceasefire deals, which called for the total cessation of fighting across West Asia, but “Israel” continued to break the deals by continuing to launch attacks on Lebanon.

Supporters of the amendment argue that the measure reflects growing voter skepticism regarding the strategic costs and political consequences of continued military assistance.

According to the report, recent polling has indicated a notable shift in public attitudes toward US policy. Surveys have found increasing concern among both Democrats and younger Republicans regarding the scale of military aid provided to “Israel”, while criticism of Washington’s regional alignment has become more visible across the political spectrum.

The vote will provide one of the clearest indicators yet of whether these changing public attitudes are beginning to influence congressional decision-making.

Critics question strategic rationale for continued aid

Opponents of unconditional military assistance have increasingly challenged long-standing arguments used to justify the aid package.

Among the issues raised are concerns over the war on Gaza, attacks across the region, and the broader consequences of US support for Israeli military operations. Critics argue that continued assistance, regardless of regional developments, reduces Washington’s leverage and contributes to instability.

The report adds that questions have also been raised regarding the claim that “Israel” remains heavily dependent on US military support. The country has expanded its defense exports significantly in recent years, becoming one of the world’s largest arms exporters and reporting record defense sales.

Supporters of reducing aid contend that these developments undermine arguments that “Israel” requires substantial annual US military assistance to maintain its security capabilities.

Funding debate extends beyond current vote

The congressional battle over aid is taking place alongside a broader legislative effort that could alter how future military support is approved.

Lawmakers, including Massie and Representative Ro Khanna, have opposed provisions that would shift certain forms of military assistance away from direct appropriations and toward defense procurement mechanisms. Critics argue that such changes would reduce congressional oversight and make future funding less vulnerable to political opposition.

The dispute reflects growing concern among opponents of military aid that public opinion is moving faster than congressional policy, prompting efforts to insulate funding streams from future political challenges.

While the amendment is unlikely to secure enough votes for passage, observers view the vote itself as politically significant, particularly as lawmakers increasingly face questions from constituents regarding US military commitments abroad.

June 25, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on House to vote on proposal ending $3.3bln in military aid to ‘Israel’

« Previous Entries