Ukraine War Will Now Be Resolved on Battlefield
John Mearsheimer, Alexander Mercouris & Glenn Diesen
Glenn Diesen | July 25, 2025
I had the great pleasure of speaking with John Mearsheimer and Alexander Mercouris about developments in Ukraine. The Ukrainian frontlines are falling apart with greater speed and NATO’s recent plans of rearming Ukraine will not be able to turn the tide. Yet, the NATO countries have not sought to end the war through a peace agreement and instead continue to push for an “unconditional ceasefire” without a political settlement. Without an agreement to end NATO expansion, Russia will impose its own settlement through a military victory. Such an “ugly peace” will not benefit anyone.
Interview with Pezeshkian by Carlson: Breaking Through the Wall of Western Lies
By Viktor Mikhin – New Eastern Outlook – July 25, 2025
In July 2025, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian gave a historic online interview to American journalist Tucker Carlson. This was not just a conversation—it was a powerful blow to the Western propaganda machine that has portrayed Iran as the world’s primary threat for decades. While the U.S. and Israel fuel the flames of war, bomb nuclear facilities, and sabotage diplomacy, Tehran advocates for dialogue while retaining its right to self-defense and sovereign development.
Amid rising tensions in West Asia, where the West habitually reduces Iranian politics to a caricature of menace, Pezeshkian’s appearance on one of the world’s most influential shows shatters stereotypes. This was not merely a statement—it was a challenge to entrenched narratives, a call for deeper and more critical engagement with Iran’s stance. The interview provides a detailed examination of Pezeshkian’s key arguments, their context, and the significance of this exchange as a reflection of the crisis in international relations. The world must understand the legitimacy of Iran’s concerns, allowing its voice to be heard—without undue demonization or idealization.
The conversation took place during a period of heightened tensions: the U.S. and Israel have attacked Iranian nuclear sites, and Tehran has responded with force. The region teeters on the brink of escalation, where diplomacy is giving way to military confrontation. In this climate, Pezeshkian emerges as a leader combining firmness with a willingness to engage. His assertion that Iran “has not started wars” and “has no interest in prolonging them” reflects both a principled position and an attempt to counter the perception of Iran as a source of instability. He presents himself as a pragmatic actor in international affairs—open to negotiations but deeply distrustful of the West.
Who Is Really Responsible for the Chaos?
The Middle East stands once again on the edge of catastrophe, and the blame lies with the aggressive policies of Washington and Tel Aviv, who choose to bomb over dialogue and provocation over diplomacy. In his interview, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian made it clear: Tehran did not initiate conflicts but will defend its people against external aggression. He stressed that Iran has always advocated peaceful coexistence yet faces relentless Western pressure—sanctions, threats, and interference in its internal affairs. Now, as Tehran demands compliance with international law and respect for its sovereignty, it is accused of “destabilizing the region,” while it is the actions of the U.S. and Israel—support for terrorist groups, assassinations of Iranian scientists, and provocative airstrikes—that drive escalation.
Pezeshkian particularly emphasized Iran’s nuclear program, noting that Tehran has always been open to IAEA inspections and operated within international agreements. Yet, Washington and Tel Aviv exploit intelligence—even inspectors’ data—not for oversight but for sabotage. The president recalled the assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists, cyberattacks on infrastructure, and the deliberate undermining of trust in negotiations. “They offer us surrender under the guise of dialogue,” he said. “Every time there’s a chance for peace, the U.S. and its allies sabotage it—imposing impossible demands or tearing up existing agreements.”
Pezeshkian also accused the West of hypocrisy: while Europe and America preach human rights and stability, they have for years funded terrorist groups in the region, armed radicals, and blocked Iran’s independent development. “They want us to submit to their rules, abandon our security and technological progress,” he declared. “But Iran will no longer play by their imposed schemes. If the West chooses force over diplomacy, it will face a proportionate response.”
Pezeshkian reiterated that Tehran remains open to dialogue—but only on terms of equality and mutual respect. “We do not seek confrontation, but we will not allow our country to become another victim of Western hegemony. The responsibility for chaos lies with those who have sown war for years and now shift blame onto their victims.”
U.S. Double Standards: Peace for Themselves, War for Others
In the interview, Pezeshkian sharply criticized U.S. policy, exposing its hypocrisy and double standards. He argued that Washington has spent decades selling the false image of a “champion of democracy” while being the primary source of global instability. “Iran is always open to dialogue, but how can we trust a country that systematically violates its commitments?” he asked. He reminded viewers that the U.S. not only abandoned the nuclear deal (JCPOA) but continues to impose sanctions despite Tehran’s compliance. “You demand we follow rules you yourselves ignore. Where is the logic?”
The Iranian president listed examples of U.S. interference: the 1953 coup against democratically elected Mossadegh, support for Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq war, funding of militant groups in the Middle East, and endless wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria. “You call us ‘sponsors of terror,’ but it is your allies—the Saudi regime and Israeli government—bombing hospitals and killing civilians. Who is the real aggressor?” He referenced the war in Yemen, where Saudi airstrikes—often lacking credible intelligence—have for years targeted not military bases but civilian areas, inflicting suffering primarily on ordinary Yemenis.
Pezeshkian also noted that the U.S. touts a “rules-based order” but disregards it when convenient. “You ignore UN resolutions when they don’t suit you but demand others obey them. You condemn our defense programs while selling billions in arms to dictatorships. This isn’t order—it’s the tyranny of the strong.”
Despite Carlson’s criticism of U.S. interventionism, he remained captive to Western propaganda, framing questions around stereotypes: Iran as a “threat to peace,” the U.S. as a “victim of Iranian aggression.” Pezeshkian countered: “You speak of ‘freedom’ while enforcing sanctions that kill our children by denying them medicine. You talk of ‘human rights’ while enabling genocide in Gaza. Your rhetoric is a smokescreen for maintaining hegemony.”
In closing, the Iranian leader stated that Tehran does not seek conflict but will not accept ultimatums. “We propose dialogue on equal footing, but if Washington prefers the language of force—it will receive a fitting response. History shows empires built on violence inevitably collapse.”
This interview made one thing clear: while the U.S. speaks of “peace and stability,” its actions bring only war and chaos. Iran, despite pressure, remains steadfast in defending its sovereignty and just international principles.
Pezeshkian’s interview is more than words—it is a call for peace that the West ignores because its elites thrive on chaos. As the U.S. and Israel escalate aggression, Iran stands as the sole power offering diplomacy over war. But peace is possible only when the West stops seeing itself as the planet’s master and recognizes other nations’ right to sovereignty. Until then, the bloodshed in the Middle East will stain the hands of Washington and Tel Aviv.
Viktor Mikhin, Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, Middle East Expert
UK could ‘easily’ stab US in the back – Putin aide
RT | July 25, 2025
The United Kingdom would not hesitate to sabotage a potential thaw in US-Russia relations, a top aide to Russian President Vladimir Putin claimed on Friday.
Nikolay Patrushev, a longtime national security official and senior Kremlin adviser, accused London of being prepared to carry out a false flag in order to derail efforts by US President Donald Trump to resolve the conflict in Ukraine and normalize ties with Moscow.
“If necessary, London would easily stab Washington in the back. I believe officials in the White House realize what kind of ‘ally’ they are dealing with,” Patrushev told RIA Novosti.
His comments followed a statement last month by Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR), which alleged that British intelligence was directly involved in orchestrating covert Ukrainian operations. The SVR claimed the UK had acquired torpedoes of Soviet and Russian design for potential use in a false flag incident – specifically, a staged attack on an American naval vessel in the Baltic Sea.
Since Trump’s return to office in January and the departure of Joe Biden’s Democratic administration, Russian officials have frequently pointed to London as the primary force behind the continued conflict in Ukraine. They argue that the British government’s firm support is an obstacle to peace and a strategic effort to block reconciliation between Washington and Moscow.
Moscow has portrayed the Ukraine conflict as a NATO-driven proxy war meant to weaken Russia at the expense of Ukrainian lives.
Past reporting by The New York Times and The Times of London has confirmed that both US and British officials have played more active roles in directing Ukrainian military strategy than publicly acknowledged by their governments.
NATO Expansion — The Root Cause of the War in Ukraine
By Larry C. Johnson | SONAR21 | July 23, 2025
I know there is a lot of interest in the Jeffrey Epstein story and the new revelations from Tulsi Gabbard about Barack Obama and his team’s efforts to fan the flames of Russiagate. I have been all over the Russiagate matter since 2017. Here is the link to a piece I published on December 18, 2018 with the nifty title, The Trump Coup Is a Threat to Our Republic. I am glad the information is finally coming out, but I knew this seven years ago. What took them so long? While Tulsi’s revelations are legit, I think she is releasing this information now to distract attention away from the Jeffrey Epstein scandal. Trump is getting killed in the polls — reportedly he is down 40% points on this issue.
For now, I want to focus on the war in Ukraine, i.e., the Special Military Operation (SMO), and clarify Russia’s motivation and objective for ending that conflict. We keep hearing the phrase, root causes. Russia wants the West to address the root causes. Ok, what are those? I think it is pretty simple — read the draft treaty that Vladimir Putin presented to Joe Biden in December 2021 and then you will understand. To spare you reading the entire document (I have linked to it in the next paragraph) I am going to summarize the key points.
The draft “Treaty between the United States of America and the Russian Federation on Security Guarantees” that Russia presented to Biden in December 2021, outlined a series of far-reaching security demands, reflecting Russia’s intent to reshape the post-Cold War security architecture in Europe. Here are the key points from the published text:
- No Further NATO Expansion
• The US would commit to preventing further enlargement of NATO, specifically barring Ukraine and other former Soviet republics from joining the alliance.
• This also included a ban on NATO military activity in Ukraine, Eastern Europe, the Caucasus, and Central Asia. - No Deployment of US Forces or Weapons in Certain Countries
• The treaty would forbid the US from deploying military forces or weaponry in countries that joined NATO after May 1997 (such as Poland, the Baltic states, Romania, and others).
• NATO infrastructure would have to be rolled back to pre-1997 locations. - Ban on Intermediate-Range Missiles
• Both Russia and the US would be prohibited from deploying ground-launched intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles outside their national territories, as well as in areas of their own territory where such missiles could strike the other’s territory. - Limit Military Maneuvers and Activities
• Limits on heavy bombers and surface warship deployments: Both sides would restrict the operation of heavy bombers and warships in areas from which they could strike targets on the other’s territory. (Note: In September 2020, Trump’s DOD authorized a B-52 to fly along the Ukrainian coast in the Black Sea.) - Nuclear Weapons Restrictions
• All nuclear weapons would be confined to each country’s own national territory. Neither side could deploy nuclear weapons outside its borders. (Note: US just sent a batch of nukes to England.)
• Withdrawal of all US nuclear weapons from Europe and elimination of existing infrastructure for their deployment abroad. - Mutual Security Pledge
• Each side would agree not to take any security measures that could undermine the core security interests of the other party. - Establishment of Consultation Mechanisms
• Proposals included the renewal or strengthening of direct consultation mechanisms, such as the NATO–Russia Council and the establishment of a crisis hotline. - Indivisibility of Security Principle
• Included a reaffirmation that the security of one state cannot come at the expense of the security of another, formalizing Russia’s interpretation of the “indivisible security” concept.
Instead of engaging the Russians in negotiations on these matters, Biden’s Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, essentially told Russia’s Foreign Minister Lavrov, that Russia could take the treaty and shove it up its own ass. So much for diplomacy. Had the US agreed to discuss the draft treaty with the Russians, the SMO would not have been launched in February 2022. But that is the critical point… The US had no intention of seeking a peaceful settlement with Russia. For example, the CIA, using DOD cover, had already invested tens of millions of dollars in bio labs scattered throughout Ukraine. According to Russia’s Ministry of Defense, it recovered documents that identified a network of 30 US-funded biological laboratories in Ukraine that were conducting research on dangerous pathogens as part of a bioweapons program. Ukraine was nothing more than a pawn in a Western game of strategic chess, with the ultimate goal of wrecking Russia and taking control of its natural resources. The West was not ready to quit that game.
Until NATO’s threat to Russia is taken off the table, Russia’s war with the West will continue… It represents an existential threat to the Russian people. The talks in Turkey between Russia and Ukraine do nothing to address or resolve the root causes.
Trump’s weapons plan for Ukraine bound to fail
By Ahmed Adel | July 24, 2025
The idea of resuming the supply of weapons to Ukraine began with applause in the West, but was followed by shock as it turned out that many countries in Europe are not ready for various reasons, either because they themselves do not have the weapons or they openly admit that they do not have the money for such an adventure.
United States President Donald Trump recently said that the Europeans will take on the burden of sending weapons to Kiev by purchasing them from the US, and as a start, they will send the Patriot missile defense systems.
The problem is that there are neither as many Patriot systems nor as many cruise missiles as Ukraine would need to change the catastrophic situation on the front. Some Europeans have caught on to this issue, but in general, most are unwilling to go to Ukraine militarily, to wage war and fight against the Russians, but they are all ready to verbally support it.
Patriot systems are not a miracle weapon that will mark a turning point in the war. Although some analysts have claimed that the Patriot is capable of shooting down some Russian missiles, the system is not capable of intercepting a hypersonic missile traveling at 12,000 kilometers per hour.
Even the US itself does not have enough Patriot missiles after transferring a significant number to Israel. As a result, the total stock of these missiles in the US is 25% depleted, which is why Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth has decided, on his own initiative, to halt deliveries of these missiles to Kiev. Moreover, it takes between one and two months to produce one missile.
An additional factor is the price: it is a huge and expensive scale of construction that costs nearly $2 billion, and each rocket costs an average of $1.5 to $2 million.
Another problem is the training of personnel to operate the Patriot systems. Each battery has 92 crew members, and with 17 units, in addition to a reserve, Ukraine will face difficulties in finding so many personnel. Furthermore, training for one Patriot system according to NATO standards takes a year and a half without evaluation. It is also worth noting that in 2023, Kiev sent trained crews to the infantry, but many of them were subsequently lost.
At the same time, Radar stations are not mobile and are often targeted by drones, rendering them ineffective.
Finally, the American logistics system means that if a Patriot malfunction or maintenance cannot be performed in the field, it must be packed, transferred from Ukraine to Rzeszów, Poland, and then loaded onto cargo planes and sent to the US.
Previously, the F-16 fighter jets, as well as the Leopard and Abrams tanks, were also praised as “miracle weapons” in Ukraine. Now, no one mentions that Russia has better weapons that are doing their job on the front to deadly effect.
Europe’s financial situation is a weak point in the plan to send weapons to Ukraine, with many European countries refusing to participate in Trump’s project to purchase American weapons for Kiev. Italy openly admitted that it did not have the necessary funds.
The European Union is on a rather gloomy downward trajectory, following several blows, including the migrant wave, COVID-19, and the Ukrainian crisis, and is clearly starting to lag behind the BRICS and G20 countries, which have several comparative advantages over it.
Brussels lacks relevant resources. Russia has the largest resources among all the power centers, the US has somewhat fewer, and China has even fewer. European military power is dwarfed compared to that of the US, Russia, and China.
At the same time, Russia is a prominent member of intercontinental economic alliances, including BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. European goods are becoming more expensive and less competitive, yet they want to give more money for weapons to Ukraine.
Trump’s entire plan is a game in which, as a businessman, he tries to make the best possible deal for the US. He is aware of the limited scope of the American role in Ukraine, which will have an inglorious end. The billionaire is realistic and understands that no success can be achieved and that time is not on Ukraine’s side.
In general, things are not going well for the West because Europe is falling even faster, and Trump is facing several ambitious world powers that possess real spheres of influence. He wants to play a subtle game where there is no clear winner. But he does not want a repeat of Saigon or Afghanistan, where American collaborators were grabbing onto departing helicopters. Trump wants to avoid those humiliating scenes and make a deal, showing collegiality with the Russian president as much as possible.
Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.
Thai-Cambodian Сonflict Only ‘Suits’ America
Sputnik – 24.07.2025
Earlier on Thursday, there was an escalation of clashes between troops of Thailand and Cambodia on the border, which began with a shootout between ground forces in a disputed area.
The US sees the Thailand-Cambodia escalation “through the lens of divide and rule,” Brian Berletic, geopolitical analyst and former US Marine, told Sputnik.
He warned that if the conflict spirals out of control, it could add to regional conflicts the US is also playing a hand in.
“It will create regional instability, slow growth and development, and give the US an opportunity to reassert influence over the region,” Berletic pointed out.
The analyst noted that the standoff sets back the very economic and political unity China has encouraged across the region. That unity allowed many regional nations “to work out from under generations of Western primacy and outright colonialism,” according to him.
“While both the US and China see the region as a sphere of interest – China sees it through the lens of cooperation and joint development,” Berletic emphasized.
China enjoys close relations with both Cambodia and Thailand, he stressed, adding that Chinese authorities “will almost certainly encourage peace and stability and a quick resolution of the conflict.”
What Explains Washington’s and Israel’s Opposition to Questioning Ghislaine Maxwell?
By Paul Craig Roberts | Institute for Political Economy | July 24, 2025
Attorney Alan Dershowitz allegedly is on the Epstein client list, but he calls for the release of the Epstein files and for the release of Ghislaine Maxwell under “use immunity,” which compels her to testify. In other words Dershowitz wants to clear his name by getting to the bottom of the Epstein Saga.
The saga is that Epstein was a Mossad spy financed by Israel out of the billions of dollars that Israel extracts from American pocketbooks each year. Epstein’s job was to implicate the American ruling establishment in sex crimes that enabled Israel to blackmail Washington into conforming US Middle East policy with Israel’s policy.
That done, Washington destroyed at the expense of American lives, money and reputation five counties for Israel.
Now Netanyahu wants Americans to destroy Iran for Israel. Can Washington refuse when Netanyahu has the blackmail information accumulated by Epstein for Mossad?
The problem is that neither Washington nor Netanyahu want Ghislaine to testify.
How long will it be before we hear that Ghislaine has committed suicide in her suicide proof prison cell?
Obama authorized ‘implausible’ reports about Putin supporting Trump – House Intel Committee

RT | July 23, 2025
Former US President Barack Obama authorized the release of reports claiming Russian President Vladimir Putin backed Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign, despite CIA warnings that the information was unreliable, according to a newly declassified report from the House Intelligence Committee.
Last week, the US Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard published more than 100 documents detailing what she described as a coordinated effort by Obama-era officials to fabricate the narrative of Trump-Russia collusion. The effort, she said, aimed to undermine Trump’s legitimacy after his 2016 election victory.
On Tuesday, the DNI released additional declassified findings focused on the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA), which claimed that Putin sought to influence the election in Trump’s favor. That assessment became a central foundation for the Russiagate probe.
New evidence shows that the ICA included intelligence that CIA Director John Brennan knew was weak or unverifiable. Brennan reportedly led the drafting process and pushed for the inclusion of discredited material, including the Steele dossier, despite objections from CIA officers who warned there was no direct evidence of Putin backing Trump.
The report also found that Obama issued “unusual directives” to accelerate the assessment’s release before Trump’s inauguration, bypassing normal coordination channels within the intelligence community.
Gabbard has argued that these actions warrant a criminal investigation and has accused Obama officials of manufacturing a false narrative to discredit a sitting president. Trump has endorsed her findings, calling for prosecutions of Obama and his top aides.
She has also revealed that internal US intelligence consistently concluded Russia had neither the capability nor the intent to interfere in the 2016 election, but these assessments were suppressed.
Russia has denied any interference in US elections, while Putin has repeatedly said that Moscow does not prefer any particular candidate.
Palestinian factions reject Israeli vote on West Bank sovereignty
Al Mayadeen | July 23, 2025
Palestinian resistance factions strongly condemned the Israeli Knesset’s vote on Wednesday in favor of a bill to impose “Israeli sovereignty” over the occupied West Bank and Jordan Valley, calling it a dangerous escalation and a blatant violation of international law.
The Islamic Resistance Movement, Hamas, described the Knesset’s approval of the bill as “null and void,” stressing that the decision had no legitimacy and constituted a direct challenge to international resolutions. In a statement, Hamas urged Palestinians in the West Bank to unite and escalate resistance “in all its forms” to thwart the occupation’s plans to annex the territory.
Formalization of control expands settler-colonialism
The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) warned that while the occupation already exerts de facto control over the territory, the formalization of this through legislation strengthens its colonial grip, expands the settler-colonial and Judaization project, and advances a policy of ghettoization and forced displacement.
The PFLP emphasized that unity and resistance remain the only path to confront what it described as a “dangerous scheme,” equating its severity to the genocidal campaign waged by the Israeli occupation in Gaza.
The Palestinian Resistance Committees said the Knesset vote further exposes the colonial nature of the Israeli entity, adding that “the enemy’s ambitions extend beyond Palestine and target the entire region.” The committees called on Palestinians in the occupied West Bank, al-Quds, and the territories occupied in 1948 to “take the initiative, launch a popular revolution, and ignite a widespread intifada to thwart Zionist schemes.”
‘Legally and morally void’
Fatah also rejected the bill “categorically,” calling it legally and morally void. In its statement, the movement reaffirmed that the West Bank, including East al-Quds, is occupied Palestinian land, and the Israeli occupation has no legal authority to impose sovereignty over it under any pretext.
Fatah urged the international community, particularly the United Nations and the European Union, to support a Palestinian legal campaign before the International Court of Justice and other international legal bodies. The movement also called for full recognition of a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders with East al-Quds as its capital, as a clear political response to annexation efforts.
PA condemns Knesset decision
Palestinian Authority official and Deputy President Hussein al-Sheikh also condemned the Knesset’s move, calling it “a direct assault on the rights of the Palestinian people and a serious escalation that undermines peace prospects and the two-state solution.”
Al-Sheikh described the unilateral Israeli measures as flagrant violations of international law and global consensus, urging states worldwide to recognize the State of Palestine and denounce the Knesset’s decision.
The bill passed with 71 votes in favor and 13 opposed. While it carries no binding legal effect, the legislation asserts that the West Bank and Jordan Valley are “an inseparable part of the historic homeland of the Jewish people” and calls for “strategic steps” to solidify this so-called historical right in pursuit of Israeli “national security.”
Red states back Israeli annexation of West Bank
Several Republican-led states in the US have moved forward with legislation compelling the official use of the term “Judea and Samaria” instead of the West Bank, following a bill passed in Arkansas last month.
The legislative push is part of a broader effort to support the annexation of occupied Palestinian territories. Spearheaded by Yossi Dagan, head of a regional council representing Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, the initiative aims to influence US policy in favor of extending Israeli control over the area.
Dagan has framed the ethnic cleansing campaign as one of “historic justice,” seeking to persuade US leaders, including President Donald Trump, to support the annexation of what he described as “the land of the bible.” According to Dagan, using the term “Judea and Samaria” in official US documents is part of reinforcing that narrative.
The decision by Republican states to consider adopting the terminology followed meetings with Dagan during the annual conference of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). After Dagan’s address, ALEC unanimously endorsed the initiative, giving the proposal broader momentum across GOP-controlled legislatures.
Federal-level support grows
In addition to state-level initiatives, a similar move is underway at the federal level. Brian Mast, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, announced that the committee intends to adopt the historical terms promoted by Dagan. Mast’s support signals growing alignment between certain US political circles and Israeli settlement interests.
States reportedly considering the bill include Utah, Tennessee, Alabama, Louisiana, Idaho, Iowa, and Oklahoma. These bills also include language declaring the West Bank as the biblical cradle of the Jewish people, arguing it should not be considered occupied territory.
The adoption of such terminology by US lawmakers carries significant political implications. By aligning with Israeli settlement narratives and rejecting the international consensus that views the West Bank as occupied territory, this legislation risks legitimizing ongoing ethnic cleansing and violations of international law.
This comes as settler attacks escalate across the occupied West Bank as part of the Israeli occupation’s ongoing efforts to annex Palestinian territory. These incursions are taking place under direct military protection and with full political backing from the Israeli government, according to rights groups and local sources.
‘Peacemaker’ Trump beats Biden’s bombing record since return to office: Report
The Cradle | July 23, 2025
US President Donald Trump has ordered hundreds of airstrikes across West Asia and Africa since his return to office, carrying out more attacks in the first five months of his second term than former president Joe Biden did during his entire presidency, according to the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data (ACLED).
“In just five months, Trump has overseen nearly as many US airstrikes (529) as were recorded across the entire four years of the previous administration (555),” said ACLED President Clionadh Raleigh.
Among the countries bombed by Trump are Iran, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, and Yemen. The majority of strikes were carried out against Yemen.
“The US military is moving faster, hitting harder, and doing so with fewer constraints. Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, and now Iran are all familiar terrain, but this isn’t about geography – it’s about frequency,” Raleigh added.
The surge in attacks contradicts Trump’s campaign promises, which framed him as “anti-war.”
In March this year, Trump renewed the Biden government’s campaign against Yemen with much greater intensity.
Months of brutal and deadly attacks struck the country in response to the Yemeni Armed Forces’ (YAF) naval operations against Israeli interests and its missile and drone strikes in support of Palestine.
Yemeni forces consistently responded to US attacks by targeting US warships in the Red Sea, during both Biden and Trump’s terms.
A ceasefire between Sanaa and Washington was reached in May, after the US campaign burned through munitions and failed to impact Yemeni military capabilities significantly.
However, the campaign took a heavy toll on civilians and compounded the humanitarian crisis the country has faced due to over a decade of war.
An investigation released by Airwars last month revealed that Trump’s war on Yemen killed almost as many civilians in less than two months as in the last 23 years of Washington’s military action in the country combined.
“In the period between the first recorded US strike in Yemen to the beginning of Trump’s campaign in March, at least 258 civilians were allegedly killed by US actions. In less than two months of Operation Rough Rider … at least 224 civilians in Yemen [were] killed by US airstrikes – nearly doubling the civilian casualty toll in Yemen by US actions since 2002,” it said.
In Iraq, Syria, and Somalia, Trump has also continued to strike what Washington says are ISIS and Al-Shabab targets.
Despite vowing to end “forever wars,” Trump has recently threatened to expand them.
On 22 July, the US president threatened to launch new attacks on Iran, after late June bunker-buster strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities which were carried out on behalf of Israel.
Iranian Navy helicopter intercepts US destroyer in Sea of Oman
Press TV – July 23, 2025
An Iranian Navy helicopter has intercepted the US destroyer USS Fitzgerald in the Sea of Oman, issuing warning signals and ultimately forcing the American vessel to alter its course southward.
According to a statement from Iran’s military, the US warship approached waters monitored by Iran, prompting a rapid-reaction helicopter from the Third Naval Region of the Iranian Army’s Navy (NEDAJA) to deploy.
The helicopter hovered over the destroyer and delivered a clear radio warning to steer clear of Iranian-monitored waters.
In the ensuing standoff, the crew of the USS Fitzgerald threatened to engage the helicopter if it remained in proximity.
Iran’s Army Air Defense Command then intervened, declaring the helicopter under full air defense protection and ordering the American destroyer to change its course.
According to the statement, the USS Fitzgerald complied, heading south away from the disputed area.
The US military has not issued a public statement on the incident, which unfolded amid elevated tensions in the Persian Gulf following the recent US-Israeli war on Iran.
Iranian and US naval forces have had a long history of encounters in the Persian Gulf, Gulf of Oman, and the Strait of Hormuz since the 1980s.
In 2019, Iran shot down a US RQ-4A Global Hawk drone near the Strait of Hormuz due to airspace violation.
The Iranian Navy frequently conducts large-scale drills in the Persian Gulf and Sea of Oman, showcasing its capabilities and signaling deterrence against foreign powers.
US congresswoman labels Zelensky ‘dictator’
RT | July 23, 2025
US Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene has labeled Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky “a dictator” and called for his removal, citing mass anti-corruption protests across Ukraine and accusing him of blocking peace efforts.
Her comments came after Zelensky signed a controversial bill into law that places the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO) and the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) under the authority of the prosecutor general.
Critics argue that the legislation effectively strips the bodies of their independence. The law has sparked protests across Ukraine, with around 2,000 people rallying in Kiev and additional demonstrations reported in Lviv, Odessa, and Poltava.
“Good for the Ukrainian people! Throw him out of office!” Greene wrote Wednesday on X, sharing footage from the protests. “And America must STOP funding and sending weapons!!!”
Greene, a longtime critic of US aid to Kiev, made similar comments last week while introducing an amendment to block further assistance. “Zelensky is a dictator, who, by the way, stopped elections in his country because of this war,” she told the House.
“He’s jailed journalists, he’s canceled his election, controlled state media, and persecuted Christians. The American people should not be forced to continue to pay for another foreign war.”
Her statements come amid mounting speculation over Zelensky’s political future. Journalist Seymour Hersh has reported that US officials are considering replacing him, possibly with former top general Valery Zaluzhny.
Senator Tommy Tuberville also called Zelensky a “dictator” last month, accusing him of trying to drag NATO into the conflict with Russia. Tuberville claimed that Zelensky refuses to hold elections because “he knew if he had an election, he’d get voted out.”
Zelensky’s five-year presidential term expired in 2024, but he has refused to hold a new election, citing martial law, which has been extended every 90 days since 2022.
US President Donald Trump has also questioned Zelensky’s legitimacy, calling him “a dictator without elections” in February.
Russian officials have repeatedly brought up the issue of Zelensky’s legitimacy, arguing that any agreements signed by him or his administration could be legally challenged by future leaders of Ukraine.
