Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Israel is going all out to stop Turkey from getting F-35s

Despite the pressure, President Trump seems to be moving closer to approving Ankara’s reentry into the fighter jet program

By Fatih Kocaibiş | Responsible Statecraft | August 10, 2026

For the first time in years, Washington is discussing Turkey’s return to the F-35 program as a serious possibility.

At the NATO summit in Ankara last month, President Donald Trump said he would lift the CAATSA sanctions that the U.S. imposed on Turkey after Ankara purchased Russian S-400 missile defense systems in 2019. Trump added that he was “certainly” considering restoring Turkey’s access to the F-35 program, which was also suspended at the time..

Notably, a separate sale of American engines for Turkey’s domestic KAAN fighter jet has advanced through congressional review. Ankara is also reportedly exploring the transfer of its S-400 batteries to a Gulf state, a step Washington has demanded for years.

But the Russian system is no longer the only source of resistance. Israel argues that Turkish F-35s would, in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s words, “destroy the power balance” in the region. The phrase invokes Israel’s “qualitative military edge,” a provision in U.S. law according to which Washington cannot sell weapons to Middle Eastern states if those arms would give them capabilities on par with Israel’s own weaponry.

Yet these rules have never been formally applied to Turkey, which is, after all, a U.S. treaty ally. What is being tested is thus not only an arms sale, but whether Israel’s claim to regional primacy can restrict American policy toward a NATO ally.

How Turkey was pushed out

Turkey’s search for a long-range air defence system predates the crisis by a decade. In 2009, the Obama administration approved a sale of Patriot missile defense munitions to Turkey, but the deal broke down over questions of price, technology transfer and local production. Ankara turned to a Chinese system in 2013, cancelled it in 2015, and signed with Moscow in 2017. A late American offer in 2018 came too late to reverse the Russian deal, and the first S-400 components arrived in July 2019.

But the S-400 decision was never simply the product of a failed arms negotiation. When Turkey downed a Russian jet in November 2015, it became the first NATO member to do so since the 1950s. As pressure from Moscow mounted, Ankara had to face it largely alone. The withdrawal of American and German Patriot batteries that same winter, even though armed groups in Syria still posed a threat, hardened Turkey’s sense of exposure.

The July 2016 coup attempt turned mistrust into a political rupture, particularly given that Fethullah Gülen, who Turkish authorities accused of orchestrating the coup, was living in the United States at the time.

Russia exploited the opening, filling Turkey’s defense gap while widening the rift with its NATO allies. Turkish officials justified the purchase as an urgent requirement.

President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan gave it a second meaning. The real issue, he said, was not to the S-400 but to Turkey acting on its own will. Elsewhere he refused to retreat, saying Turkey was “not a slave.” Repeated at rallies, Erdogan’s rallying cry about the missile defense system turned it into an emblem of strategic autonomy, making the purchase as hard to reverse politically as militarily.

This has now become a political liability for Erdogan. In Turkey today, commentators and the main opposition describe the purchase as an act of stubbornness — one that left the S-400 rusting in a hangar and wasted the $1.5 billion Turkey had already paid for the F-35 program.

Turkey remains the only participant expelled after paying in, and the six aircraft it financed were never delivered. Its air force depends on an aging F-16 fleet, with Eurofighter Typhoons serving as a stopgap. The domestic KAAN fighter is the long-term answer, but its first batch is set to fly using American F110 engines under a $700 million sale that drew organized opposition in Congress before clearing review in July.

How Israel built a case against Turkey’s return

Within 72 hours of the Ankara summit, Netanyahu took his objections to three American networks, arguing that Erdoğan was “not a friend” and could not be trusted.

The centerpiece of Israel’s case against Turkey was a remark by Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan. Asked on CNN Türk whether Turkey was among Israel’s targets, the foreign minister said Israel had become a problem for the world and that, with these policies and this mindset, “these men have become a burden that humanity can no longer bear.” The reference to “these policies” and “this mindset” pointed to the Netanyahu government, and the same judgment about Israel’s isolation has surfaced in European capitals and at senior levels of the U.S. administration, from Trump to Vice President JD Vance.

But Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar recast the remark as dehumanizing Jews and calling for Israel’s erasure, and this framing became the dominant account in Israeli commentary. Netanyahu carried it further on Fox, telling American viewers that Fidan had said the Jewish state must basically be wiped out.

The framing slotted Turkey into an existing category, the state that denies Israel’s right to exist. But that is the language of Iranian state rhetoric, repeated by senior officials and inscribed on missiles. Turkey has never pursued such a policy; in fact, it supports a two-state solution and has recognized Israel diplomatically since 1949. Yet Israeli leaders, eager to drive a wedge into Ankara’s relationship with Washington, appear determined to cast Turkey as the next Iran.

Balance for whom?

The most revealing element of Netanyahu’s argument was his definition of the regional balance. By telling Washington that Turkish F-35s would “destroy the power balance,” he equated regional stability with continued Israeli superiority. Israel operates 48 F-35s and is contracted for 100, while Ankara’s immediate effort centers on the six aircraft it already paid for. Turkey’s return to the program would not erase Israel’s advantage; rather, it would modestly narrow an asymmetric order built around Israeli air power and freedom of action.

Israel’s concerns about Turkey are difficult to reconcile with Tel Aviv’s own increasingly preventive and attack-oriented doctrine. While Israeli officials like Netanyahu frame Turkish F-35s as evidence of “aggressive aspirations,” Israeli aircraft have struck targets in Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Iran, Qatar, and Gaza. In Ankara, this is seen as hypocrisy; Netanyahu’s “balance” is, in this reading, less about mutual restraint and more about preserving Israel’s air superiority and freedom to strike.

Nor are the objections unique to Turkey. Since 2008, American law has required arms sales to Middle Eastern states be certified as preserving Israel’s qualitative military edge, a standard Israel has invoked against countries including Qatar, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. Nor is this only the position of Netanyahu. Naftali Bennett, his top rival in the coming election, told CNN that Israel cannot allow its Turkish “enemies” such advanced weaponry.

But applying the qualitative military edge doctrine to Turkey does not make sense for U.S. interests. Ankara is not a Middle Eastern buyer seeking parity with Israel but a NATO member whose air force anchors the alliance’s southeastern defense, and its deterrent capacity is a European security question as much as a Middle Eastern one. Extending an Israeli veto over what Washington sells its own allies would put that doctrine in direct tension with NATO’s requirements.

Israel’s concern extends beyond the military effect of a stronger Turkish air force. Despite his best efforts, Netanyahu is unlikely to easily reverse Trump’s broader opening to Ankara. By appointing his longtime associate Tom Barrack as ambassador there, Trump opened a new phase in Turkish-American relations. As Trump said when asked about Netanyahu’s opposition to giving F-35s to Turkey, “nobody tells me what we should be selling or not.”

Unless Ankara takes a step that directly threatens Israel’s security — an unlikely scenario — Trump has little incentive to abandon a relationship he finds useful. That relationship, more than the aircraft, is what Israel is working to prevent.

Fatih Kocaibis is a Turkey-based journalist and political analyst covering U.S. foreign policy, transatlantic relations, and European security, and their implications for Turkish foreign policy.

August 10, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , , , | Comments Off on Israel is going all out to stop Turkey from getting F-35s

US military pressure forcing Hormuz closure – Iran

Washington must cease its strong-arm tactics before shipping can resume through the key waterway, the Foreign Ministry in Tehran has said

RT | August 10, 2026

The Strait of Hormuz cannot be reopened through diplomacy while Washington continues to use military pressure against Tehran, the Iranian Foreign Ministry has said.

Iran closed Hormuz in response to a US-Israeli military campaign launched in late February. Washington subsequently imposed a naval blockade on Iranian ports, escalating a standoff over a strategic waterway that has historically carried around a quarter of the world’s seaborne oil trade.

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei said on Monday that diplomacy is “certainly” part of the “struggle to safeguard our national interests,” but added that “when dealing with a side that insists on the use of force, a maritime blockade is not a diplomatic action that we can lift through diplomacy.”

“Certainly, you have to use authority and military power, along with diplomacy, to prevent the United States’ aggression, and that is what is being done,” Baghaei told a press briefing.

Tehran has set out a series of conditions for reopening the strait, including compensation for war damage, the lifting of sanctions, and the release of frozen Iranian funds, as well as a permanent end to hostilities against Iran and its regional allies.

The IRGC has also said that reopening Hormuz will depend on Washington fully accepting Tehran’s conditions.

US President Donald Trump said that Washington was in no rush to reach an agreement, telling Axios that Washington was “low-keying” negotiations while allowing economic pressure on Tehran to build.

“We are only semi-negotiating with them. We are just watching Iran with its huge inflation and the fact they have no money,” Trump said, adding “It’s like a chess game.”

The talks follow weeks of disagreement over a 14-point memorandum of understanding that established a temporary ceasefire and provided for the gradual lifting of the US blockade of Iranian ports and the restoration of commercial traffic through Hormuz. Fighting resumed last month after the sides failed to agree on how the deal should be implemented.

Iran and Oman, meanwhile, are discussing arrangements for future shipping through the strait, although Tehran has stressed that any agreement with Muscat would not in itself mean the waterway would reopen.

The disruption to traffic through Hormuz has put sustained pressure on global energy markets. Oil prices rose nearly 3% on Monday amid uncertainty over negotiations, with international benchmark Brent reaching $85 a barrel and US WTI hitting $80.

August 10, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Wars for Israel | , | Comments Off on US military pressure forcing Hormuz closure – Iran

US Military testing sowing chaos in civilian skies

By Stavroula Pabst | Responsible Statecraft | August 10, 2026

Almost every day, the military tests various emerging technologies across the U.S., including drone and counter-drone systems and GPS jamming.

To a certain extent, this testing is inevitable. But, as experts told RS, the government has in many cases not ensured that the proper safeguards and necessary interagency coordination are in place to make sure such tests can be conducted safely. These testing issues strain civilian airspaces — increasingly disrupting aircraft and even sometimes leading to accidents.

Drone and counter-drone mayhem

In particular, the military’s domestic testing and use of drone- and counter-drone technologies have precipitated several recent high-profile mishaps.

Last March, the Navy and Secret Service tested counter-drone technologies at a military base near Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (DCA). As a result, several flight crews received faulty alerts warning of possible collisions with nearby aircraft.

In 2020, an MQ-9 reaper drone crashed during testing at the Hancock Field Air National Guard Base, which shares its flight line with Syracuse Hancock International Airport. Military officials did not tell the public about the incident, which caused over $6 million in damages, until more than a year later.

Interagency disagreements and coordination issues over the tech’s use in U.S. airspaces have only caused more problems.

Back in February, the military lent a counter-drone laser to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). CBP subsequently used it, without coordinating with other agencies, to target what it thought were Mexican cartel drones. Instead, it hit party balloons.

The incident prompted the FAA — which had concerns about the laser’s possible effects on civilian aircraft — to temporarily close the surrounding airspace. The agency did so without notifying other agencies in advance, causing confusion amid fears that the U.S. could intervene militarily in Mexico.

Later in February, the military shot down a CBP drone with a laser-based anti-drone system after mistaking it for a cartel drone — again prompting the FAA to close airspace around El Paso.

The FAA and Pentagon formally agreed in April that the laser system’s safety controls work and “do not pose undue risk to passenger aircraft.”

But broader tensions over the testing and use of these technologies in civilian airspace persist.

The FAA’s departing deputy administrator, Chris Rocheleau, said at a drone leadership conference late last month the agency is being “nudged” to accept “more risk” regarding uncrewed drones. FAA officials told Politico last week that the Pentagon’s decisions about aviation often prevail over the FAA’s safety concerns in practice.

Following the repeated airspace closures in Texas, Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) called for an investigation into “potential serious and alarming problems and deficiencies” with interagency coordination and oversight over counter-drone systems.

“As we saw with the DCA Midair Collision, failures in interagency planning create an unacceptably dangerous situation where it’s no longer a matter of if but rather when the next catastrophic accident occurs that will claim American lives,” Duckworth wrote, referencing a collision between a commercial flight and an Army helicopter near the DCA airport in January of last year.

As Dana Goward, founder and president of the Resilient Navigation and Timing Foundation, tells RS, it’s “not clear” the U.S. is prepared for drone and counter-drone operations in its airspace.

He questioned whether officials consistently know where and how such systems are used, and whether they have adequate safeguards to manage them safely and efficiently.

“My sense is that while those things are being worked on, they’re not in place right now,” Goward said. That “should be a concern.”

Aircraft ‘couldn’t navigate safely’ near White Sands

The U.S. military has also been testing GPS jamming across the continental U.S., especially in the American Southwest. While it has worked to notify pilots of its efforts, testing often stands to interfere with civilian aviation in practice.

A notable example is a recent accident back in May in New Mexico, where a small medical plane lost its GPS signal due to military jamming testing in the White Sands region. Attempting to land with older navigation methods, the plane became disoriented and crashed into a mountain.

Under investigation, the crash is the first known case where military jamming testing can be directly linked with a civilian plane crash in the U.S. But many other episodes could have come close.In 2021, engineering magazine IEEE Spectrum revealed internal Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) records showing that 233 GPS interference incidents took place in the southwestern U.S., where military testing is especially frequent, during 2017 and the early months of 2018.

In those cases, testing repeatedly led commercial, civilian and medical aircraft to lose their navigation capabilities, drift off course, and sometimes enter restricted airspace. Pilots declared emergencies in five of the incidents.

“The GPS jamming at White Sands was effecting [sic] the safety of flight of the aircraft to the point to where they couldn’t navigate safely,” an air traffic controller anonymously wrote to NASA’s Aviation Safety Reporting System in 2021. They added that the military often refuses to stop testing when asked to do so by pilots nearby.

The military issues Notices to Airmen (NOTAMs) before it tests electronic warfare technologies like jamming, spoofing, and anti-jamming and – spoofing capabilities, which can all disrupt aircraft navigation systems.

But these NOTAMs often cover regions spanning thousands of square miles and cannot predict exactly where or when interference will occur. Pilots receive large numbers of NOTAMs with little relevance to their flights and can often fly through NOTAM-affected areas without experiencing interference. Such circumstances mean many pilots overlook or otherwise miss important warnings.

In any case, the air traffic controllers assisting the troubled medical plane crew in New Mexico helped three other aircraft without GPS signal on the same evening — despite a NOTAM having warned pilots of possible interference beforehand.

Pilots are required to know how to use older navigation aids in case they lose access to GPS mid-flight. But, as Goward tells RS, GPS has become central to how pilots navigate in practice.

GPS “is something that they’ve grown up with, and trained with, and used for decades,” Goward said. “When that system is no longer available [due to interference], the workload increases, distractions increase, and safety margins decrease.” (In aviation, safety margins refer to the buffers crews maintain to manage unexpected events, including having additional time and fuel, and maintaining greater distances from other aircraft.)

“You end up with a higher likelihood that something bad is going to happen,” Goward said.

As Todd Humphreys, a professor of aerospace engineering at the University of Texas at Austin, tells RS, “there is no question that testing increases aviation risk in the short term.”

“But not doing the testing would increase aviation risk in the long term,” he warned. “We need to test anti-jam and anti-spoof technologies if we hope to put them on planes in the years to come.”

August 10, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | | Comments Off on US Military testing sowing chaos in civilian skies

Is Donald Trump Serious About Declaring Victory Over Iran?

By Larry C. Johnson | SONAR21 | August 10, 2026 

According to a Wall Street Journal report citing US officials, President Trump has been privately weighing the possibility of declaring victory against Iran and ending the war without securing a nuclear deal.

Trump reportedly has floated to senior aides that if the US can keep Iran’s nuclear program in check and traffic resumes through the Strait of Hormuz, he would be willing to extend the ceasefire “indefinitely” and effectively declare the conflict over.

In recent meetings, Trump has expressed confidence that Iran is “likely unable to revive its nuclear work” after Operation Midnight Hammer caused heavy damage to Iran’s nuclear infrastructure in June 2025. He believes US intelligence capabilities would catch any Iranian attempts to rebuild, and that the threat of further American strikes would “serve as an enduring deterrent.”

Trump’s key condition for ending the war is that Iran agrees to fully reopening the Strait of Hormuz to international shipping. In exchange, officials expect Trump would lift the US naval blockade on Iranian ports.

According to the Wall Street Journal, a White House official said that the U.S. has “completed all of its military objectives against Iran,” and the president’s focus is now on “securing the flow of the world’s energy through the Strait of Hormuz.” The reporting suggests Trump is patient and expected to ride out the latest diplomatic snarl, especially so long as gas prices remain where they are.

Let’s assume that this WSJ report is accurate (a big assumption). President Trump is still living in a fantasy world. Despite his recent outbursts about bombing Iran’s nuclear sites, he now seems content to revert to his original declaration from June 2025 that Iran’s nuclear program has been obliterated. Count me skeptical. However, if Trump is willing to make that assumption then it removes one item from the negotiation list… Until recently the US, via Pakistani mediators, was pressing Iran to discuss the Iranian nuclear program before addressing the lifting of the blockade and sanctions, and the unfreezing of assets. Iran, for its part, has insisted on the reverse position: i.e., lift the blockade and sanctions, unfreeze the assets and accept Iran’s sovereignty over the Persian Gulf.

If Trump’s decision to declare victory and end the war hinges on Iran, “fully reopening the Strait of Hormuz to international shipping,” then prospects for a deal are slim. Iran will only agree to allowing ships to transit the Strait of Hormuz in accordance with the Persian Gulf Strait Authority guidelines it issued on April 22nd. In early May, the Supreme National Security Council and other Iranian bodies publicly confirmed the PGSA’s formation and role. It began administering a permit-based system requiring vessels to submit a detailed “Vessel Information Declaration” (covering ownership, insurance, crew, cargo, etc.) before receiving clearance. Fees for “specialized services” were part of the planned mechanism. Iran is not going to back down on this point.

The WSJ article hints at the major focus of concern for Trump: the domestic price of gas. I have repeatedly pointed out on several recent podcasts that there is a global shortage of diesel and aviation fuel and that the price effects of this shortage will become more profound with each passing week. Also, as I discussed in a recent article, the damage to the oil and gas infrastructure in the Persian Gulf and the departure of maintenance/repair personnel from the Persian Gulf Arab nations, along with the destruction of warehouses that held replacement parts needed to repair damage to the oil and gas terminals, the shortage of diesel and aviation fuel will persist for several months, if not longer.

Trump’s attention at present appears to be focused more on the November mid-term elections than on pursuing a new missile and bombing campaign on Iran. Although Iran has fired on at least five ships trying to transit the Omani channel in the Strait of Hormuz without submitting to the PGSA protocol, Donald Trump has not ordered any new strikes on Iranian targets despite his previous vow to attack Iran for each such incident.

I think that there is growing concern within the Trump administration about the potential for a global economic crisis if the Persian Gulf remains shuttered, especially if this continues as is into September. And this is likely the main factor pushing Trump to do a repeat of the end of Operation Rough Rider… i.e., Declare victory and leave.

August 10, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Wars for Israel | , , | Comments Off on Is Donald Trump Serious About Declaring Victory Over Iran?

‘Trump lost this war’: US senator warns America gets weaker as war on Iran drags on

Press TV – August 9, 2026

US Senator Chris Murphy has delivered a scathing assessment of the ongoing war on Iran, declaring that President Donald Trump “has lost this war” and warning that every day the fighting continues, the United States grows weaker while Iran grows stronger.

In an interview on NBC News, the Democratic senator from Connecticut argued that the administration is facing a dire strategic reality, urging an immediate end to the hostilities even if it means accepting highly unfavorable terms.

Murphy highlighted that the cost to reopen the Strait of Hormuz increases daily, noting that a proposed deal currently on the table would effectively pay Iran $100 billion a year to reopen the critical waterway.

“What a victory for Iran,” Murphy remarked. “At the end of this war, they get paid to reopen the Strait, they get paid to rebuild their military, they get paid to rebuild their support for proxies in the region.”

Acknowledging the unfavorable terms, the senator stated he is willing to accept a flawed agreement simply to stop the bleeding.

“I am prepared to support a bad deal to end this war and reopen the Strait, because the only deal that is available at this point in time is a terrible, bad deal,” he said.

The senator stressed the severe domestic economic consequences of the conflict, pointing out that ordinary Americans are bearing the brunt of the administration’s military adventurism.

“People here in the United States get screwed, as prices go up, and up, and up,” Murphy said. He noted that seven in ten Americans want the war to end, adding that “families are being bankrupted, as we speak.”

Highlighting the immediate impact on daily life, Murphy pointed out that as children return to school, “filling up lunchboxes this year is going to cost them $4,000 more than it did last year. That is mostly because of this war.”

A depleted arsenal and global vulnerability

Beyond the economic fallout, Murphy warned of the severe toll the war has taken on US military readiness. The prolonged engagement has drastically depleted America’s defensive capabilities, leaving the country vulnerable to other global adversaries.

“We have used up almost all of our interceptors, the majority of our Tomahawks,” he revealed. He cautioned that this depletion has “put the United States in a dangerous position,” arguing that the military’s overextension has “allowed Russia and China to imagine things that they couldn’t have imagined early on because of our inability to defend ourselves and our allies.”

While Democrats have repeatedly attempted to curb Trump’s war powers, efforts that have been consistently blocked by Republican majorities in Congress, Murphy drew a strict line on future military funding.

“I am not going to support funding to keep this war going,” he declared, adding that he does not expect his Democratic colleagues to fund “a continuation of a war that is destroying American credibility and destroying American families.”

However, the senator offered a conditional path forward for post-war military recovery.

“If the war comes to an end, if the president ends this war, then, yes, of course, I and my colleagues will be ready to provide the funding to replenish the stores of munitions that have been spent,” Murphy concluded. “But the priority is ending this war.”

August 9, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Wars for Israel | , | Comments Off on ‘Trump lost this war’: US senator warns America gets weaker as war on Iran drags on

The Roswell Incident Is the Perfect Psyop

Truthstream Media | August 8, 2026

As context is very important for all videos, this message is to confirm that the purpose of this video is reporting on or documenting the content. Note that we make an effort to research for context and cite our sources as appropriate.

Truthstream Media Can Be Found Here:

Our First Film: TheMindsofMen.net

Our First Series: Vimeo.com/ondemand/trustgame

Site: TruthstreamMedia.com

X: @TruthstreamNews

Backup Ch: Vimeo.com/truthstreammedia

DONATE: http://bit.ly/2aTBeeF

Newsletter: http://eepurl.com/bbxcWX

August 9, 2026 Posted by | Deception, Timeless or most popular, Video | | Comments Off on The Roswell Incident Is the Perfect Psyop

Saudi-Turkish-Pakistani military alliance shaped by fear of Israel, not Iran: Analyst

Press TV – August 9, 2026

Underlying regional calculations behind the new military alliance between Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Pakistan have been shaped by fear of Israel, not Iran, says an analyst.

Speaking to the Press TV website, Anusar Farooqui, a US-based writer and commentator who is also the founder and CEO of Systematic Portfolios LLC, said the newly signed “Mecca Joint Defense Agreement” is aimed at the Israeli regime.

“The alliance politics of the Sunni Arab powers is driven by fear of Israel, not Iran,” he said.

“The Saudis and especially the Turks are very fearful of Israeli plans,” he added, noting that Israeli discussions about confronting Turkey, including talk of a possible surprise attack intended to cripple the Turkish air force, had contributed to Ankara’s concerns.

The agreement was signed on Friday in Mecca by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif.

The three countries said an armed attack against any one of them would be regarded as an attack against all, while describing the pact as a means of strengthening collective deterrence and regional stability.

The agreement did not specify the practical obligations of its members. A Turkish official said it was not directed against any particular actor, remained open to other regional countries and did not replace existing bilateral or multilateral arrangements.

Farooqui said the absence of Egypt from the initial agreement was particularly significant.

“The important thing about the announcement is the conspicuous absence of Egypt,” he told the Press TV website, adding that the possibility of a Turkish-Egyptian military pact was central to understanding the regional balance.

“The Egyptian question is paramount: why has it taken a pass,” the analyst asked.

He added that such a pact would represent a much stronger counterweight to Israel and said the United States understood the implications.

“So it seems to have intervened to prevent the nightmare from happening,” he said.

Egypt’s position, however, has not been presented as permanently outside the arrangement. Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan said Saturday Egypt could eventually join the pact after several technical issues were resolved.

He described Egypt as Ankara’s “natural partner” and said other countries had also expressed interest in joining, although the founding members were still discussing how expansion should be handled.

The new military alliance comes amid US-Israeli destabilizing actions in the region. Since October 2023, Israel has waged a genocidal war on Gaza, invaded southern Lebanon and occupied territory in Syria, while also launching two wars of aggression with the United States against Iran that triggered massive retaliatory strikes against US and Israeli assets in the region.

Meanwhile, the regime’s bellicose agenda has raised concerns about the so-called “Greater Israel” scheme that regards Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories as well as parts of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon as part of the Zionist entity.

Israeli regime prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in October 2025 that he feels a deep connection to “this vision”, describing it as “a historical and spiritual mission.”

On the other hand, some analysts have linked the growing Turkish-Israeli rivalry to a broader contest over regional influence. Turkey and Israel have maintained diplomatic relations since 1949 and their strategic and commercial ties have survived tense rhetoric.

Yet tensions seem to have intensified recently over Gaza, Syria, energy routes, maritime issues and Ankara’s expanding regional role.

Pakistan’s position has added another dimension to the emerging security alignment.

Pakistani Defense Minister Khawaja Asif said on Saturday, following the signing of the agreement, that Israel was “a threat to the entire Muslim world” and called for “a united military front” against it, while noting that the regime poses a direct threat to countries across the region.

The broader security environment has also been affected by changes in the US military posture. Washington has reportedly withdrawn warplanes and other military equipment from countries including Qatar and the United Arab Emirates following Iranian retaliatory strikes.

Asked whether the new alliance could eventually contribute to a region without US military presence and with Israel more contained, Farooqui said the current arrangement is insufficient.

“Not without Egypt,” he told the Press TV website. “The Saudi-Turkish-Pakistan pact is mostly for show. By itself, it is not an effective balancing coalition against Israel.”

August 9, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Saudi-Turkish-Pakistani military alliance shaped by fear of Israel, not Iran: Analyst

When sanctions become piracy with a government stamp

By Dan-Viggo BERGTUN – steigan.no – July 29, 2026

Vladimir Putin has recently announced that attacks, harassment, and unlawful interference with Russian commercial shipping will be met in the same manner as piracy. This statement will naturally be portrayed as yet another Russian threat. But before European politicians dismiss it as propaganda, they should consider a far more uncomfortable question: What do we call it when states stop merchant ships, board them, seize cargo, or attempt to determine who is allowed to sail the world’s oceans?

Since 2022, the European Union has built up an increasingly comprehensive sanctions regime against Russia. More and more vessels have been linked to what the EU terms the Russian “shadow fleet.” The ships may be denied access to European ports and face prohibitions on insurance, financing, technical assistance, and other maritime services.

These are serious measures, but it is important to be precise: A European port ban is not the same as a general right to board foreign vessels on the high seas. Nor is there any automatic right to seize cargo from a ship simply because the EU believes the trade violates European sanctions.

But the development is dangerous. The United Kingdom and several European countries are discussing increasingly offensive measures against vessels alleged to be circumventing sanctions. The ships are accused of complex ownership structures, inadequate insurance, false flag registrations, poor technical standards, or concealing cargo and movements. Some of the concerns may be genuine. Old tankers without sufficient insurance can pose a serious risk to the environment and other shipping.

But suspicion is not the same as a conviction.

The EU calls this a “shadow fleet.” Russia rejects the designation. The term is politically effective because it creates the impression that the ships are virtually lawless ghost vessels that any Western navy can intervene against. But a ship that flies a valid flag, has a crew, a registered owner, and sails outside other states’ territorial waters does not automatically lose its rights simply because its cargo is Russian or because the EU disapproves of the trade.

Nor are European countries alone in acting this way. The United States has for several years seized oil that it claims has been transported in violation of U.S. sanctions against Iran. American courts have issued forfeiture orders, and U.S. authorities have taken over, sold, or seized oil from foreign tankers.

As early as 2020, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that the United States had confiscated approximately 1.1 million barrels of Iranian petroleum products from four foreign-flagged tankers. U.S. authorities stated that the seizure was carried out with the assistance of foreign partners. In 2023, over 980,000 barrels of oil from the tanker Suez Rajan were seized and later sold. In 2026, U.S. authorities obtained forfeiture of the tanker Skipper and approximately 1.8 million barrels of oil originating from Iran and Venezuela.

The United States portrays this as legal enforcement of sanctions, counter-terrorism financing efforts, and the forfeiture of illicit cargo. But from the perspective of other countries, it may look quite different: One state uses its own laws and its own courts to take control of other countries’ commercial goods far outside its own territory.

What would the United States say if an Iranian or Chinese court decided to seize American oil en route to Europe? What would Norwegian authorities say if a Norwegian ship were stopped on the high seas because its cargo violated another country’s unilateral sanctions?

We would hardly call that ordinary law enforcement. We would call it theft, abuse of power, or piracy.

It must be emphasized, however, that not all U.S. seizures have occurred through armed hijackings on the high seas. Some have been carried out in cooperation with shipowners, operators, flag states, or foreign authorities. Others have been based on claims that the ship was stateless, used a false flag, or had ties to the U.S. financial system. But this does not change the fundamental problem: The United States is attempting to give its national sanctions effect across large parts of the world.

The law of the sea is built on the principle of freedom of navigation on the high seas. The ship’s flag state has both the right and the duty to exercise control over the vessel. The registration ties the ship to a state that also has the right to protect it under international law.

This does not mean that merchant ships can do whatever they want. Piracy, human trafficking, statelessness, false registration, and other serious offenses may provide grounds for intervention. Coastal states also have extensive authority in their own territorial waters and ports. But economic sanctions adopted by the United States or the EU are not automatically world law.

As a veteran union representative, I myself have met Admiral Aleksandr Moiseyev on veteran affairs. He is now Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Navy. During our meeting, he gave a detailed account of the rescue efforts following the sinking of the nuclear submarine Kursk in the Barents Sea in August 2000. He described the enormous technical challenges, the time pressure, and the human drama surrounding the attempt to reach the crew. All 118 people on board lost their lives.

The conversation made a strong impression on me. It reminded me that the sea is not merely an arena for military power, sanctions, and political posturing. It is also a merciless workplace where even the mightiest navies can be put to the test, and where cooperation between nations can be the difference between life and death.

Norwegian and British experts were eventually brought in to assist with the Kursk operation. This is precisely why it is tragic that the relationship between Norway, Russia, and the rest of Europe is now moving in the opposite direction. Where we once could cooperate on rescue, safety, and human lives in the High North, we now risk encountering each other with warships, boarding parties, and weapons aimed at merchant vessels.

The lessons from the Kursk should have taught us that incidents at sea can quickly escalate into catastrophes. Communication failures, prestige, secrecy, and delayed decisions can cost lives. If European or American forces stop Russian-affiliated merchant ships while Russian naval vessels are ordered to protect them, a single misunderstanding could have consequences no politician has planned for.

This lies at the heart of Putin’s recent warning.

If Western naval vessels attempt to board Russian-affiliated merchant ships, Russia may respond with escort vessels, military presence, or attempts to prevent the boarding. In such a scenario, very little is needed—a warning shot, a navigational error, or a misinterpreted order—to lead to armed confrontation, and even a nuclear conflict.

Thus, we could end up in a situation where nuclear powers face each other around a civilian tanker in the North Sea, the Baltic Sea, the Barents Sea, or the English Channel.

Europe and the United States must ask themselves what principle they are establishing. If Western countries can stop ships because their cargo violates Western sanctions, China could later stop European ships citing Chinese sanctions. Iran could do the same in the Persian Gulf. Russia could draw up its own lists of Western vessels and claim they support hostile activities.

Do we really want a world order where the strongest navy determines what constitutes legal trade?

The conflict in Ukraine can be criticized and condemned without simultaneously tearing down the international legal rules governing global shipping. Sanctions must not become a shortcut to state-sanctioned piracy.

Norway is a maritime nation and should be among the first to demand clarity. The government must clearly state whether Norway will participate in boardings, seizures, or military stops of merchant vessels outside Norwegian territorial waters. It must also explain what international legal basis such intervention would supposedly rest upon.

Because when the great powers grant themselves the right to stop ships, seize oil, and sell the cargo, it is no longer just about sanctions. It is about who has the biggest warships.

When merchant ships become military targets, the path from economic war to actual war has become alarmingly short.

August 9, 2026 Posted by | Economics, War Crimes | , , , | Comments Off on When sanctions become piracy with a government stamp

Iran Holds Firm on the Strait of Hormuz

By Larry C. Johnson | SONAR21 | August 9, 2026 

Although Donald Trump insists that the Strait of Hormuz is open, it ain’t. There are no direct talks between Iran and US representatives. In fact, it looks like Pakistan’s attempt at mediation is going nowhere. Iran has been talking with Oman, but those talks — despite claims of progress — appear to have stalled.

Iran updated its demands that the US must accept if it wants the Strait of Hormuz back in full operation:

‘Until America corrects its behavior, the Strait of Hormuz will not be opened.

Correcting behavior means:

  1. Never threaten Iran with any language nor insult the sanctities of this nation.
  2. End the war and aggression against Iran and its allies in Lebanon, Palestine, Yemen, and Iraq permanently.
  3. Lift the naval blockade and withdraw U.S. naval and air forces from the area surrounding Iran.
  4. Pay the damages for the two aggressive wars imposed against Iran.
  5. Lift the cruel and illegal sanctions against the Iranian nation.
  6. Release the frozen and stolen assets of the Iranian people unconditionally.

These are the demands of the Iranian people who have been relentlessly present in the squares and streets for 160 days.

Some in the West are treating these demands like they are something new. They are not. Let me remind you that in early April 2026 (around April 6), Iran delivered a 10-point proposal (sometimes called a peace plan or counter-proposal) to the United States. It was conveyed via Pakistan, which was mediating. This responded to an earlier U.S. 15-point proposal. Iranian state media and subsequent reporting summarized the key elements; no complete official English text of every point was universally published at the time, but consistent accounts of the main demands included the following:

  • A permanent/non-aggression guarantee that Iran (and related fronts) would not be attacked again.
  • Continued Iranian coordination/control or a secure transit protocol for the Strait of Hormuz (with some versions mentioning fees or arrangements involving Oman).
  • Ending hostilities against Iran’s regional allies/“Axis of Resistance” (including in Lebanon).
  • Full or broad U.S./Western sanctions relief (primary and secondary).
  • Termination of relevant UN Security Council and IAEA resolutions.
  • Release of frozen Iranian assets.
  • Compensation or reconstruction funding for war damage.
  • Related security and non-interference provisions.

Iran is holding firm to its demands. I remain skeptical that Donald Trump will agree to these terms. In fact, Trump reportedly has decided to launch a new campaign of bombing and missile strikes, despite warnings from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that US missile inventories are running dangerously low. Folks at CENTCOM who thought they would have a long weekend reportedly have been called back to work to finish planning the new round of strikes.

I think that US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is a good barometer for what Trump is thinking. On Thursday, August 7 he announced fresh Treasury/OFAC sanctions targeting Iran’s use of digital assets, posting that the regime relies on digital asset exchanges to launder billions of dollars, maintain covert access to international financial systems, and support the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. He said:

With its economy in freefall and inflation in the triple digits, the regime is desperate for cash, Treasury will hunt down and dismantle the illicit financial networks that keep the regime afloat” whether in dollars, rials, or crypto.

He cast this as evidence his “Economic Fury” campaign is working. If this is what Bessent is telling Trump then it is likely that Trump is considering a CENTCOM plan for another intensive bombing campaign, despite that Cooper having reportedly advised the White House and Pentagon in late July to halt the bombing campaign around the Strait of Hormuz. His argument was essentially that the campaign had hit a wall of diminishing returns. He told administration officials that most of the military’s designated targets in the Strait of Hormuz region had already been struck, leaving relatively few remaining objectives. Despite that warning, CNN and the Jerusalem Post reported that CENTCOM has developed a plan for one or two weeks of heavy bombardment intended to destroy Iran’s remaining missile capabilities. This sits alongside CENTCOM’s unusual, crowdsourcing-style email asking troops for “new creative and unconventional ways” to pressure Iran — a sign the command is casting about for options.

Lots of mixed signals. I cannot rule out the possibility of Trump ordering a new surprise attack in hopes that it will force Iran to capitulate.

August 9, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , | Comments Off on Iran Holds Firm on the Strait of Hormuz

Saudi Arabia, Turkey & Pakistan Sign Defence Pact

Mario Nawfal & Glenn Diesen | August 7, 2026

August 8, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Video, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Saudi Arabia, Turkey & Pakistan Sign Defence Pact

Bipartisan Senate bill ties LAF funding to Hezbollah disarmament

Al Mayadeen | August 8, 2026

US Senators Jeanne Shaheen and James Lankford introduced legislation late on Thursday authorizing $1.2 billion in security assistance to the Lebanese Armed Forces over five years, with the funding structured around a condition that the Lebanese state actively disarms Hezbollah and enforces a state monopoly on weapons.

The bill sets an annual allocation of $240 million, including $200 million through Foreign Military Financing. Up to half of that amount would be withheld until the US Secretary of State certifies that Lebanon has met the disarmament and weapons monopoly conditions, though LAF special operations units and associated enabling forces are exempted from the freeze.

The legislation also authorizes sanctions, including asset blocks, financial restrictions and visa bans, against foreign persons who support Iran’s financing of Hezbollah or who obstruct the Lebanese state’s disarmament efforts.

A separate reconstruction fund under the bill, administered by the State Department, would rebuild government services, municipal institutions and civilian infrastructure. It explicitly bars funds from reaching the Council for South Lebanon, the state body with the most experience in building and rebuilding infrastructure in the South.

Sovereignty conditioned on US certification

Shaheen, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in a statement that Lebanon has “a real chance to reclaim its sovereignty, disarm Hezbollah and break free from Iran’s malign influence” with US support. Lankford said a “sovereign Lebanon protects Lebanese, Israeli, and American citizens living in the region.”

Despite its alleged aim of restoring Lebanese sovereignty, the bill gives the US Secretary of State, rather than the Lebanese government or LAF command, the authority to assess the Lebanese Armed Forces’ performance. It also leaves the definition of who qualifies as “obstructing” disarmament, and therefore subject to sanctions, to the same US determination.

Both sponsors have received financial support from pro-“Israel” PACs over their careers. OpenSecrets records $574,295 in career contributions to Shaheen and $365,560 to Lankford from PACs and individuals in its broad pro-“Israel” donor category, which spans AIPAC alongside J Street, NORPAC, Pro-Israel America and other groups; a separate tracker counts $284,002 in pro-“Israel” PAC contributions to Shaheen since 2016, more than three-quarters of it from J Street PAC.

Not a marginal movement

The bill, like the broader US disarmament push it builds on, treats Hezbollah as a foreign-directed militia to be dismantled rather than as an outgrowth of Lebanon’s own political and social fabric.

Hezbollah holds seats in parliament and remains one of Lebanon’s largest political and social organizations, with a base that extends well beyond an armed wing.

Its financial institution, Al-Qard Al-Hassan, continued paying out depositors through Lebanon’s 2019 banking collapse, when commercial banks froze accounts and locked account holders out of their own savings. The group also runs hospitals, clinics and schools concentrated in the South and Bekaa, areas that have received limited investment from the Lebanese state for decades.

Hezbollah is a symptom of both an expansionist settler-colonial project on Lebanon’s southern border and a Lebanese state that has never built a national defense strategy capable of securing the South on its own. It emerged directly from “Israel’s” 1982 invasion of Lebanon and the nearly two-decade occupation of the South that followed, and the group has framed its arsenal since as a deterrent against a state that has invaded Lebanon repeatedly and continues to occupy Lebanese territory and attack areas of the South under the current ceasefire.

A fraction of what ‘Israel’ receives

US funding to the LAF has fluctuated between roughly $200 million and $285 million annually in recent years, following a $230 million package approved in late 2025.

The pending FY2027 defense authorization draft in the Senate would cut that to $36 million, tied to a stricter recertification process every 90 days. A separate House bill, the PAGER Act, would cut off all LAF funding entirely pending eight conditions, including the delegitimization of Hezbollah, Loyalty to the Resistance Bloc and Amal as political parties; it remains stalled without a floor vote.

By comparison, the Israeli regime receives $3.8 billion annually in US military financing under its current ten-year agreement, plus $21.7 billion in supplemental funding since October 2023, with none of the equipment restrictions applied to Lebanon.

Egypt and Jordan each receive over $1 billion a year under multi-year agreements that provide budget predictability the LAF has never had.

The gap traces to the Qualitative Military Edge doctrine, codified into US law in 2008, which requires that any US arms sale to a regional state other than “Israel” include a formal determination that the sale will not erode “Israel’s” military superiority over its neighbors.

In practice, the LAF has never received air defense systems, advanced anti-tank weapons, or offensive strike platforms, regardless of the threat Lebanon faces on its southern border. The new bill does not alter that restriction.

August 8, 2026 Posted by | Corruption, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , | Comments Off on Bipartisan Senate bill ties LAF funding to Hezbollah disarmament

Let them eat burritos: Out of touch influencers risk all for Trump war

Republicans on pro-war autopilot are mocking Americans who are concerned about rising prices. Not a good look ahead of the midterms.

By Jack Hunter | Responsible Statecraft | August 8, 2026

As the 2026 midterm elections near, polls show American voters’ top priority is the economy, including concerns that the unpopular U.S. war in Iran appears to be driving up prices at home.

Might these voter concerns give Republican hawks pause?

Apparently not.

“If we can’t handle four dollar oil for a period of months in order to disarm Iran of a nuclear weapon then we are not a superpower anymore,” former George W. Bush speechwriter Marc Thiessen told Fox News last week.

One of the biggest pro-Israel lawmakers in Congress had a similar message. “As much as it stinks to pay an extra dollar for a gallon of gas… think about the damage of a nuclear bomb going off in Washington, or New York, or Miami,” Rep. Randy Fine (R-Fla.) said Monday on News Nation.

Surely some of these Republicans would recognize that fear of inflation combined with growing opposition to the war could hurt their party come November — that maybe an adjustment in language and tone is in order?

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) gets it. Sort of. He wants to keep prices down for Americans but thinks the only way to do that is to bomb the hell out of Iran for “two to three weeks” to get the Hormuz Strait open. He says the Iranians cannot be trusted to broker a deal without military force, so why not keep doing what hasn’t worked yet over the last five months?

Others are leaning hard into the notion that higher prices are just “fake news” — no doubt in hopes that repeating that enough will just make the problem go away.

The Iran war “has had basically no impact on food prices in the US,” declared The Daily Wire’s Ben Shapiro on Wednesday, seemingly responding to what writer Sohrab Ahmari is calling the “great American burrito debate” on social media over the current cost of food and how that might relate to the current cost of war.

Ahmari’s essay notes that, to Cotton’s point about Hormuz and prices, “even though the United States is the world’s chief net energy exporter, the supply squeeze in the Strait of Hormuz puts inflationary pressure on gas prices in America. And it’s not just gas prices which are affected, but those in many other sectors, too — from transportation to agriculture to restaurants and hospitality.”

In addition to rising prices, new data released Friday showed that 23,000 jobs were lost in July, an unexpected number for economists. All eyes are on the new inflation figures to be released this upcoming week. In May, it rose to 4.2%, the highest since 2023 and relaxed in June to 3.5%.

Never to be left out, regime change maven and Fox News host Mark Levin on Sunday urged Donald Trump to attack Kharg Island to bring Iranians “to their knees” and not to worry about sparking “a worldwide depression and so on. It won’t happen!”

Trump seemed to share the same reality-detached hopefulness, proclaiming on Monday that, “Now, US is the King of OIL!” The president shared a chart showing U.S. “oil exports [surging] to historic high!” He is likely hoping that his audience won’t read up on the subject and find that it doesn’t matter how much the U.S. produces; it won’t affect current gas prices at the pump today.

One time MAGA-darling turned Trump critic, former Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, wasn’t having it. She called out the president on what Americans are actually experiencing.

“The national price of gas is $4.10 and diesel is $5.36. Your illegal senseless war on Iran is crushing the very people that voted to end foreign wars, lower inflation, and lower the price of gas,” Greene said on X.

Trump even went so far as to suggest that greedy energy companies might be to blame, saying at the Oval Office this week that Chevron and Exxon Mobil are making “too much money,” amid the war. “I don’t like it… They ought to give some of that back to the public,” he said, according to C-SPAN

The Independent’s Eric Garcia couldn’t help but notice that Trump sounded like Democrats complaining about “greedflation” under President Joe Biden.

None of this appears to be fooling voters, including Republicans.

On Tuesday, CNN pollster Harry Enten rattled off some of Donald Trump’s approval numbers among moderate Republicans. “On Iran, he’s six points underwater within his own party. Within his own party! You think that’s low? (He’s) about 17 points underwater on inflation.”

“Inflation was the name of the game with the economy back in 2024,” Enten noted. “If I am a Republican running for Congress in those swing districts, I need those moderate Republicans, and they are leaving Donald Trump, and they may be leaving those Republican candidates as well.”

The New York Times suggested on Tuesday that the war was undermining Trump’s presidency. “The war in Iran, along with a cycle of threats and walk-backs, has upended President Trump’s domestic agenda at a dire political moment. Americans are facing rising gas prices.”

It went on to cite the most recent Quinnipiac University poll, which found that 60% of voters opposed military action against Iran, “a slight uptick since May.” Furthermore, a recent CNN/SSRS poll found that 74% of Americans — including about 43% of Republicans — said the war was not “worth the cost in terms of the financial burden or American casualties,” the paper noted.

While some hawks are doing mental gymnastics to say war costs and domestic affordability are unrelated, other conservatives have told them to knock it off and course correct.

The Daily’s Wire’s Matt Walsh shared an X post on Monday that at the time of this writing had 4.4 million views and climbing.

“Grocery prices are insane. They’re still rising. Addressing this problem should be the number one priority of every elected leader,” Walsh wrote. “End the stupid foreign wars and focus on this issue.”

In response, Charlie Kirk Show producer Andrew Kolvet tried to downplay current inflation as “hangover from Covid and Biden-era inflation,” but also quoted one of his TPUSA college students bemoaning that, “a burrito shouldn’t cost $20.”

The forever-hawkish Marc Thiessen was back again, completely dismissive. “Cry me a river. The burritos in the college cafeteria are included in your meal plan.”

Add to that Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas) who recently lost his primary by double digits. “Stop whining, get a job, eat Ramen like the rest of us did in college, on a budget with 4 roommates. The market does not care what you think something should cost,” he posted. To which conservative commentator Ryan Girdusky responded: “Can’t understand why you lost your re-election.”

Hence the foreign policy-inflation-driven-burrito-cost debate that is probably still raging on X and that Ahmari insists “the neocons are losing.” He might be right.

No matter how much hawks doth protest, there are costs to any war, often including affordability.

Iran war defenders pretending otherwise is just something reality won’t afford them.

Jack Hunter is the former political editor of Rare.us. Jack has written regularly for Modern Age, Washington Examiner, The Daily Caller, The American Conservative, Spectator USA and has appeared in Politico Magazine and The Daily Beast. Hunter is the co-author of the The Tea Party Goes to Washington by Sen. Rand Paul.

August 8, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, Wars for Israel | | Comments Off on Let them eat burritos: Out of touch influencers risk all for Trump war

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »