Did Israel have a hand in Morocco’s Ceuta stunt?
By Martin Jay | Strategic Culture Foundation | August 4, 2026
There are a great deal of conspiracy theories floating around since the extraordinary events in recent days in northern Morocco, where an estimated 50,000 of its citizens attempted to place themselves in the Spanish enclave of Ceuta. In a country where the press are heavily controlled and free-spirited citizen journalism is assiduously discouraged, it’s hardly surprising there is speculation – given how in the dark the government operates most of the time. Yet few, if any Moroccans, believe the government narrative that the entire thing developed an energy of its own on social media platforms and that the state itself was taken by surprise. True, a lot of how quickly the information spread was due to social media platforms, but there are too many oddities which can’t be ignored that point the finger at the government – or whoever is running Morocco – for organising the huge mobilisation. Firstly, the number of trucks full to the brim of young men who drove all the way to the border and were directed by police and gendarmerie; secondly, the more recent scenes of hundreds of these young men at bus and train stations all over the country on their way home, where clearly their transportation has been paid for by someone; and of course, lastly but not least, the fact that Moroccan police on the Moroccan side of the border made no effort at all – not even a token effort – to stop people from going around the fence or into the water. In fact, many of those who made the journey have already told media that they were actually directed and encouraged to “go to Spain” by those same police officers.
Moroccans know only too well what is happening. They remember the few times before when thousands of African migrants also magically all turned up at the border with Ceuta and Melilla and also remarkably found on that particular day no Moroccan police officers and so scaled the fence. On at least two occasions in recent years, this stunt has been used by Rabat to indicate to Madrid how angry and displeased it is about Spain’s actions over Algeria, Western Sahara or other regional policies.
But those days were before 2022, when relations with Spain were far from ideal. These days, since Madrid backed Morocco’s sovereignty bid for Western Sahara, relations – until just the other day – were as best as they could get. Almost.
It’s important to remember how easily good relations with Spain could turn sour, and that in recent weeks Madrid’s rapprochement with Algeria and moves afoot in the Spanish parliament to give the indigenous people of Western Sahara Spanish passports could ruin everything that has been achieved overnight. Why would Rabat throw away a relationship so important to it, unless there is something else at play which analysts and journalists alike are missing? Is there another dimension to the Ceuta story which we are entirely missing?
According to the Iranians, Israel had a hand in what happened. Tehran believes that the Moroccans have been led down the garden path by primarily Israel and then Trump, and some recent events suggest there could be some truth in their assertion.
There is an obvious question here to be asked, which no Western journalists have so far identified. Trump and Netanyahu both have Spain in their crosshairs and desperately want to make the country a pariah state, cutting off U.S. aid and even having Madrid ousted as a NATO member. Of course, some of this is unrealistic and far-fetched, but it is rare that Trump and Bibi see eye to eye on the Iran war – when it comes to Spain and Morocco, there is clarity. It is clear that Israel and the U.S. are trying to stir trouble up, and the only real way to do that quickly and effectively, they see, is to destroy this relationship between Rabat and Madrid. Bringing Algeria in from the cold, for Spain, might have blown a fuse in Rabat with the country’s ruling elite called the Makhzen, which could explain quite a few things. Add to that $40 million USD which the Trump administration is reported to have put aside for Rabat, while we begin to see Melilla and Ceuta becoming Moroccan territory in Congress reports (the most recent one being a State Department budget report just signed off by the House), and a picture emerges which puts the entire Ceuta story into context. The geopolitics starts to make sense. “When two neighbouring countries fight each other, just know the USA visited one,” Nelson Mandela once said, and this is the story now of Morocco and Spain.
The Ceuta “invasion”, many believe, was merely a stunt to derail the good relations which both countries have enjoyed until now. And it will probably work. If Madrid believes that the U.S. and Israel are goading Rabat on, then clearly Sanchez and his closest advisors will tone down the relationship with Morocco – which in fact is already happening, when one Spanish minister told a journalist “it is clear what is happening”, hinting that Madrid knows who is behind the move and what the objectives were. If Israel has bedazzled the palace in Rabat with the dream of these enclaves becoming Moroccan, then the biggest winners by far are Israel – which is how analysts should frame their take. If relations turn sour between Rabat and Madrid and tensions start to mount over these enclaves, could the U.S. and Israel send warships there to blockade them, as part of a security measure to support its ally, Morocco? Could that even be the basis to send in Moroccan troops to take them over completely? Sounds far-fetched, but there are similarities with what happened after 1975, when the Spanish abandoned Western Sahara and the Moroccan king at that time sent in thousands of Moroccans into the territory to legitimise its claim, assisted with military aid – we shouldn’t forget – from the U.S. The ‘Green March’ is celebrated each year with its own anniversary. In those days, U.S. involvement only enhanced America’s military spending but didn’t really offer the U.S. anything beyond that. Today, for Morocco to make moves on Melilla and Ceuta comes with a huge payback for Israel and the Trump administration, in that it would give the victors a massive annexation of international waters around the Straits of Gibraltar – effectively handing over the straits to Morocco, Israel, the U.S. and UK (Gibraltar). Under such a scenario, Trump would feel emboldened, as he and Bibi could decide which countries enter the Mediterranean and who pays what tariffs, etc. This new arrangement would give Trump exactly what he needs right now – leverage – while presenting on a plate to Israel a decisive blow which it can claim credit for by dealing with the so-called threat from Spain. It would effectively set up Israel as a regional player and breathe new life into the ‘Greater Israel’ project, while giving the King of Morocco the prize of his father’s dream: sovereignty over these two colonial anachronisms. Everyone’s a winner. Trump and Bibi have so much to gain by destroying Rabat’s good relations with Madrid that it’s hardly surprising the Ceuta “invasion” didn’t come earlier. And isn’t it funny that the frequency of how many times Trump announces his undivided support for Rabat’s claim over Western Sahara seems to be increasing? It’s childish thinking, but is he doing this to try to draw attention to other EU “partners” who haven’t done so for a while?
If you think it’s a conspiracy theory that Israel and the U.S. had a hand in the Ceuta stunt, then you probably think Israel had nothing to do with 9/11, or the assassination of JFK. It’s entirely possible that Israel organised the entire thing without even the knowledge of the King, who is distancing himself more and more recently from public duties. Conspiracy theories, remarkably, often have a habit of turning out to be true – but the idea that Ceuta was not organised and just came about randomly and organically is preposterous. Watch Madrid’s next move and how Rabat reacts.
The Galling Gallium Chokehold: Why the US Cannot Produce Precision Missiles and Fully-Functional F-35s
By Larry C. Johnson | SONAR21 | August 3, 2026
Kudos, again, to Kevin Wamsley of Inside China Business. Based on his latest podcast (see below) I did some additional digging. The substance of his video briefing is shocking and alarming, at least for US policymakers and weapons manufacturers. There is a single thread running from the empty nose cones of America’s newest stealth fighters to the laboratories where China is building the internet of the 2030s. That thread is gallium — a soft, silvery byproduct of aluminum refining that almost no one outside a materials-science department thinks about, and that the United States does not produce at all.
A metal America stopped making
The top line from the US Geological Survey is stark: the United States has had no primary domestic gallium production for decades, and its net import reliance sits at 100 percent. China, by contrast, controls the overwhelming majority of global output — figures commonly cited run from 94 to 98 percent of raw production. The reason is structural, not incidental. Gallium is extracted as a byproduct of bauxite and zinc processing, industries China dominates. A country cannot simply decide to make gallium; it must first build the aluminum and zinc industries that yield it, then the extraction, refining, wafer, and packaging lines on top. That is a decade-plus undertaking, not a budget line.
This dependency became a weapon in December 2024, when Beijing banned exports of gallium, germanium, and antimony to the United States, explicitly prohibiting sales to US military end-users. It was retaliation for American semiconductor export controls, and it landed on a Pentagon that, by the USGS’s own accounting, had no gallium in the National Defense Stockpile to fall back on.
One crucial update the alarmist version of this story often omits: in November 2025, as part of a broader trade truce between Presidents Trump and Xi, China suspended the civilian portion of that ban until late November 2026, moving those exports to a licensing regime. But the suspension came with a catch that matters enormously — the prohibition on exports to military end-users stayed in force. So the civilian supply reopened on Beijing’s sufferance, revocable at will, while the weapons-makers remained cut off. The chokehold didn’t release; it was repositioned.
The fighters with counterweights where radars should be
The most vivid symptom of this dependency is also the most easily misunderstood. It is true — confirmed through photographic evidence and industry reporting, though initially denied by the Department of War — that F-35s built from Lot 17 onward are being delivered with counterweights, literal ballast, in their nose cones where radars belong. Reporting has put the number affected in the hundreds.
But the cause is more tangled than “China cut off the gallium.” The immediate culprit is the delayed development and certification of the AN/APG-85, the next-generation radar meant to replace the older AN/APG-81. The APG-85 is built on gallium-nitride (GaN) technology, which delivers far higher power and better thermal efficiency — and demands roughly 82 kilowatts, forcing structural, cooling, and power redesigns to the aircraft’s forward fuselage. Jets from Lot 17 were redesigned to accept the APG-85 and can no longer take the old APG-81. When the new radar slipped, those aircraft had nowhere to turn but counterweights.
Gallium supply is the aggravating factor layered beneath that engineering delay: GaN radars use far more gallium than their predecessors, the DLA has struggled to source it as Japan and Germany lack the capacity to fill the gap, and prices have surged. The honest framing is that America faces a radar-development problem and a materials problem, and China’s monopoly sits underneath both. Meanwhile, China has moved its own J-20 fighter to a next-generation radar reportedly built on the same GaN technology — the qualitative gap the APG-85 was meant to open is instead narrowing.
The vulnerability extends well past one airframe. Gallium nitride underpins the high-power jammers on the EA-18G Growler, the F-35’s own electronic-warfare suite, and the large ground-based radar arrays of the kind destroyed during the fighting in the Persian Gulf. The Pentagon’s supply chains reportedly touch Chinese suppliers across a vast share of weapons components — the dependency is systemic, not a single point of failure.
The same monopoly, pointed at the future
Here the story turns from defense to something larger. The same industrial base that lets China throttle radar production also lets Chinese researchers race ahead on the technology expected to define the next quarter-century of connectivity: 6G.
The headline achievement is real and was published in Nature. A team led by scientists from Peking University and the City University of Hong Kong built what they describe as the world’s first “all-frequency” 6G chip — a device roughly 11 by 1.7 millimeters that integrates the entire wireless spectrum from 0.5 to 115 gigahertz onto a single chip. That span previously required nine separate radio systems. In testing it exceeded 100 gigabits per second on a single channel, which independent write-ups translate to roughly 500 times the real-world speed most users get from 5G today, and it can retune across 6 gigahertz of spectrum in 180 microseconds to hop clear of interference. The researchers built it not from gallium but from thin-film lithium niobate, using a photonic-electronic design, and they intend to shrink it into plug-and-play modules for phones, base stations, drones, and IoT devices.
The strategic point survives the technical correction. Whether the enabling material is gallium in a radar or lithium niobate in a transceiver, the pattern is the same: China increasingly controls both the raw inputs and the pipeline of scientists and engineers turning them into deployable systems. And 6G’s importance is not really about consumers. Few individuals need to download a library of films in seconds. The demand comes from industry — precision robotics, advanced manufacturing, private industrial networks, integrated sensing, low-altitude drone economies — the very sectors where China has already built commanding positions. 6G’s promised leap in speed, latency, and integrated sensing is a boon precisely to the industrial base China is busy consolidating.
The standards are the prize
There is one more dimension that outlasts any single chip. 6G has not yet been standardized worldwide; the global protocols are still being written, precisely because the systems are still being built. Standards bodies — 3GPP, the ITU, the O-RAN Alliance — are only now moving 6G from research into formal specification, with first specs targeted around 2029 and commercial networks around 2030. Whoever builds the working systems first shapes the standards everyone else must adopt.
The Trump administration has recognized the stakes, declaring 6G foundational to U.S. national security, foreign policy, and economic prosperity, and setting a policy of American leadership — directing work on spectrum, commercial applications, and diplomatic coalitions to back the U.S. position. The Boston Consulting Group projects that 5G’s roughly $1 trillion in economic output could grow toward $18 trillion by 2035, with 6G enabling entirely new enterprise models and large-scale AI across manufacturing, cities, healthcare, and public safety.
But intent collides with the same wall. The United States cannot lead in building what it cannot supply. Leadership in 6G requires the mining, refining, fabrication, and — above all — the tens of thousands of trained engineers applying the technology at scale. China is doing that work now. America is still debating how to start.
The bottom line
Strip away the hyperbole and a hard core remains. Today, U.S. contractors cannot reliably put advanced radars on hundred-million-dollar aircraft, in part because China controls a metal America stopped producing forty years ago. Ten years from now, on current trajectory, anyone who wants the best phones, drones, or robots may find the critical components — and the standards they run on — routed through that same country. Supply chains are the whole game, and so are the researchers who turn raw materials into markets. That is the argument, and the uncomfortable part is how much of it is simply true.
Here is Kevin’s video:
Palantir revenue surges 93% amid criticism over support for Israel’s Gaza war
MEMO | August 4, 2026
US artificial intelligence and data analytics company Palantir Technologies reported a 93% year-on-year surge in second-quarter revenue, despite mounting criticism over its support for Israel and the alleged use of its technology in the Gaza war, Anadolu reports.
Revenue reached $1.94 billion in the three months ended June 30, up from $1 billion a year earlier, the company said Monday.
Net income attributable to common shareholders more than tripled to $1.06 billion, while diluted earnings per share rose to $0.41 from $0.13.
Palantir’s US revenue climbed 115% year-on-year to $1.57 billion. US commercial revenue jumped 149% to $764 million, while government revenue increased 90% to $809 million.
“This quarter was otherworldly,” CEO Alex Karp said, citing accelerating demand for what the company calls “AI sovereignty.”
Palantir signed 220 contracts worth at least $1 million during the quarter, including 73 deals valued at $10 million or more.
Total contract value rose 49% to $3.37 billion, while US commercial contract value surged 153% to a record $2.13 billion.
The company raised its full-year revenue forecast to between $8.15 billion and $8.16 billion, from an earlier projection of $7.65 billion to $7.66 billion.
It expects US commercial revenue to exceed $3.42 billion this year, representing growth of at least 134%.
Palantir shares rose more than 14% in after-hours trading following the results.
Founded in 2003, Palantir develops data-analysis software used by companies, intelligence services and military agencies.
The company announced a strategic partnership with Israel’s Defense Ministry in January 2024 to provide technology for war-related missions.
Open Intel, a platform tracking corporate involvement in what it describes as the genocidal war on Gaza, says Palantir has recruited former members of Unit 8200, Israel’s elite cyberintelligence division.
The group alleges that Palantir’s software combines intercepted communications, satellite imagery and other data to help Israeli forces generate military targeting lists.
US is the real loser if Senate passes virtue signaling Russia sanctions
Lindsey Graham’s “passion project” won’t end the war and, if anything, hurts American economic and political interests
By Jennifer Kavanagh | Responsible Statecraft | August 4, 2026
As the Senate returns to Washington for its last week in session until mid-September, it faces a long to-do list. But for many senators, the top priority is not enacting legislation that will help Americans but instead rushing to approve the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia Act of 2026, known colloquially as the “Russia sanctions bill.”
A passion project of the late Sen. Lindsey Graham, the bill is intended to increase economic pressure on Russian President Vladimir Putin. The legislation’s backers hope that, by choking off funding for Russia’s war effort, they can force Moscow to make greater concessions in ongoing negotiations to end the four-year old conflict in Ukraine.
But this logic and the bill itself are fundamentally flawed. The new legislation will have a limited effect on Russia’s fortunes; as has been the case since the beginning of the war, additional economic punishments are unlikely to be decisive in Putin’s calculus. In fact, the bill is more likely to harden the Russian position than to soften it.
The bill contains three main types of provisions. First, it codifies and expands sanctions against Kremlin officials, Russian oligarchs, and Russian banks and corporations. Second, it cracks down on Russia’s shadow fleet, increasing penalties against tankers and companies accused of trying to smuggle oil or evade the Western price cap on Russian oil sales.
Third and most significantly, it grants the president the authority to impose up to 100% tariffs on the top five buyers of Russian oil and natural gas, though it exempts allies who are reducing their purchases from Russia over time. The bill also allows the president to waive required penalties if deemed important for U.S. national security.
To be sure, if the new bill is passed by Congress and implemented by the White House, it will be economically painful for Russia. The sanctions it prescribes would fully sever Russian banks and energy corporations from the SWIFT system, including Gazprombank, which handles energy transactions. The bill also threatens secondary sanctions and loss of access to SWIFT for third-party intermediaries that continue to process payments from or interact with sanctioned entities. Combined with the bill’s measures aimed at Russia’s shadow fleet, these new sanctions will further complicate any Russian efforts to export oil.
However, after more than four years of sanctions, Russian banks and corporations have already developed alternatives. For example, they can turn to small regional banks that have little exposure to U.S. markets. They can also rely on layered shell companies that work through friendly countries, transactions conducted through “stablecoin” digital currencies, and even direct country-to-country bartering in which Russian commodities are swapped for machinery, microelectronics, or other goods. None of these approaches is convenient, but they will allow Russia to weather even the more draconian penalties included in the new bill.
The bill’s tariff provisions are likely to have even less effect on Russia’s revenues. Theoretically, the legislation targets the top five buyers of Russian oil and gas, a list that would include key U.S. allies like France, Japan, Spain, Turkey, and Belgium. But members of Congress, fearful of giving Trump more authority to use tariffs punitively against U.S. allies, included a waiver for countries that account for less than 15% of Russian exports and are working to decrease their dependency on Russia over time. This list applies to just about every country that might be hit with tariffs for continuing to buy Russian oil and gas, except for three: China, India, and Hungary.
Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don’t miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.
Even if Trump chooses to apply tariffs to these countries, the consequences may be worse for the United States than for Russia.
Tariffs on India could cause Russia real economic pain, as New Delhi has shown itself to be sensitive to threats of U.S. economic penalty. But if the conflict in Iran continues to snarl oil markets, India will face constraints on its ability to shift its demand for oil elsewhere. Moreover, the United States has already tried sanctions on India as a way to pressure Russia, and it didn’t work. It did, however, damage U.S. ties with an important partner in Asia.
China is the leading buyer of both Russian natural gas and oil, and likely the primary target of the bill’s writers. But using tariffs to penalize Chinese oil purchases would be suicidal for Trump. He’s already run the experiment of putting 100% tariffs on Chinese goods, back on Liberation Day in April 2025. The result was so bad for the U.S. economy that it led to the original Trump TACO (Trump Always Chickens Out).
Since then, China has shown its willingness to use its dominance in rare earth minerals to retaliate against what it sees as unfair U.S. trade practices, and it would likely do so again if Trump levies tariffs under the authority of the new legislation. But even smaller tariffs on China are unlikely, since Trump is unlikely to do anything in the near term that derails his September meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping.
In the end, the new legislation is unlikely to be the knockout blow that forces Putin to give up on his core demands. The tariff provision may affect Russian oil and gas income on the margins, but its effect will be limited by the Trump administration’s higher priority political goals. Russia’s economy is under strain, but it can withstand the modest costs that Graham’s sanctions bill will impose while sustaining the war effort.
More importantly, the legislation’s underlying premise — that increased economic pressure is the key to ending the war in Ukraine — is as incorrect today as it was back in 2022. Putin has made clear time and again that he is willing to pay a very high price to achieve what he considers to be an acceptable outcome in Ukraine. He views the war as existential, for Russia and for himself personally, and has been largely insensitive to economic levers since the conflict began. This is unlikely to change.
In fact, the new legislation is much more likely to strengthen Russia’s resolve and work against peace. It may do this in two ways. First, it fuels Putin’s narrative that the conflict in Ukraine is really a war between Russia and the West, a storyline that can shore up domestic support and that increases the risks that the war eventually widens. Second, it confirms for Moscow that the United States is not actually interested in peace or in serving as a mediator but rather continues to harbor Biden administration-era hopes of weakening Russia over the long-term.
Many in the U.S. Congress probably realize this but will vote for the bill anyway, a virtue signaling gesture taken at the expense of the voters who elected them. In fact, if there is a loser from this legislation it will be the United States, which will face economic uncertainty and the loss of geopolitical influence as more countries tire of the United States using the dollar as a weapon and look for alternatives.
Bulgaria’s Bezmer Base and the Logic of American Power Projection
By Adrian Korczyński – New Eastern Outlook – August 3, 2026
On July 22, 2026, the Bulgarian parliament voted to authorize the deployment of up to eight U.S. Air Force KC-135 tanker aircraft and 250 U.S. military personnel at Bezmer Air Base.
The vote was 136 in favor, 13 against, with two abstentions. The deployment is scheduled from July 24 to October 1, 2026. On paper, the government insists this is merely “logistical support.”
A Diplomatic Warning from Tehran
Before the vote, Iran’s Foreign Ministry warned that allowing the deployment would make Bulgaria “an accomplice of aggressors.” Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei explicitly stated that any action facilitating U.S. military operations against Iran would make Sofia complicit in “aggression and war crimes.”
The Bulgarian Foreign Ministry responded that it was not “undertaking any hostile actions against Iran” and that “it is out of the question for any military operations in the Middle East to be conducted from Bulgarian territory.” The contrast between the official explanation and the operational role of the deployment is difficult to ignore.
Bezmer in the US Logistics Network
Bezmer Air Base, located in southeastern Bulgaria near the town of Yambol, is one of several joint-use facilities established under the 2006 U.S.-Bulgaria Defense Cooperation Agreement. The agreement allows U.S. forces to use three Bulgarian bases — Bezmer, Graf Ignatievo, and Novo Selo — for training and logistical purposes. Bezmer’s appeal is straightforward: it is close to the Black Sea, has a runway capable of handling large aircraft, and is situated in a country that is a full NATO member.
What makes Bezmer particularly useful is its position within the broader American logistics network. U.S. tanker aircraft operating from Bezmer can refuel fighter jets and bombers over the Eastern Mediterranean, the Middle East, and the Red Sea without returning to bases in Germany, Italy, or Greece. This reduces transit time and allows for sustained operations over a longer period. Bezmer functions as a forward refueling node in a system that stretches from Ramstein in Germany to Souda Bay in Crete to Kogălniceanu in Romania.
The base is not being used for combat operations, but it is enabling them. There is a difference between pulling the trigger and supplying the fuel, but that difference matters less to the pilots being refueled—or to the Iranians being targeted. The Bulgarian government argues that it is merely fulfilling its treaty obligations to its ally. Prime Minister Rumen Radev, often described as more skeptical of Western military adventurism, insisted the tankers would be used “exclusively for logistical and in-flight refuelling missions outside Bulgarian airspace.” The Bulgarian Foreign Ministry echoed this position, stating that no military operations would be conducted from Bulgarian territory.
Spain vs. Bulgaria
The contrast with Spain is instructive. In March 2026, Spain explicitly refused to allow its bases to be used for the U.S.-Israeli campaign against Iran. Spanish Foreign Minister Jose Manuel Albares stated that Spanish bases would not be used for operations “inconsistent with the United Nations Charter.” The Spanish government argued that using its territory for offensive operations against Iran would violate its constitutional obligations and its own foreign policy principles. Madrid made a sovereign choice to refuse Washington’s request.
Unlike Spain, Bulgaria ultimately chose to facilitate the deployment, reflecting its broader security dependence on NATO structures. It did not publicly question the legality of the operation, nor did it challenge the broader strategic rationale behind the request. The Bulgarian authorities chose to accommodate the request rather than contest it.
Several factors may explain this difference. Spain has traditionally pursued a more cautious approach towards military involvement in the Middle East, while Bulgaria places greater emphasis on demonstrating reliability within NATO. Different strategic cultures and security priorities appear to have shaped their respective decisions. Bulgaria, by contrast, is a smaller country more dependent on NATO guarantees for its security. It is also a country that has long sought to demonstrate its value as an ally, particularly in the context of the war in Ukraine. For Bulgaria, saying no to Washington is not a luxury it believes it can afford.
There is also a domestic political dimension. The decision was approved by a parliament where the government holds a comfortable majority. Local opposition was minimal. Some Bulgarian officials have argued that refusing the request would have damaged Bulgaria’s standing in NATO. A Bulgarian official’s comment encapsulates the logic of alliance dependency: “We cannot want to be in NATO and then refuse to give anything in return.”
Local Concerns
The decision was not universally welcomed. Burnt-out trees from a fire at the Bulgarian military training ground in Koren were still smouldering during the parliamentary debate. Bezmer’s mayor voiced concerns about the region becoming a potential target. Local communities near Bezmer are not convinced by the official narrative.
The concerns are not entirely theoretical. Iran has already shown its willingness to retaliate against countries it perceives as hostile. In the past, Iranian-backed groups have targeted American bases in Iraq and Syria, and Iranian cyber operations have hit European infrastructure. Bulgarians living near Bezmer now have reason to wonder whether their town might become a target in a future escalation.
Alliance Politics in Practice
The Bulgarian parliament’s decision illustrates a broader reality of the transatlantic relationship. European countries are not always eager participants, but they are deeply integrated into the logistics of U.S. military power. These are not signs of European unity—they are signs of fragmentation within a structure that still depends on the United States for security.
The deeper question is whether this arrangement is sustainable. Bulgaria has made a strategic choice to deepen its military integration with the United States. That choice has immediate operational consequences—a tanker base that enables strikes on Iran—and long-term implications for Bulgarian sovereignty. It may also have security consequences if Iran chooses to respond. The Bulgarian parliament’s decision follows a pattern: Europe increasingly functions as a platform for U.S. power projection.
The deployment at Bezmer therefore reflects a broader reality of contemporary alliance politics: even when European governments avoid direct participation in military operations, they increasingly provide the logistical infrastructure that makes those operations possible. As military logistics become increasingly central to modern warfare, the distinction between participation and support may prove more political than operational.
Adrian Korczyński, Independent Analyst & Observer on Central Europe and global policy research
Call Off the Iran War. Just Walk Away!
By Ron Paul | August 3, 2026
After several days of increasing threats against Iran, including social media posts like “FINISH THE JOB!” and “Take the oil. No mercy!,” President Trump has over the weekend called off a planned major escalation in the Middle East. For now.
“The U.S.A. is locked and loaded and ready to go against the Islamic Republic of Iran, at levels of Military Terror, Strength, and Power not seen since World War II,” he wrote on his social media account. “Despite this, we have just been asked by Iran, and other Middle Eastern Countries, to hold off any attack in that the perimeters of a deal has been agreed to,” he added.
Iran denies any communication with the US and has threatened retaliation against energy infrastructure in the region if its energy infrastructure is attacked. Such destruction could plunge the world into an economic depression.
Iranian retaliation – including against critical water desalination plants – could also depopulate US allies in the region, including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and others. Saudi Arabia’s Mohammed bin Salman personally called President Trump to request he not escalate against Iran.
According to various media articles, the US is running dangerously low on missiles, especially interceptor missiles such as the Patriot system. Our ability to protect our military bases in the Middle East appears to be gone.
Reportedly, President Trump was warned by his top military advisors that a ground operation against Iran would result in a high level of US casualties and would have no guarantee of success. Already the official totals are 18 US service members killed and more than 700 injured in the operation.
Over the weekend the US military completed its evacuation of a major military base in the Kurdish region of Iraq. This follows similar evacuations of virtually every US base in the region, including the home of the US 5th Fleet in Bahrain and “safe” US bases in Jordan.
The entirety of US military power in the region appears to have been relocated to Israel.
The war which was supposed to last a couple of weeks and “pay for itself” is entering into its sixth month and the price tag so far is above $100 billion. A war that was started to thwart an Iranian nuclear threat that according to US Intelligence didn’t exist has become a war to open a waterway – the Hormuz Strait – that was open before the war started.
Things are so bad that, according to the Washington Post, the US general in charge of the US European Command sent a message to senior Pentagon officials “saying that without another Navy destroyer he will be forced to choose defense of the United States ‘homeland’ over that of Israel.” How is defending a foreign country over our own country even a choice?
The US attack on Iran is the most unpopular major US military operation in history and is becoming more unpopular by the day. President Trump’s polling numbers have been dragged down to the low 30s by the conflict. Midterm elections are three months away.
President Trump is rapidly running out of options in his war of choice against Iran. There is no path to victory in the war. It is now only about how to manage defeat. That’s why the Constitution does not allow presidents to start wars on their own.
Get out now. Completely out. The foolish war on Iran must end!
His Majesty’s plunder: The royal machine behind the Trump Highway and Western Sahara’s phosphate wealth

The Cradle | August 3, 2026
There is a machine in the Sahara you can see from space. A conveyor belt, the longest on earth, nearly one hundred kilometers of steel from a mine called Bou Craa to the Atlantic. For half a century it has moved phosphate out of occupied Western Sahara, through wars, ceasefires, and a promised referendum that never came. The richest layer of the deposit is already gone, sold before the Sahrawis could ever vote on it. And the electricity that keeps the belt running is sold to the state by a wind farm belonging to the king.
On 26 July, US President Donald Trump announced that the highway running past this machine now carries his name. The announcement arrived as a four-minute Truth Social video, narrated by an obvious AI voice praising his “historic courage.” Rabat, six days on, has not said the name out loud. It does not need to. The name was never the payment.
The road is. It is 1,055 kilometers of settlement poured across Africa’s last colony, the kind of road empires have always built and named for themselves. It connects the mine, the port, an Israeli-held offshore block, and the duty-free fertilizer now sailing for New Orleans under an emergency Washington manufactured itself. Follow it far enough and the asphalt runs from phosphate to palace.
An occupation, bought in installments
Every payment has a paper trail, and this one begins five years before the name. The convention that built the road was signed in the presence of Moroccan King Mohammed VI in El-Aaiun (also known as Laayoune) in 2015, on the 40th anniversary of the Green March, at a cost of 10 billion Moroccan dirhams (MAD) – or around $1.074 billion. Morocco poured its annexation in asphalt, as empires always have, long before Washington blessed it. What arrived in December 2020 was not the road. It was the signature.
Morocco became the fourth Arab state to normalize relations with the occupation state, and in exchange the US recognized Moroccan sovereignty over the whole of Western Sahara. Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, negotiated the deal and supplied the doctrine, likening the Sahara recognition to Trump’s recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the occupied Golan Heights. One occupation legitimized on the template of another. The architect said it so no analyst has to.
Tel Aviv paid its own installment in July 2023, when Netanyahu sent Mohammed VI a letter recognizing the Moroccan claim. A senior Moroccan official explained what the letter was for – Rabat expects the recognition to encourage Israeli investment in the territory. Recognition as prospectus. This is trans-Zionism as designed: the occupation state sets the template, Washington executes, the client kingdom collects.
What the road runs past
South of El-Aaiun, the machine comes back into view. The Bou Craa mine feeds its conveyor belt to the harbor at El-Aaiun, where bulk vessels have carried the territory’s wealth abroad since 1975. According to the figures of the world’s largest phosphate and fertilizer producer, Morocco’s OCP Group, Bou Craa delivers around a fifth of the company’s exports from just eight percent of its extracted volume. That is what occupations are for.
The quality tells its own story. Bou Craa’s deposit sits in two layers, and Western Sahara Resource Watch, which tracks every bulk shipment out of El-Aaiun, documented that Morocco has practically sold off the high-grade layer that should have been available to the Sahrawi people, mining the poorer second seam since 2014. What remains is the residue.
None of this is legally ambiguous. The UN’s legal counsel concluded in 2002 that further exploitation of the territory’s resources against the wishes of its people would violate international law. A South African court ruled in 2018 that ownership of a phosphate cargo from El-Aaiun was never lawfully vested in OCP at all. The company ships stolen goods. A court has said so. The road Trump wants his name on is the overland artery of that trade.
An emergency of Washington’s own making
The American market took the long way round. In 2021, Washington slapped a 19.97 percent countervailing duty on OCP after Florida’s Mosaic Company complained of subsidized competition. The rate yo-yoed for five years until a trade court cut it to 2.11 percent in December 2025 and Washington quietly dropped its appeal. Then came the war.
Washington’s strikes on Iran choked the Strait of Hormuz, the artery for roughly a third of the world’s seaborne fertilizer trade. Prices climbed, farmers rationed, and on 29 June Trump declared a national emergency under a Depression-era clause of the 1930 Tariff Act, suspending the duties entirely. The suspension is time-bound, not volume-bound: a USDA official confirmed OCP can ship unlimited tonnage for eight months. Washington set fire to the supply chain, declared an emergency over the smoke, and handed the normalization partner the keys to the American market.
Now examine what sails in. North African sedimentary phosphate is naturally high in cadmium, a carcinogen the EU capped at 60 milligrams per kilo in its fertilizers. OCP’s response was to lobby against the cap, hiring Dechert LLP and Edelman and proposing Brussels raise the limit to 80. The US has no comparable federal ceiling, leaving oversight to a patchwork of state rules. Europe’s restricted rock has found a market with no thermostat. American capital wasted no time: two weeks after the proclamation, US-based firm Koch Ag signed a joint venture stake in OCP’s fertilizer complex at Jorf Lasfar. The same conglomerate poured half a billion dollars into the occupation state’s tech sector through its investment arm Koch Disruptive Technologies (KDT), built under Eli Groner, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s former top civil servant, settled in the occupied West Bank.
From phosphate to palace
Tracing the flow of revenue shows that it extends beyond the state treasury. OCP belongs to the Moroccan state. But the throne sits atop a parallel structure: the royal family controls roughly 60 percent of the Al-Mada conglomerate through personal holdings named SIGER and ERGIS, both derived from regis, Latin for king, feeding a fund in which Mohammed VI holds 50.6 percent. SIGER’s director, Mounir Majidi, is also the king’s private secretary: one man running the head of state’s office and the family vault.
Al-Mada’s energy arm, Nareva, is where the phosphate money turns royal. The wind farm at Foum el-Oued, built by a wholly-owned Nareva subsidiary, supplies nearly all the electricity OCP needs to mine Bou Craa, run the conveyor belt, and wash the rock for export. The state plunders the phosphate. The king sells the state the power that does the plundering. Every tonne leaving El-Aaiun has burned royal electricity first. All but one wind farm in the occupied territory sits in Nareva’s portfolio, and WSRW poses the question that answers itself: why would a king who profits from occupation ever back a UN peace process?
Moroccan outlet Barlamane reported that quantities invoiced on the expressway far exceeded the work actually built, prompting the equipment minister to bar the implicated survey bureau from public contracts for five years. On the road to Dakhla, even the overcharging is infrastructure.
The name was never the payment
Empires have always paved roads through conquered land and called it civilization. Rome did it, France did it in this same desert, and in July 2026 the tradition produced its densest month yet: duty-free phosphate sailing for New Orleans, Kosh Ag signing into Jorf Lasfar, and an American president naming a highway across a territory that was never Morocco’s to give. The belt at Bou Craa keeps turning, the royal turbines keep spinning, the receipts keep printing – and the only thing Rabat has still not done is say the name out loud.
How Lockheed Martin, Raytheon & BAE Systems Are Propagandizing Children to Support War Through STEM
By Alan Macleod| MintPress News | August 1, 2026
Raytheon sponsors the Girl Scouts of America. BAE Systems is reading your toddlers their favorite fairytale stories. And Lockheed Martin funds children’s math and STEM festivals. This is done with great fanfare, supposedly to empower and inspire children to pursue their passion for science. In reality, though, these companies are attempting to launder their images and enlist the next generation to become cogs in the military-industrial complex.
All the while, these organizations’ products are being used across the world by the United States and Israel to commit war crimes – in Iran, Yemen, Palestine, and beyond – to target children.
MintPress explores the murky world of the arms companies training kids to bomb kids.
Normalizing War to Kids
When many Americans think of Raytheon (now officially rebranded as RTX Corporation), they don’t envisage rockets and cruise missiles; they think of math. For decades, the second-largest arms manufacturer on the planet has bankrolled a wide range of organizations aimed at getting children excited about STEM subjects.
Since 2009, Raytheon has been the title sponsor of MATHCOUNTS, a non-profit organization that provides engaging math programs for middle school students in every U.S. state, as well as organizing math competitions to find the brightest children in America.
In 2005, Raytheon launched its MathMovesU program, aimed, in its own words, “to inspire middle school students to get excited about math and science.” In addition to the materials provided, it has also spent millions on scholarships, grants, and study awards to thousands of students, teachers, and volunteers.
And its MathAlive! traveling exhibit promises, in rather outdated branding, to take math “2theXtreme”. MathAlive! Has also traveled to several countries in West Asia, including Qatar, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia – all of them among the biggest purchasers of Raytheon weapons technology.
The company also enjoys a longtime partnership with the Girl Scouts of the United States of America (GSUSA). In 2017, for example, it launched the GSUSA’s first national computer science program and cyber challenge for middle and high school girls.
“The progress to diversify the STEM workforce needs to be accelerated… At a time when technology is transforming the way we live and work, we can – and should – show young women a clear path to taking an active role in this transformation,” said Thomas A. Kennedy, then-Raytheon CEO; “Working together, Raytheon and Girl Scouts will help girls build confidence to see themselves as the robotics engineers, data scientists and cybersecurity professionals who will create a better tomorrow.”
Raytheon also spearheaded the GSUSA’s “Think Like a Programmer” project, which encourages girls to explore the world of artificial intelligence and cybersecurity, and developed many of the programming badges available to the scouts.
GSUSA appears proud of this relationship. Its website profiles one former scout who now works at Raytheon as a success story and a model to follow. The article includes a step-by-step guide and a list of tips for those wishing to follow in her footsteps.
Unsurprisingly, Raytheon also works closely with the U.S. military on these matters, establishing four new STEM “centers of innovation” with the Boys & Girls Clubs of America in Michigan, Oklahoma, Colorado, and Washington, D.C., all near military bases.
While some might be surprised by the closeness of the relationship between a children’s organization and an arms manufacturer, it is worth remembering that the scouting movement was originally established by Lieutenant-General Robert Baden-Powell, as a stepping stone towards boys joining the military. Baden-Powell was deeply concerned that English boys would not be physically fit enough to fight for their country in any upcoming wars, and designed an organization that would train them both physically and mentally to do so.
Kirsten Bayes from the Campaign Against the Arms Trade was unimpressed by Raytheon’s attempts to improve their image and to train the next generation of weapons manufacturers. “Our view is that arms companies have no place in schools or colleges, and should certainly not be working with children’s educational charities,” she told MintPress, adding:
“Schools and other places of education should be places where children learn, grow and develop their full potential. They should not be a recruiting ground where arms companies whitewash their activities.”
Lockheed Martin U
But Raytheon is far from the only weapons giant directly targeting America’s children. Lockheed Martin hosts CYBERQUEST, an annual high school competition that encourages children to pursue careers in intelligence and cybersecurity. The 2026 event was held in 11 locations across the country, as well as virtually around the world. The arms giant offers high school internship programs designed to fast-track America’s brightest young minds into careers in defense. Every year, Lockheed Martin hires thousands of young interns, and claims that 60% of these candidates go on to paid work at the company.
It also sponsors “young minds at work” days, setting up hands-on experiments for children to play with, including bottle rocket experiments and more.
Universities are a key recruitment ground. The corporation spends huge sums attracting top talent, including hosting “Lockheed Martin Day” at more than a dozen colleges nationwide, where company recruiters are allowed on campus to dazzle students with virtual reality exhibitions, flight simulators, and even landing helicopters directly on college greens.
Lockheed Martin has entered into partnerships with several top colleges. A $1.5 million donation to the University of Texas at Arlington, for instance, resulted in the renamed of one of their buildings as the Lockheed Martin Career Development Center.
The company touts its reputation as a safe space for women and LGBT employees, and is regularly listed as one of the best employers for inclusivity. One woman the company itself profiles is Haley, who, as a girl, dreamed of becoming an inventor. “As a child,” they write, “Haley clung to a notebook where she sketched her ideas and inventions. On the cover she scribbled, ‘Haley’s Way to Make Life Better.’ Her best idea? A self-folding Christmas tree cleverly called ‘Merry, Bright and Boxed’ to make cleaning up after the holidays more efficient.” Today, that child with dreams of making the world a better place is a missiles and fire control engineer with Lockheed Martin, developing weapons that efficiently kill people all across the planet.
Targeting Toddlers
Boeing, too, has developed a number of projects aimed at young children. Their “Engineering is Elementary” program is designed for pre-K, kindergarten, elementary and middle school students, and, like those from Raytheon and Lockheed Martin, is focussed on funnelling young minds into a career in weapons manufacturing. “Boeing has a strategic community focus to increase teacher effectiveness in math and science and to attract more students into STEM-related careers,” a company representative said, adding,
“Engineering is Elementary provides teachers and students a greater understanding of engineering, and it accomplishes that in a fun, interactive way. Our goal is to interest students in engineering at an early age and increase the number of scientists and engineers.”
Aerospace manufacturer BAE Systems, however, goes even further. The London-based giant that produces jet aircraft, missiles, howitzers, and warships published a series of bizarre videos featuring both its employees and members of the British Armed Forces reading classic fairytales to children. This included Rapunzel, Jack and the Beanstalk, Goldilocks and the Three Bears, Cinderella, and Hansel and Gretel. These came complete with worksheets to help extremely young children with their problem-solving skills.
Reading bedtime stories to babies is just part of a wider strategy BAE Systems is conducting in order to, in their own words, “improve our corporate reputation at both a local and national level.” Other initiatives include hosting school roadshows, robotics festivals, science camps, and local community outreach programs, all aimed at children. During the COVID-19 pandemic, it also stepped in to provide schools with branded learning materials for children as young as five.
Bayes appeared appalled at the company’s actions, stating:
“We are aware that BAE Systems claims to spend as much as £100m [U.S.$134m] per year on educational activities. It claims its motives are community based, but we would say that this is part of their recruiting strategy: seeking to influence young people without presenting the full facts of what an arms company is, and what the consequences of working for them would be.”
Fairytales and Nightmares
As much as these companies attempt to present themselves neutrally as scientific entities, the reality is that their primary businesses revolve around producing the hardware and weaponry that the United States uses to dominate the world.
In the past twelve months alone, the United States has bombed seven countries: Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen. And it is companies like Raytheon and Lockheed Martin that make this kind of extraordinary planetary violence possible.
For example, on February 28, the United States launched an attack on the Shajareh Tayyebeh Girls’ School in Minab, Iran. A Tomahawk cruise missile – one of the most precise guided weapons on the planet – was launched from a nearby warship and pummelled the building, causing the school to collapse in on itself. Soon after, a second missile hit the school’s courtyard, where desperate survivors were gathering.
The attack was timed precisely for maximum damage: 10:45am on a school day. At least 156 people were killed, most of them pupils at the school, which neither served any military purpose, nor was located near any military target. Over 100 more were injured.
The event was immediately denounced as a major war crime. But Secretary of War Pete Hegseth brushed it off, and later stated that, “The only ones that need to be worried right now are Iranians who think they’re going to live.”
The Tomahawk cruise missile is produced by Raytheon, and subsystems used in the operation were made by a subsidiary of BAE Systems.
Washington also uses its primacy in weapons to keep its allies in power. Saudi Arabia is by far the U.S.’ top arms customer, purchasing hundreds of billions of dollars worth of hi-tech weaponry, which it immediately uses against Yemen, and to suppress domestic dissent.
Riyadh has pursued a genocidal attack on civilian infrastructure in Yemen, including against farms, sewage, and water facilities, causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians. In August 2018, it dropped a 227 kg (500lb) laser-guided bomb on a school bus in Dhahyan, northern Yemen. Fragments found at the scene identified the bomb as having been produced by Lockheed Martin. Forty children were killed in the attack – a far from uncommon occurrence during the Saudi-led campaign to topple Ansar Allah from power.
If Saudi Arabia is Washington’s biggest customer, then Israel is its prime recipient of welfare. A study from Brown University found that in the two years following the October 7, 2023 attack, the United States spent $21.7 billion on military aid to Israel, including aircraft, missiles, and all manner of small arms munitions.
Israel has used these weapons to systematically target children in Gaza and beyond. At least 97% of schools in the densely-populated strip have been hit. One of the more notable examples was the Khadija Girls’ School in Deir al-Balah, which was targeted on July 27, 2024. A Human Rights Watch investigation found that Israel dropped at least two GBU-39 bombs on the school – munitions manufactured in the United States by Boeing.
Thus, while arms manufacturers read fairytales to Western kids, children across the world are forced to live out a very real nightmare, thanks in no small part to these companies.
Whether they live in the United States or one of the countries under its boot, however, children everywhere are being targeted by these weapons firms, though in different ways. In the United States, Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and others have stepped in to bolster cash-strapped education departments. While their rhetoric emphasizes empowering children – especially girls – to follow their science dreams, their true intent is to launder their reputations as merchants of death, and to train up the next generation of Americans to become willing members of the American war machine.
Children on the other side of the globe, however, are given no such illusions, and have to live with the constant terror that they be these companies’ next victims. This image, is not the one the likes of Raytheon want us to think about when we picture their products, and so they spend millions attempting to distract us with stories of empowerment and discovery. What a world we live in, where weapons companies are training kids to bomb kids.
Alan MacLeod is Senior Staff Writer for MintPress News. He completed his PhD in 2017 and has since authored two acclaimed books: Bad News From Venezuela: Twenty Years of Fake News and Misreporting and Propaganda in the Information Age: Still Manufacturing Consent, as well as a number of academic articles. He has also contributed to FAIR.org, The Guardian, Salon, The Grayzone, Jacobin Magazine, and Common Dreams. Follow Alan on Twitter for more of his work and commentary: @AlanRMacLeod.
No question of surrendering weapons; proposal only covers heavy weapons storage: Hamas representative
Press TV – August 2, 2026
A Hamas official says the newly announced agreement to end Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza does not signify abandoning resistance, but outlines a conditional, Palestinian-led process contingent on the Tel Aviv regime fulfilling its obligations under the agreement.
Speaking to the Press TV website, Khaled Qaddoumi, the representative of Hamas in the Islamic Republic of Iran, expounded on how the Palestinian resistance movement views the newly announced agreement, which has been widely portrayed in media reports as a “Hamas disarmament” deal.
“There is no question of surrendering or relinquishing weapons. What we specifically offered was to discuss the gathering or storage of heavy weapons under a Palestinian administrative authority – from Palestinian factions to a Palestinian authority. No authority other than a Palestinian one has any role in this matter,” he stated.
The remarks came after Hamas announced it had agreed to a phased deal intended to bring Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza to a complete end.
The proposal, announced by US President Donald Trump after mediators from Egypt, Qatar, Turkey and the United States finalized a roadmap for the next phase of the ceasefire, outlines a mechanism under which heavy weapons would be inventoried and stored under a Palestinian National Committee while Israeli occupation forces gradually withdraw from Gaza.
Israel has not publicly endorsed the proposal, while Hamas has maintained that no provisions related to its weapons can be implemented unless Israel first fulfills its own obligations under the agreement.
Addressing concerns among Palestinians that any discussion of weapons could undermine Gaza’s future ability to defend itself from external aggression, Qaddoumi rejected media portrayals of the proposal as a disarmament deal.
“It is not a relinquishment of weapons. It is not an isolated step. It is not a withdrawal from, or retreat from, the concept of resistance,” he told the Press TV website.
Resistance inherent right of Palestinians
The Hamas representative noted that resistance, in all its forms and by all its means, “is an inherent right of any nation living under occupation – especially the Palestinian people, who have lived under occupation for nearly a century.”
“They have the right to defend themselves in whatever way they consider appropriate, including armed resistance,” he stated.
According to Qaddoumi, even that discussion would depend entirely on the Israeli regime implementing the broader agreement.
“Moreover, this step is conditional upon Israel fulfilling and implementing the other parts of the agreement, including the withdrawal of its forces, the opening of the border crossings, the entry of humanitarian aid into Gaza, and the complete cessation of the genocide,” he said.
He further noted that Israel would have to allow the Palestinian National Committee to enter Gaza to administer civilian affairs, oversee reconstruction and prepare for “a political electoral process that will ultimately lead to an independent Palestinian state.”
“Only within that framework and according to those benchmarks can any discussion regarding weapons take place. Beyond that, there is no such thing as the resistance relinquishing its weapons,” he remarked.
“Our strength comes from our faith, our people, and our just cause. We will continue until this occupation ends and until our nation achieves independence, peace, and prosperity.”
The proposed roadmap envisages a phased process in which heavy weaponry, military production sites, weapons depots and tunnel infrastructure would be inventoried and stored under Palestinian oversight while Israeli troops withdraw in stages.
Hamas has repeatedly said those steps cannot proceed independently of Israel’s commitments regarding withdrawal, humanitarian access and reconstruction.
The genocidal onslaught on the besieged Gaza Strip has killed more than 73,000 Palestinians and injured over 174,000 others since October 23, 2023, most of them women and children, and caused widespread destruction affecting 90% of civilian infrastructure.
The UN estimates reconstruction costs at approximately $70 billion.
‘No trust’ in US, Israel
Asked whether Hamas trusted Washington and Israel to uphold any agreement, Qaddoumi said experience had left little room for confidence.
“There is no such thing as trust or confidence. Historical experience has not been positive when dealing with the Americans or the Israelis,” he told the Press TV website, pointing to failures to implement previous commitments. “On the one hand, President Trump, before the whole world, proposed this ceasefire agreement, saying that the genocide would stop. It did not stop.”
Since the ceasefire came into effect, he noted that more than 1,200 innocent civilians lost their lives, killed in cold blood by the Israeli occupation forces in the refugee camps.
Qaddoumi also noted that border crossings remain closed, humanitarian aid has yet to enter Gaza, reconstruction materials continue to be blocked, and the Palestinian National Committee formed in Egypt has not been allowed into the territory.
“That’s why we’re skeptical,” he said. “We have every right to be.”
Even so, he added that Hamas has continued participating in negotiations in coordination with other Palestinian factions.
“On the other hand, we are still moving toward improving the lives of our people because we have carried this responsibility in consensus with the other Palestinian factions,” he stated.
“With an open mind and a good heart, we entered these negotiations to prevent the genocide from resuming. We sought to achieve a fair political solution for our people.”
Palestine has nothing more to give
The Hamas official said Palestinians have already fulfilled their part of the process.
“At this point, nobody should ask the Palestinians to give anything more, because the Palestinian side has already given everything that was asked of it. There is nothing more to give,” he told the Press TV website.
Instead, he said, responsibility now rests with international guarantors. “Now it is time for the guarantors. It is time for the President of the United States to put sufficient pressure on Israel to abide by its commitments.”
Qaddoumi said statements by members of Israeli regime prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s coalition have further reinforced Hamas’s doubts about the implementation of the deal.
“The presence of extreme figures in Netanyahu’s cabinet, such as Ben-Gvir, gives us little reason for optimism because they openly say that these proposals do not meet Israel’s demands; but what are Israel’s demands? What we see today is that Israelis are obsessed either by personal agenda or ideological extremist agenda,” he said.
“Netanyahu wants to remain in power, while ideological fanatic elements like Ben-Gvir are driven by the belief that Palestinians have no right to live in Gaza. They believe Palestinians should leave Gaza and that Israelis should replace them and build settlements there. With such a mentality, hope is very scarce.”
Nevertheless, he said Hamas would continue urging international actors to ensure implementation of the agreement to end the Israeli genocidal war on Gaza.
“We will continue to call on the international community to fulfill its responsibility by guaranteeing the implementation of the agreement and creating mechanisms to move the process forward, rather than allowing the genocide to resume,” he stressed.
“The world must compel and pressure the Israeli forces to withdraw from Gaza, allow the Palestinian National Committee to enter Gaza, permit the entry of food, water, and reconstruction materials, and reopen the border crossings.”
Palestinian consensus
On coordination among Palestinian resistance factions, Qaddoumi said the latest proposal reflects a unified Palestinian position.
“The latest statement announcing a positive step toward strengthening the ceasefire stems from Palestinian consensus. Our brothers in Islamic Jihad and the other Palestinian factions were with us in Egypt, and we discussed it together,” he noted.
He emphasized that discussions about weapons should not be confused with surrendering resistance.
“By the way, the term ‘disarmament’ must be clearly understood,” Qaddoumi said. “When we talk about heavy weapons, we have conditioned any discussion on the implementation of the first stage of the agreement, and the political solution to a Palestinian independent state”
He reiterated that those conditions included humanitarian measures, Israeli military withdrawal, reconstruction, reopening crossings, allowing the Palestinian National Committee into Gaza and progress toward an independent Palestinian state.
“Only then can any political solution and any step toward disarmament–or, as we have said, gathering or storing the weapons, whatever term is used–be addressed,” he said.
“First, this is a matter of national Palestinian consensus; second, it is an entirely Palestinian issue that concerns the future shape of Palestine, its political life, and how Palestinians choose to address these matters.”
Qaddoumi said the Hamas resistance movement views the sacrifices of its martyred leaders, including Haniyeh, as part of a broader struggle for Palestinian self-determination.
“Those great people gave their lives for a noble cause,” he said. “Martyr Haniyeh himself said that there is a price for this cause and this responsibility.”
Haniyehs assassination came a day after he attended the inauguration ceremony of President Masoud Pezeshkian.
“We carry this responsibility knowing that the price will be heavy and that our lives are at stake — for the sake of our people, for the sake of our noble cause, and for the sake of our homeland,” Qaddoumi said.
He concluded by recalling remarks delivered by Hamas’s newly-elected leader Khalil al-Hayya at Haniyeh’s funeral in Tehran one day after the assassination.
“The enemy is deluded if they think that we will be diverted from our path or from the path of those great leaders and martyrs. On the contrary, we will insist on continuing our road toward independence because those people who offered their lives for the sake of their people did so for a reason. That reason is to live in peace and prosperity and to give our children a better life. Martyrdom is a school that teaches us how to live, he said.
“Martyrdom is the art of those great people who gave their lives to grant future generations a prosperous, peaceful, and dignified life. Today, we are strong enough to carry the flag of those great people and move forward toward the development of our people and our nation.”
Iranian precision drones cripple US Patriot shield in Erbil, forcing a hasty American pullout
By Yousef Ramazani | Press TV | August 2, 2026
The US military’s accelerated withdrawal from its base in Erbil, officially described as a scheduled redeployment, comes after Iranian precision strikes destroyed air-defense apparatus, including Patriot air-defense systems stationed there, a development supported by satellite imagery that has received limited attention in much of Western media coverage.
The hasty and unplanned withdrawal of American occupation forces from Iraq’s Kurdistan region has taken place amid a series of Iranian retaliatory strikes that have reshaped the security environment and military calculations in Iraq and across the region.
Media reports indicate that US military convoys have been moving from Erbil toward neighboring countries in recent days, with a significant portion of American troops and heavy equipment already withdrawn from the military compound near Erbil International Airport.
The official explanation, promoted by regional officials and reflected in Western reporting, presents the move as a routine redeployment consistent with Washington’s obligation to remove all US forces from Iraq by the September 30 deadline agreed upon with Baghdad.
However, this account does not address a key factor behind the reported withdrawal: the large-scale destruction of Patriot air-defense systems that had served as a central element of US force protection in the Iraqi Kurdistan region.
Satellite imagery dated July 16 and July 24 provide clinching evidence that Iranian drone and missile strikes targeted and destroyed Patriot launchers at Erbil International Airport. Despite this, the imagery has received limited coverage in mainstream Western media.
The removal of these systems reflects not merely a planned redeployment but an acknowledgment that the air-defense assets had become increasingly vulnerable in the face of Iran’s precision-strike capabilities.
Evidence of Patriot system destruction
Satellite imagery captured on July 16 and analyzed by independent observers shows a US Army Patriot air-defense launcher at Erbil International Airport destroyed following an Iranian drone strike in response to the US military aggression against southern Iran.
The imagery shows significant damage to a Patriot PAC-3 system, with smoke visible at the reported impact site, rendering it completely dysfunctional.
The strike was attributed to Shahed-136 one-way attack drones launched by the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) Aerospace Force – loitering munitions that have demonstrated the cutting-edge ability to challenge advanced and multi-layered air-defense networks.
A second strike on July 24 followed, with additional satellite imagery indicating the destruction of another component of the same Patriot air-defense battery.
A fire reported at Erbil International Airport was linked to damage involving one or more Patriot launchers. Images from the aftermath have been described by military analysts and OSINT researchers as evidence of a precision strike that damaged one of Washington’s most advanced defensive systems and highlighted the challenges posed by Iranian drone capabilities.
The IRGC Aerospace Force announced the destruction of a Patriot air-defense system at Erbil as part of the 27th wave of Operation Nasr-2, carried out under the code phrase “Ya Aba Saleh al-Mahdi, Adrikni.”
In its statement, the IRGC said the operation involved a “surprise” strike that also destroyed a US surveillance balloon and targeted facilities used to accommodate American military personnel.
Declining effectiveness of American air defenses
The devastating strikes against Patriot systems in Erbil exposed vulnerabilities that have been a growing concern for American military planners throughout the war of aggression against Iran.
The Patriot batteries, which have an operational range of between 100 and 160 kilometers, were originally deployed to protect American occupation forces but had become targets themselves.
While US interceptors succeeded in preventing some attacks on the Erbil compound, other attacks proved sufficient to disable the most advanced air-defense systems in the American inventory.
The near-total destruction of Patriot launchers in Erbil was part of a broader pattern of Iranian military successes against American air-defense infrastructure across the region, which prompted war hawks in Washington to look for alternatives and forced Trump to end the bombing campaign.
A study documented the diminishing resources available to American forces, revealing that 55 percent of the Patriot stockpile had been depleted by April, with a further 10 percent reduction following the collapse of the US-Iranian ceasefire in recent months.
The Foreign Policy Research Institute estimated that the United States produces around 600 Patriot interceptors annually, noting that existing stockpiles had already been strained by transfers to Ukraine prior to the escalation of unprovoked hostilities against Iran.
The Iranian success against Patriot systems reflects the inherent asymmetry in modern drone warfare, where expensive air-defense interceptors are depleted by relatively low-cost loitering munitions.
The Shahed-136 drones used in the Erbil strikes are estimated to be thousands of dollars each, while each Patriot interceptor costs millions, making it extremely costly for the aggressor.
This economic imbalance, combined with the demonstrated vulnerability of high-end air-defense systems to drone saturation tactics, has created a fundamental challenge for American force protection that cannot be resolved through redeployment alone.
Accelerated withdrawal: facts on the ground
The destruction of Patriot systems at Erbil appears to have been the catalyst for the accelerated withdrawal of American forces from Iraqi Kurdistan, according to military sources.
The US military began drawing down its last remaining forces stationed near Erbil International Airport, with the pullout starting in the final week of July and continuing at the time of filing this report.
The bulk of US troops and heavy equipment have already been removed from the compound, according to the Al-Monitor website, which claims that all Patriot anti-missile batteries have been redeployed to an undisclosed destination.
However, sources told the Press TV website that the Patriot anti-missile batteries don’t exist anymore at the highly fortified base, which was the main trigger for the hasty military withdrawal.
The Pentagon has declined to confirm or deny the reports of its military’s withdrawal, citing “operational security reasons” for refusing to discuss specific movements.
They also remain tight-lipped about the existing condition of air-defense systems, including Patriot, and how they intend to protect their troops in other regional countries with American bases.
This evasive response has done little to reassure Kurdish authorities, who have been left to interpret the withdrawal without clear guidance from their American allies.
Attack context: sustained Iranian pressure on Iraqi Kurdistan
The withdrawal of American forces from Erbil must be understood within the broader context of Iranian military pressure on the Kurdistan Region throughout July 2026.
Iranian forces maintained sustained retaliatory attacks on US military infrastructure in Iraqi Kurdistan, with the bulk of attacks targeting armed Kurdish militant groups based in the region as well as the US military compound near Erbil International Airport.
The attacks on the Erbil compound specifically targeted the Patriot systems and other military assets, with the IRGC launching multiple waves of Operation Nasr-2 that pounded US-run bases in Kuwait, Bahrain, Jordan, and the Iraqi Kurdistan region.
Local media outlets reported that the Kurdistan Region was subjected to dozens of drone and missile attacks in July, with the city of Erbil facing repeated air-raid warnings and interception attempts.
Iranian and Kurdish sources confirmed renewed strikes against infrastructure associated with coalition forces, with the attacks focused on operational infrastructure rather than saturation bombardment.
The attacks on Erbil International Airport included strikes on a ground support station and maintenance facility belonging to US surveillance aircraft, along with the destruction of the Patriot systems.
This precision targeting reflects the sophistication of Iranian intelligence gathering and the ability to identify and strike high-value American assets with accuracy.
The IRGC’s statement that “almost all” US military infrastructure in Erbil had been destroyed during the conflict, while not independently verified, is consistent with the subsequent American withdrawal.
Regional realignment: from Iraq to the Persian Gulf
The withdrawal from Iraqi Kurdistan is part of a broader American reassessment of its military posture across the region, driven by the recognition that large, permanent military presences have become liabilities rather than strategic assets.
The priority for the US has also shifted toward Persian Gulf states, particularly Kuwait and Jordan.
The United States has been reviewing the extent of its military presence in Kuwait following developments in the war against Iran, with reports indicating that analysts believe “a large, permanent military presence in Kuwait is no longer vital or militarily wise”.
This reassessment has been driven by the reality that US installations and bases have been repeatedly targeted by Iran during the war, with the Patriot systems themselves becoming magnets for Iranian strikes rather than reliable defensive shields.
The destruction of Patriot systems at Erbil ahead of the troop withdrawal has raised further questions about US interceptor stockpiles and how the military seeks to protect troops elsewhere in the region.
The successful Iranian strikes on Patriot systems in Erbil demonstrated that these assets are vulnerable to drone attacks, making their deployment to other locations a matter of risk assessment rather than simple repositioning.
Strategic implications: victory for Iranian deterrence
The American withdrawal from Iraqi Kurdistan, following the destruction of Patriot systems by Iranian precision strikes, represents a significant victory for the Axis of Resistance and a demonstration of the effectiveness of Iranian deterrence strategy, according to defense analysts.
The IRGC’s official statement on the Erbil strikes warned that “should the unlawful and bullying US regime continue its hostile actions, it will face different and stronger responses,” a warning that has been validated by the American decision to withdraw rather than reinforce its position in Iraqi Kurdistan.
The Kurdish Regional Government, which has benefited from the American military umbrella while not being the primary target of Iranian attacks, now faces an uncertain future without the protection of US air-defense systems, including Patriot.
The withdrawal also carries significant implications for the broader regional balance of power. The US, which has maintained a military presence in Iraq for over two decades, is now completing a withdrawal that has been accelerated by Iranian military pressure rather than strategic planning.
The annihilation of Patriot systems from Erbil, and the subsequent withdrawal of American occupation forces, represents an acknowledgment that these systems were no longer capable of protecting American personnel in the face of Iranian precision strike capabilities.
The official narrative of a scheduled redeployment, analysts opine, cannot mask the reality that the American position in Iraqi Kurdistan became untenable following the Iranian retaliatory strikes in recent weeks, which demonstrated that even the most advanced American air-defense systems cannot withstand sustained Iranian drone warfare.



