Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

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

Musk blocks Ukraine from using Starlink for deep strikes in Russia – Atlantic

RT | August 8, 2026

Elon Musk has refused to allow Ukraine to use his Starlink satellite internet service to guide drone strikes deep inside Russian territory, The Atlantic reported on Friday, citing two close allies of former Ukrainian Defense Minister Mikhail Fedorov.

According to the publication, Fedorov, a tech-savvy promoter of drone warfare who was sacked from his position last month, has since been working through back channels to appeal to Musk, but the billionaire has so far refused to relent.

“As of this moment, there is no positive decision,” a Fedorov ally was quoted as saying. “Elon keeps saying it’s time to make a deal,” the source added.

The Atlantic previously reported that during his visit to the US last month, Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky asked President Donald Trump to help influence his close ally Musk on the matter, but Trump remained noncommittal.

Musk began donating tens of thousands of Starlink terminals to Ukraine shortly after its conflict with Russia broke out in February 2022. However, he soon began clashing with Ukrainian officials as he urged them to focus on reaching a peace deal between Moscow and Kiev and repeatedly warned that the conflict could lead to “World War III.”

In 2023, the entrepreneur confirmed reports that he had rejected Ukraine’s request to use Starlink for attacks on Russia’s Black Sea Fleet and naval bases in Crimea. “If I had agreed to their request, then SpaceX would be explicitly complicit in a major act of war and conflict escalation,” he said at the time.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said last month that Musk should shut down Starlink in Ukraine altogether if he truly wanted “people to stop dying.”

Musk’s reported position represents a second major blow to Ukraine’s diplomatic efforts after Trump walked back an earlier promise to grant Kiev a license to produce Patriot air defense missiles and rebuffed a plea to deliver more interceptors. Zelensky and the Ukrainian military said this week that the country was struggling to fend off Russian strikes on Kiev and other cities.

Zelensky’s abrupt decision to sack Fedorov sparked street protests across Ukraine, with crowds and several prominent activists demanding his reinstatement. Zelensky responded to the public outrage by firing the country’s top commander, General Aleksandr Syrsky, with whom Fedorov had reportedly clashed over priorities and tactics.

August 8, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Comments Off on Musk blocks Ukraine from using Starlink for deep strikes in Russia – Atlantic

Col Doug Macgregor: All Out War w/Iran Getting Unavoidable

Daniel Davis / Deep Dive – August 7, 2026

August 7, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Video, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , | Comments Off on Col Doug Macgregor: All Out War w/Iran Getting Unavoidable

Former US negotiator: America faces major ‘strategic defeat’ as Iran tightens control over Hormuz

Press TV – August 7, 2026

Former US negotiator Aaron David Miller has acknowledged that the United States is “on the verge of suffering a really significant strategic defeat” if it is forced to accept Iran’s growing leverage and control over the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most critical shipping lanes.

Speaking in an interview with Australia’s ABC network, Miller warned that emerging arrangements could compel Washington to give Iran the ability to control who and what passes through the waterway. Such an outcome, he emphasized, would constitute a major setback not only for the United States but also for its allied Arab states in the Persian Gulf.

Miller made the remarks while discussing reported negotiations between Iran and Oman on mechanisms to guarantee the safe passage of vessels through the Strait. Although he cautioned that it is still too early to declare a final deal, he made clear that any arrangement strengthening Tehran’s hand would represent a profound strategic loss for Washington.

“The (Persian) Gulf states need to decide whether or not they can acquiesce or even support such an accord. And then, once a text is made public, the administration is going to have to weigh in to see whether or not they’re able to accept. But, again, my confidence level here is not entirely as high these days,” he said.

Miller further observed that while the Persian Gulf states as a group hold limited influence over Trump, Saudi Arabia and the UAE wield considerable leverage thanks to the extensive business interests of the Trump family in the region.

He pointed out that the Trump administration, members of the president’s family, including son-in-law Jared Kushner, as well as Steve Witkoff and others have already benefited from hundreds of millions of dollars in investments linked to projects in the Persian Gulf, he added.

“Affinity Partners, which is Jared Kushner’s $2 billion hedge fund, was bankrolled by Mohammed bin Salman, the future king of Saudi Arabia,” Miller noted.

Miller warned that any US strike on Iran’s energy infrastructure would provoke a severe Iranian response with far-reaching consequences for global energy markets.

The full extent of the damage Iran could inflict on Persian Gulf oil facilities has not yet been seen, he said, and such an escalation could “drive oil prices well north of anything we’ve seen.”

August 7, 2026 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , | Comments Off on Former US negotiator: America faces major ‘strategic defeat’ as Iran tightens control over Hormuz

AIPAC eyes another push against El-Sayed after $32 million defeat in Michigan primary

Press TV – August 7, 2026

US pro-Israel lobbyists are considering spending millions on propaganda to boost the popularity of pro-Israel Republican Mike Rogers against Democrat Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan’s Senate race.

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and other special-interest groups have already wasted tens of millions of dollars in a failed attempt to stop El-Sayed during Michigan’s Democratic Senate primary.

On Wednesday, El-Sayed defeated his rival Haley Stevens, who enjoyed overwhelming backing from AIPAC as well as the Democratic Party establishment.

Stevens, who openly described herself as a “proud pro-Israel Democrat,” had received substantial campaign funding from AIPAC in return for her support of the Israeli regime.

To secure the nomination, El-Sayed not only overcame Stevens, a four-term Democratic congresswoman, but also the full weight of pro-Israel groups and Michigan’s Democratic power brokers, including Governor Gretchen Whitmer, who had endorsed Stevens.

AIPAC reportedly spent $32 million trying to promote her.

El-Sayed’s victory stunned the US political system. If he wins the Senate seat, he will become the first Muslim to serve in the US Senate. Immediately after the primary, US President Donald Trump rushed to label him a “Communist loser who hates Jews and Israel.”

“[I]f we come through this, when we come through this, Inshallah, we’ll have taken $70 million on the chin and kept fighting back,” El-Sayed said after his win, referring to the massive spending deployed against him.

Senator Bernie Sanders called the result the “most extraordinary victory” in modern US politics.

The win carries special weight because El-Sayed prevailed in a statewide race in a swing state that voted for Trump less than two years ago, despite the flood of money and establishment endorsements lined up against him.

Pennsylvania progressive Representative Chris Rabb said the victory sends a clear message to the Democratic establishment: “The things that used to work are old and arcane and do not reach the types of people that will come out who won’t vote for normal traditional Democrats.” Rabb added that El-Sayed’s ability to expand the party’s voter base will help defeat Rogers in November.

El-Sayed’s campaign slogan is direct: “Money out of politics. Money in your pockets. Medicare for All.” He has consistently argued that taxpayers’ money currently wasted on wars should instead be used to support communities across the United States and Michigan.

His victory demonstrates that when a candidate runs on a clear anti-war platform and is prepared to confront special-interest groups like AIPAC, American voters will support them, said Michigan Democratic Representative Alabas Farhat.

El-Sayed, a former public health official, will now face Republican former congressman Mike Rogers, a close Trump ally, in the November midterm elections. AIPAC’s heavy involvement and the growing unpopularity of the Israeli regime among Americans over wars in West Asia have become central issues in the race.

“AIPAC can try dumping millions of dollars into propaganda, but at the end of the day, American voters don’t want our tax dollars to go toward bombing families abroad. We want to fund healthcare, not warfare,” said Iman Abid, political director of the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights Action.

Sally Howell, a history professor at the University of Michigan-Dearborn who has pioneered research on Arab-American and Muslim-American communities, described El-Sayed’s win as “genuine change” for Michigan.

“It tells us that voters are very frustrated with the establishment – the establishment in Washington and the establishment in the Democratic Party,” she said. “They want leaders who are going to bring change, not more of the same.”

Undeterred, AIPAC has already announced it will escalate its efforts and push for significantly higher campaign spending in a desperate bid to defeat El-Sayed in November.

“Our members remain determined to ensure that voters reject Dr El-Sayed and his radical anti-Israel agenda in November,” the group declared in a statement on Wednesday.

Yet social media commentator Russell Ellis, known as Jolly Good Ginger, observed that the more AIPAC pours into pro-Israel propaganda, the fewer votes it is likely to win. American voters across the country are showing they are fed up with the Israeli regime and its powerful lobby.

August 7, 2026 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , | Comments Off on AIPAC eyes another push against El-Sayed after $32 million defeat in Michigan primary

The Telegraph: ‘US and Israel Have Lost, Iran Has Won’ in Historic Strategic Reversal

Al-Manar | August 7, 2026

A leading British broadsheet has declared that the United States and ‘Israel’ have effectively lost their strategic confrontation with the Islamic Republic, asserting that Tehran has emerged from the prolonged standoff with its regional influence not merely intact, but substantially fortified.

In a pointed analysis, The Telegraph argues that the maximum-pressure campaign championed by former President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to either topple or incapacitate Iran’s regime is concluding in a clear reversal of fortunes. The newspaper points to a prospective Omani-brokered arrangement concerning the strategic Strait of Hormuz as tangible evidence that Tehran has outlasted the offensive and consolidated its geopolitical foothold.

More critically, the publication frames this moment as a potential historical inflection point, signaling an accelerating decline in U.S. global supremacy. “Peace agreements ultimately reflect the results of battles on the ground,” the paper observed, adding that Washington’s efforts to reshape those battlefield realities have demonstrably fallen short. In a stark concluding assessment, The Telegraph suggested that the protracted confrontation with Iran may one day be recorded among history’s most profound strategic miscalculations.

Echoing that somber prognosis, the Financial Times has cautioned that a renewed escalation under Trump does not portend a decisive U.S. victory. Instead, the newspaper warns that intensifying hostilities are likely to cast a long shadow over his second term, imposing heavy economic, political, and diplomatic costs on an administration already navigating treacherous waters.

With high-stakes midterm congressional elections looming in the autumn, the FT suggests the White House faces a precarious balancing act one where the perceived geopolitical dividends of confrontation are becoming increasingly overshadowed by domestic blowback and deepening international isolation.

Taken together, the dual assessments from both publications paint a portrait of a conflict whose outcomes, far from securing American interests, may instead accelerate a structural shift in global power dynamics a transition for which Washington appears ill-prepared to counter.

August 7, 2026 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , | Comments Off on The Telegraph: ‘US and Israel Have Lost, Iran Has Won’ in Historic Strategic Reversal

British trade union leaders urge PM to stop UK support for illegal US-Israeli war on Iran

Press TV – August 7, 2026

British trade union leaders have urged UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham to stop rendering support to the United States and Israel in their illegal war on Iran, demanding he reverse his decision to allow the use of UK bases for aggression against Iran.

In an open letter to the PM run by the media on Friday, leaders of ten British trade unions, representing more than 2.3 million workers, urged Burnham to stop rendering support to the illegal US-Israeli war on Iran, and instead focus on the nation’s cost of living crisis.

“[T]he US and Israel’s devastating, illegal war on Iran is deepening the cost of living crisis faced by our members and the British public,” the open letter to Burnham stated, pointing out in continuation that the disruption caused by the war is worsening the cost of living crisis in the UK.

“Disruption to the world’s food and energy supplies is hurting communities here in Britain and having a catastrophic impact in the global south,” it said.

British trade union leaders said they were encouraged by the new Labour government’s focus on the cost of living crisis, but voiced deep concern over any authorization granted to the US to use its bases against Iran.

“We are encouraged by the new government’s focus on the cost of living and the measures it is taking to make life more affordable. However, we are deeply concerned that the same government has authorized US air strikes to be conducted from bases on British territories as part of the war against Iran,” the representative of the large group of British laborers said in the letter to the UK Labour Party prime minister.

They called on Burnham to put pressure on US President Donald Trump to bring the US-Israeli war on Iran to a quick end.

Burnham, right after he took office last month, allowed the use of RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire and the Indian Ocean territory of Diego Garcia to assist the US in the illegal war of aggression against Iran.

On July 21, Burnham approved the continued use of British military bases by the United States for military aggression against Iran, maintaining a policy established under his predecessor, Keir Starmer.

Burnham’s approval of ongoing contribution to American aggression against the Islamic Republic came after another hostile decision by the British government to designate the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) under Britain’s so-called “State Threats legislation.”

Late last month, Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi warned the UK against contributing support to the aggressors waging war against the Islamic Republic.

Iran’s top diplomat issued the warning in a direct telephone call to his British counterpart Ed Miliband on July 31.

August 7, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on British trade union leaders urge PM to stop UK support for illegal US-Israeli war on Iran

Mossad shakes up top ranks after failed Iran regime-change scheme

Al Mayadeen | August 6, 2026

The head of the Mossad dismissed two senior officials from the agency, the head of its Intelligence Directorate and the head of its Iran Division, following the failure of an operational plan designed to facilitate regime change in Iran, Israeli Channel 12 reported.

According to the channel, the Mossad chief’s decision was based on the assessment that the officials who formulated the operational concept and oversaw its development should be held accountable for its failure. The two dismissed officials were reportedly directly involved in the intelligence planning, development, and operationalization of the strategy, which was presented to US President Donald Trump.

The channel added that the plan hinged on establishing cooperation with groups from ethnic minority communities inside Iran to generate conditions for regime change and facilitate the installation of a new Iranian leadership. However, the operation was never translated into action on the ground.

The channel quoted security sources as saying that relations between the Mossad chief and the dismissed officials had been strained from the outset and that their departures were agreed upon.

Nevertheless, the timing of the dismissals was not coincidental, the sources said, given that the two officials had played leading roles in developing the operational plan that ultimately failed, according to the Israeli account.

The US-Israeli aggression on Iran was reportedly built in part around a Mossad assessment that Israeli strikes, assassinations and armed riots would trigger a “popular uprising and ultimately topple the Iranian government.”

However, months into the war, the anticipated regime change has failed to materialize, while US and Israeli intelligence assessments indicate that Iran’s government remains intact.

The plan reportedly faced skepticism from US military commanders and Israeli intelligence officials even before the aggression began. A parallel strategy involving Kurdish armed groups also faltered after opposition from the US, Turkey, Iraq and Kurdish leaders, raising questions over the assumptions underpinning the campaign.

August 7, 2026 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on Mossad shakes up top ranks after failed Iran regime-change scheme

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »