A senior Russian foreign ministry official has called for a permanent end to the US war of aggression against Iran, saying that Washington’s plans to expand attacks must be cancelled for good.
Mikhail Ulyanov, who serves as Russia’s Permanent Representative to International Organizations in Vienna, said on Sunday that the United States has to accept that it has failed to reach its objectives by launching a military aggression against Iran.
“To suspend plans to expand strikes on Iran is not enough. Those plans must be cancelled. It is high time to recognise that this conflict has no military solution,” Ulyanov said in a post on his X account.
The comments came after reports emerged that the US has run short of military stockpiles, causing it to suspend plans for a large-scale aggression against Iran.
The reports published in the US media have pointed to pressure on stockpiles of Patriot interceptors and other defensive weapons that the US needs to fend off extensive Iranian missile and drone attacks on its military bases in the West Asia region.
That comes as US President Donald Trump has continuously threatened Iran with an escalation in attacks.
The threats and the following reports about suspension of plans for a large-scale aggression come as Iran and the US have been exchanging fire since a tentative agreement between the two that had been signed in June fell apart earlier this month over disputes surrounding the control of the Strait of Hormuz.
Iran says the US has violated the terms of the agreement by trying to interfere in the management of the Strait, which is exclusively devolved to Iran based on the terms of the agreement.
Iran’s fierce response to US attacks and its increased restrictions on transit in Hormuz have caused a fresh spike in international oil prices, further pressuring Washington and its plans for continuing the aggression.
The Iranian-allied government of Yemen has also entered into a conflict with Saudi Arabia in the past days, restricting the movement of oil tankers in the Red Sea and fueling more energy price rises in international markets.
Reports by CNN and The New York Times have pointed to dwindling munition supplies and concerns about the risk of a wider war in the West Asia region as key reasons for the US suspending plans to expand attacks on Iran.
Both news outlets have cited statements from top US government officials suggesting they have serious reservations about continuing the aggression against Iran.
India’s continued reluctance to openly challenge Washington despite the recent US attacks on Iran, including the strategic coastal city of Chabahar, has exposed the contradictions at the heart of New Delhi’s foreign policy, says an Indian journalist and foreign policy analyst.
Speaking to the Press TV website, Sanjay Kapoor, founder and editor of Hardnews magazine and president of the Editors Guild of India, said India’s approach towards Chabahar has never been independent of US policy on Iran, noting that New Delhi has consistently calibrated its engagement with the strategic Iranian port around Washington’s broader regional strategy.
“India decided to take up the Chabahar project only after then US President Barack Obama had signed the JCPOA and there was a global attempt to normalise ties with Iran,” Kapoor said.
He noted that India, like many other countries, had also severed its energy relationship with Iran after Washington instructed New Delhi to stop purchasing Iranian oil, underscoring India’s willingness to accommodate American concerns over the Islamic Republic.
“India also cut energy ties with Iran after the US told New Delhi to stop buying Persian oil. In other words, India has been mindful of US concerns on Iran,” he stated.
Kapoor said the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led government in New Delhi has simultaneously cultivated close strategic relations with Israel, a policy that has further aligned India’s foreign policy with that of Washington.
“Besides, this BJP government has been close to Israel also, which ensures that New Delhi stays close to the US and its foreign policy,” he told the Press TV website.
His remarks follow the recent US aggression against southern Iran, during which the port city of Chabahar was also targeted, raising questions over the future of India’s flagship connectivity project in the region and whether New Delhi can continue portraying the port as a strategic priority while avoiding direct criticism of US attacks on Iranian territory.
Located on Iran’s southeastern coast, Chabahar has long been regarded as India’s gateway to Afghanistan and Central Asia, allowing it to bypass Pakistan while providing Tehran with an important regional trade hub.
India has invested in developing the Shahid Beheshti terminal of the port, viewing Chabahar as a counterweight to Pakistan’s Gwadar Port under the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC).
Deep historical ties have not translated into strategic consistency
Despite India’s cautious approach in recent years, Kapoor told the Press TV website that relations between Iran and India rest on centuries of historical, cultural and religious interaction.
He pointed out that India is home to the world’s second-largest Shia population after Iran, adding that religious links between the two countries continue to shape people-to-people relations.
He also referred to Imam Khomeini’s old ties with his hometown, Lucknow, the capital of northern India’s biggest state, Uttar Pradesh.
“There is continuous interaction between the Shia clergy in India with their counterparts in Iran and Iraq,” he noted, adding that Iran has traditionally viewed India differently from many other countries, pointing to the longstanding cultural affinity between the two civilizations.
“Iran also never saw India as a foreign country. They also perceive Kashmir in India as Iran-e-Sagheer (little Iran),” he said, referring to the Muslim-majority Himalayan region of Kashmir in northern India.
Kapoor argued that successive governments in New Delhi believed these deep-rooted ties would allow India to preserve its relationship with Tehran even while strengthening strategic cooperation with Washington.
“The Indian government under the BJP always believed that they will manage substantial ties with Iran like they managed the Chabahar Port,” he stated.
However, he maintained that New Delhi ultimately regarded alignment with the United States as the more pressing strategic priority.
“For whatever reason, they thought they had more compelling reason to align themselves with the US. They believed that Iran could wait,” Kapoor remarked.
According to the veteran journalist, India’s reluctance to publicly support Iran stems less from hostility towards Tehran than from its determination to remain aligned with Washington’s geopolitical ambitions.
“Their reluctance to support Iran openly is due to their desperation to be on the right side of the US,” he stressed.
He believes Indian policymakers expect the current regional situation to evolve and remain confident that New Delhi’s long-standing doctrine of strategic autonomy will eventually enable it to restore any damage to bilateral relations.
“They believe that what’s happening is transitory and the final outcome will look different from now. Their resort to strategic autonomy in their foreign policy will give them a chance to make up with the Iranian government,” Kapoor said.
US attacks have exposed the fragility of India’s Chabahar strategy
Kapoor said Chabahar was originally conceived as a stable alternative to Iran’s other major ports, making it particularly attractive to India when Tehran offered New Delhi the opportunity to develop the Shahid Beheshti terminal.
“Chabahar was meant to be away from the ferment that used to be in Bandar Abbas. It was expected to be stable and peaceful. That was the unique selling point of Chabahar when its terminal, Shahid Beheshti, was offered to India by the government of Iran,” he said.
However, he said the recent US attacks around the port have fundamentally altered those assumptions.
“For some strange reason, Chabahar is facing the ire of US attacks. They have misiled and bombed the port.”
Kapoor questioned New Delhi’s claim that Indian infrastructure at the port escaped damage during the attacks.
“The Indian government says Indian infrastructure has not been lost due to the attack. That’s saying a bit much,” he added.
The senior Indian journalist noted that New Delhi invested approximately $120 million in the Shahid Beheshti terminal but deliberately limited further investment because US sanctions made financing increasingly difficult.
According to Kapoor, Russian government sources have previously indicated that Moscow helped India overcome funding shortages for the project on several occasions.
Despite maintaining its presence at Chabahar for years, Kapoor argued that New Delhi never fully embraced the project.
“Despite soldiering on for many years, India always remained a reluctant partner,” he said.
Kapoor said many Iranian experts have long argued that Tehran deliberately preserved Chabahar as an opportunity for India despite having other potential partners.
“As many Iranian experts told me, Tehran had kept Chabahar for India,” he told the Press TV website. “They argue that if they had wanted, they could have given the port to Pakistan, China or even Russia.”
He said India’s strategic calculations changed significantly after the United States withdrew from Afghanistan, removing one of the principal reasons behind New Delhi’s investment in the Iranian port.
“India thought Chabahar had become untenable after the US left Afghanistan,” he said.
Rather than engaging with Afghanistan’s new Taliban-led government, Kapoor said India shifted its focus to alternative connectivity initiatives backed by Washington and several of its regional partners.
The journalist believes India’s regional priorities have increasingly shifted away from Chabahar towards the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC), a US-backed connectivity initiative linking India with Europe through the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Israeli-occupied territories and Mediterranean countries such as Greece and Italy.
“India did not want to negotiate with the Taliban and happily became part of IMEC, which promised a lot, including a seat on the G7 high table,” he stated.
Kapoor recalled that speculation briefly emerged in Indian media about reviving New Delhi’s engagement with Chabahar following the signing of a memorandum of understanding (MoU) between Tehran and Washington. However, he said those expectations quickly faded once the ceasefire broke down and US attacks on Iran resumed.
India depends on Afghanistan and Washington’s calculations
Asked whether the long-term success of Chabahar ultimately depends on Iran’s stability and sovereignty, Kapoor said New Delhi’s strategic calculations extend beyond developments inside Iran.
“Chabahar’s stability depends, in India’s estimation, on who controls Afghanistan and on how the US perceives the port,” he noted.
He explained that India’s primary motivation for investing in Chabahar was never limited to commercial interests alone but centred on gaining direct access to Afghanistan while bypassing Pakistan.
According to Kapoor, changes in the regional geopolitical landscape have complicated those calculations.
“My contention may not square with the views of others, but India would only make a pitch for Chabahar if it doesn’t elicit a hostile response from its (Persian) Gulf partners and that’s only possible if Washington is backing India to help Afghanistan as well as support against Pakistan,” he said.
He argued that Pakistan remains a central factor in India’s strategic thinking, noting that the evolving military balance in South Asia following the recent war against Iran has further complicated New Delhi’s decision-making.
“After the recent war in West Asia, there has been a shift and Pakistan is better off militarily. What happens next will impact India’s policy towards Chabahar,” he remarked.
To Kapoor, India’s future investment in the port will depend primarily on the trajectory of Iran-US relations and Pakistan’s regional position.
“To sum up, India will invest in Chabahar if the US builds working relations with Iran and Pakistan is on the defensive due to this.”
Relations with Israel carry long-term risks
Kapoor said India’s growing partnership with Israel inevitably raises questions in Iran about the future direction of bilateral relations.
“Ordinarily, the trust that India and Iran enjoy should get eroded after PM Modi was in Tel Aviv just days before the war broke out,” the Indian journalist stated.
“The moot question that Iran should ask itself is whether India is a friend or a foe,” he added, pointing to the numerous interactions between Indian and Israeli leaders in recent years.
He added that despite increasing strategic cooperation with Israel and close ties with Washington, India has so far managed to preserve working relations with Iran.
According to Kapoor, New Delhi appears confident that it can maintain relations with “both sides” without suffering major diplomatic consequences.
Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC) spokesperson Hussein Mohebbi outlined US military losses during fifteen days of retaliatory Iranian strikes on US bases across the region, in response to US aggression on the country launched from these bases.
In remarks to Tasnim, Mohebbi detailed that Iranian strikes destroyed a range of fixed-wing aircraft, helicopters, and unmanned aerial vehicles.
US aircraft losses:
11 stationed fighter jets and helicopters
17 reconnaissance and operational UAVs
Eight intact units
Eight aerial refueling tankers
Four heavy military helicopters
One F-15 fighter jet struck inside a hardened shelter
One P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft
One C-17 Globemaster heavy transport aircraft
US radar, command infrastructure
The IRGC spokesperson said Iranian forces also inflicted significant damage on US military surveillance, air defense, and command infrastructure during the fighting, destroying multiple command-and-control centers, radar installations, air defense systems, and satellite communications assets.
Seven command-and-control centers
Six Patriot air defense radar units
Eight early warning and detection radar systems
Seven air defense missile radars, five long-range radar systems
Five specialized FPS and FPS-117 radar systems
Three air and maritime surveillance radars
Three satellite communications systems
US defense and logistics assets
Mohebbi also claimed that Iranian strikes caused extensive damage to military infrastructure at US bases, targeting aircraft shelters, drone facilities, hangars, and operational infrastructure used to support air operations.
Six MQ-9 Reaper drone hangars
Five fighter aircraft hangars and four hardened shelters
One F-15 fighter preparation hangar, one UAV hangar housing eight new drones
One P-8 aircraft hangar
Six flight and parking ramps
Four HIMARS mobile artillery rocket launchers
Four Patriots
Supply and intelligence facilities:
17 depots containing weaponry
Naval vessel components
Aircraft spare parts were destroyed
12 fuel storage tanks
One fuel dock
One aircraft carrier refueling platform
The losses also included, as per the spokesperson, six underground missile bunkers, six fighter and helicopter maintenance centers, two signals intelligence communication centers, one data intelligence hub, one artificial intelligence processing center, one Amazon data node, and one unmanned surface vehicle (USV) storage facility.
Over 200 American soldiers killed in strikes on US bases
Brig. Gen. Hossein Mohebi revealed that the US casualty figures from recent Iranian strikes were inaccurate, stressing that more than 200 American personnel were killed during Operation Nasr 2.
He described US reports on its military casualties as “an outright lie.” The IRGC spokesperson added that Iranian forces struck eight US military bases during the operation, including one facility containing 20 hangars that were destroyed.
According to Mohebi, more than 200 US personnel were killed in Operation Nasr 2, while the number of wounded was “far higher” than the reported death toll.
The spokesperson also urged the American public not to allow what he called their “dishonest military commanders” to mislead them about the extent of the losses.
He further called on the US government to allow journalists access to the strike locations so they could independently assess the damage and determine how many personnel had been killed.
It is worth noting that Iran has repeatedly said that US military bases and economic assets in the Gulf region have been used to launch acts of aggression against Iran, including strikes that have resulted in civilian casualties. In this context, Iran frames any action against such facilities as retaliation against hostile military activity originating from or enabled by those bases.
Iran’s decisive retaliatory strikes in the face of the United States’ violations have forced Washington to halt and revisit its regional strategy, Army spokesman says.
Brigadier General Mohammad Akraminia made the remarks during a televised interview on Saturday, stating that coordinated operations by the Army and the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC), including airstrikes, missile strikes, and drone operations against US positions in Kuwait, Qatar, and Erbil, Iraq, have brought Washington’s regional strategy to a halt and forced it to alter its strategic approach.
Turning to Iran’s recent retaliatory military operations, Akraminia said the Islamic Republic launched the strikes after the United States violated its commitments under a memorandum of understanding reached last month, and attempted to establish an illegal shipping route through the Strait of Hormuz in violation of the MoU.
Over the past 15 days, he said, the operations focused on US military bases in Jordan, Kuwait, and Bahrain, describing them as among Washington’s most important military installations in the region.
According to the spokesperson, decades of US investment in regional military infrastructure, particularly after the 2003 invasion of Iraq, had made those facilities strategically significant.
However, as a result of Iran’s reprisal, many US facilities across the region have suffered damage severe enough to prevent them from carrying out their previous missions, he stated.
Akraminia cited the US Fifth Fleet in Bahrain as a case in point. “There is now virtually nothing left of this base,” he said, hailing the Iranian operations for rendering the outpost effectively unusable.
The spokesman referred to US President Donald Trump’s acknowledgement that Washington had supplied weapons to counterrevolutionary elements based in Iraq’s Kurdistan Region, but noted that Iranian strikes have robbed those elements of their operational capability and virtually destroyed the American military infrastructure in Erbil.
The official credited the success of the drone strikes among the operations to Iran’s employing a new generation of loitering munitions, citing deployment of the country’s Arash-2 drones.
‘Retaliatory deterrence’
The Army spokesperson described Iran’s military strategy in the face of the American violations as one of “retaliatory deterrence.”
He said the Islamic Republic’s objective was to raise the cost of aggression sufficiently to deter future attacks.
In the face of the retaliation, the United States has reached a strategic impasse, lacking a coherent strategy either to continue the war or bring it to an end, Akraminia said. The official cited contradictory statements by the US president as evidence of strategic confusion.
Akraminia, meanwhile, said the United States would also bear the greatest long-term strategic costs of the cycle arising out of its violations in light of the significant economic, geopolitical, and security consequences that have resulted from the Islamic Republic’s reprisal.
Elsewhere in his remarks, the spokesperson noted how the United States and the Israeli regime also failed to achieve either their declared or broader objectives during their unprovoked aggression against the Islamic Republic that took place from February 28 to April 7.
He noted that Washington’s publicly stated goals included destroying Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities and eliminating the regional Resistance Front, besides reminding how the US president had also demanded Iran’s “unconditional surrender” during the early stages of the aggression.
According to the official, the adversaries also pursued broader objectives, including overthrowing Iran’s Islamic establishment, partitioning the country, and advancing the so-called “Greater Israel” project that features Tel Aviv’s expansionist ambitions.
None of those objectives was, however, achieved, he stated, attributing the outcome to public support, the Islamic Republic’s sagacious leadership, and the performance of the country’s Armed Forces.
“Tonight marks the 147th consecutive night of the people’s presence and support for the Islamic establishment, and this steadfastness demonstrates that the enemy has failed to accomplish its objectives,” the spokesman said, referring to unfailing presence across the country’s streets in support of the Islamic Republic and its defensive and retaliatory operations.
Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei has dismissed European Union claims of concern for human rights in Iran as “sheer hypocrisy,” criticizing remarks by EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas regarding what she described as “human rights concerns” in the country.
Baghaei questioned how the EU’s professed commitment to human rights could be reconciled with its provision of logistical and technical support for deadly attacks “deliberately targeting the Iranian people, including civilians and vital national infrastructure,” according to the statement.
The spokesman noted that the EU has refrained from condemning “the most obvious war crimes” and has not expressed any sympathy for Iranian children killed by US and Israeli bombs and missiles, “the execution of which has been made possible by European logistical and technical support.”
Baghaei concluded by saying that this stance “is not just a loss of credibility, but a trivialization of evil and the most obvious form of hypocrisy.”
European Union announces new sanctions on Iran
On July 24, 2026, the European Union imposed new restrictive measures on five Iranian judges and a leading figure of an Iranian cyber group, citing alleged “serious human rights violations”.
The sanctioned judges serve on Iran’s regional courts in addition to Nima Salehi, founder of the Ashiyane cyber group, which the bloc said cooperates closely with Iran’s Cyber Police (FATA) and the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC). The EU accused the group of carrying out cyberattacks against domestic opponents and foreign institutions.
The new designations bring the EU’s Iran human rights sanctions regime to 269 individuals and 53 entities. The measures include asset freezes, travel bans within the EU, and a prohibition on providing funds or economic resources to those listed.
This comes amid continued US aggression on Iran, which has killed hundreds of civilians and targeted significant civilian infrastructure including bridges and desalination plants.
US attacks 16 cities in Iran in 13th consecutive night of aggression
The United States launched a new wave of attacks on Iran, marking the 13th consecutive night of US attacks, according to US Central Command (CENTCOM). The campaign, which Washington said aims to target Iranian military capabilities and threats to commercial shipping, began at 6:45 pm Eastern Time.
Iranian media reported explosions in multiple locations throughout the country. Local officials confirmed strikes in Bandar Abbas, Jask Port, Konarak Port, Ahvaz, Omidiyeh, Andimeshk, Khorramabad, Anarak, Nain, Borujerd, Taft, Shirkuh, Firuzabad, near Khondab in Markazi Province, and on Qeshm Island. Al Mayadeen’s correspondent reported that the US attacked 16 Iranian cities in total.
In Hormozgan Province, the deputy governor for political and security affairs said several civilians were injured during the attack on Bandar Abbas Port. IRNA reported power outages affecting parts of the port following the strikes, with provincial emergency officials later stating electricity would be restored within an hour. Iranian state television reported that air defenses were activated in Tehran as explosions were heard elsewhere.
The Khuzestan Province Council reported that four people were killed and five others were injured in attacks targeting the vicinity of Ahvaz.
Iran’s IRGC announced that its forces intercepted and destroyed a US Tomahawk cruise missile over Kahnuj in Kerman Province. According to Fars News Agency, the IRGC commander in Kahnuj said the missile was detected and destroyed while still in the city’s airspace.
Iranian news agency Fars reported, citing satellite imagery, that the United States has evacuated two military bases in the UAE and Qatar.
According to the agency, US forces evacuated Al Dhafra Air Base in the UAE and Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar.
Fars said satellite images from Sentinel-2, dated July 24, 2026, showed the evacuation of the US military base in the UAE. The agency said five US military aircraft had been stationed at Al Dhafra three days earlier, while the satellite images showed that they had since been evacuated.
US reportedly evacuates Al Dhafra Air Base
Al Dhafra Air Base is located south of Abu Dhabi and hosts the US Air Force’s 380th Air Expeditionary Wing. It is considered a key strategic hub for reconnaissance, aerial refueling, and air defense operations, as well as a major center supporting military operations in the region and providing intelligence coverage across West Asia.
Fars also reported that satellite images showed Washington had fully evacuated Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar.
Al Udeid Air Base is located west of Doha and is considered the largest US military base in West Asia. It hosts the forward headquarters of US Central Command (CENTCOM) and the 379th Air Expeditionary Wing.
The two bases played a key role in US military operations during the latest US aggression against Iran, which began on February 28 and resumed more than three weeks ago.
Destruction of fighter jets at Azraq base and acknowledgment of casualties
The developments coincided with the release earlier on Sunday of additional satellite images documenting the destruction of a military aircraft hangar inside Muwaffaq Salti Air Base, also known as Azraq Air Base, in Jordan, which hosts US forces.
Earlier today, the IRGC conducted a simultaneous missile and drone strike against the US base in Azraq, Jordan, targeting fighter shelters and a large parking ramp, according to the IRGC’s Public Relations Office.
In a statement, the IRGC reported that the operation was carried out in the early morning hours as part of the 20th wave of Operation Nasr 2. The strike was launched in response to the US aggression the previous night, the statement said.
“With a crushing and simultaneous missile and drone attack on the fighter shelters and a large parking ramp at the American base in Azraq, Jordan,” the IRGC said, “at least two American fighter jets and three American aircraft were completely destroyed while inflicting major damage on a number of others.”
The strikes came shortly after a series of successive attacks launched by Iranian armed forces against US bases in the region, including Muwaffaq Salti Air Base, where the US side acknowledged the deaths of two American soldiers and the loss of another.
Earlier, US network Fox News reported that at least 13 American soldiers had been injured as a result of recent Iranian attacks targeting US bases in Kuwait, Bahrain, and Jordan.
Damage in Erbil and fires at a Kuwaiti power station
As part of the simultaneous Iranian attacks, footage circulated showing a fire breaking out at a Kuwaiti power station following an Iranian strike.
Additional footage and satellite images also showed the extent of damage inflicted on the US military base in the city of Erbil, the capital of Iraq’s Kurdistan Region, after it was targeted by Iranian missile strikes.
In this context, media outlets reported that US officials acknowledged that Iran’s missile capabilities had undergone significant qualitative development, enabling them to effectively bypass US interception and defense systems deployed across the region.
The officials explained that Tehran now possesses advanced missiles capable of traveling at extremely high speeds and maneuvering during the final phase of their trajectory before striking their designated targets.
It is worth noting that Tehran maintains that it harbors no hostility toward the peoples of the region, stressing that its strikes are aimed at US bases in response to repeated US aggression on Iranian territory that has killed and wounded civilians, including women and children.
The United States has presented its new nuclear agreement with Saudi Arabia as a gift: reactors, technology, investment, prestige, and the radiant promise of a peaceful atomic future. Washington is forever giving gifts of this kind. Curiously, they tend to arrive fitted with surveillance equipment, political conditions, and a discreetly concealed choke chain.
This is not merely a civil nuclear agreement. It is a disciplinary instrument aimed at Mohammed bin Salman — a strategic summons issued to a crown prince who has recently behaved less like an obedient client and more like the ruler of an indispensable state.
Its message is simple: Saudi Arabia may diversify its economy, its diplomatic partners, and even its wardrobe of alliances, but it may not diversify the source of its ultimate protection. That franchise still belongs to Washington.
The agreement therefore concerns nuclear energy only in the same sense that a prison contract concerns architecture. Its deeper purpose is to reconstruct American authority over a kingdom that has begun imagining life beyond the imperial security nursery.
Riyadh has committed three increasingly intolerable offenses.
First, it has moved too close to Pakistan. The Saudi–Pakistani relationship is hardly new: money, soldiers, intelligence cooperation, religious patronage, and strategic ambiguity have bound the two states for decades.
What has changed is the context. As confidence in American protection has weakened, Pakistan has ceased to look merely like a useful military subcontractor and begun to resemble a possible component of an alternative security architecture.
That possibility is especially sensitive because Pakistan is nuclear-armed. No formal Saudi–Pakistani nuclear arrangement has been acknowledged, and neither capital needs one publicly declared. Strategic ambiguity is useful precisely because it performs deterrence without submitting an invoice to the International Atomic Energy Agency. A defense pact, carefully suggestive official language, and decades of intimate military cooperation can generate considerable anxiety without anyone having to unveil a warhead in Riyadh.
Washington’s nuclear offer is designed to interrupt that imagination. It tells the Saudis: there will be no Pakistani shortcut to strategic autonomy. If the kingdom wants reactors, fuel-cycle expertise, advanced technology, and the political symbolism of nuclear modernity, those ambitions must pass through American gates. The atomic future may be Saudi, but the key to the laboratory must remain in Washington.
Second, Mohammed bin Salman has shown insufficient enthusiasm for the campaign against Iran. Riyadh has no sentimental attachment to Tehran; states do not exchange friendship bracelets. But it has learned, after years of expensive confrontation, that permanent hostility to Iran is a ruinous American luxury financed by Gulf vulnerability. Saudi–Iranian accommodation is not ideological reconciliation. It is an insurance policy against being drafted into someone else’s war.
This is precisely what makes it objectionable to Washington and Israel. An autonomous Saudi Arabia might decline to become the logistics platform, financier, diplomatic choir, and eventual target of a regional war against Iran. It might decide that oil facilities, desalination plants, investment plans, and glittering megaprojects are poorly served by turning the Gulf into a missile exchange. Such ingratitude cannot be encouraged.
The nuclear deal places Washington back at the center of Saudi strategic planning. Technology creates dependency; dependency creates leverage; leverage restores obedience.
The reactor is not merely an energy source. It is a thirty-year listening device embedded in the kingdom’s national-security imagination.
Third, Riyadh has refused to normalize relations with Israel on Washington’s preferred terms. Saudi leaders continue to tie normalization to a credible pathway toward Palestinian statehood — an inconvenient demand in an imperial order that prefers Palestinians as humanitarian statistics rather than political subjects. Trump’s subsequent insistence that the nuclear arrangement depends on Saudi entry into the Abraham Accords merely stripped the agreement of its ceremonial clothing.
The bargain is now indecently clear: Washington will help construct Saudi Arabia’s nuclear future if Riyadh helps rehabilitate Israel’s regional standing. Nuclear cooperation becomes diplomatic blackmail. The kingdom is invited to purchase strategic reassurance with Palestine. This is less a treaty than a geopolitical obedience course: sit beside Israel, distrust Iran, step away from Pakistan, and receive your reactor.
China and Russia are the other uninvited guests at the signing ceremony. Saudi Arabia is not merely another energy producer; it is the central Arab power in OPEC, a financial heavyweight, and a pivotal actor in the emerging multipolar order. Its relations with Beijing and Moscow challenge Washington not because Riyadh has become anti-American, but because it has become insufficiently exclusive.
Empire does not require affection. It requires the absence of alternatives.
A Saudi nuclear program built with Chinese or Russian assistance would deepen technological, financial, and strategic relationships that Washington can no longer confidently control. American companies want the contracts, certainly, but the larger concern is architectural: whoever builds the reactors helps shape the dependencies surrounding them.
Nuclear cooperation produces decades of training, maintenance, fuel arrangements, regulatory influence, security coordination, and elite access. Washington is not selling machinery. It is purchasing strategic occupancy.
The irony is exquisite. The United States portrays the agreement as evidence of restored strength, yet its generosity reveals its weakness. A hegemon secure in its position does not need to offer extraordinary concessions to retain an old client. It does so when the client has discovered competing suppliers, alternative protectors, and the invigorating sensation of being courted.
Nor does the agreement simplify nuclear diplomacy with Iran. Washington has spent years treating Iranian enrichment as uniquely sinister while now constructing a far more permissive vocabulary for Saudi ambitions. The distinction will be explained through the usual theological machinery of empire: allies possess peaceful atoms; adversaries enrich malicious ones. Centrifuges, apparently, acquire moral character from the flag hanging above them.
The result is a nonproliferation doctrine so intellectually elastic that it can be folded into a campaign brochure.
Mohammed bin Salman may believe Saudi Arabia has accumulated enough leverage to escape the old hierarchy. Washington’s answer is this agreement: not quite a reward, not quite a threat, but an elegant combination of both. America will protect the kingdom — from Iran, from uncertainty, and above all from the dangerous temptation to protect itself through arrangements Washington cannot supervise.
The reactor, then, is the bait. Israel is the condition. Pakistan is the warning. China and Russia are the targets.
And the leash, freshly polished and marketed as partnership, remains unmistakably American.
UN experts have called for an independent investigation into the bombing of a primary school in the southern Iranian city of Minab that killed 168 children and teachers, saying the attack highlights serious violations of international law during war of aggression by the United States and Israel.
In a statement released on Friday, the experts said the school was struck twice during school hours on Feb. 28, 2026, and that there was no indication it was being used for military purposes.
“The school was clearly identifiable as a civilian educational facility and that they had received no information indicating it was being used for military purposes,” the statement read.
Five months later, they said, neither the United States nor Israel had made public the findings of any investigation into the deadly attack, raising questions about the transparency of any inquiry.
“Five months following the school bombing in Minab, the US and Israel have not made any findings public, raising valid questions regarding the impartiality, effectiveness and transparency of any investigation that may be underway,” the experts said. “Justice delayed is justice denied.”
The experts further stated that the Minab school attack illustrated as a broader failure by the United States and Israel to protect civilians during armed conflict, particularly women and children.
“Characterizing civilian deaths as a mistake does not diminish States’ obligations under international humanitarian law and international human rights law, nor does it preclude individual criminal responsibility where violations have occurred,” they said.
“Victims and their families are entitled to truth, justice and effective reparations.”
They voiced grave concern over serious violations of international law arising from US and Israeli war of aggression in Iran since Feb. 28, 2026.
The independent experts called for prompt, independent, impartial and transparent investigations into civilian casualties and damage to civilian infrastructure, including attacks on schools, hospitals and other protected sites.
“International law prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State,” the experts said. “The prohibition of the threat or use of force is a cornerstone of the international legal order.”
The US-Israeli war of aggression against Iran between Feb. 28 and early April killed at least 3,375 civilians, including nearly 500 women, and wounded more than 33,000 others, noted the experts.
The experts also said they had received credible reports that Iranian civilians may have been exposed to internationally prohibited and banned hazardous substances, with potentially serious health consequences, particularly for women, girls and pregnant women.
The experts also expressed concern over the latest round of US aggression against Iran despite a memorandum of understanding (MoU) intended to end the war.
The experts urged United States to adhere to the principles of distinction and precaution under international humanitarian law and to protect civilians and civilian infrastructure on land and at sea. They also warned against attacks on civilian population centers, desalination plants and electricity networks.
The US-Israeli acts of aggression in June 2025 and again since February 2026 have deliberately targeted civilians, civilian infrastructure and critical facilities in violation of international law and international humanitarian law.
After weeks of sporadic incidents, the US military launched a fresh wave of large-scale attacks on Iranian soil two weeks ago, targeting military and civilian sites mainly in southern provinces. The attacks have so far destroyed several infrastructure sites, such as bridges and water desalination plants, and killed over 50 Iranians.
Senior Iranian officials have warned that ongoing US attacks threaten regional stability, freedom of navigation, and the security of the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz.
Israel is set to supply Greece with a layered air defense network under an agreement valued at up to $4 billion, Greek Defense Minister Nikos Dendias announced on 23 July, with the same round of approvals covering several drone models and the C-390 military transport aircraft manufactured by Embraer.
Dendias said the government security council, KYSEA, had signed off on the plans in principle earlier this year and has now cleared the procurement contracts.
Greece aims to build a multi-layered network capable of intercepting ballistic missiles, aircraft, and drones, named “Achilles Shield.” The system’s core will rely on radars and missiles supplied by the Israeli firms Rafael and IAI.
“It will be ready and fully operational within 35 months, starting from today,” Dendias stated, noting that at least 25 percent of the system will be manufactured by Greek companies.
Athens currently relies on US-made Patriot batteries and aging Russian S-300 systems to guard its airspace, and has earmarked roughly €28 billion (around $32 billion) for a rearmament drive running through 2036.
Under that program, Greece intends to acquire as many as 40 F-35 fighter jets from the US, along with frigates from France and Italy.
Defense spending in Greece stands at close to 3.5 percent of gross domestic product, outpacing most other NATO members, a level Athens attributes to its long-running dispute with Turkiye.
Greece and Israel maintain close economic and diplomatic relations, running an air training center on Greek soil, staging annual joint military exercises, and working together on anti-drone systems and cybersecurity.
Joint military drills between Athens and Tel Aviv resumed in early July, ending a lengthy suspension brought on by Israel’s genocide in Gaza over the past three years. Israel’s Channel 12 called the cooperation between both countries “part of a broader strategic plan taking shape in the region.”
Beyond military cooperation, the US, Israel, Greece, and Cyprus launched the Eastern Mediterranean Energy Center (EMEC) in early June.
The framework for cooperation on energy and critical infrastructure security involves offshore natural gas projects, research, and technological development, with the wider aim of expanding hydrocarbon output and connectivity schemes such as the India–West Asia–Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC).
Officials from Greece, Cyprus, and Israel had already discussed that alignment at a private diplomatic conference in Athens in May, and weighed a “formal strategic alignment” to capitalize on regional shifts. They also positioned IMEC as an alternative to the Strait of Hormuz – which remains closed as a result of the US war on Iran – and as a direct counter to China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).
A couple of weeks ago, in Ankara, the capital of Turkey, there was a NATO conference that sought yet more rearmament and militarization, steps that must inevitably lead to a new Great War. As an answer to this NATO conference, 200 ministers, members of parliament, ambassadors, politicians, activists, journalists, retired generals, academics, diplomats, military personnel and experts from many countries gathered in Ankara last weekend to prevent NATO’s new Great War. Among them were a few of our fellows, Unz Review writers, notably Larry Johnson and Scott Ritter.
The Alliance to Prevent the Great War concluded that the threats that could lead to a Great War originate from the United States, the EU and Israel. The US and Israeli attacks on Iran, NATO’s build-up of military power in Ukraine and the deployment of proxy forces against Russia, Israel’s genocide in Gaza and the attacks on Lebanon — these are regional wars that carry the risk of triggering a Great War.
NATO, as an instrument of US hegemony, poses a threat to world peace. The countries targeted by NATO, foremost among them Russia, do not pose a threat to Europe. The militarisation of Europe should be stopped. The course towards confrontation between NATO and Russia must be reversed. The escalation of the conflict poses a direct threat of nuclear war. Western leaders must not cross Russia’s ‘red lines’, provoke or ‘test’ the strength of the Russian people and their president. Conference participants stated that arms supply to Ukraine must cease. Further arms supply to Kiev will sooner or later lead to an expansion of military operations in Europe.
In short, the Alliance to Prevent the Great War calls for the strategic union of four states: Russia, China, Iran and Turkey, against the US, EU, and Israel. Never before has Israel been considered such an enemy – not by Russia, neither by Turkey. Putin in his first visits to Israel tried to befriend the Jewish state, saying that there are more than a million ex-Soviet citizens in Israel, speaking Russian and maintaining family ties with Russians in Russia. However, recently Israel has become a stage for anti-Russian emigres with a strong sympathy for an independent Ukrainian state. These are mainly Soviet Jews who were born in the Ukraine, or their ancestors were from the Ukraine, and it turned them towards the Ukrainian statelet of Mr Zelensky.
Many Soviet Jews were extremely pro-American. A Russian writer Viktor Pelevin wrote once that a modern cultural Jew—whether living in Moscow or New York—often faces a subconscious dilemma, unable to definitively answer whether they are primarily a patriot of Israel or a patriot of the United States. The support of Ukraine by Israel spoiled its relations with Russia, though Israel tried to hide its pro-Ukrainian stance. A Russian-Israeli journalist Artem Kirpichonok wrote (tongue in cheek) of Israel’s contributions to the Ukraine war:
1. Israeli anti-tank weapons have been transferred to Ukraine via NATO countries. With their help, a column of Russian troops near Kharkiv has already been destroyed.
2. ‘Volunteers’ – veterans of Israeli special forces – have been deployed to Ukraine. As MP Gerashchenko stated: ‘The best of the best. They, too, want to take part in the struggle of light against darkness. Shabbat Shalom!’
3. Doctors and hospitals have been deployed to assist the Ukrainian army and the civilian population.
5. The renowned Israeli thinker Yuval Noah Hariri noted in a television interview that Putin believes Ukrainians are Russians, and that only a handful of Jews who have taken over Ukraine are preventing them from pelting Russian tanks with flowers. Thus, Putin is a psychopath and an anti-Semite.
9. Religious circles emphasise the fact that Putin launched a war against the Jew Zelensky on the eve of Purim and will therefore inevitably suffer the same fate as Haman and Stalin.
Turkey was once rather friendly to Israel, but Israel’s attack on the Mavi Marmara boat that carried Turkish volunteers to Gaza spoiled it. Israel’s genocide of Gaza turned the people of Turkey against Israel, while Israeli objections to the US sale of jets to Turkey added to the enmity. And finally, Israeli officials claiming that “Turkey is the next Iran” firmly shut this door forever. Thus has Israel been doing its part to get Russia, China, Iran and Turkey together into a strategic union. Still Turkey remains a member of NATO, and President Trump calls President Erdogan “his best friend”.
Russian relations with Iran are very good, and could be described as “strategic”. The Alliance to Prevent the Great War stated: “One of the factors that undoubtedly prevented the United States and Israel from using nuclear weapons in their attacks against Iran was the nuclear umbrella provided by Iran’s partnership with Russia and China. Had a strategic alliance between Turkey, Russia, China and Iran already been established, this would have made an American-Israeli attack on Iran impossible from the outset.”
What should be done with NATO? The Alliance to Prevent the Great War ruled:
It is not the reorganisation of NATO, but its abolition, that would serve global security. European countries would thereby also be freed from the new and onerous burden imposed by the United States on NATO members.
Among interesting speakers there was Prof Dr Ulrike Guérot of Germany. A renowned political scientist, Prof Guérot presented a radical vision for the future of Europe. Arguing that NATO has completed its historical mission, Prof Guérot stated that Europe must break free from American hegemony, transition to a neutral stance, and build its future with Eurasia, particularly with Turkey. Giving extensive space to the war in the Ukraine in her speech, Prof Guérot claimed that this conflict is a proxy war that has been prepared for a long time. Criticizing NATO’s eastward expansion policies, the political scientist argued that NATO has ceased to be a security alliance and has become an element of tension, stating: “We did not tear down the Berlin Wall; we merely moved it a thousand kilometres to the East, to Kiev. We are building a rigid NATO line and dividing the European continent.”
Prof Guérot proposed a concrete model of cooperation to reduce Europe’s dependence on the United States. She argued that a strong tripartite cooperation mechanism established between Paris, Moscow, and Istanbul could build a lasting order of peace and independence on the continent.
Responding sharply to Israel’s policies toward Gaza, Prof Guérot described the silent collaboration and ongoing arms support of the European Union as a “deep shame.” Probably Israel VS Palestine is the deepest bifurcation point between the US and the rest of mankind. While the world supports Palestine, President Trump stands for Israel, and he does not care about genocide. I think it will be his undoing.
Our Scott Ritter said: “To be honest, what happened in Ankara (the NATO conference) was an affront to Turkey’s sovereignty. We must never forget that the countries gathered in Ankara are not Turkey’s friends. Not a single one of them. Neither the United States, nor France, nor Germany, nor the United Kingdom, nor other NATO members, nor Greece.”
What took place there was nothing more than a grand political spectacle. It was a large-scale political charade staged to drag Turkey into NATO’s adventure in Ukraine and to exploit Turkey’s strategic position – painstakingly built up by President Erdogan over the last decade – in Europe’s interests and to Turkey’s detriment.
People need to understand this: everything NATO does – frankly, everything the United States does – runs counter to Turkey’s interests. Because Turkey has never been a priority. Neither for the United States nor for NATO.
NATO has used Turkey for its own interests from the very first day of its accession to the alliance. Turkey was drawn into the alliance to ensure the security of NATO’s southern flank. But that task effectively came to an end with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Now they are trying to drag Turkey into an even greater quagmire: Ukraine. They want Turkey to become an active participant in a war that has dragged on for far too long, has resulted in far too many casualties, and seems unlikely to end as NATO intends – namely, with a strategic defeat for Russia.
So why did President Erdogan allow NATO’s conference to be hosted in Ankara?
I think the answer lies in the Turkish economy. I think President Erdogan was hoping to create an atmosphere of goodwill by hosting Western countries in Ankara, which could have yielded positive results for Turkey. However, I believe he will be disappointed in this regard.
On the contrary, I believe that in the coming period Turkey will continue to develop relations with Russia, China and, increasingly, Iran. This is because Turkey will realise that working together with these countries, which oppose American global hegemony and NATO’s subservient role within that hegemony, is the right path for its own future.
Larry C. Johnson said: “The Ukraine war is not simply a war between Ukraine and Russia. The West is waging a ‘NATO proxy war’, using Ukraine against Russia.”
European leaders are facing a crisis of confidence in their own countries. Examples of this include Germany’s deindustrialisation, the Volkswagen crisis and the economic downturn.
NATO’s stockpiles are depleted; factories cannot cope with the workload.
The war in Ukraine is currently ‘the most dangerous flashpoint in the world’. NATO’s preparations for direct war are increasing the risk of nuclear escalation, and Russia has reached the point where it could deploy tactical nuclear weapons.
Germany was also represented by Admiral Kay-Achim Schönbach, the man who commanded the German Navy and retired to avoid fighting Russians. He said:
My name is Kay-Achim Schönbach. I am a retired Vice-Admiral of the German Navy, and until 2022 I served as Commander-in-Chief of the German Navy.
As a citizen of a European country and as a German, I can only express my deepest concern on this matter. Not since the dark and dangerous days of the Cuban Missile Crisis have we been so close to an escalation that could lead to a major war in Europe. And I do not believe I am the only one to have reached this conclusion.
The war in Donbas, in particular, has shown us that ignoring the historical context and failing to undertake a more in-depth and, above all, impartial examination of the causes of the conflict has been one of the fundamental factors that made this armed conflict possible.
The wars in Eastern Europe could have been avoided. We know this. We all know this.
Drawing on my own experience, I can say with confidence today that diplomacy based on mutual respect and conducted on an equal footing provided all the necessary means to prevent this smouldering conflict from escalating into a full-scale war. And I do not think I am the only one who shares this view. However, we must all acknowledge that the influential players in the international system had ample opportunities to resolve this conflict. Perhaps there was no complete agreement on every detail, but they managed to prevent the conflict from spiralling out of control.
The Admiral explained this behaviour of his superiors by “moralising and misguided idealism”, in my view this is too optimistic an explanation.
The Greek journalist Dimitris Konstantakopoulos chaired one of the sessions. Konstantinopoulos stated that Europe’s sanctions against Russia are not sustainable. Issuing a warning, the Greek expert assessed the situation as follows: “Both in Ukraine and in Western Asia, we are heading towards a very dangerous situation which, if it escalates, could even lead to nuclear war. That is precisely why we must de-escalate tensions, and I fear that very few political forces in Europe realise this. This makes the situation extremely dangerous.”
The Greek expert noted that the sanctions imposed by Europe have not worked. Konstantinopoulos said: “The sanctions have proved ineffective. However, if you wish to achieve the United States’ long-term strategic objective, they have proved effective: namely, to separate Europe from Russia (and the former Soviet Union in the past) and make Europe entirely dependent on the United States. If that was the aim of the sanctions, then they have achieved it. Incidentally, I believe that the entire operation in Ukraine — by which I mean the 2014 coup, because the Ukrainian issue did not begin with Russia’s intervention in 2022 but many years earlier — all this Western aggression in the territories of the former USSR was planned. It was a pre-emptive policy aimed at preventing a potential alliance between Europe and Russia, or, as the former French Prime Minister de Villepin put it, between Europe, Russia and China.”
It takes more than a conference to stop the coming Great War. Still, the Alliance to Prevent the Great War was a very useful discussion of the possible ways to do it. And surely much better than NATO’s own conference of trial balloons for their future war crimes.
While the US president continues to lie to his people about imagined victories over Iran in West Asia, the arguments fall flat amongst the vast majority of Americans who see through his tired rhetoric. Unlike past military blunders, Washington has not and will not be able to pull the wool over its people’s eyes.
Some analysts have attempted to compare Donald Trump’s failure to effectively combat Iran with defeats and strategic mistakes that ruined the reputations of past presidents; this one is very different.
To go through all US wars of aggression is simply too steep a task to take on in a single article, but there are a few different comparisons that are going around which deserve to be analyzed: they are the Iraq War, the Vietnam War, and even Operation Eagle Claw.
All the above-noted comparisons are very much different in their nature from the large-scale air campaign, turned stop-start battles that the Trump administration has engaged in. If we first look at the Vietnam War comparison, this is often said as a figure of speech – “it is so and so’s Vietnam” – which is the way in which some analysts have chosen to apply Vietnam to what we see today.
Although there is something to be said about how the US is being bogged down in the Iran War, it is a totally different ball game to what occurred in Vietnam. At the beginning stages of the escalation, in October of 1965, a Gallup poll recorded a 64% public approval rating of US intervention in Vietnam, which by 1970 had shifted to around 55% of the US public stating that they sought a return of the troops.
At the time, the US had sold its population the need to fight Communism and that the Vietnam War was necessary, as the fall of South Vietnam to a Communist government would lead to a slippery slope whereby governments across Asia would fall to the ideology. The Communist boogeyman captured the imaginations of those living in the West, who opposed the Soviet Union and Chairman Mao’s China.
In Trump’s case, the approval rating for the Iran war was never there. Ipsos polling data from the beginning of the war suggested that 58% of Americans opposed a war with Iran, with only 38% expressing approval. Two weeks into the conflict, Pew Research polling data then revealed that 61% of the country disapproved of the war. Now, even Trump’s own cult-like fan base is turning on the war, with Politico polling data suggesting that little more than a third of MAGA supporters believe the economic costs of the Iran war have been worth it.
In the Vietnam War case, public opinion at its worst was more favourable than it was at the beginning of the war on Iran. When it came to the disastrous 2003 Iraq invasion, a Gallup News poll recorded a 72% approval rating for the war, with only 25% of Americans opposing it.
Then there is the comparison with Operation Eagle Claw, which refers to the disastrous mission that was ordered by former US President Jimmy Carter – aimed at seizing back American citizens held by the Islamic Republic at the time. The reference is now being made to Jimmy Carter and his failed operation, resulting in the deaths of 8 US service members, because of President Trump’s own comments about the Carter administration.
In the event of a ground invasion that seeks to seize Iranian territory – Kharg Island being the most publicly discussed target to occupy – the US president will almost inevitably be in a position where a number of American soldiers could be captured.
All of the above-noted cases have a shared difference that separates them from what the Trump administration is doing today, that being that they were not operations launched solely for a foreign country’s interests.
Although the Israelis certainly played a role in pushing the US toward launching the Iraq War, it was a conflict that did assert Washington’s dominance over the region, further bringing the Arab Gulf States under their control, and was evidently winnable. The consequences of the invasion were not immediate; the American public believed in the new “Islamic enemy” that had replaced the Red Scare narrative sold to populations across the collective West during the Cold War.
The Vietnam War also had the Gulf of Tonkin incident false flag that helped justify the war, while Iraq had the September 11 attacks. The Iran War didn’t even bother to use any incident as an excuse; it was rushed and sloppy.
This time, Iran has managed to use the closure of the Strait of Hormuz as leverage against the US, while Yemen’s Ansar Allah is now tightening the noose by imposing a counter-blockade on Saudi Arabia in the Red Sea. If the Yemeni Armed Forces choose to do so, they can totally block the Bab al-Mandab Strait also, choking off two of the world’s most important trade routes. Iran has demonstrated its ability to continuously pound US military bases and embarrass the US Navy’s attempts to coordinate the passage of ships out of the Gulf.
The US’ military industrial complex is also getting slapped around, as Iran has managed to shoot down at least one F-15 fighter jet, even locking on and striking an F-35 that was forced to do an emergency landing.
US allies in the Gulf, which have pledged to invest trillions in the American economy, are taking an economic beating, with the possibility that some could even be rendered uninhabitable if the war escalates. From power projection to the sale of weapons, seizure of resources, and an image of victory, there is nothing to gain.
Only the Israelis are set to gain anything from this deeply unpopular war. They seek to use the United States military to do their dirty work of degrading Iranian infrastructure and dealing an economic blow to the Islamic Republic. This is because Tel Aviv understands that the job cannot be performed by them alone and that as long as they can take the punishment dished out against them, they are willing to continue using the Trump administration to do their bidding.
Never before has a war of this nature been fought by the United States, where it loses in every category, with the conflict being fought solely for the purpose of fulfilling the expansionist desires of a foreign rogue regime. Donald Trump is not Jimmy Carter or George Bush Jr.; he will be remembered as the president who launched an offensive war of aggression on behalf of a genocidal regime that couldn’t care less how the US and the rest of the world are impacted, as long as they continue to get propped up to forward their goals of creating a regional empire premised on a supremacist ideology.
Reknowned economist M. Shahid Alamoffers this excellent critique of Noam Chomsky’s defective analysis of the relative influence of Oil versus the Israel lobby over US foreign policy: … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
