Why didn’t China protect Venezuela from the US?
Beijing is regrouping to adapt to the new hemispheric world order, but not retreating from Latin America
By Ladislav Zemánek | RT | February 9, 2026
The US military intervention in Venezuela in January 2026 – known as Operation Absolute Resolve – sent shockwaves far beyond Caracas. By striking targets in the Venezuelan capital and capturing President Nicolás Maduro, Washington signaled a decisive return to hard power in the Western hemisphere. The operation was not merely a tactical move against a hostile regime; it was a strategic message about influence, hierarchy, and control in the Americas. For China, which had invested heavily in Venezuela’s political and economic survival, the intervention raised immediate questions about the limits of its global reach and the evolving rules of great-power competition in an increasingly multipolar world.
China’s response to Operation Absolute Resolve was swift in tone but cautious in substance. Official statements from Beijing condemned the US action as a violation of international law and national sovereignty, framing it as destabilizing and emblematic of unilateral hegemony. Chinese foreign ministry officials repeatedly urged Washington to respect the UN Charter and cease interference in Venezuela’s internal affairs, positioning China as a defender of state sovereignty and multilateral norms.
Yet the rhetoric was not matched by escalation. Beijing avoided threats of retaliation or offers of direct military assistance to Caracas. Instead, it confined its response to diplomatic channels, reaffirmed opposition to unilateral sanctions, and issued travel advisories warning Chinese citizens to avoid Venezuela amid heightened instability. Chinese analysts emphasized that the priority was damage control: protecting long-standing economic and strategic interests without provoking a direct confrontation with US military power in the Western Hemisphere.
This measured reaction highlights a defining feature of China’s approach to Latin America. Beijing has pursued deep economic engagement and vocal support for sovereignty, but it has consistently avoided military competition with the US in a region where American power remains overwhelming. Operation Absolute Resolve exposed both the strengths and the limits of that strategy.
China’s relationship with the Maduro government was neither symbolic nor superficial. Over the past two decades, Venezuela emerged as one of Beijing’s most important partners in the Americas. In 2023, the two countries elevated ties to an “all-weather strategic partnership,” China’s highest level of bilateral designation. This status reflected ambitions for durable cooperation across energy, finance, infrastructure, and political coordination, and placed Venezuela among a small circle of states Beijing regarded as strategically significant.
Chinese policy banks extended large-scale financing to Caracas, much of it structured as oil-backed loans that allowed Venezuela to maintain access to global markets despite US sanctions. Chinese companies became involved in energy projects, particularly in the Orinoco Belt, while bilateral trade expanded substantially. Venezuelan heavy crude, though difficult and expensive to refine, accounted for a meaningful share of China’s oil imports, contributing to Beijing’s broader strategy of supply diversification.
Security cooperation also developed, albeit cautiously. Venezuela became one of the largest buyers of Chinese military equipment in Latin America, and Chinese technicians gained access to satellite tracking facilities on Venezuelan territory. At the same time, Beijing drew clear red lines. It avoided formal defense commitments, permanent troop deployments, or the establishment of military bases – signals that China did not seek to challenge US strategic primacy in the hemisphere.
Beijing’s interests in Venezuela extended well beyond oil and arms sales. The country served as a key node in China’s wider Latin American strategy, which emphasized infrastructure development, trade expansion, financial integration, political coordination, and cultural exchange within multilateral frameworks. This model sought to build influence through connectivity and economic interdependence rather than coercion or force, reinforcing China’s image as a development partner rather than a security patron.
The post-intervention reality, however, has significantly altered this equation. With Maduro removed from power, the US assumed effective control over Venezuela’s oil exports, redirecting revenues and setting the terms under which crude reaches global markets. While Washington has allowed China to continue purchasing Venezuelan oil, sales are now conducted strictly at market prices and under conditions that erode the preferential arrangements Beijing previously enjoyed. This shift directly affects China’s energy security calculations and weakens the leverage embedded in its oil-backed lending.
US control over oil flows also grants Washington influence over debt restructuring and creditor negotiations, potentially complicating China’s efforts to recover outstanding loans. The result is a sharp reduction in Beijing’s bargaining power in Caracas and a reassessment of the long-term viability of its investments. For China, the dilemma is acute: how to defend economic interests without crossing a strategic threshold that would invite confrontation with the US.
These developments align closely with the broader direction of US policy articulated in the 2025 National Security Strategy. The document places renewed emphasis on the Western Hemisphere as a core strategic priority and reflects a clear revival of Monroe Doctrine logic. It signals Washington’s determination to assert influence in the region and to limit the military, technological, and commercial presence of external powers – particularly China.
For Beijing, this creates a structural asymmetry. Decades of investment, trade, and diplomatic engagement cannot offset the reality of US military dominance in the Americas. China’s preferred toolkit – economic statecraft, infrastructure finance, and non-interference – faces inherent constraints when confronted with decisive uses of hard power. At the same time, Beijing’s emphasis on sovereignty and multilateralism continues to resonate with segments of Latin American political opinion that are wary of external intervention and eager to preserve strategic autonomy.
A comparison between US and Chinese strategies reveals different worldviews. The US approach, as outlined in the 2025 strategy, treats the hemisphere as a strategic space to be secured against external challengers through security partnerships, economic inducements, and military readiness. China’s approach prioritizes integration, development cooperation, and respect for national choice, relying on gradual influence rather than explicit enforcement.
Viewed through the lens of ‘Donroe Doctrine’ and the transition to multipolarity, the Venezuelan episode marks a critical inflection point. The US has reasserted hemispheric dominance in unmistakable terms, while China has been forced to acknowledge the limits of its reach far from home.
China may well lose ground in Venezuela, but this does not necessarily signal retreat from the region. Instead, it suggests adaptation. Diversified partnerships with countries such as Brazil and Mexico, along with continued engagement through trade and investment, offer alternative pathways forward. More broadly, the emergence of implicit spheres of influence may align with China’s interests elsewhere, particularly in Asia, where Beijing seeks greater recognition of its own strategic space.
In an international system increasingly defined by negotiated boundaries rather than universal dominance, both Washington and Beijing are testing how far their power extends – and where restraint becomes strategic. The outcome will shape not only Venezuela’s future, but also the evolving architecture of global order in a multipolar age.
Ladislav Zemánek is a non-resident research fellow at China-CEE Institute and expert of the Valdai Discussion Club.
Decades of broken promises, aggression, Israeli pressure leave Iran no reason to trust US: Analyst
By Press TV | February 9, 2026
Decades of broken promises, military aggression, and Israeli pressure have left Tehran with no reason to trust Washington, says a US-based analyst.
In an interview with the Press TV website, E. Michael Jones, author and editor of Culture Wars Magazine, said it would be “foolish” to put “trust in a regime which violates its own word repeatedly,” referring to the Donald Trump administration.
“Iranians have learned their lesson and will not put themselves in jeopardy again. The US cannot be trusted,” he noted.
Mistrust is not a tactical posture but the logical outcome of experience, Jones said, adding that the United States, particularly under Trump, has demonstrated “again and again” that it does not feel bound by its own international commitments.
That mistrust is sharpened by Trump’s record on international obligations, he remarked.
The US-based journalist and commentator pointed to the unilateral withdrawal of the US from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in May 2018.
“Trump has already torn up the JCPOA. He would not feel bound by any agreement,” he said, adding that this piece of history alone makes any future deal “inherently fragile.”
Jones also dismissed Israeli-backed demands to restrict Iran’s missile range, calling them knowingly unrealistic.
“A 300 km limitation on Iranian missiles is an impossible demand,” he stated, adding that Israel is fully aware Iran would never accept such terms.
According to the analyst, these conditions are not designed to advance negotiations but to manufacture justification for war.
“They are making the demand because it provides a pretext for war,” he told the Press TV website, as indirect Iran-US talks have recently resumed in Muscat under Omani mediation.
The discussions, facilitated by Omani Foreign Minister Badr bin Hamad Al Busaidi, allowed the two sides to exchange views indirectly almost eight months after the previous round of talks was suspended due to Israeli-American military aggression against Iran.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi described the latest round of talks as a “good start,” saying Iran’s positions and concerns were clearly conveyed.
More than a week into the June war, the United States bombed Iran’s nuclear facilities. Between June 13 and 27, 2025, at least 1,064 people were killed in Iran, including military commanders, nuclear scientists, and ordinary civilians.
Against this backdrop, claims that talks could once again serve as cover for military action resonate strongly. Jones believes Iranians “learned their lesson” there.
This distrust is further reinforced by Washington’s expanding military footprint and repeated threats. Despite Trump’s campaign rhetoric about ending US wars, his administration has bombed several countries and repeatedly edged toward confrontation with Iran.
In his assessment, Trump’s preferred military option remains limited and performative. “Trump’s preferred option at this point is a symbolic strike at targets pre-arranged with the Iranian government,” Jones says, claiming that this approach was already used in June.
Such strikes, he explained, are designed to create the illusion of victory. Trump can declare success, “satisfying the Israelis, who ordered him to attack Iran, and the Iranians, who lose nothing in the attack.”
But the analyst argued that this balancing act is collapsing. “Unfortunately, neither Iran nor Israel is willing to accept Trump’s solution,” he noted.
Israeli pressure, Jones added, is now the central driver of escalation. With Trump set to meet Benjamin Netanyahu on Wednesday, the analyst expects an ultimatum by the latter: “if you don’t attack Iran, we will.”
“If Trump is smart, he will let Israel attack Iran on its own, hoping that the Iranian response will obliterate Israel once and for all, releasing him from Netanyahu’s constant pressure,” Jones remarked.
Still, he believes Netanyahu’s threats mask a deeper constraint. “Netanyahu is bluffing. He knows he can’t attack Iran by itself,” he said, adding that “many here speculate that Netanyahu is blackmailing Trump with the Epstein files.”
Despite the rhetoric, the analyst insists the US is fully aware of the risks of war with Iran.
Iranian officials have warned that any attack would be met with an immediate response, and Iran’s missile capabilities have already demonstrated their ability to penetrate layered defenses. According to the author, this reality is well understood within the US military.
“The American military has always claimed that the US cannot win a war with Iran,” he noted.
Yet, he hastened to add, such assessments rarely determine policy. “Their verdict invariably gets overturned by Israeli pressure,” Jones stressed, explaining why Trump continues to favor prearranged and symbolic strikes rather than full-scale war.
“American forces are now operating according to Israeli rules,” he stated, noting that the US power in the region no longer operates according to international norms.
He cited the assassination of top anti-terror commander General Qassem Soleimani, carried out while he was on a peace mission in Iraq, as a defining moment.
For Jones, it marked Washington’s abandonment of its own claims to a “rules-based order,” as well as its disregard for institutions such as the United Nations.
He recalled Trump’s own words when questioned by the New York Times. Asked whether he followed international law, Trump said no. Asked what he did follow, Trump replied, “My morality, my mind.”
The analyst described this as a direct reference to John Milton’s Paradise Lost, when Satan said, “The mind is its own place.”
The symbolism, he noted, is unmistakable, adding that it confirms that Imam Khomeini—the founder of the Islamic Revolution—was right when he referred to America as the “Great Satan.”
Iran Willing to Dilute Enriched Uranium If US Lifts All Sanctions
By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | February 9, 2026
A top Iranian official said that Tehran would be willing to dilute its stockpile of highly enriched uranium if Washington agrees to remove sanctions completely.
Iran’s atomic energy chief, Mohammad Eslami, proposed that Tehran would dilute its 60% enriched uranium to a lower level if “all sanctions would be lifted in return.” Iran is estimated to have 400-600 kg of highly enriched uranium. Eslami explained that Tehran was unwilling to sell or transfer the nuclear material to a third country.
American and Iranian officials met for talks in Oman last week. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Iran is “very serious in negotiations” and is eager to “achieve results”. However, he said, “There is a wall of mistrust towards the United States, which stems from America’s own behaviour.”
Tehran says it is willing to agree to a deal with Washington that imposes restrictions and inspections on its civilian nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief and the US abandoning its aggressive policy towards Iran.
Washington and Tel Aviv are seeking a far more expansive agreement that includes restrictions on Tehran’s nuclear and missile programs, as well as Iran cutting ties with its allies in the region. The White House has demanded that Tehran eliminate its nuclear enrichment program and limit the range of its ballistic missiles.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is set to meet with President Donald Trump on Wednesday to ensure Washington does not sign a deal with Tehran that violates Tel Aviv’s redlines. Israeli officials have told the White House that Tel Aviv could launch a strike on Iran if the US agrees to a deal that does not include restricting Tehran’s missile program.
Iran has ruled out signing an agreement on the terms proposed by the US and Israel. President Donald Trump has threatened to attack Iran if Tehran does not sign a new deal with the US.
No Grounds for Talks About New Negotiations With US on New START – Russian Deputy Foreign Minister
Sputnik – 09.02.2026
There are no grounds for talking about launching new negotiations with the United States on the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov said on Monday.
“There is currently no basis for discussing the launch of such a negotiation process. We have repeatedly spoken about the need to see deeper, far-reaching changes for the better in the US approach to the issues we are discussing,” Ryabkov said on the sidelines of the BRICS Sherpa meeting in New Delhi, adding that when US policy towards Russia changes for the better, then the preconditions for launching a corresponding dialogue will arise.
Russia regrets that the US administration perceives the New START Treaty as something that requires replacement with something else, the deputy foreign minister added.
“In any such hypothetical process, nothing would come of it without the involvement of the United Kingdom and the French Republic, as the United States’ closest allies, both possessing nuclear weapons and, in the current, highly tense international situation, pursuing a highly aggressive course toward our country. Therefore, ignoring their nuclear arsenals would be irresponsible. They must be at the negotiating table, I repeat, if and when something like this becomes relevant,” Ryabkov also said.
UK proposes North Sea drone fleet to target tankers – Sunday Times
RT | February 9, 2026
Britain is planning to launch a seaborne drone fleet to seize oil tankers it claims are linked to what it calls a Russian “shadow fleet,” the Sunday Times has reported.
London banned the import of Russian crude and oil products in 2022, along with related maritime transportation, insurance, and financing, imposing sanctions on over 500 vessels.
Despite those measures, Moscow has shipped 550 million tonnes of oil legally through the English Channel with an estimated value of $326 billion, according to the outlet, which said the sanctions are “failing to bite.” At the same time, Politico reported an estimated 40% of diesel-grade petroleum products the UK imported from India and Türkiye over four years originated from Russian oil.
The Royal Navy has drafted proposals for a command center for a remotely piloted flotilla of unmanned boats to police the North Sea. The drones are intended to gather evidence of “illicit activities” by tankers heading to and from Russian ports, which would form the basis for outright seizure of the vessels in the English Channel.
Under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which guarantees freedom of navigation, Western powers lack a clear legal basis to enforce sanctions against cargo on the high seas.
Despite this, two tankers have been seized so far this year: the Marinera by the US with UK support in the North Atlantic, and the Grinch by France in the Mediterranean. British Defense Secretary John Healey confirmed afterwards that the two allies were coordinating to detain more vessels.
The Sunday Times noted, however, that the plan faces a significant financial hurdle, as holding seized tankers incurs high costs. To help offset this, London is reportedly considering selling the oil from impounded vessels.
Russian officials have consistently slammed tanker seizures a “blatant violation” of international maritime law. President Vladimir Putin last October called France’s detention of a vessel in neutral waters “piracy.” Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova previously characterized piracy as “one of the English traditions,” adding that historically pirates were forbidden to attack English ships but were allowed to plunder rival vessels.
South American countries’ pragmatic reassessment of ties with China amid US hegemonism, protectionism
Global Times | February 8, 2026
A quiet but profound shift is reshaping the geopolitical map of South America, as revealed by an exclusive Reuters report, “Brazil signals new openness to Mercosur-China talks as Beijing seeks deeper ties”: For the first time, senior Brazilian officials are considering a push for a “partial” trade agreement between the Mercosur bloc and China.
This represents a major shift for Latin America’s largest economy. While Washington is busy raising tariffs and fortifying protectionist walls, countries in the Western hemisphere are recalculating their survival strategies. The result? A pragmatic reassessment of ties with Beijing.
We are already seeing the ripple effects of US pressure on neighbors like Mexico and Panama, but the shifting mood in the wider region is far more significant. The degree to which Latin American nations are pivoting is directly correlated to the economic squeeze they feel from the North.
Mercosur is the customs union comprising Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay, and newcomers Bolivia and Venezuela (currently a suspended member).
For decades, Brazil acted as the bloc’s protectionist “gatekeeper” against Chinese influence. Fearing that its domestic manufacturing sector would be hollowed out by Asian imports, Brasília consistently vetoed formal negotiations with Beijing. However, what Reuters describes as a “new global scenario” is forcing a change. This is a diplomatic euphemism for a stark reality: the rise of US protectionism coupled with the undeniable allure of Chinese opportunity. Facing the headwinds of American unilateralism, Brazil has done the math. Traditional allies offer no alternative market access, only higher tariff barriers.
Meanwhile, however, China is not only offering a market but also bringing tangible industrial investment, from BYD to Great Wall Motor. When Washington offers only sticks without carrots, Brazil has little choice but to turn toward a pragmatic East. Uruguay’s president, who recently visited China with a large business delegation to demand faster trade talks, is a clear testament to this regional impatience.
Historically, a Mercosur-China deal was viewed as “mission impossible” due to the bloc’s Common External Tariff rules, which forbid members from negotiating individual trade deals. Politics also posed a formidable barrier. Paraguay, a member of Mercosur, maintains “diplomatic ties” with China’s Taiwan region, creating a legal deadlock to any comprehensive Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with Beijing under the one-China principle.
Furthermore, Argentina’s political pendulum – swinging from protectionist Peronism to Javier Milei’s pro-US stance – has made a unified strategy difficult.
This is why the proposed “partial agreement” is a masterstroke of political pragmatism. It serves as a strategic bypass around these obstacles.
Unlike a full FTA targeting zero tariffs, a partial deal sidesteps the sensitive issue of tariff reduction that terrifies Brazilian manufacturers. It also navigates around Paraguay’s diplomatic dilemma. Instead, it would focus on non-tariff barriers, such as harmonizing sanitary regulations, streamlining customs procedures and setting import quotas.
By shifting the focus from tariffs to regulatory cooperation, Brazil is doing more than just clearing the path for soy and iron ore. It is paving the way for deeper integration of Chinese capital.
The China-Brazil relationship has already evolved from simple trade to manufacturing. With Chinese EV makers taking over shuttered Ford factories in Bahia, the two economies are moving toward supply chain symbiosis. This partial agreement could provide the institutional framework needed to secure those investments.
From a macro perspective, this is a snapshot of the Global South’s increasing autonomy. If these talks proceed, they will mark the opening of a new path – one where pragmatism supersedes ideology.
This serves as a stark reminder to policymakers in Washington: trying to block economic gravity with pressure tactics often accelerates the search for new partners. The shifting winds in South America are not merely a passive reaction to fading hegemony; they represent an active and powerful response from nations determined to define their own economic destiny.
Epstein case reveals ‘satanism’ of Western elites – Lavrov
RT | February 9, 2026
The decadent lifestyle of disgraced US financier and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and his entourage is a testament to the moral decay of Western elites, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said.
Last month, the US Department of Justice released a large trove of emails, photos, and videos from the Epstein state, prompting renewed scrutiny of high-profile individuals who associated with Epstein despite his conviction for sex crimes.
The files “have revealed the face of the West and the deep state, or rather a deep union that rules the entire West and seeks to rule the whole world,” Lavrov said in an interview with NTV aired on Sunday.
“Every normal person knows this is beyond comprehension and pure satanism,” Lavrov added.
Epstein died in a New York jail cell in 2019 in what was ruled a suicide. His ex-girlfriend and close associate, Ghislaine Maxwell, was sentenced to 20 years in prison in 2022 for trafficking and abusing underage women alongside Epstein.
Throughout his life, Epstein associated with politicians, diplomats, businessmen, and royals, several of whom visited his private Caribbean island.
The newly released documents contain claims that Epstein and his associates participated in occult rituals involving human sacrifice. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk announced last week that his government would examine whether Polish children were abused as part of Epstein’s so-called “satanic circle.”
What is AZAPAC? Why is it important?
If Americans Knew | February 6, 2026
AZAPAC Founder Wants to “De-Zionize” The U.S. Government.
Author Michael D. Rectenwald is the founder of AZAPAC (The Anti-Zionist America PAC). Ana Kasparian interviews him on The Young Turks.
See the entire interview here: 
• AZAPAC Founder Wants to “De-Zionize” The U…
Read more here: https://www.aza-pac.com/
“Zionism has taken over the U.S. government, as the constant subservience to Israel in word and deed makes eminently clear. Opposing Zionism in America means ridding the government of Zionists who serve Israel over the United States. This demands, among other measures, confronting and competing with entrenched lobbies like AIPAC, CUFI, and J-Street. These groups bend U.S. policy to favor foreign agendas. Zionist influence drains American resources, undermines U.S. sovereignty, and runs counter to the interests of the American people.”
Join AZAPAC, IAK, and the many other orgs in the VAB coalition.
Iranian FM says uranium enrichment to continue ‘even at cost of war’
The Cradle | February 8, 2026
Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on 8 February that the Islamic Republic will not give up uranium enrichment, as Israel and the US are demanding – stressing that Tehran will continue to pursue a peaceful nuclear program even at the cost of war.
Araghchi also reiterated that talks with the US will not focus on anything except the nuclear issue, as Israel continues to push Washington to double down on demands for curtailing the Iranian missile program and halting support for regional resistance groups.
“Iran has paid a very heavy price for its peaceful nuclear program and for uranium enrichment,” the foreign minister said on Sunday.
“Why do we insist so much on enrichment and refuse to give it up even if a war is imposed on us? Because no one has the right to dictate our behavior,” he added.
Iran will never abandon enrichment even “if war is imposed” on the country. “Their military deployment in the region does not scare us.”
“There was no direct meeting, we had a diplomatic courtesy meeting, which amounted to a handshake. This has been done in the past, this is common,” Araghchi went on to say, referring to the recent talks, which were the first since Iran was attacked by Israel in the middle of negotiations last year.
“The place and time of the next meeting will be determined in the next consultations. It may be another place, but the form of negotiations will be indirect.”
“We will only negotiate on nuclear issues. If it is to continue, it will continue in the same way,” Araghchi affirmed.
Reports said that, as the talks began, the US CENTCOM chief would attend the negotiations.
“The US delegation in Muscat had asked if the CENTCOM commander could participate in a diplomatic greeting with us. We rejected the request, saying we do not accept the presence of a military person within the negotiation,” Araghchi clarified.
He also said the “future of negotiations is unclear,” adding: “We neither trust them nor rule out the possibility of deception and trickery. In fact, we fully anticipate it.”
The foreign minister’s comments come as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is due to visit the US in the coming days for talks with Donald Trump.
The premier is expected to push Washington not to give up on the demand that Iran abandon the Resistance Axis, as well as its missile and nuclear program.
“The Prime Minister believes that any negotiations must include limiting ballistic missiles and halting support for the Iranian axis,” Netanyahu’s office said on 7 February.
Israeli news site Ynet reported that Netanyahu’s goal for the US visit is “to ensure that Israeli interests are safeguarded in the negotiations.”
The report says Tel Aviv wants Iran’s missiles to be limited to 300 kilometers only, making them incapable of targeting Israel.
“Israel also wants the agreement to stipulate that Iran will no longer be able to provide support to its proxies in the region, including Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen.”
A senior political source is cited by the outlet as saying that [Netanyahu] “urgently advanced” his visit to the US “to influence the acceptance of Israel’s conditions in the negotiations, with an emphasis on ballistic missiles.”
The report adds that Israel is demanding a return of surprise inspections and “high-quality” monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which Tehran accuses of serving Tel Aviv’s interests.
Additionally, Israel wants Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium to be removed from the country’s territory.
Ynet also confirms other reports that Washington expects significant Iranian concessions in the next round of talks.
Iran has signaled a willingness to potentially limit enrichment in previous negotiations, as it agreed to in the 2015 deal, which Trump scrapped during his first term.
Yet the Islamic Republic refuses to give up support for its allies and says its missile program – a major part of the country’s defense – is non-negotiable.
The negotiations nearly fell apart over Iran’s insistence on discussing only the nuclear issue.
Axios reported last week that the US agreed to meet the Iranians only “out of respect” for its Arab allies who had lobbied to save the talks from cancellation.
Right after the talks, the US imposed new sanctions on Iran’s oil industry.
The last time Tehran negotiated with Washington, it was attacked by Israel in the middle of the talks.
Trump had pretended to be in favor of diplomacy for months prior to the attack, while secretly plotting the 12-day war with Israel.
The talks coincide with a massive US military buildup across the region, and follow numerous threats against Iran made publicly by Trump. Iran has vowed to confront any attack by striking back at Israel and US bases across West Asia.
Gab Refuses to Pay Germany’s Fine, Challenges Cross-Border Online Censorship
Reclaim The Net | February 7, 2026
German authorities have escalated their long-running attempt to enforce domestic speech regulations against a US-based platform with no corporate presence in the country, issuing a €31,650 ($37,421) penalty demand to Gab.com under Germany’s Network Enforcement Act, known as NetzDG.
The enforcement notice, dated 22 December 2025 and issued by the Federal Office of Justice in Bonn, seeks payment of fines first assessed in early 2021.
The official notice states that a penalty was imposed following a 14 January 2021 order and that the amount is now considered enforceable, according to the document.
The accounting records list a €30,000 fine tied directly to NetzDG, with additional fees added over time.
NetzDG requires large online platforms to maintain local compliance infrastructure, including a German service address, and to process government censorship demands on tight timelines.
While framed as an administrative measure, the law operates as a jurisdictional lever. It allows German regulators to extend domestic speech rules beyond national borders by attaching penalties to user counts alone.
Gab, which is incorporated in Pennsylvania and operates exclusively under US law, has consistently rejected the premise that Germany can compel compliance absent a physical or legal presence.
The company has no presence in Germany. Founder and CEO Andrew Torba has stated publicly that the company will not pay the fine.
The enforcement notice itself highlights the structural tension. Despite acknowledging Gab’s US address, the German government asserts authority to pursue collection, including formal enforcement proceedings, without identifying any German subsidiary or office.
The payment instructions route funds directly to the German federal treasury, showing that the action is punitive rather than remedial.
This case illustrates how European speech laws increasingly rely on financial pressure rather than territorial jurisdiction. By conditioning access to users on compliance with national speech controls, governments create incentives for platforms to preemptively restrict expression to avoid regulatory conflict.
The result is a system where legal exposure flows from audience size rather than conduct within a country.
Germany’s approach also reveals the paper trail behind modern censorship enforcement. The fine stems not from a specific post or statement, but from alleged failure to comply with aspects of NetzDG. That procedural hook enables broader regulatory reach, transforming administrative requirements into a mechanism for speech governance.
What is clear is that the effort reflects a growing willingness by governments to test the limits of cross-border enforcement in pursuit of online speech control, even when doing so collides directly with constitutional free speech protections elsewhere.
What’s good is that the US is starting to push back.
The Gaza Ceasefire Has No Phase Two, Only a Permanent Limbo
By Robert Inlakesh | The Palestine Chronicle | February 7, 2026
Since the Gaza ceasefire took effect on October 10, 2025, repeated announcements about an imminent ‘Phase Two’ have created the impression of diplomatic progress. In reality, the agreement has not advanced beyond its initial stage, while shifting proposals and ongoing violations suggest the process was never designed to reach a definitive end to the war.
Key Takeaways
- The ceasefire remains trapped in Phase 1 because Phase 2 has never been clearly defined or operationalized.
- Monitoring mechanisms, particularly the CMCC, have failed to enforce the agreement despite thousands of violations.
- Successive reconstruction proposals replace political resolution with speculative planning detached from realities on the ground.
- Israel’s refusal to withdraw and demand for disarmament make any transition to Phase 2 structurally impossible.
- The ceasefire functions as a controlled pause in large-scale war rather than a genuine path to ending it.
A Ceasefire without a Second Phase
Since the initiation of the Gaza Ceasefire agreement on October 10, 2025, month after month, the media has speculated about the beginning of the second phase of the deal. However, despite small amendments to the situation on the ground, nothing substantive has emerged. This is all by design.
The original text of US President Donald Trump’s “Comprehensive End of Gaza War” proposal, as well as his corresponding “20-Point-Plan,” assert that the Gaza ceasefire’s first phase will begin immediately and that within a 72-hour-window all of the elements included within it are to be concluded.
Soon after the ceasefire was announced, there then emerged a different plan, one that stated there would be a five-day window in which a limited number of aid trucks could enter the Gaza Strip. Israel did not adhere to this agreement. From there, it took weeks for the minimum required aid to reach the civilian population.
There was also the formation of the Civil-Military Coordination Center (CMCC), which attracted over 20 countries and dozens of humanitarian aid organizations. The CMCC’s purpose was supposed to be the coordination of aid transfers, alongside monitoring efforts to stop ceasefire violations and maintain the stability of the agreement.
Instead, the CMCC became a command and control center led by the United States military, with the Israelis being the second in charge, before a range of Arab and international armed forces. The CMCC has watched on and done nothing to stop Israel’s daily ceasefire violations, which are around 3,000 in total at this point, including the murder of around 560 Palestinians.
Contrary to its stated mission, the CMCC made every nation involved fully complicit in Israeli war crimes, including round-the-clock home demolitions, the deliberate slaughter of children, and the propping up of five ISIS-linked militias in the territory.
Plans for Gaza without Ending the War
Ever since the ceasefire began, there has been a nearly weekly pivot in terms of what the future plans for Gaza are to be; all of these “plans”, “visions,” and “proposals” contradict the last.
For example, a proposal for “post-war Gaza”, exposed by the Washington Post in September, before the ceasefire was even implemented, was still reportedly being floated following the agreement that came into effect a month later. This was called the “Gaza Reconstitution, Economic Acceleration and Transformation Trust”, or GREAT Trust, fully drawn up by an Israeli. A 38-page document was even produced as a means of laying the groundwork for a model of AI-powered smart cities.
However, the GREAT Trust plan contradicted Donald Trump’s “20-point-plan” as it proposed paying Gaza’s civilian population 5,000 USD each to leave the territory. Under the Trump plan, the population was said to be allowed to stay in Gaza.
Enter Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and suddenly there’s a “new plan” for post-war construction, presented on a slideshow called “Project Sunrise”, which was revealed in December of last year by the Wall Street Journal. This PowerPoint presentation, which is vague and consists of AI-generated images similar to the US President’s infamous “Trump Gaza” AI video, was published at the start of 2025.
The month prior to this, Kushner, along with US envoy Steve Witkoff, was floating countless vague proposals, appearing to only be offering reconstruction in the Israeli-controlled portion of Gaza, which was supposed to be 53% of the territory, but due to Israeli violations and seizure of more land is closer to 60%.
What also happened in mid-November was the passing of the United Nations’ de facto death certificate – UN Security Council resolution 2803 – which granted the US its legitimacy in creating the “Board of Peace” and “International Stabilization Force”.
UNSC resolution 2803 was supposed to help usher in the alleged Phase 2 of the ceasefire deal, something that still hadn’t been clearly defined. Then, in December, there were reports, citing US officials, that Phase 2 would start in January. Instead, all that happened was Jared Kushner delivered a speech and showed a PowerPoint presentation, depicted in the media as “the master plan”.
Yet, the slideshow was the same as the old one that had been floating around since December, except this time, Kushner was arguing his AI-powered super city model would cost 90 billion less than it was supposed to late last year.
The Managed Stalemate
Now the Israelis have allowed a partial opening of Rafah, which they decide to close whenever they choose and impose extreme restrictions on who leaves and enters. Contrary to the agreement, the Israelis are not withdrawing from Gaza at all and have publicly expressed their opposition to such a move.
Instead, Israel demands that the Palestinian resistance disarm, which they will not do. Therefore, the only option for the Israelis is to ramp up their genocide again and collapse the ceasefire if they want to achieve disarmament, something it hasn’t yet chosen to do.
In other words, there is no Phase 2. We don’t even have a definition of what Phase 2 actually is. There are no real plans for anything, just AI slop and unrealistic “visions”. Although it may seem as if there are attempts to bring about a change on the ground, which to some is the “start of Phase 2”, this is simply wishful thinking.
What is happening is precisely what I have predicted since October 8, 2025, when both sides signaled they had agreed to the ceasefire: the situation is stuck in limbo between “Phase 1” and “Phase 2”. Israel doesn’t stop killing civilians, and there is no real effort to develop meaningful plans that would actually result in the ceasefire’s ultimate success.
The genocide is not over; there is simply a glorified pause in place, one that allows the Israelis to focus on other fronts while the media pretends “the war is over”.
– Robert Inlakesh is a journalist, writer, and documentary filmmaker. He focuses on the Middle East, specializing in Palestine.
Featured Video
US Marines Seized Panama in 1903
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Precedents for Pizzagate
Marc Dutroux, Belgian pedophile, sadist, and serial killer with friends in high places
By Aedon Cassiel | Counter – Currents | December 23, 2016
To reiterate a point that should be clear to the more astute reader, my goal in this series (part 1, part 2) has not been to defend “Pizzagate” as such. My goal has been to defend the people who want to investigate it against specific accusations levied against them by people who think Pizzagate has revealed no intriguing information at all—for a specific reason, which I will be honing in and focusing on much more directly in this closing entry.
Whereas the mainstream critics of Pizzagate would have you believe that the dividing line is between paranoid conspiracy theorist followers of “fake news” and level-headed people who follow trustworthy news sources and rely on cold, hard reason to determine the truth, my goal has been to show that—whatever is or is not happening with Pizzagate itself—this framing of the issue is arrogant, insulting, and the product of extremely narrow tunnel vision. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Israeli firms transform cars into intelligence devices: Reports
- Zionist-controlled companies to surveil British citizens
- THE CHILDREN GAMBIT
- A note on comment posting at Alethonews
- Trump stalls over Iran strike plan, Iran holds all the aces
- Zelensky’s Ceasefire for Elections is Strategic Gambit, Not Democratic Move
- US and Dutch pilots flying F-16s for Ukraine – Western media
- West’s Claims of Non-Involvement in Ukraine Conflict ‘Epitome of Hypocrisy’ – Expert
- Putin aide urges retaliation to ‘Western piracy’
- The Depth Charge in the Womb
- If Americans Knew
- Israel ceased firing on Gaza for just 15 days of the “ceasefire” – Not a ceasefire Day 130
- In Gaza, “rats run over our faces” – Not a ceasefire Day 129
- Israel-backed border guards, GHF-linked aid – Not a ceasefire Day 128
- Israel battles Palestinian right of return, one Palestinian at a time – Not a ceasefire Day 127
- Noor’s short life of unimaginable suffering
- Israel Destroyed Gaza’s Hospitals. Now It’s Banning Doctors Without Borders.
- Is Spite of What Zionists Say, It’s a Good Thing to Criticize Governments
- Palestinian mother, daughter recount strip searches, harsh conditions in Israeli detention
- Israel used weapons in Gaza that made thousands of Palestinians evaporate
- ADL’s Stats Twist Israel’s Critics Into Antisemites
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study: A 4°C Warmer Beaufort Sea Had ‘No Sea Ice’ 11,700 – 8200 Years Ago
- Unfudging The Data: Dutch Meteorological Institute Reinstates Early 20th Centruy Heat Waves It Had Erased Earlier
- German Gas Crisis…Chancellor Merz Allegedly Bans Gas Debate Ahead of Elections!
- Pollen Reconstructions Show The Last Glacial’s Warming Events Were Global, 10x Greater Than Modern
- Germany’s Natural Gas Storage Level Dwindles To Just 28%… Increasingly Critical
- New Study Rebuts The Assumption That Anthropogenic CO2 Molecules Have ‘Special’ Properties
- Climate Scientist Who Predicted End Of “Heavy Frost And Snow” Now Refuses Media Inquiries
- Polar Bear Numbers Rising And Health Improving In Areas With The Most Rapid Sea Ice Decline
- One Reason Only For Germany’s Heating Gas Crisis: Its Hardcore-Dumbass Energy Policy
- 130 Years Later: The CO2 Greenhouse Effect Is Still Only An Imaginary-World Thought Experiment
Aletho News 