Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

A War that Backfired: Why the US-Israeli Campaign Is Strengthening Iran

By Robert Inlakesh | Palestine Chronicle | March 14, 2026

Contrary to the rhetoric of US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Islamic Republic of Iran is not on the verge of collapse. In fact, it appears as if this war against them could end up strengthening and cementing the government’s position, not only regionally, but among its own people.

As the regional war rages on across West Asia, it becomes more and more clear that Iran is capable of dictating the pace of the conflict. The US, with no clear goals, has failed to achieve escalation dominance. The Trump administration has therefore been searching for alternative strategies to try, and change this dynamic.

Most Western analysts, who have a warped perception of Iran, are currently struggling to get their heads around what is truly happening. It appears as if the decades of speaking to themselves have caged them within their bubble world. The only Iranians they talk to are individuals who are vehemently anti-government, most of whom have no real idea what is going on inside Iran, are members of ideological cults, and are totally ignorant of the country’s history.

The Western consensus perspective on Iran is that the Islamic Republic is a monstrous, malevolent regime, one which they portray through all the stereotypical orientalist depictions of the region that have been promoted for decades.

Although Iranians who support cult-like movements, such as the followers of Reza Pahlavi, believe that they, as Persians, are somehow excused from being victims of Western racism. Many of them, due to their notions of Persian supremacist views, those upheld by their Israeli-backed puppet leader’s father, believe that, because in their minds they are “the true Aryans”, the Americans and Israelis do not view them as sub-humans.

It is relatively unknown to Westerners that the Pahlavists think this way, but many of them are extraordinarily racist against Iran’s minority communities. Interestingly enough, these delusions that they are going to be treated better by the United States than any of their neighbors are still beliefs you will see them clinging onto. In reality, the US and Israel take these delusions just as seriously as the Taliban’s Pashtun nationalism, which also led to claims of being “the original Aryans”.

The average American or Brit cannot distinguish between Arabs and Persians; they simply know that there is a Middle East where dark-skinned Muslim peoples live. The Israelis may, on average, know a little more, but hate everyone equally.

This being said, it was this kind of orientalist thinking, lacking any nuance, that led to the historic mistake of the US-Israeli war on Iran. The concept that by waging a war of aggression, where you kill Ayatollah Khamenei and a group of top officials, the entire system will collapse like a deck of cards. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Every few years, we constantly hear about the “imminent collapse of the regime”, yet it never comes. The only way that there will be a regime change is through efforts on the ground, not a bombing campaign, and not even in the event that the US invades, which I will explain below.

While Iran is an incredibly complex country and no analysis of this brief could touch on all the elements at play, there are a few key points in the Islamic Republic’s history that are key to understanding it today.

The first point to understand is what happened during the Islamic Revolution of 1979, which ushered in the revolutionary movement that governs the country today. The revolution against the Shah did not happen overnight; it was a process that took years of collective action, mass general strikes, sit-ins, and saw the participation of all elements within the society.

In the end, the 1979 revolution ended up becoming an Islamic revolution. Under the rule of Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi, the pro-Western dictator led what was known as the White Revolution, a campaign of reforms that sought to “Westernize” the country, while undermining the Islamic clergy and leading to the repression of Islam more generally. Therefore, the revolt against the Shah included an element that sought to reinstate the former position of Islam inside the country, meaning that people used Islam as a means of resistance.

We cannot, however, leave out the fact that Leftists also played a large role in the revolution itself and that the uprising against the Shah was not just simply an Islamic movement led by Ayatollah Khomeini alone. Therefore, following the overthrow of the Shah, the newly installed system faced the tall task of forming a government that could be accepted by the people. Groups, for example, the Mujahideen e-Khalq (MEK), disagreed with the new leadership, as did others.

The subsequent takeover of the US Embassy in Tehran, creating an immediate crisis between Iran and America, would end up setting the tone for what was to come next. In September of 1980, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was encouraged by the US to launch an invasion of neighboring Iran.

The Iran-Iraq War was fought for nearly 8 years, and at a time when the Iranians were militarily much less prepared and armed to do so. While many expected that this war would lead to the collapse of the Islamic Republic, it did the very opposite. The motivating factor for many Iranians, who had not even experienced two years of their new government’s rule, was the Islamic doctrine they were fighting under.

Between 500,000 to 1 million people were killed in the war, which left around two million others injured. That meant that a significant portion of Iran’s population was either wiped out or injured, many of whom died horrible deaths, such as through chemical weapons attacks.

Although deadly and a war that drained resources, putting real strain on society as a whole, it ended up hardening the stances of many. It is not uncommon to hear from Iranians that people will use the sacrifices made during the Iran-Iraq War to justify all kinds of policies that may come under scrutiny.

The same year that the Iran-Iraq war ended, the US Navy decided to shoot down an Iranian civilian airliner in the Gulf of Hormuz, killing 290 Iranians, including 44 children. These events ended up cementing the ideals of the Islamic Republic among its people.

Fast forward now to 2009, when there was a public uproar about the Iranian Presidential election being rigged. This triggered the Green Movement, a mass mobilization across the country that called for reform. Bear in mind now that the relatively new system of governance had been under constant US sanctions since 1979, meaning that the pressure was consistently being turned up on the civilian population.

The 2009 Green Movement ended up leading to what is known as the Reformist camp in Iran attaining greater power inside the country, opposed to the Principalists, referred to in the West as the “hardliners”, who represented the Islamic revolutionary purest camp. For those who may be wondering, the reformists represent the more capitalist, or business class, inside the country. They have historically sought to mend ties with the West, and it was under reformist President Hassan Rouhani that the 2015 Iran nuclear deal was signed.

All of this time having passed since the Iran-Iraq War, where the people were left to live under ever-intensifying sanctions, brought about social change. Still, there remained a sizable bloc of the Islamic revolutionary movement’s base, but many became disillusioned and sought amendments to the system. To be clear, amendments do not mean regime change; they simply sought to achieve changes in their nation.

Although no authoritative polling exists to prove this, it’s generally thought that the base of the Islamic Republic’s support falls within the range of 30 million people, out of 93 million, with the majority falling in the zone of somewhat neutrality; they have complaints or skepticism, but don’t want the government to be toppled to install a Western puppet. Then you have the rest, which fall into the regime change camp, the size of which is often overinflated, but nonetheless certainly exists in its different flavors.

This war appears to have revived Iranian nationalism, the necessity of the revolutionary movement that governs the country, reminding the people why they overthrew the Shah and held so much animosity towards the United States government. For those young people who grew tired of the constant anti-imperialist slogans, it is all starting to make sense to them. This is the reason why their government has been spending so much money backing their regional allies (the Axis of Resistance).

For the Iranian people, they have just seen the theories being proven true that many of them once rolled their eyes at. The US and Israel are killing thousands of their countrymen and women, they slaughter their children, they bomb their oil storage tankers, and create black acid rain. On the first day of the war, the US opened the conflict with the worst civilian massacre they have committed since the Vietnam War, murdering around 180 schoolgirls with a double-tap strike.

Not only have they seen the terror that the US and Israel have unleashed on their people, but they are also witnessing the destruction of their cultural heritage sites.

During the Iran-Iraq War, the government may have been cemented in its place, but this time, there is a real difference; they are able to fight back effectively. The people are seeing the successes of their military and that they were able to lose their leader, but continue fighting. Instead of taking a beating, Iran is dictating the pace of the conflict, battering all the US’s military bases and standing up to the entire region.

Even for those Iranians who have many criticisms of their government, they have come to the streets in numbers and united with those they used to argue against, because the war has created the biggest rally behind the flag moment in decades. That is what the US-Israeli aggression has done: it has managed to unite Iranians in a way we have not seen in recent memory.

For those who have been writing about this issue for some time, this was a predictable outcome. The Iranian government is not as barbaric and stupid as it is depicted through Western propaganda. In the months following the 12-Day War last year, if you paid attention, you may have realized that the government began leaning into Iranian nationalism and symbolism more than ever, because it understood that the next war was going to require unity from across the spectrum.

So for those who believed that this war would somehow overthrow the government, the exact opposite appears to be happening. This war of aggression may end up being an event similar to the Iran-Iraq War in the way it cements the existence of the Islamic Republic. As for an American ground invasion, if they try, they will be met by millions who will mobilize to crush it, just as they did in the 1980s, but with better training and more sophisticated weapons.

– Robert Inlakesh is a journalist, writer, and documentary filmmaker. He focuses on the Middle East, specializing in Palestine. He contributed this article to The Palestine Chronicle.

March 14, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , | Comments Off on A War that Backfired: Why the US-Israeli Campaign Is Strengthening Iran

How Zionist Control Is Hurting US Interests

By Abbas Hashemite – New Eastern Outlook – March 14, 2026

The recent US attack on Iran has raised criticism both internationally and at home due to President Trump’s shift from America First to Israel First and over the Zionist control over the US establishment.

US-Israel Strategic Alignment: Historical Patterns

Escalating tensions between the US, Israel, and Iran have raised a critical concern in global geopolitics: has the US attacked Iran to protect its regional interests, or has it jumped into this fray to defend Netanyahu’s Zionist regime in Israel and its strategic interests? The history of American foreign policy decisions since the establishment of the illegitimate Israeli state suggests that protecting Israel’s national and strategic interests in the Middle East and beyond has become a key aspect of the United States’ strategic priorities.

Throughout history, whenever Israel felt threatened or insecure by a regional power, Washington has always supported it directly or indirectly. The historic rivalry between Israel and Iran and its escalation after the recent genocidal operation by the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) has rendered the situation more intense. Israel considers Iran’s missile capabilities and nuclear program as a threat to its sovereignty and security. Moreover, Iran’s regional proxies also pose a significant threat to Israel’s expansionist agenda.

Recently, the United States and Iran were engaged in negotiations over the latter’s nuclear program. Reports propose that the two sides have made significant progress in resolving the issue peacefully. However, the United States and Israel launched a combined attack on Iran, targeting its key military and political leadership. Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and several other high-level military and political leaders of the country were killed in the US-Israel joint strikes. These strikes, despite positive progress in the US-Iran peace negotiations, created an international perception that the United States is fighting Israel’s war in the Middle East.

Domestic and International Backlash Against US Involvement

Dissenting voices regarding the US involvement in a foreign war are rising even within the United States. People from within the US Army are raising questions over the country’s involvement in a foreign war. Even former soldiers are asking whether the US military personnel should sacrifice their lives to secure the strategic interests of Israel. Reportedly, many US soldiers have expressed their concerns over their participation in this war against Iran. They seek to know the moral and legal status of a war waged merely to protect the interests of a specific allied country. The United States faced a similar issue during the Cold War, especially in the Vietnam and Iraq wars, when numerous military personnel criticized and questioned policies that led the country into those wars. Within both U.S. military and civilian policy circles, there is mounting pressure to more clearly distinguish between America’s core national interests and the interests of its allies.

Economic and Global Implications of the Conflict

The Middle East is the center of global energy politics, and the Persian Gulf is one of the key maritime routes for global oil supply. Iran has already blocked the Strait of Hormuz, leading to disruption in global oil and energy supply, causing inflation around the world. Oil and energy prices have surged across Europe, Asia, and other regions, impacting everyday consumers and households—including those in the United States. Due to the aggressive policies of former US governments, the country has lost trillions of dollars in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. The recent US war against Iran would prove far more expensive because of the latter’s geostrategic location and greater regional influence.

On the diplomatic front, this war will further tarnish Washington’s international image. Most of the Global South is already hostile to the United States’ interventionist policies. A prolonged war with Iran would not only widen the gulf between the US and its European allies, but it would also increase Russia and China’s global support. This war has already shifted global public opinion against the United States, weakening the country’s international credibility. Many developing nations are increasingly aligning themselves with Russia and China, signaling their interest in joining the BRICS coalition.

Washington’s involvement in this war, at the behest of Israel, has created significant intricacies for its regional allies. It has exposed the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), a key US ally in the Middle East, to significant Iranian attacks. Iran is repeatedly targeting US interests across the region. The GCC countries are also facing disruption in the supply chain, leading to significant economic losses, due to the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz by Iran. Moreover, it has undermined the security and safety of the UAE for global investors. This suggests that this war would create visible fractures in the US-GCC relations.

However, the United States’ involvement in this conflict, despite knowing that it will lead to severe public backlash and impinge on the country’s interests in the Middle East and beyond, demonstrates that in Washington, it’s not the US leadership but the Zionist lobby that actually calls the shots. The release of the Epstein files further strengthens the notion that the Zionists use such tools to blackmail and influence the US leaders, including President Trump, to mold the US policies to protect Israel’s interests in the Middle East and around the world.

Аbbas Hashemite is a political observer and research analyst for regional and global geopolitical issues. He is currently working as an independent researcher and journalist

Follow new articles on our Telegram channel

March 14, 2026 Posted by | Corruption, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , | Comments Off on How Zionist Control Is Hurting US Interests

Iran warns it may target US missile launch sites in UAE cities

By Al Mayadeen | March 14, 2026

The spokesperson for Iran’s central Khatam al-Anbiya Headquarters warned that Iranian forces may target US missile launch sites operating from locations inside cities in the United Arab Emirates, following attacks launched against Iranian territory.

Lieutenant Colonel Ebrahim Zolfaghari said the US military had resorted to operating from ports, docks, and concealed facilities within UAE cities after its military bases in the region were destroyed.

According to the Iranian official, US forces launched missiles from these locations targeting the Iranian islands of Abu Musa and Kharg. The US CENTCOM had published footage of earlier attacks from desert settings where High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) fired precision munitions at Iranian territory.

Although several Gulf states have publicly claimed that their territories would not be used for attacks against Iran, open-source information suggests otherwise. Flight-tracking data indicate that Saudi Arabian airspace is being used by aerial refueling tankers supporting fighter aircraft involved in strikes against Iran. The Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia has reportedly hosted multiple Stratotanker refueling aircraft participating in these operations.

Kuwait also plays a key logistical and operational role. The country hosts US Marine contingents, communications infrastructure, command-and-control facilities, and other assets used by US forces participating in operations targeting Iran.

In Qatar, the Al Udeid Air Base serves as a central node for regional operations, hosting critical radar systems for missile early warning and satellite communications infrastructure and serving as the forward headquarters for United States Central Command air operations.

Meanwhile, the United Arab Emirates hosts anti-missile radar systems and interceptor batteries, along with logistical infrastructure supporting both US and Israeli personnel, including facilities used for resupply and operational coordination.

Iran asserts right to strike launch sites

Zolfaghari addressed the UAE leadership directly, stating that Iran considers it a legitimate right to strike hostile US missile launch sites located in ports, shipping terminals, and military hideouts used by US forces in certain UAE cities.

He stressed that such actions would fall within Iran’s right to defend its national sovereignty and territorial integrity. The spokesperson reiterated that Tehran views the targeting of US launch sites used in attacks against Iranian territory as a lawful defensive measure.

Zolfaghari also called on residents in the UAE to stay away from ports, docks, and locations hosting US military forces inside urban areas to avoid potential harm. He emphasized that Iran’s position stems from what it describes as its legitimate right to defend its sovereignty and national territory in the face of US attacks.

Additional CENTCOM-supporting infrastructure in the UAE

Beyond missile defense assets, the UAE hosts several facilities and capabilities that support CENTCOM activities:

Al Dhafra Air Base

One of the most important US-operated installations in the Gulf. It hosts:

  • US Air Force fighter aircraft
  • ISR platforms (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance)
  • MQ-9 Reaper drones
  • Aerial refueling aircraft
  • Surveillance aircraft such as AWACS

Port logistics hubs

Jebel Ali Port in Dubai is the largest US Navy port of call in West Asia, regularly hosting carrier strike group vessels, destroyers, and logistics ships. It alsos serves as a major resupply and maintenance hub for the United States Navy.

Pre-positioned military stockpiles

The UAE hosts US pre-positioned equipment, including:

  • Ammunition
  • Armored vehicles
  • Spare aircraft parts
  • Logistics supplies for rapid force deployment.

Intelligence and surveillance infrastructure

Facilities linked to:

  • Regional signals intelligence collection
  • Satellite communication nodes
  • Integrated air defense networks.

With US threats against Kharg Island escalating, and the possibility of a limited US operation to seize the strategically critical island increasingly discussed, the United States Central Command would likely view the United Arab Emirates as the primary hub for logistics and land-based strike operations against Iranian positions along the mountainous coastline opposite the country.

Given its proximity to southern Iran and its extensive military infrastructure, the UAE could serve as a key staging area for missile launchers, aircraft, reconnaissance platforms, refueling operations, and maritime logistics supporting operations around Kharg and the Gulf.

The UAE would also likely play a central role in any US attempt to control the Strait of Hormuz, particularly after Tehran restricted the passage of US- and Israeli-linked vessels through the critical waterway. The strait is one of the world’s most important maritime choke points, handling roughly 20% of global seaborne oil trade, making control of the passage a major strategic objective in any escalation.

Iran says drone strikes targeted Israeli intelligence, cyber units

Meanwhile, amid operations directed away from the Gulf and toward the Israeli-occupied territories, the Islamic Republic of Iran’s Army announced carrying out drone strikes targeting key Israeli military infrastructure, including intelligence and cyber operations facilities.

In a statement, the army said the strikes targeted the Israeli military’s intelligence apparatus, specifically “Aman”, Unit 8200, which is specialized in cyber operations and data processing, and sites housing Israeli fighter jets were among the targets struck during the operation.

According to the Iranian army, the attacks were carried out in honor of “the brave fallen Iranian leaders,” naming Chief of the General Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces Abdolrahim Mousavi, IRGC Commander Mohammad Pakpour, and Defense Minister Aziz Nasirzadeh.

March 14, 2026 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Comments Off on Iran warns it may target US missile launch sites in UAE cities

American Military Failure in Afghanistan

Tales of the American Empire | March 12, 2026

As American military forces arrived in Afghanistan, they began building a network of bases to rule the entire nation. This repeated the mistakes of the Vietnam war. Each base required clean water, electricity, security, and frequent resupply, which required guarding bridges, road mine clearing, weekly supply convoys, and helicopter runs. This was expensive, required much manpower, left forces dispersed, provided ample targets for the enemy, and alienated the population with frequent “search and destroy” patrols that caused much death and destruction. Employing this failed strategy in Afghanistan was more difficult as the rugged terrain limited airpower while numerous caves provided the enemy with great hiding locations. In some areas, it was not practical to establish military outposts on good defensive terrain since mountaintops lacked road access and a local water supply. Nevertheless, American Generals insisted on military outposts everywhere, no matter the vulnerability of the base.

American combat forces should have remained mostly out of sight as a reserve force to protect large cities and dispatch units to rural areas only when a large enemy force converged to attack local forces. American aid should have focused on improving the economic infrastructure and local militia forces in a long-term, passive effort that would minimize manpower requirements, causalities, and costs.

_________________________________________________________

Related Tale; “Osama Bin Laden WAS NOT Responsible for 9/11”;    • Osama Bin Laden WAS NOT Responsible for 9/11  

Related Tale; “American Bases Overrun in Vietnam”;    • American Bases Overrun in Vietnam  

“The Battle of COP Keating TRADOC G2 OE Enterprise G&V”; August 10, 2012;    • The Battle of COP Keating – October 3rd, 2009  

“Battle of Wanat Video Recreation; TRADOC G2 OE Enterprise G&V”; July 14, 2014;    • Battle of Wanat Video Recreation  

“11 Days and a Wake up; Battle of Wanat”, Afghanistan War Documentary; June 2, 2019;    • 11 days and a Wake Up  

“Afghan War Diary 2004-2010”; Wikileaks; July 25, 2010; https://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Afghan…

Related Tale: “The False Tale of Killing Osama Bin Laden”;    • The False Tale of Killing Osama bin Laden  

Related Tale: “Did the US Military Withdraw from Afghanistan because of Fentanyl?”;    • Did the US Military Withdraw from Afghanis…  

“US Watchdog Rips Failed Nation-Building Effort in Afghanistan in Its Final Report”; December 2005; https://news.antiwar.com/2025/12/04/u…

March 14, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Timeless or most popular, Video | , | Comments Off on American Military Failure in Afghanistan

Ukrainian Embassy in Beirut sheltering top Mossad agent

The Cradle – March 13, 2026

The Ukrainian Embassy in Beirut is currently harboring a high-profile Israeli intelligence asset wanted by Lebanese authorities, journalist and The Cradle contributor Radwan Mortada has revealed.

Khaled al-Aida, a Palestinian-Syrian with Ukrainian citizenship, has been implicated in bombings and assassinations across Lebanon between 2024 and 2025.

Security investigations have proved his involvement in an assassination attempt at Beirut’s Rafiq Hariri International Airport, as well as the capital’s southern suburb.

Aida was also on the ground during the assassination of former Hezbollah secretary-general, Hassan Nasrallah, according to Mortada, who also reported that Aida had helped Lebanese intelligence dismantle a Mossad cell.

He was eventually caught with an explosive device hidden on a motorcycle intended for later use in southern Beirut.

“Aida managed to escape after the Israeli bombing of the building where he was being held in Beirut’s southern suburbs. The bombing provided him with an opportunity to flee, and he eventually sought refuge in the Ukrainian Embassy, ​​which is now attempting to smuggle him out with the help of the US Embassy,” according to the information obtained by Mortada.

The embassy is reportedly seeking to secure Aida’s exit, requesting a laissez-passer from Lebanese security, while US operatives, including CIA station chief Sherry Baker, are pressuring for his evacuation.

“We will not accept being told that he left in a diplomatic vehicle, or through an illegal crossing, or under the protection of the American Embassy in Lebanon,” Mortada went on to write.

In recent history, Lebanese authorities have repeatedly been coerced by Washington to release agents who have been detained.

“Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, and the General Security Directorate, specifically Major General Hassan Shqeir, are all accountable to the Lebanese people. If they are truly concerned about the interests of Lebanon and the Lebanese, they must arrest Khaled al-Aida and hand him over to the judiciary. This wanted man is a valuable asset for Lebanon, one that should be negotiated for, not given away for free,” Mortada said.

Around two dozen Lebanese prisoners are currently being held in Israeli prisons, some of whom were abducted during the ceasefire.

Mortada’s report comes as Lebanon is under heavy Israeli bombardment. Around 700 have been killed by Israel since 2 March, when Hezbollah responded to over a year of Israeli ceasefire violations.

Israel has stepped up attacks on Beirut’s suburbs as well as the heart of the city, while continuing brutal and deadly attacks across southern and eastern Lebanon.

Israeli planes dropped leaflets over the capital on Friday, threatening that Hezbollah must be disarmed for “everybody’s interest.”

The Lebanese army warned citizens not to open the QR Code on the leaflets, which “link to a WhatsApp contact and another to a Facebook page to communicate with Unit 504 of the Israeli army, which is responsible for recruiting agents.”

March 13, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Comments Off on Ukrainian Embassy in Beirut sheltering top Mossad agent

The EU never learns – except for the wrong lessons

By Tarik Cyril Amar | RT | March 13, 2026

Some observers of the current EU ‘elites’, including this author, used to believe that their defining feature – apart from things such as complicity in genocide and wars of aggression with Israel and the US, bigoted xenophobia about Russia and China, and, of course, pervasive corruption – was an absolute inability to learn.

We must admit, we stand corrected: Those running the EU are able to learn. The real problem is their relentless compulsion to learn the wrong thing. We are not dealing with non-learners but anti-learners: where others progress from experience, they regress.

Case in point, their response to the fact that their US-Israeli masters have started a war to end if not strictly all then at least all (barely) affordable energy supplies to the EU’s economies, while its major players are already limping along on a spectrum between walking-wounded (for instance, France, maybe) to comatose (Germany, definitely).

In Germany, still the largest single economy inside the EU, providing almost a fourth of the bloc’s total GDP, industrial demand – orders from factories – fell by over 11% in January. Such a decrease – really, collapse – in orders is “drastic,” as German Manager Magazine notes. According to the Financial Times, this “very weak” start into the new year, puts preceding – and very modest – signs of a recovery from years of stagnation in doubt. Indeed. And all of that disappointing data was gathered before the fallout of the Iran war had even started.

Regarding the latter, it will be severe. Even Berlin’s Ministry of Economics admits that the risks stemming from the war’s consequences, most of them still incoming, is substantial.

In general, the Eurozone – different from but covering most of the EU – is not in good shape either. According to Bloomberg, a very low and yet still over-optimistic Eurostat estimate of expansion by 0.3% for the last quarter of 2025 has just been revised downward to 0.2%. But frankly, who cares at that level of misery?

And for the Eurozone as well, America and Israel’s unprovoked war against Iran is likely to make things much worse. Philip Lane, chief economist of the European Central Bank (ECB), has confirmed that much to the Financial Times : An enduring decrease in oil and gas supplies from the Middle East can (read: will), he warns, bring about a “substantial spike” in inflation and a “sharp drop in output.”

And what is the EU leadership’s response to this deeply depressing outlook for its economy and the European citizens depending on it? Let’s not dream. It is true, if the EU’s ‘elites’ were in the business of protecting European interests and prosperity, they would, obviously, take a sharp turn against both the US and Israel (as well as London in case it were to stick to its special-poodle relationship with Washington).

Yet if the EU leadership had such priorities, it would long have turned against the US, for its blatant exploitation of its vassal regimes via, first, NATO over-expansion and, now, crippling overspending, for Ukraine proxy war outsourcing, and for devastating tariff warfare. It would also long have broken with Israel, for, to name only two compelling reasons, its genocide and serial wars of aggression that are both horrifically criminal and extremely destabilizing and damaging not “only” to the Middle East but the world as a whole and Europe in particular.

In short, the EU would not even be in the mess it is now if it actually took care of Europe. And, by the way, if it were not so craven but had opposed the US and Israel instead of pandering to them, perhaps it could even have contributed to preventing the current criminal war against Iran.

That, however, would not be the EU as it really is. In sordid reality, it is a second iteration of NATO, that is, an instrument of the US empire (notwithstanding showy and silly Greenland hysterics) and of international oligarchic structures. Ordinary Europeans matter only in so far as they are expected to vote – and think and speak – in line with EU ‘elite’ priorities, and when they do not, they are made to.

No wonder then that the utterly unelected and legally extremely challenged EU Commission head Ursula von der Leyen – really, the EU’s despot and US viceroy rolled into one – demonstratively does not give a damn about the massive energy price shock that has already started hitting the fragile economies of EU-Europe.

With tanker ships on fire off the Strait of Hormuz, oil surging over $100 per barrel, national reserves being dipped into, gas prices up by 50% in the EU, and, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA), oil markets suffering “the largest supply disruption in history,” von der Leyen has had nothing to offer but reverting to the tired – and less than successful – playbook of 2022, originally put together when the Western-Russian proxy war via Ukraine escalated. Tinkering, again, with ineffective price caps, taxes and fees, electricity market structures and price distortions, renewables, and wasting money on subsidies (out of budgets that are already vastly overstretched) – that was about it. No wonder, several national governments have already signaled their impatience with what, in essence, is inactivity and non-strategy.

At least as important, though, was what von der Leyen took pains to rule out: Returning to Russian supplies would be a “strategic blunder,” the EU’s one-woman decider-in-chief declared. Instead, she insists, the EU must stay the course and continue ridding itself of the last remnants of Russian gas and oil. Clearly, von der Leyen is anxious that not everyone in the EU’s ‘elites’ is up to her level of ideological obstinacy and economic as well as geopolitical irrationality. “Some,” she chided, “argue that we should abandon our long-term strategy and even go back to Russian fossil fuels.” Perish the thought! As long as von der Leyen and her type run the EU, it will ruin itself before doing the obvious – making peace with Russia and rebuilding economic ties, including in the energy sector.

And there you have it: This is a leadership style not simply refusing to learn from experience but repeating the worst blunders of the past. The von der Leyen way of policy making – from sanctions (now on round 20, I believe) to pipelines – is akin to negative natural selection: Whatever does not work will be done again, and again, and again. The real question, it seems, is not if the EU “elites” will ever stop being perverse anti-learners, but whether – or when – they will lose control. Mismanaging the massive shock that the US and Israel have sent their way now may finally provoke enough backlash from below to send the von der Leyens packing. For Europe’s sake, let’s hope for the best, even if it’s delivered by the worst.

Tarik Cyril Amar is a historian from Germany working at Koç University, Istanbul, on Russia, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe, the history of World War II, the cultural Cold War, and the politics of memory.

March 13, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Russophobia, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The EU never learns – except for the wrong lessons

The US fell for its own Iran propaganda

By Robert Inlakesh | Al Mayadeen | March 13, 2026

The US government’s mistake with Iran has been that it clearly fell into believing its own lies. Think tanks, donors, paid advisors, lobby groups, and establishment analysts are all responsible for the catastrophic mistakes that have been made in attacking the Islamic Republic.

What was supposed to be a war, destined to be all over in four days, quickly turned into weeks, months, and now, in US President Donald Trump’s own words, a “forever” war. In order to understand why, we have to assess the way the political system in Washington works.

As we now know, US politicians are oftentimes chosen by the donor class. Most of the US Congress and Senate take considerable sums from AIPAC and affiliated pro-Israeli, pro-war donors. The Israeli Lobby not only pays its chosen politicians, but also hands them materials to run through, so that they skip to the Zionist script and position themselves as attack dogs against anyone who stands up to the lobby.

Hiding underneath this, we have think tanks, which are the policy expert wing of the lobbyists. These think tank “experts” are brought in as the brains behind the operation. They shift around between holding positions within different administrations, sitting on boards, and writing briefs or analyses for think tanks.

Then you have the mainstream media, which is owned by many of the same people funding the think tanks and lobby groups, employing articulate individuals to parrot their propaganda. The media itself is a bubble, where the so-called “reputable” outlets rely on each other for validity and help to police the boundaries of the “acceptable” discourse, meaning the likes of the New York Times, BBC, and others.

When it comes to broadcast media in specific, the top suppliers of stories, soundbites, on-the-ground footage, and leads are Reuters, AFP, and the Associated Press. Oftentimes, broadcast media channels will simply copy and paste the leads or descriptions from what these suppliers provide, altering them ever so slightly to suit their channel’s bias. That is why they often use very similar language and report the same stories for their news bulletins. Anyone who has worked in a newsroom knows this to be the case.

This trio of information control, which often intersects and enjoys some crossover, is what pollutes the minds of the masses on a daily basis. This is important to understand in order for the rest of this article to make sense.

Falling for their own lies

In the lead-up to the illegal attack on the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Western ruling class constantly repeated the idea that Iran and its allies were severely weakened. Revelling in what will likely prove to be a pyrrhic victory in Syria, with the installation of a pro-US Zionist collaborator regime in Damascus, the annihilation of Gaza’s infrastructure, along with the severe blows to Hezbollah’s leadership, all three elements of the Zionist information control system began to grow arrogant.

Think Tanks like the Zionist Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) held a series of conferences about the disarmament of Hezbollah and discussed how the so-called Gaza ceasefire was supposed to be weaponized in “Israel’s” favour, while discussing war on Iran as if it was like putting down a once dominant racehorse with a broken leg.

Still, today, if you look at WINEP’s homepage, there are analysis pieces, written by Zionists salivating over a victory over Iran and envisaging how the future will pan out in a West Asia dominated by the Israelis. “The Middle East’s 1919 Moment” and “A Levant Without Militias” discuss the downfall of Iran and Hezbollah, respectively. Even at a time of great crisis for the Zionist entity, they cannot help but fantasize about how they will dominate in the future.

The trio of information control has created a parallel universe for themselves, one which they continue to cling to, for fear of shattering their entire view of reality.

When Donald Trump and Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu claimed to have greatly degraded Iran, it wasn’t just them speaking; they were in lockstep with the think tanks, lobbyists, and donors. Just as was the case when former US envoy to Lebanon, Morgan Ortagus, confidently asserted that Hezbollah was defeated.

For them, assessing the realities on the ground was no longer a priority; what was important was bolstering a narrative that would lead to the war that the Zionist entity desired. In essence, what they had done was fall for their own nonsense.

All of this stems from the psychological blow the Zionist regime and its loyal supremacist backers suffered on October 7, 2023. When a few thousand Palestinian Resistance fighters, armed with light weapons, tore down the illusion of the Israeli surveillance regime and collapsed its southern command within hours, the Zionists went into a kind of mental hysteria.

Suddenly, on that day, it was proven that the theory of Hezbollah’s late Secretary General, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, was correct: “Israel” is indeed weaker than a spider’s web. This meant for them that two things had to be achieved: the first was that their so-called “deterrence capacity” had to be re-established, which they believed would be achieved through committing the world’s first live-streamed genocide.

The second imperative was that the Zionist project had to be rapidly accelerated. At first, this appeared unlikely, yet their perceived successes in Lebanon and Syria appeared to give them the impression that it was possible.

Along comes the second Trump Presidency, which was bought and paid for by the Zionist billionaire class.

Donald Trump, a man with a vocabulary no greater than that of a 10-year-old, is their perfect puppet. Not only this, his entire administration is staffed with ultra-Zionists or paid shills who lack basic intelligence. Therefore, the Zionists saw that this was the perfect time for them to hatch the last phase of their so-called master plan to expand their regime and rule the entire region.

In the process of doing this, the Zionists dismantled the United Nations and the notion of International Law, instead ushering in “the law of the jungle.” There are no longer international norms or red lines, just total chaos.

Meanwhile, as this was going on, the Zionists adopted the attitude toward the global population that they should be scared into submission; should they dare stand up to oppose the tyranny everyone has watched unfold before their very eyes. When they are surprised because things aren’t going their way, they cry victim and, in a fit of rage, attempt to punish you. This is a reflection of their unstable mental state.

All of this is relevant because it explains how we have gotten to this point and why this trio of information control has bought into their own nonsense. The war on Iran was evidently going to be a catastrophe, but they did it anyway. Those of us who have been monitoring the situation could also tell that Lebanese Hezbollah was far from militarily finished, which the Israeli media are now beginning to come to terms with.

What do they do now that the situation is getting out of hand? They censor and desperately lie to cover their tracks. They censor their deaths, lie about the destruction and missile hits, fake air defense victories, and claim tactical and operational military victories that don’t exist. One example of this is the US Trump administration, which claimed to have destroyed Iran’s navy during the first days of the war and still brags about sinking new ships.

The Israelis take things even further: with dozens of military vehicles hit and their soldiers falling into ambush after ambush in Lebanon, only two soldiers have died, according to them. They have even banned the filming of Iranian and Hezbollah missile strikes, threatening their own population with fines and jail time for doing so. Sometimes, they will claim to have intercepted all incoming projectiles or say they fell in open spaces, yet not too long after, published videos show direct hits. It’s getting so bad there, in terms of censorship, that their own people are getting agitated.

These people lived in a “reality” where Hezbollah was weak and Iran was weak, claiming that it had only a few thousand missiles and a handful of launchers; a “reality” in which killing Iran’s leader, Sayyed Ali Khamenei, would instantly lead to regime change, where the Iranian people would suddenly fight against their government because Netanyahu told them so. Perhaps the only thing they don’t believe is their laughable lies about Iranian protester deaths; that nonsense is reserved for the Pahlavist cult.

As the entire planet is witnessing, Iran and the Axis of Resistance that it backs are far from weak. Their determination is strong, and their capabilities are clearly greater than the Zionists expected. The longer this insane arrogance continues, the worse things are going to get, because just as we saw in the Gaza Strip, nobody is about to back down and become the slaves of the terrorist entity occupying Palestine.

March 13, 2026 Posted by | Deception, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Comments Off on The US fell for its own Iran propaganda

Seyed M. Marandi: Threat of Seizing Kharg Island & the Use of Nuclear Weapons

Glenn Diesen | March 12, 2026

Seyed Mohammad Marandi is a professor at Tehran University and a former advisor to Iran’s Nuclear Negotiation Team. Prof. Marandi argues that it will be extremely difficult for the US to seize Kharg Island, and Iran would then destroy all energy facilities in the region.

Follow Prof. Glenn Diesen:

Support the research by Prof. Glenn Diesen:

Books by Prof. Glenn Diesen

March 13, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, Video, War Crimes, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on Seyed M. Marandi: Threat of Seizing Kharg Island & the Use of Nuclear Weapons

Is there even an off ramp?

Have events accelerated to the point where a nuclear attack is nearly inevitable?

Ashes of Pompeii | March 13, 2026

The strategic paradigm regarding Iran has shifted fundamentally. And despite the calls for a ground invasion in some circles, and given the combination of current events on the ground, Iranian resiliance, and logistics, it is simply not possible. Therefore, the United States faces a constricted set of options amidst an escalating existential crisis. The convergence of domestic political survival, allied desperation, military attrition, and the personal psychology of the executive creates a pressure cooker where the use of tactical nuclear weapons transitions from absolute taboo to a very real grim strategic calculus. Central to this equation is the vindictive nature of President Trump, a trait that transforms geopolitical setbacks into personal grievances, compounded by the “Bibi factor”: Benjamin Netanyahu’s four-decade obsession with confronting Iran, now reaching a point of catastrophic desperation as every strategic avenue fails.

Netanyahu has dedicated much of his political life to conflict with an emergent, Islamic Iran. For forty years, he has advocated, plotted, and pressured for decisive action. Now, with Israel under daily barrage and conventional options nearly exhausted, his influence on Washington becomes a volatile accelerant. But the more dangerous variable may not be Israeli pressure on America, but rather Israeli action independent of America. Israel possesses nuclear weapons. A desperate Israel, facing existential threat, may calculate that only a nuclear strike can halt the onslaught. If Israel launches first, the United States is instantly complicit. The question shifts from “Will America use nukes?” to “How does America respond when its ally does?”

This scenario triggers a specific and catastrophic escalation dynamic. Iran has consistently signaled that any existential attack would be met with disproportionate retaliation against its primary adversary: Israel. A nuclear strike would not coerce Tehran into surrender; it would guarantee an all-out Iranian assault focused overwhelmingly on Israeli population centers and probably the Dimona nuclear center. The retaliation would not be measured; it would be existential. For Trump, this creates an impossible bind. His vindictiveness demands punishment of Iran, but his legacy depends on protecting Israel. If Iran retaliates with devastating force, Trump faces two choices: accept the near destruction of America’s key ally, cementing his legacy as the president who lost the Middle East, or escalate further. Each path deepens the quagmire. Added to this is the question of whether Iran has, or is quickly acquiring, nuclear weapons that would be used in any retaliation response.

Compounding this trap is the total collapse of trust. Any diplomatic off-ramp requires a minimum reserve of credibility between adversaries. The Trump administration has systematically burned every bridge. The precedent of attacking on February 28 in the midst of negotiations signaled that talks were not a path to resolution, but a ruse to keep the opponent off guard. To de-escalate now would almost certainly require Trump to take substantial, clear and verifiable unilateral first steps: a ceasefire, sanctions relief and public concessions. In the current climate, such actions would not be read as statesmanship; they would be interpreted as capitulation by many in America, especially his staunchest allies. For a leader whose political identity is built on projecting strength and punishing perceived slights, unilateral de-escalation is politically indistinguishable from surrender. The trust deficit does not merely complicate diplomacy; it comes close to eliminating it as a viable instrument.

This absence of trust reinforces the escalation logic at every turn. Iran, believing that American assurances are worthless, has no incentive to show restraint. Israel, doubting that diplomacy can halt the threat, has every incentive to act alone. Trump, convinced that any sign of weakness will be exploited, has no political space to offer concessions. The system becomes self-reinforcing: distrust justifies aggression, aggression deepens distrust, and the space for compromise evaporates. Institutional guardrails – the military chain of command, cabinet counsel, congressional oversight – retain theoretical weight, but they are overwhelmed by the momentum of crisis. When every actor believes the other operates in bad faith, restraint appears as vulnerability, and to a desperate man, escalation appears as the only rational response.

Global and domestic consequences, however catastrophic, are discounted in the immediate calculus. The precedent of nuclear use would shatter non-proliferation regimes and realign global power. Yet, in the moment of existential pressure, these long-term risks are subordinate to the demand for survival and retribution. Domestic backlash remains possible, but partisan media ecosystems and the framing of Israeli victimhood could harden public resolve rather than soften it. The political cost of appearing weak may be seen to exceed the cost of escalation. Trump’s fear of legacy merges with the visceral demand to protect an ally under fire and punish an adversary that, in his mind, has humiliated American power for nearly half a century.

In conclusion, the decision rests on a knife’s edge, sharpened by the certainty of Iranian retaliation against Israel and the impossibility of diplomatic retreat. The trust deficit is not a peripheral concern; it is the linchpin that locks the system into escalation. With no ground option, no credible off-ramp, a desperate ally possessing nuclear capability, and a vindictive leader who equates compromise with defeat, the use of nuclear weapons emerges not as a deliberate policy choice but as an emergent property of systemic collapse. The taboo against nuclear weapons persists only so long as actors believe restraint serves their survival. When survival is perceived to depend on escalation, and when trust, the essential currency of de-escalation, has been extinguished, the unthinkable becomes inevitable. The United States may not make the first move, but it may find itself unable to stop the chain reaction it enabled. The legacy Trump fears may not be shaped by his decision, but by his inability to escape a logic where every path forward leads deeper into catastrophe. The world watches not a policy debate, but the unraveling of deterrence, diplomacy, and restraint in real time. The outcome will not be chosen, it will be endured.

God help us all.

March 13, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, War Crimes, Wars for Israel | , , , | Comments Off on Is there even an off ramp?

Michael von der Schulenburg: Europe’s Self-Defeating Iran War Policy

Glenn Diesen | March 12, 2026

Michael von der Schulenburg is a German member of the EU Parliament who was previously a UN diplomat for 34 years in positions that included Assistant Secretary General of the UN Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs. Schulenburg also lived and worked for 9 years in Iran for the UN, and explains why this war is yet another disaster for Europe.

Follow Prof. Glenn Diesen:

Support the research by Prof. Glenn Diesen:

March 12, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Progressive Hypocrite, Video | , , , , , | Comments Off on Michael von der Schulenburg: Europe’s Self-Defeating Iran War Policy

Sorry, The New Republic, Climate Change Isn’t Causing Somali Migration. Blame Civil Strife and Poverty.

By Linnea Lueken | Climate Realism | March 10, 2026

The New Republic (TNR) posted an article titled “Somali Immigrants Fled Climate Change. Now They’re Facing ICE,” claiming that Somali migrants in the United States have been driven out of their country by climate-change caused drought. This is false, or at least incomplete. Drought is a natural part of the region, even multi-year drought, and the present one is no different than the region has experienced with some regularity historically. It is civil strife and government corruption, resulting in continued poverty, that is leading Somalis to flee their homeland. With present governing institutions and security, they have been unable to improve water handling practices. Climate change has nothing to do with Somali emigration elsewhere in the region or to the United States, as even those interviewed for the article acknowledge.

TNR undermines its titular claim that unprecedented man-made climate change has forced Somalians to migrate by admitting that Somalian culture has “deep-rooted traditions of movement and migration.” TNR goes on to say that “Somalis have been caught in civil war and unrest for decades, and many have migrated to Kenya, Ethiopia, Europe, and the United States.”

Somehow not noticing the actual central point of that statement, that Somalians often move and that political strife has kept them destabilized, TNR says that climate change plays a “pervasive role” in the migration.

TNR claims that a multi-year drought “made a hundred times more likely due to warming caused by fossil fuel emissions—is affecting Somali people’s decisions to either relocate internally or migrate across international borders.”

Incredibly, later in the article, TNR refutes its own suggestion that this drought is worse, and pushing unprecedented migration, by explaining that this is how farmers have long dealt with drought in Somalia:

Traditionally, Somali pastoralists had resilient ways to deal with changes in rainfall and drought patterns, where families migrated and moved on a regular basis, even crossing borders in the process. But the nature of climatic changes—and conflict—overwhelmed their traditional capacities, leading to more rural-urban migration within the country and in East Africa.

That’s right, severe drought is something Somalians have dealt with for ages, long enough to have known traditions regarding adaptation to the dry periods.

There is no evidence that this drought is worse than those that drove historic migration.

The cited claim that recent drought in Somalia was made “a hundred times more likely” by climate change is not based on sound science. It comes from an attribution study from World Weather Attribution that specifically seeks to tie various weather conditions to human-caused climate change, they do not come to any other conclusions. Climate Realism has gone into the specifics of how unscientific World Weather Attribution studies are here, here, and here.

The TNR piece says that “[f]rom 2020 to 2023, the East Africa region had five failed rainy seasons, an unprecedented drought and climatic episode not seen in 40 years, which led to 70 percent crop loss, three million livestock deaths, and the displacement of about 2.9 million people in Somalia, according to some estimates.”

Admitting that a weather event also happened 40 years ago should tell a writer that their argument about something being “unprecedented” – meaning, without precedent, or never happened before—is faulty.

In fact, studies and data show a long history of swings between severe drought and monsoon floods in the region, and they show that nothing about modern drought is unprecedented. Paleo studies, including one published in Science, show that “intervals of severe drought lasting for periods ranging from decades to centuries are characteristic of the monsoon and are linked to natural variations in Atlantic temperatures.”

Climate Realism has covered this very claim before: In Anthony Watts’ “No, CBS News, Drought in Somalia is Not Being Driven by Climate Change,” he compared natural weather-driving patterns like the Atlantic Meridional Oscillation (AMO) and recent drought in Somalia and found repeated patterns of drought that were similarly severe.

Somalia is part of the Sahel region, and Watts shared this graphic of the region’s rainfall index since 1900, which shows that the rainfall in the Sahel varies widely over time:

Figure 1: More than a century of rainfall data in the Sahel show an unusually wet period from 1950 until 1970 (positive index values), followed by extremely dry years from 1970 to 1991. (negative index values). From 1990 until present rainfall returned to levels slightly below the 1898–1993 average, but year-to-year variability was high. Source: Benedikt Seidl – based on JISAO data

Additionally, comparing crop production data between Somalia and neighboring countries like Ethiopia and Kenya reveals that even when drought impacts East Africa, Somalia is uniquely incapable of maintaining agricultural production. During the same period in which Ethiopia and Kenya saw increasing production in vital cereal crops, UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) data show Somalia declining. (See figure below)

Is climate change not hitting Kenya and Ethiopia? What is the difference?

While Somalia has a long history of severe, recurring droughts, the worst drought in the past 50 years was the “Long-tailed Drought” from 1973 to 1975. That drought, and a subsequent similarly deadly drought in the early 1980s, occurred when the Earth was in a cooling spell and atmospheric carbon dioxide was much lower than today.

Somalia’s civil war and resulting destruction and corruption is the prime force behind Somalia’s emigration. Ironically, one of the interviewees in the TNR piece says as much:

Drought does not necessarily lead to famine and does not always lead to migration,” said Abdi Samatar, a Somali scholar and geographer at the University of Minnesota […] Somalis were unable to “put Humpty Dumpty back together in their country,” and in the absence of government support, “people have to do what they can for themselves,” Samatar added.

We at Climate Realism could not have said it better ourselves, though we have explained as much in past articles where mainstream outlets tried to link climate change and Somalia’s migration issue.

The New Republic’s effort to tie Somalians fleeing their country for the United States to climate change was a flawed, agenda-driven effort from the start. Even when those interviewed by TNR link the mass exodus of residents from Somali to other factors, TNR persists in pushing the narrative that climate change is playing a “pervasive role.”

It is true that Somalia is suffering through a severe, life threatening drought. It is also true that such droughts are not unprecedented but have been common throughout the region’s history. The nation’s unstable government and the ongoing, long-standing, civil war bear far more of the blame than climate change, especially since there is little or no evidence that Somalia’s climate has changed much over the past century.

The current drought is hitting Somalia’s populace worse than those of nearby countries in the region because of the political instability there. The New Republic was told this by the experts they interviewed but chose to ignore it to advance a climate scare story. Evidently, it’s too much to hope for honest journalism at The New Republic.

Linnea Lueken is a Research Fellow with the Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy.

March 12, 2026 Posted by | Deception, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Comments Off on Sorry, The New Republic, Climate Change Isn’t Causing Somali Migration. Blame Civil Strife and Poverty.

The Strategic Folly of a (Serious) US Ground Invasion of Iran

It simply can’t be done

Ashes of Pompeii | March 12, 2026

Tucker Carlson recently spoke of a potential false flag operation designed to manufacture consent for a US ground invasion of Iran. Tucker is no longer an “insider” in Washington but he still likely has his sources. Therefore this talk deserves serious examination, not because an invasion is feasible, but because the gap between political rhetoric and military reality has never been wider. Twelve days into the current conflict, with US bases being degraded under sustained attack and Iranian missile barrages continuing unabated, the notion of a ground invasion collapses under the weight of logistical, technological, and geographical constraints that no amount of political will can overcome.

The war in Ukraine has fundamentally altered the calculus of conventional warfare, demonstrating that drones have radically changed the battlefield. Mechanized armor columns, the backbone of American land warfare doctrine since World War II, have proven devastatingly vulnerable to cheap, ubiquitous unmanned systems. What took billions in sophisticated weaponry to accomplish in previous eras can now be achieved with commercially available drones costing mere thousands of dollars. The US military is only now scrambling to adapt to this reality, while Iran are already drone masters, having made drone warfare one of the foundations of its defensive doctrine. Iranian forces have not merely acquired drones; they have built an entire asymmetric warfare architecture designed to exploit the vulnerabilities of conventional mechanized forces. And make no mistake, the Chinese would be thrilled to supply Iran with all the drones and components necessary.

This technological shift is particularly catastrophic for invasion planners when combined with Iranian geography. Unlike Iraq’s vast desert expanses, Iran is characterized by narrow mountain passes, constricted valleys, and limited corridors of approach through the Zagros and Alborz ranges. These geographic chokepoints are perfect killing zones for drone swarms and precision missile strikes. Any US mechanized column attempting to advance would be funneled through predictable routes, stripped of air support by Iranian air defenses, and systematically destroyed by loitering munitions and anti-tank drones. The Ukraine war has shown that even forces with extensive drone warfare experience suffer devastating losses in such conditions; the United States, still adapting its doctrine and procurement, would face an even steeper learning curve under combat conditions.

The logistical foundation required for invasion simply does not exist. Operation Desert Storm required six months of uncontested buildup in 1991. Today, US forward bases across the region are under active bombardment, with mounting casualties and degraded operational capacity. The notion that America could amass the hundreds of thousands of troops, thousands of armored vehicles, and millions of tons of supplies needed for an Iranian invasion while its regional infrastructure is being systematically struck is fantasy. Compounding this is the seriously degraded state of US strategic sealift capacity, which has suffered decades of underinvestment. The ships needed to transport heavy armor and sustainment cargo simply do not exist in sufficient numbers, and those that do are vulnerable to Iranian anti-ship missiles in the confined waters of the Persian Gulf.

Air power cannot compensate for these limitations. The current aerial campaign, despite causing significant destruction, has not broken Iranian morale or degraded its capacity to launch heavy ballistic missile retaliations. If anything, the surprise attack has unified the Iranian population behind the regime, demonstrating the counterproductive nature of aerial coercion against a nationalist population with deep historical memories of foreign intervention. Meanwhile, Israel is absorbing punishing strikes, undermining narratives of effortless dominance. Nor is air transport any sort of logistical substitute for sealift for an operation of this nature. The quantities required are far, far beyond what the USAF can sustain.

And this is to say nothing of manpower restraints. About 700,000 US troops particpated in Desert Storm. Presumably an even larger invasion force would be required for Iran, given its size, geography and demographics. Does anyone in their right mind imagine anywhere up to a million US soldiers being available for this sort of endevour?

This does not mean the conflict will not escalate. The danger Tucker Carlson identified, a false flag or manufactured incident, remains real precisely because it could justify limited actions short of invasion. What is most likely is some form of limited incursion: a raid on a coastal facility, a seizure of an island in the Gulf, or a special forces operation designed to create the appearance of decisive action. Such an operation would allow President Trump to project strength domestically, to pound his chest before an American audience hungry for demonstrations of power. It would generate headlines and temporary political capital.

But such theatrical gestures would not alter the strategic equation. They would not degrade Iran’s missile capacity, break its will to resist, or secure US interests in the region. They would likely provoke further retaliation, deepen Iranian resolve, and expose the limits of American power rather than its strength. A limited incursion is not an invasion; it is a political performance that leaves the fundamental constraints of geography, technology, and logistics untouched.

The hard reality is that a US ground invasion of Iran is not merely inadvisable, it is militarily impossible under current conditions. The logistics are impossible, drones have changed warfare where Iran has adapted and America has not, and geography ensures that any mechanized advance would be suicidal. Trump and Hegseth can plot all the invasions they want, but even the current obsequious Pentagon, would push back very hard against the suicidal folly of a ground invasion.

The conflict will continue, but its resolution will not come through fantasies of conquest that belong to a bygone era of total American hegemony.

March 12, 2026 Posted by | False Flag Terrorism, Militarism | , , | Comments Off on The Strategic Folly of a (Serious) US Ground Invasion of Iran

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »