Prof. Ted Postol: Iran Already Achieved NUCLEAR DETERRENCE Against Israel
Dialogue Works | April 3, 2026
By Robert Inlakesh | Al Mayadeen | April 5, 2026
At the beginning of the US-Israeli War on Iran, stories were circulated about the United States attempting to use Kurdish militia groups in order to wage a ground offensive against Iran. Yet the strategy never ended up getting off the ground. Understanding the context helps explain what happened
On February 22, just prior to the joint US-Israeli war of aggression against Iran, five Kurdish-Iranian militant factions held a conference declaring a historic unity agreement had been reached. As a result the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan (PDKI), Kurdistan Free Life Party (PJAK), Kurdistan Freedom Party (PAK), Khabat Organization of Iranian Kurdistan, and a branch of the Komala Party of Iranian Kurdistan came together. They declared themselves the Coalition of Political Forces of Iranian Kurdistan (CPFIK), explicitly to fight against the Islamic Republic of Iran.
For long, Tehran had argued that these groups were being backed by the Western and Israeli intelligence agencies. However, journalists also adopting this analysis were often framed as being conspiracy theorists. That was, of course, until a few days into the US-Israeli war on Iran, when it emerged that the Trump administration was openly in talks with them, encouraging an invasion of Iran’s Western borders.
Then came the bombshell report from CNN, whose sources alleged that the CIA had been covertly working to arm these Kurdish-Iranian groups based in Iraq. So, at this stage, and shockingly so, there is no conspiracy to unravel as it has already been exposed.
What would such an invasion look like?
As has become evident, regime change in Iran is not going to be possible through a campaign from the air alone; the natural next step to achieving this was always going to be creating an insurgency inside the country, whilst invading from without also. In the US’s alleged strategic thinking, a Kurdish invasion would ideally work to foster a wider uprising inside the country, thus creating a general environment of chaos and division.
However, bringing about such a predicament was not going to come easy. In January, the Israeli Mossad attempted to foster an armed uprising that would trigger a civil war. Iran managed to put this bloody assault down with overwhelming force in just two or three days, a conflict which cost the lives of 3,117 people, including hundreds of policemen and security force members.
Initially, this uprising sought to use paid agents from criminal groups in the West of Iran and there was some evidence that Kurdish militia groups were used to clash with the Iranian security forces, but this was quickly quelled. In fact, in 2022, when the death of Mahsa Amini triggered nationwide protests, Western intelligence agencies jumped on the opportunity to use Kurdish separatist groups, but failed to achieve their desired objectives.
In Iraq, the US, and later the Israelis, also worked alongside Kurdish forces in order to secure the control of oil resources and successfully created the semi-autonomous Iraqi-Kurdistan region, complete with its own Kurdish government. The same came in north-eastern Syria, where the US helped set up what was known as the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), using them to fight back ISIS and claim control of not only Syria’s oil fields but the most fertile agricultural land in the country.
Unfortunately, Kurdish nationalism has always been promoted by the United States, and before it the British, dating back to the 1920’s, in a way that enables them to use the Kurdish minority populations of the region to do their bidding. Although these Kurdish nationalist groups, who seek to build separatist regions in Iraq, Syria, Iran and Turkiye, proudly believe that their groups are fighting for a noble cause, they almost always end up causing more harm to the Kurdish populations and those around them.
This is not to comment on the historical or moral validity of Kurdish nationalism and their struggle for statehood, instead it is a factual assessment. Take for instance the recently dissolved Kurdish autonomous region project in north eastern Syria, what the US-backed SDF called Rojava. In 2015, the United States armed and funded them to fight against ISIS, promising them a bright future in return for their sacrifices on the battlefield.
Eventually, the Kurdish-led SDF, which ruled over a majority Arab territory, managed to seize the area of Afrin, towards the north-west of Syria. Turkiye, which views almost every Kurdish group as a terrorist organisation and/or threat, decided in 2018 to launch “Operation Olive Branch”, crushing the SDF and seizing that territory for themselves, handing it over to their own proxy forces. What did the US military do to help them? You guessed it, they ran away and deserted their Kurdish allies.
In 2019, Turkiye then launched “Operation Peace Spring”, seizing a strip of north-eastern Syria from the SDF and using their Al-Qaeda linked proxy forces called the “Syrian National Army” (SNA) to hold on to that land. Again, the US deserted their Kurdish allies. Despite this, the SDF crawled right back to their US backers and refused to reach an agreement with the then government of Bashar al-Assad.
When Assad was overthrown in December of 2024, there came a significant threat to many Kurdish-Syrians and more specifically the longevity of the SDF’s rule in north-eastern Syria. Syria’s new ruler, Ahmed al-Sharaa (formerly known as Abu Mohammed al-Jolani while he led Al-Qaeda in Syria), decided to lead an offensive against the SDF to recapture the north-eastern portion of the country and place it under Damascus’s rule.
In January of 2026, after the US again deserted the Kurdish movement at the moment of truth, the SDF’s rule fell, and al-Sharaa took over north-eastern Syria. Why? Well, it’s very obvious: the US had only been using the Kurdish group as a proxy to withhold Syria’s oil and agricultural resources from it, until the government of Bashar al-Assad was toppled. Once regime change was accomplished, al-Sharaa was invited to the White House, and his Al-Qaeda and ISIS history was ignored.
See, the US never cared about the Kurds, nor did the Israelis, because both had covertly, and in some cases overtly, supported al-Qaeda linked groups in Syria also- playing both sides.
Although tragic, history shows us that it is very likely that Kurdish militant groups are used to do the West’s bidding, with promises of securing their own interests that never materialise. Therefore, it was always safe to assume that this would be attempted again. This time, however, the chance they had was extremely slim, and the consequences of such action even threatened the collapse of the Iraqi-Kurdistan project altogether.
The Kurdish groups in Iran cannot likely inspire a general uprising inside the country, this is for a number of reasons. The Kurdish population is considerable, numbering around 10 million of Iran’s 92 million strong population, yet they are not all hellbent on destroying the government, this is simply propaganda, most are normal people living their lives. These hostile Kurdish groups are based primarily in Iraq, in terms of their militant numbers, meaning that their forces inside Iran would have been overwhelmed from the jump.
Then there was the issue of the Iraq-Iran border, which had already been fortified and is where the Iranian military has deployed assets and soldiers to guard against an anticipated assault. But before they even reach the Iranian side, where they would have been greatly outnumbered, they would have to face off against Iraqi groups that are aligned with Iran. In total, these Iraqi groups – under the Popular Mobilisation Units (PMU) – constitute a force of around 250,000 fighters if fully mobilised.
In order for such an assault to succeed in creating an uprising in Iran, or inspire other armed factions from other minority groups in the country – like the Lors, Arabs or others – to begin taking action, they would need to at least see results.
Even if the Kurdish factions were to hypothetically seize some territory, Iran is such a massive country that the temporary loss of towns and villages wouldn’t be such an issue. That’s the best case scenario for these groups, assuming they get past the Iraqis – in addition to the Iranian Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC)’s drones and missiles – first. If anything, such an offensive would have been destined to trigger an enormous backlash against the Kurdish regional project, rather than do it any good.
As for the idea of this leading to Balkanisation, it is not something that appears to be possible in the foreseeable future. This is not to say that Tel Aviv and Washington won’t try. Yet, the Iranian opposition is so incredibly divided – territorially and ideologically – that the ability for groups to work together is also scarce.
Take for example the Iranians who support Israeli puppet Reza Pahlavi. These are hardline Persian Nationalists who believe that they are a superior ethnicity to Kurdish people, Afghans, Arabs and so on. Under the rule of the deposed Shah of Iran, whose son is now worshipped in a cult-like fashion by a small but vocal minority of Iranians [especially in the diaspora], the non-Persian groups inside the country were enormously undermined and discriminated against.
In fact, under the Islamic Republic, the minorities fare much better than they have under the Pahlavi monarchs and those Shahs that came before them. Their conditions are by no means perfect, and there are often complaints that the centre of Iran is prioritised by the government, which is where the majority of ethnic Persians are situated, yet there is simply no comparison between the way they are treated under the current Islamic rule and that of the previous leaderships.
In conclusion, the options for creating a Syria-style civil war in Iran were always much lower than was being claimed by some commentators, or had been presented by pro-war think tanks in Washington. As Iran is under attack, and atrocities are being carried out against civilians on a daily basis, this has worked to make the nation’s people rally behind the flag, rather than embark upon bloody sectarian revolts.
Another key factor to understand here is that the Islamic Republic is clearly holding its own against the world’s top military superpower and the region’s most advanced military. This in itself makes small militant groups more hesitant to take action. Having said this, the US and Israelis appear to be willing to sacrifice all their proxies in a bid to achieve regime change, or at least inflict a significant blow, this time around, so it is never an impossibility that some desperate action may still be ordered at some stage.
Press TV – April 5, 2026
The University of Washington has removed a professor from his role as director of its West Asia Center after he criticized the illegal US-Israeli aggression against Iran and condemned Zionism.
Aria Fani, who will remain an associate professor at UW’s Jackson School of International Studies, said the new interim, Daniel Hoffman, told him last week he was fired from his leadership role at the West Asia Center.
Fani, who was born and raised in Iran and came to the US when he was 18 years old, said he was hired for his research on Iran. However, he told the Times that he now feels “profoundly hurt and betrayed” by his removal.
“There is a chilling effect on not just my academic freedom, but that of my colleagues; anyone who dares to speak out against the war and against aggression,” he said.
In a separate interview on Friday with My Northwest, Fani said he was removed “for improper use” of the center’s listserv, an email application.
“I sent out two memos about this atrocious war on Iran in which I offered historical analysis that’s lacking in the media,” Fani said.
“I was told that my email made ‘certain constituents feel attacked.’ By certain constituents, I assume the university means Zionists who would like to keep bombing every Middle Eastern country and continue dehumanizing their people.”
Last July Fani told the Daily UW, a student newspaper, that President Donald Trump’s militaristic foreign policy is not making the world safer.
“If you tell the dozens of children that were killed in Israeli bombardment… in Iran, or the families of the nuclear scientists who were just wiped out, I hardly imagine they would say that the world is a more peaceful place,” he said amid the first round of US and Israeli airstrikes on Iran.
Since then, many more Iranian children have been killed by US and Israeli bombing, including more than 100 students who were among around 175 people massacred in the February 28 US missile strike on a girls’ school in Minab.
“The [only] peace this secures is for weapons manufacturers, for oil companies, for drone companies,” Fani said in an implicit rebuke of Trump’s claim to be the “president of peace.”
“It secures peace for them, fills their pockets with money, and makes them fully invincible,” he added. “It’s creating a class of people that are living [on] an alternate planet.”
The US and Israel launched an unprovoked aggression against Iran in late February, by attacking 30 targets across Tehran and assassinating the Leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, along with several senior Iranian officials.
Since then, Iranian armed forces have retaliated strongly by launching barrages of missiles and drones at Israeli-occupied territories, as well as US bases across the region.

Al Mayadeen | April 5, 2026
Al Mayadeen Media Network has expressed full and unwavering solidarity with Professor Mohammad Marandi in response to online campaigns openly calling for his assassination.
Professor Mohammad Marandi, a distinguished Iranian academic with global recognition, has been targeted by pro-Israeli accounts on X, including a verified account that posted a $1 million bounty explicitly calling for his assassination.
Despite repeated requests for the post’s removal and the suspension of the account, the platform and its CEO, Elon Musk, have taken no action.
Al Mayadeen characterized the spread of such content on global media platforms as ‘blatant, intelligence-driven terrorism,’ expressing profound outrage and disbelief that US-owned media outlets would permit calls for the extrajudicial killing of academics and scientists.
The network condemned these assassination threats as a manifestation of ‘cowboy-era barbarism,’ underscoring that Professor Marandi wields only his voice and his commitment to independent thought.
Al Mayadeen further highlighted the stark hypocrisy in permitting such threats against a peaceful academic while systematically curtailing the voices of those associated with resistance movements.
Call for global solidarity
Al Mayadeen called on the global academic, scientific, and media communities to publicly support Dr. Marandi and condemn the policies of major digital platforms that tolerate incitement to violence while suppressing legitimate expression.
The network warned that such practices foster a perilous environment in which intimidation and assassination threats can flourish unchecked.
“The threats against Professor Marandi are a stark example of how media platforms enable terror under the guise of free expression, while silencing those who challenge the status quo”, Al Mayadeen stated.
Professor Mohammad Marandi continues to be a leading authority on Iranian and regional affairs, and Al Mayadeen reaffirmed its commitment to safeguarding his right to speak freely, free from threats of violence or state-orchestrated harassment.
Press TV | April 4, 2026
The Trump administration is declaring “false victory” in its war of aggression against the Islamic Republic of Iran while actively dismantling international humanitarian law (IHL), says a legal scholar at Queen’s University Belfast.
In an interview with the Press TV website, Alannah Travers, a PhD student at Queen’s University Belfast School of Law, said the US President Donald Trump’s warning to “bomb Iran back to the Stone Age” reveals a dangerous disregard for legal norms.
She noted the irony that Iran was actually a cradle of innovation during the real Stone Age.
“Listening to President Trump declare a false victory (yet again) while simultaneously threatening to bomb a nation of 90 million people back to the Stone Age made me think of what legal scholars have termed the ‘warification’ of international humanitarian law,” Travers said.
Travers’ PhD is on Algorithmic Warfare and Civilian Harm – working with the Ceasefire Centre for Civilian Rights, an international initiative to develop civilian-led monitoring of violations of international humanitarian law or human rights; to secure accountability and reparation for those violations; and to develop the practice of civilian rights.
She pointed to Trump’s explicit threat to destroy “each and every” electricity-generating plant in Iran as a clear signal that his administration views the Geneva Conventions as optional. Under Article 52 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, civilian objects such as power plants and bridges must be protected.
“By targeting infrastructure essential for meeting the basic needs of tens of millions of Iranian civilians, the administration is moving towards a campaign of collective punishment with the sort of reverberating effects IHL once sought to prevent,” she said.
Travers also condemned the US military’s practice of housing troops in hotels in the Persian Gulf countries, calling it a breach of IHL that effectively uses local civilians as human shields.
Thirty-five days into the unprovoked and illegal war on Iran, Travers said it was difficult to identify any legitimate American war goals.
Instead, she pointed to measurable destruction: over 15,000 strikes, at least 1,900 killed, 20,000 injured, more than 600 schools hit, and 60 hospitals damaged – including the Pasteur Institute, which had been working on global health security.
“Are these, then, the war goals?” she asked. “Rather than neutralizing a threat, the US and Israel have waged war against civilian infrastructure.”
She noted that 2,100 children had been killed or injured by day 23 of the war, an average of 87 per day, including over 170 children at a school in southern Iran’s Minab city.
Travers said the US and Israel have fallen for their own fantasies about superior AI-driven military technology, comparing the miscalculation to the lead-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
“It’s the same racist miscalculation that paved the road for the 2003 invasion of Iraq,” she said. “Most citizens of the region could explain it far better than I, having lived this violent ignorance with their bodies.”
She slammed Washington over institutionalized ignorance bordering on “overt racism and colonial arrogance,” particularly in its surprise that Iran’s retaliation has persisted for 34 days.
Travers referenced an open letter from over 100 legal scholars challenging the US and Israel’s conduct, noting there was no credible evidence of an imminent threat to justify a “self-defense” claim made by officials in Washington and Tel Aviv.
The letter also raised alarms about War Secretary Pete Hegseth’s “gloves off” approach, which has included removing senior military lawyers and weakening IHL compliance.
Travers also highlighted rare public rebukes from Catholic leaders. Pope Leo has condemned the US and Israel, saying God rejects the prayers of leaders whose “hands are full of blood.”
Archbishop Timothy Broglio, head of the US Military Services since 2008, publicly rebuked Hegseth’s theology, telling troops to minimize participation in what he called an unjust war.
“When I met Broglio in January, my impression was he took a far more conservative view,” Travers said. “That he is now so clearly troubled is extremely telling.”
Travers also condemned Israeli military affairs minister Israel Katz’s vow to bring “Gaza-like destruction” to Lebanon, as well as Israel’s refusal to acknowledge its status as an occupying power.
She said that by keeping southern Lebanon in a state of perpetual armed conflict, Israel falsely claims military necessity under Article 53 of the Fourth Geneva Convention to justify forced displacements – a breach of Article 49.
“There is no such thing as a legal buffer zone on sovereign foreign soil,” she said. “These are more war crimes.”
Travers concluded that the lack of accountability in Palestine has directly enabled the current lawlessness across Iran, Lebanon, Iraq, and the Gulf. She called on the international community to move beyond “concerned statements” and take action.
“The Iranian people are navigating their survival in this crazed and lawless war amid their own domestic repression,” she said. “They deserve so much better. We have to stop this senseless war and ensure that those who waged it will face the full consequences of their illegal action.
Al Mayadeen | April 4, 2026
On Saturday, Major General Omar Al-Waeli, head of the Iraqi Border Ports Authority, confirmed the martyrdom of one person and injuries to five others following an attack on the Shalamcheh border crossing with Iran.
Al Mayadeen’s correspondent in Basra reported that movement at the crossing has been completely suspended, adding that US warplanes targeted the Iranian passport hall at the border point.
Since the onset of the US-Israeli war on Iran, American attacks have relentlessly targeted Iraq, including Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) units and centers.
PMF martyr, injruies in US attack earlier today
Earlier today, the PMF reported that its 45th Brigade, part of the Jazira Operations Sector, was attacked at the al-Qaim border crossing. The assault left one PMF member martyred, four others injured, and one Ministry of Defense employee wounded.
In response to the repeated aggression, the Iraqi Cabinet directed the armed forces and the Popular Mobilization Forces to defend themselves and respond to any attacks on their positions.
The cabinet also instructed the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to submit an official complaint to the UN Security Council, condemning the attacks and demanding they be stopped.
Iraqi Resistance calls for action against US-Israeli regional allies
Similarly, the Iraqi Resistance Coordination Committee praised the Iraqi people’s positions in support of the Axis of Resistance, while calling for punitive measures against countries that enable US-Israeli aggressions in the region.
In a statement, the Committee said that “the alignment of the rulers of Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE with the criminality of the Zionist-American enemy against the Islamic Republic and their betrayal of the honorable free people of Iraq represent the height of baseness and vileness.”
It stressed that this “requires a firm deterrent response from the Iraqi government,” adding that such measures should begin with “punishing Jordan in particular, as it serves as a launch point for enemy aircraft targeting the fighters of the Popular Mobilization Forces and Iraqi security forces,” calling for “the complete closure of the land border crossing and the suspension of Iraqi oil grants.”
The Committee also stated that the Iraqi Resistance has avoided harming Kuwait’s economic interests and infrastructure while targeting US forces in the country. It further called for avoiding harm to Qatar’s interests, excluding US bases, “in appreciation of Doha’s responsible positions toward the Palestinian cause and the Axis of Resistance.”
Press TV – April 4, 2026
Iran’s Parliament Speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf says the ongoing aggression is “Israel’s war,” adding that its security repercussions and resulting losses have extended beyond the region and affected the wider world.
“This war is Israel’s war, and the resulting security breakdown and losses have affected the world,” Qalibaf said in an interview with Al Jazeera Arabic.
He added that Iran has prepared for this confrontation and proven its ability to defend itself.
“Iran was forced to target US bases and interests in the region to preserve its presence,” he said, warning that any further escalation against Iran “will be met with a decisive and broad response” directed at US interests.
According to Qalibaf, maintaining stability in the region serves the interests of all regional states, and Iran considers sustainable security a priority.
He added that countries in the region are capable of safeguarding their interests through bilateral and multilateral security arrangements “without foreign interference.”
Qalibaf further said that the key sources of regional instability must be addressed, emphasizing that security should be established “without the involvement of the United States and Israel.”
The US and Israeli regimes launched their military aggression against Iran in late February by attacking 30 targets across Tehran, assassinating Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei and several senior Iranian officials.
Since then, Iranian armed forces have retaliated strongly by launching barrages of missiles and drones at Israeli occupied territories as well as US bases across the region.

Al Mayadeen | April 4, 2026
The Islamic Revolution Guard Corps’ (IRGC) has rejected accusations that it was responsible for an attack on the US Embassy in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, emphasizing instead that it was a false flag operation carried out by the Israeli entity.
In Statement No. 54 of Operation True Promise 4, the IRGC’s Public Relations Department condemned the attack on the embassy, which was reported by The Wall Street Journal, stressing that, recalling the Israeli occupation’s regional strategies, “this action was certainly carried out by Zionists.”
The IRGC confirmed that the Iranian Armed Forces’ target list has been clearly identified, adding that Iran had already informed neighboring countries of the necessary warnings to “prevent further escalation.”
The IRGC also warned that West Asia “must remain vigilant against provocations from the American–Zionist current,” which aims to destabilize and destroy the region.
A series of false flags
Iran has repeatedly stressed that its operations target US-Israeli military assets and affiliated infrastructure in the region and across the occupied territories in Palestine, quickly pointing out false flags and highlighting ongoing enemy attacks that seek to disturb regional harmony.
It has also delineated target lists for its tit-for-tat retaliations for attacks on its civilian infrastructure, including US assets in the region. The US embassy in Riyadh was not among them.
Only yesterday, the IRGC condemned the targeting of water desalination plants in Kuwait, asserting that the Israeli entity “is behind this cowardly act of aggression aimed at sowing discord.” On Monday, a Kuwaiti power and desalination plant was also struck, killing an Indian worker and causing significant material damage.
Kuwaiti authorities were quick to attribute the attack to Iran, but Tehran squarely denied involvement and blamed “Israel,” with the spokesperson for Iran’s Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters describing the incident as “evidence of the enemy’s depravity and malice,” saying it forms part of broader efforts to inflame tensions and undermine regional stability.
Similarly, following a fire at Saudi Aramco’s Ras Tanura refinery in early March, an Iranian military source told Tasnim News Agency that the attack was “an Israeli false flag operation” aimed at distracting regional countries from “Israel’s” strikes on civilian sites inside Iran, stressing that “Aramco facilities have not been among the targets of Iranian attacks so far.”
Al Mayadeen | April 4, 2026
The Iranian Embassy to the United Kingdom has vehemently censured the latest remarks by the Chief of European diplomacy Kaja Kallas, sharply criticizing the double standards of Western countries regarding the unprovoked US-Israeli war against the Islamic Republic.
The diplomatic mission in a post on X wrote: “‘International law’? That’s rich. What does it say about US & Israeli regimes military aggression against sovereign states and assassinating their leaders? About the Minab school attack that killed 170 students?”
“Or attacks on civilian infrastructure, pharma factories, desalination plants?” the post added.
Taking a swipe at the EU’s top diplomat, the embassy said it is ridiculous that “international law” only seems to matter when it fits “your narrative.”
“You never hold aggressors accountable, only the victims,” the Iranian embassy added.
Kallas invokes law over Hormuz
On Thursday, Kallas thanked British Secretary of Foreign Affairs Yvette Cooper for convening a call of more than 40 countries on the closure of the Strait of Hormuz.
“This waterway is a global public good. Iran cannot be allowed to charge countries a bounty to let ships pass. International law doesn’t recognize pay-to-pass schemes,” she asserted in a post on X.
She further claimed that the EU’s Aspides naval mission has already assisted 1,700 ships in the Red Sea and must be scaled up. “We cannot afford to lose another critical trade route,” Kallas commented.
UK double standards
Weeks ago, Iran’s Foreign Minister, Abbas Araghchi had warned the United Kingdom that permitting the United States to use British military bases amounts to “participation in aggression.”
In a phone call with Yvette Cooper, Araghchi criticized Britain’s “negative and biased approach” toward ongoing US-Israeli military actions against Iran. He also condemned London’s decision to grant the US access to key military installations for operations targeting Iranian missile sites.
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer had authorized the use of RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire and the Diego Garcia base in the Indian Ocean for what British officials framed as “defensive” strikes against Iranian positions.
In a statement posted in Farsi on Telegram, Araghchi said he had conveyed to Cooper that such actions “will definitely be considered as participation in aggression and will be recorded in the history of relations between the two countries,” adding that Iran “reserves its inherent right to defend the country’s sovereignty and independence.”
Xinhua | April 4, 2026
A poll conducted by Gallup found that China surpassed the United States in global approval ratings in 2025, with a median of 36 percent approving of China’s leadership, compared with 31 percent for the United States.
Gallup’s report published Friday said China’s five-percentage-point advantage over the United States is the widest it has recorded in China’s favor in nearly 20 years.
The recent shift reflects a decline in US ratings alongside an increase for China. Median approval of US leadership fell from 39 percent in 2024 to 31 percent in 2025, returning to earlier lows, while China’s approval rose from 32 percent to 36 percent, according to the report.
The latest results are based on Gallup surveys conducted in 2025 in more than 130 countries, with around 1,000 respondents in each country. They do not account for recent U.S. foreign policy moves since the beginning of 2026, including its attack on Iran and its withdrawal from 66 international organizations.
Approval of US leadership has declined across many US allied nations, including many NATO partners, and sunk the most in Germany by 39 percentage points.
Daniel Davis / Deep Dive – April 3, 2026
By Eman Abusidu | MEMO | April 3, 2026
A Bahia state lawmaker has formally urged President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva to bar Israeli military personnel from entering Brazil, following a series of controversial incidents involving Israeli tourists in Bahia. The measure argues that individuals who took part in military operations in Gaza and Lebanon could be held accountable for acts described in the document as genocide.
The proposal, submitted by state representative Hilton Coelho of the Socialism and Liberty Party (Psol), calls on the federal government to adopt measures preventing individuals linked to alleged human rights violations from using Brazil as a tourist destination or refuge. The document characterises such acts as potential genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.
Coelho grounds the request in Brazil’s Federal Constitution, which prioritises human rights, peace, and the rejection of violence in international relations, as well as the Migration Law (No. 13.445/2017), which permits authorities to deny entry to foreigners suspected of serious violations.
The proposal outlines operational measures, including monitoring arrivals through the Federal Police to identify individuals who participated in military operations, immediate denial of entry where applicable, and international coordination to restrict cross-border movement of those under suspicion.
The initiative comes amid increasing controversy in Bahia, particularly in coastal destinations such as Itacaré and Morro de São Paulo, which have become popular among Israeli tourists, many of whom travel after completing mandatory military service. Local businesses have adapted to this demand, offering Hebrew-language services and tailored hospitality, making the segment economically relevant.
However, tensions have escalated. On 14th March, three Israelis were arrested during a protest in Itacaré against the presence of Israeli tourists. Footage from the scene showed clashes between demonstrators and police intervention. Authorities reported simultaneous opposing demonstrations, reflecting a divide within the local population.
Residents have also reported incidents involving alleged racism, aggression, and public disturbances attributed to some visitors. In parallel, there have been legal complaints filed in Brazil against Israeli individuals over alleged actions during the war in Gaza, with reports indicating that some left the country before investigations could advance.
Congressman Coelho argues that allowing entry to individuals linked to such allegations risks normalising human rights violations and contradicts Brazil’s foreign policy principles.
He is calling for coordinated action by the Ministries of Justice and Foreign Affairs to enforce stricter entry controls.
The proposal will undergo review within Bahia’s Legislative Assembly before being forwarded to the federal government. The administration of President Lula has not yet issued an official response.
Critics of the proposal contend that the measure could be viewed as discriminatory and may create legal and diplomatic challenges for Brazil.
Simultaneously, several lawmakers and members of the Brazilian parliament, particularly from left-wing parties, have withdrawn their signatures from a bill seeking to define “antisemitism” in Brazil, in a significant political reversal that came only days after the proposal was introduced.
The withdrawals followed Palestinian criticism and warnings that the bill could be used to curb criticism of Israeli occupation policies.
According to documents, Bill No. 1424/2026 was submitted to the Brazilian Congress on 26th March 2026, by lawmaker Tabata Amaral and others under the title: “Definition of Antisemitism for the Purpose of Guiding National Public Policies.”
The bill defines antisemitism as “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward them.” It also states that manifestations of antisemitism “may target the State of Israel as a collectivity representative of the Jewish people,” while adding that “criticism of Israel similar to that directed against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.”
The proposal further links antisemitism to the crime of racism under Brazilian law and recommends using a list of examples issued by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, or IHRA, as guidance in interpreting the concept.
But the bill, which initially appeared to enjoy support from lawmakers across different party lines, quickly faced pushback inside Congress.
According to procedural texts, the withdrawal requests used direct language, including: “Requests the withdrawal of the signature from Bill No. 1424/2026, which defines antisemitism for the purpose of guiding national public policies.” One request stated: “I request the removal of my signature from Bill 1424/2026.”
The deputy Heloiza Helena said her name had been included among the signatories without her authorisation, describing the move as unacceptable. She also pointed to the sensitivity of the issue for Palestinians amid what she described as daily attacks, including the killing of children and the destruction of hospitals and schools.
While the deputy Ana Paula Lima said she removed her signature after a deeper assessment of the proposal, in order to avoid any possible restrictions on what she called “legitimate political debate.”