No Compromise on Iran and Venezuela

U.S. President Donald Trump has repeatedly stressed the need for both Russia and Ukraine to make difficult but reasonable compromises if progress is to be made toward peace. He has expressed hope that Russian President Vladimir Putin “will be good” and that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky will “show flexibility as well.”

But Trump has shown no such sign of flexibility or compromise when it comes to his conflicts with Iran and Venezuela. Rather than engage in give and take and nuanced steps towards compromise, Trump has thrust maximalist demands on his interlocuters that are backed by military threats.

Somewhat ironically and hypocritically, this is the negotiating tactic associated with Russia that Trump is critical of and hoping to change. Mark Galeotti recently wrote of the “Russian negotiating style going back to Soviet days. Rather than a mutual dance of small concessions, inching towards agreement, the Kremlin tends to maintain ludicrous, even insultingly excessive demands until the last minute.”

But, despite Iran showing willingness to compromise, the U.S. has shown none. Iran has reportedly expressed willingness to discuss two versions of compromise on its civilian nuclear program. Iran’s foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, has said that “there were several ideas for a win-win solution.” One would see Iran export or convert its highly enriched uranium and limit future enrichment to 3.67% while agreeing to maximum transparency and inspections in cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Another would see Iran fold its nuclear program into an international consortium that would allow Iran to enrich uranium but deny it access to the full enrichment process by distributing various roles in the process across different member states, who would likely include Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. The various member states could assist the IAEA by keeping a watchful eye on each other.

The United States, though, has neither accepted either of these compromises nor taken them as the starting point for further negotiations. Instead, they have stuck to their maximalist demand that Iran entirely give up its civilian enrichment program: a program that Iran has a legal right to as a signatory to the nuclear nonproliferation treaty.

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei has recently despaired of negotiating with the U.S. in this manner, complaining that “They want Iran, with its great history, and its people, with all their honor and glory, to obey the US.” Negotiations are not possible when one side demands the other “submit to their commands” rather than work toward a compromise agreement: “Those who argue, ‘Why don’t you hold direct negotiations with America and resolve your issues?’ – in my opinion, they too are only seeing what’s on the surface. That is not the essence of the matter. This is not a matter that can be resolved.”

Despite Iran’s compromises and America’s intransigence, it is Iran that is being punished. A recent meeting between Iran and France, the UK and Germany “ended without a final outcome” on how to avoid snapback sanctions that would mean a return to wide-ranging U.N. sanctions on Iran. The return to sanctions would be the result of the U.S. and its junior partners in Europe deeming that Iran has returned to noncompliance with the 2015 nuclear agreement, even though Iran is legally allowed to leave the agreement since the U.S. left it, and broke it, first.

The U.S. is being equally unwilling to compromise with Venezuela; though it is less clear what Venezuela needs to do to compromise short of accepting the regime change the U.S. has long sought.

At the beginning of August, Trump signed a directive to use military force, instead of law enforcement, to fight drug cartels in Latin America. That directive allows the possibility of military operations in Venezuelan waters and on Venezuelan soil. According to one U.S. official, the American naval assets can be used “as a launching pad for targeted strikes if a decision is made.”

Trump has designated several drug cartels, including Venezuela’s Cartel de los Soles, as foreign terrorist organizations. The U.S. State Department says they constitute “a national-security threat beyond that posed by traditional organized crime.” Secretary of State Marco Rubio says that this allows the U.S. “to use other elements of American power, intelligence agencies, the Department of Defense, whatever, to target these groups.” This means the U.S. can take military action against Venezuela.

Furthermore, the Trump administration asserts that Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro is the head of the Cartel de los Soles and has offered a $50 million reward for information leading to his arrest. Despite the charge against Maduro having been discredited, the designations place Venezuela and its president in the crosshairs of the U.S. military.

Keep reading

Milley crafted Biden Admin’s fiction that Afghanistan fell in just ‘eleven days’

Among the litany of mistakes and falsehoods pushed by U.S. military commanders and President Biden in 2021 was the fiction that Afghanistan fell in only “eleven days” in mid-August 2021. In reality, the Taliban takeover unfolded over multiple months following then-President Joe Biden’s disastrous withdrawal “Go-to-Zero” order on April 14, 2021. The architect responsible for that house of cards was then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mark Milley. 

Many in the Biden Administration — President Biden himself, then-Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, then-Secretary of State Antony Blinken, and others — joined Milley in pushing the “eleven days” claim, although General Austin “Scottie” Miller, the final commander of NATO’s Resolute Support mission in Afghanistan, was among those who later admitted that Afghanistan had not collapsed in just eleven days, but rather over months.

Just the News previously laid out how Milley also wrongly dismissed the comparison between the fall of Saigon and the impending fall of Kabul, massively inflated the size of the Afghan military and police by falsely claiming that they numbered 325,000 to 350,000 strong, and demonstrated he was not tracking the reality on the ground when he underestimated the speed and scope of Taliban district control in the summer of 2021.

Milley then ran cover for the Biden Administration once the situation went sideways by misleading about how quickly the collapse of Afghanistan had occurred. Biden pardoned him on his last full day in office in January 2025.

Milley did not respond to requests for comment sent to him through Princeton University, where he was named a visiting professor last year, and through JPMorgan Chase, where he has been a senior adviser since 2024, nor to Just the News‘ previous reporting.

Keep reading

In defiance of voter base, DNC rejects resolution calling for Israel arms embargo

On Tuesday, Democratic National Committee (DNC) members at the party’s summer meetings rejected Resolution 18, which called for the recognition of a Palestinian state, a ceasefire in Gaza, an arms embargo, and a suspension of military aid to Israel.

Instead, members backed a status quo resolution introduced by DNC Chair Ken Martin, which simply called for more aid to be allowed into Gaza and a two-state solution. Despite the support, Martin went on to withdraw the resolution.

“I know that there are some who are interested in making changes today, but as we’ve seen, there’s divide in our party on this issue,” said Martin. “This is a moment that calls for shared dialog. It calls for shared advocacy, and that’s why I’ve decided today, at this moment, listening to the testimony and listening to people in our party, to withdraw my amendment and resolution.”

Martin says he will establish a task force “comprised of stakeholders on all sides of this” so that they can “bring solutions back to our party.”

Resolution 18 had faced opposition from lobby groups like Democratic Majority for Israel (DMFI).

“Should it advance, it will further divide our Party, provide a gift to Republicans, and send a signal that will embolden Israel’s adversaries,” claimed DMFI president and CEO Brian Romick. “As we get closer to the midterms, Democrats need to be united, not continuing intra-party fights that don’t get us closer to taking back Congress.”

Polling has consistently shown that Democratic voters are, in fact, united on Israel. A majority of them oppose the genocide in Gaza and want the Israeli government held accountable for its actions in the region.

This month, YouGov and The Economist published a poll showing that 69% of Democrats believe Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. That includes 77% of Kamala Harris voters.

According to a June Quinnipiac survey, 12% of Democratic voters sympathize more with Israelis than Palestinians, while a July Gallup poll found that just 8% of Democratic voters support Israel’s military actions in Gaza and only 9% support Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

An April poll from Data for Progress and Zeteo showed that 71% of likely Democratic primary voters think the United States should end arms transfers to Israel until it stops its attacks on civilians and supports the rights of the Palestinians.

80% of likely Democratic primary voters under the age of 45 believe that military assistance to Israel should be restricted.

Keep reading

Iranians leak personal photos of former prime minister Ehud Barak

Iranian online accounts have leaked personal photos and documents of former prime minister Ehud Barak, Friday reports said.

The photos show Barak posing in a bathroom with a glass of red wine and visiting tourist attractions at an unspecified location.

The leaks, which were posted on social media by Iranian users in recent days, also included an image of Barak’s passport and identity card.

Iranian online accounts have leaked personal photos and documents of former prime minister Ehud Barak, Friday reports said.

The photos show Barak posing in a bathroom with a glass of red wine and visiting tourist attractions at an unspecified location.

The leaks, which were posted on social media by Iranian users in recent days, also included an image of Barak’s passport and identity card.

It was not immediately clear who was behind the leak or where the photos were obtained.

The leaks appeared to date from Barak’s tenure as defense minister from 2007 to 2013.

One of the photos included a timestamp from July 2011, and other photos were marked from July 2009, while Barak was on vacation in Europe with his family.

Keep reading

Israeli Drones Attack Metro Damascus, Killing at Least Eight Syrian Soldiers

Military tensions between Israel and Syria continue to grow precipitously, with a new flurry of Israeli drone strikes against the Kiswah, a suburb of the capital city of Damascus. The strikes killed at least eight Syrian soldiers and wounded others.

The attack, according to Syrian state media, targeted buildings belonging to the Syrian Army, and killed members of the 44th Division. The IDF has not commented about why they attacked Syria, which will doubtless further complicate ongoing security talks between the two nations.

Syria’s Foreign Ministry condemned today’s strikes as a “grave violation of international law” and a threat to Syrian sovereignty. It is just the latest violation in the area, as Israel also invaded the village of Beit Jinn just down the road earlier this week, capturing a number of Syrian civilians.

Though they never really offered a pretext for why they invaded Beit Jinn, Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz issued a statement thereafter declaring Israel intends to remain in the occupied territory within that area to defend the settlements inside the occupied Golan Heights.

The current Hayat Tahrir al-Sham-led government of Syria took power in December, and Israel invaded southwestern Syria almost immediately thereafter, seizing an ever-increasing amount of territory. Israel has at least nine military posts they’ve established in Syrian territory since then, and have imposed a full ban on the Syrian military being in any of the governorates south of Damascus.

Keep reading

How Western Media Helped Turn Israel’s Genocide Into ‘Fake News’

Israel’s justification for the mass slaughter of Gaza’s people and their starvation – now officially confirmed as a famine engineered by Israel – was built on a parade of easily discredited lies from the start: of beheaded infants, of babies in ovens, of mass rape.

It should surprise no one that Israel continued advancing similarly outrageous lies as it set about – as all genocidal regimes must do – dismantling the most basic infrastructure of survival for Gaza’s population.

It cut off humanitarian aid delivered by the United Nations agency Unrwa, and destroyed the enclave’s hospitals, while killing, jailing and torturing its medical personnel.

Israel claimed it had documents proving the UN was a front for Hamas – documents it never produced. Meanwhile, all 36 of Gaza’s hospitals have been attacked – attacks whose implicit rationale was that they were built atop Hamas “command and control centres”, though those centres have never been found.

Expanding this narrative, Israel rounded up and jailed the enclave’s leading doctors, who had been working round the clock to treat the endless tide of maimed men, women and children, as supposed “Hamas operatives” in disguise.

Also as any genocidal regime must do – especially one that wishes to uphold the pretence that it is a democracy with the world’s “most moral army” – Israel laboured tirelessly to cast a pall of darkness over its atrocities.

It blocked western journalists from accessing Gaza, and then picked off Palestinian journalists in the enclave one by one, until more than 200 had been assassinated, 11 in the past couple of weeks alone, including contributors to Middle East Eye and Al Jazeera. Others have been forced to flee to safety abroad.

The western press corps, which barely raised a peep about its exclusion for most of the past 22 months of genocide, collectively shrugged its shoulders as its colleagues in Gaza were slowly exterminated. Nothing to see here.

That was until this month, when Israel celebrated an air strike that killed six Palestinian journalists, including the entire five-person team covering Gaza City for Al Jazeera.

The strike’s timing was extremely fortuitous. Israel is calling up 60,000 troops for a last push into the remains of Gaza City, where around one million Palestinians – half of them children – are holed up, being starved to death.

Those civilians will either be killed or rounded up into a concentration camp Israel is calling a “humanitarian city”, close to the border with Egypt. There, they will await their ultimate expulsion – possibly to South Sudan, a failed state where Israel provided the arms that fuelled civil war and violence.

Keep reading

When the Russia ‘Experts’ Get It Wrong

The Western punditariat’s commentary on Russia is spectacularly ill-informed. This should be expected from mainstream journalists whose employment relies on the very ignorance they so readily espouse, but there is no excuse for those who promote themselves as “experts” and use this alleged expertise to help craft Western policy towards Russia.

A case in point is Michael McFaul, the Stanford Professor whose claim to fame is serving as Obama’s ambassador to Moscow. In a recent post on his Twitter account, McFaul linked to a Foreign Affairs article he penned in December of last year, outlining how he believed the incoming Trump administration could end the war in Ukraine. As is no surprise, the ambassador and NATO enthusiast recommended the suicidal strategy of admitting Ukraine into the alliance. Yet this is far from the most egregious misstep McFaul made in this piece, as he committed several factual errors that are inexcusable for someone of his experience and purported expertise.

It has become an article of faith in the West that Ukraine made a catastrophic folly in the mid-1990s by surrendering its nuclear weapons stockpile in exchange for security guarantees in the form of the Budapest Memorandum. McFaul repeats this conventional wisdom, stating that “the United States offered Ukraine security assurances in exchange for Kyiv’s handing over its nuclear arsenal to Moscow.”

There is, however, just one problem with this piece of commentary: it isn’t true. Kiev couldn’t hand over its nuclear arsenal to Moscow because it didn’t have a nuclear arsenal to begin with. Ukraine’s much-vaunted nuclear deterrent was, in actual fact, Soviet nuclear weapons that happened to be stationed on Ukrainian soil. Even post-independence, Moscow retained full control of these systems. Ukraine’s nuclear arsenal, then, was as much Ukrainian as American nuclear systems stationed throughout Europe are European. All debates about whether Kiev could have deterred the Russian invasion had it not signed the Budapest Memorandum are, therefore, redundant. As someone who’s bragged about making close to a million dollars a year for his supposed insights on Russia, McFaul should know better than to entertain these debates.

In fairness to McFaul, he did at least get one thing right when he said Washington offered Ukraine security assurances. Often used synonymously with guarantees, the word assurances was very carefully and deliberately selected language by Washington to ensure they would not be legally-bound to come to Ukraine’s defense, as the then-U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Steven Pifer has explained:

“American officials decided the assurances would have to be packaged in a document that was not legally-binding. Neither the Bush nor Clinton administrations wanted a legal treaty that would have to be submitted to the Senate for advice and consent to ratification. State Department lawyers thus took careful interest in the actual language, in order to keep the commitments of a political nature. U.S. officials also continually used the term “assurances” instead of “guarantees,” as the latter implied a deeper, even legally-binding commitment of the kind that the United States extended to its NATO allies”

So, when former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Wesley Clark said on a recent appearance on Piers Morgan Uncensored that the U.S. is essentially “giving up” on the Budapest Memorandum by failing to come to Ukraine’s aid, he is demonstrating quite a fundamental ignorance of the nature of the agreement. Clark additionally fails to mention that Washington had made their desire to “give up” on the Budapest Memorandum very clear long before the 2022 invasion. A key component of the memorandum is for the signatories of Russia, the U.S., and U.K. to refrain from exercising “economic coercion” against Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan (the latter two also had Soviet nuclear weapons that they agreed to transfer, and signed their own separate versions of the memorandum to do so).

As early as 2006, the United States and its British partners acted in complete defiance of this commitment, sanctioning the government of Belarus. Washington placed further sanctions on Minsk in 2013, justifying this on the grounds that their pledges in the Budapest Memorandum were “not legally binding.” Feeling liberated from any legal constraints, Washington also imposed sanctions against the government of Viktor Yanukovych in Ukraine, which complemented their blatant interference in the country’s internal affairs during the Maidan revolution. Such a move was a clear violation of  the Budapest pledge to respect Ukraine’s “independence and sovereignty.”

Clark may profit from studying this and much else of the post-Soviet record. In addition to peddling mainstream dogma about the Budapest Memorandum, the general also repeated the Western media favourite that Putin wants to reconstitute the borders of the Soviet Union. As he put it, “From the time Vladimir Putin became prime minister and later president, he wanted to restore the Soviet Union’s space and territory.”

Keep reading

The US Is Unprepared for the Next War

Earlier this year, speaking at a press conference in Qatar, President Donald Trump categorically declared that “nobody can beat us.” He continued, “We have the strongest military in the world, by far. Not China, not Russia, not anybody!”

We do have a strong military, but we are woefully unprepared to fight a modern war. That’s because, despite all of the major technological advances in warfighting in recent years, manpower is still absolutely critical, and understanding how those boots on the ground interact with emerging drone warfare is still in its infancy in the U.S. military.

Ground warfare has evolved over the past three and a half years since Russia invaded Ukraine. I’ve spent considerable time studying this conflict from strategic, operational and tactical angles, and I’ve conducted multiple interviews with combatants on both the Russian and Ukrainian sides. The picture that emerges explains not only why Russia’s progress is slow and Ukraine is gradually losing ground, but also why the U.S. would face serious challenges if forced into a similar fight today.

Some have argued that Russia has failed to completely conquer Ukraine because Russian generals and soldiers are of poor quality. That conclusion ignores the genuinely game-changing nature of drones on the conduct of land warfare.

There isn’t one category or type of drone that is game-changing by itself, but rather the categories of drones and the ways they can be employed in concert with other drones and legacy platforms and soldiers. There are primarily four main classes of drones: first-person view (FPV) drones that fly explosive charges directly into vehicles or soldiers, bomber drones that fly over a target and release bombs, missile-carrying drones, and reconnaissance drones.

Despite endless talk about game-changing weapons, only the widespread deployment of drones has truly altered the nature of this war. Armored vehicles remain essential for transporting infantry to the front, but they can’t move in large numbers without suffering catastrophic losses. Traditional armored charges – such as the type I participated in during Desert Storm’s Battle of 73 Easting – are deadly in today’s battlefield conditions. Russia has increasingly turned to motorcycles to improve frontline mobility – not because they offer protection, but because their speed and maneuverability improve their chances of defeating drone attacks. No armored vehicle can dodge an FPV or fiber optic-guided drone, but a motorcycle might.

Keep reading

World’s Largest Sovereign Wealth Fund Divests From Caterpillar Over IDF Rights Abuses

In the latest demonstration of growing Western opposition to Israel’s devastating campaign in Gaza, the world’s largest sovereign wealth fund on Monday announced it is divesting from Caterpillar, over concerns that the Israel Defense Forces are using Caterpillar bulldozers to violate human rights. Norway’s $2 trillion wealth fund — which springs from the country’s oil wealth — held a 1.17% stake in the Texas-headquartered company, valued at $2.1 billion as of June 30. 

While Caterpillar’s products are classified as “construction” equipment, the IDF regularly uses massive, armored Caterpillar D-9 bulldozers to destroy homes and other civilian infrastructure — not only in Gaza, but the occupied West Bank as well.

Sovereign wealth funds are rare among the world’s democracies. In Norway, divestment decisions are largely driven by the recommendations of an independent ethics council established by the Finance Ministry. After evaluating Caterpillar, the Council on Ethics reported: 

“There is an unacceptable risk that Caterpillar is contributing to serious violation of the rights of individuals in situations of war or conflict… Bulldozers manufactured by Caterpillar are being used by Israeli authorities in the widespread unlawful destruction of Palestinian property...There is no doubt that Caterpillar’s products are being used to commit extensive and systematic violations of international humanitarian law. The company has also not implemented any measures to prevent such use.”

Keep reading

John Bolton cashed in and America paid the price

I went to prison for defending the Constitutional separation of powers.

John Bolton (an occasional contributor to The Hill) may well wind up in prison, too if investigators uncover evidence and prosecutors decide to bring charges over his alleged classified disclosures. 

When Bolton wrote his book, “The Room Where It Happened” — reportedly receiving a $2 million advance — he wasn’t just dishing gossip. He was sharing information about Oval Office conversations and national security that should have stayed secret — either by law or under executive privilege.

A federal judge already spelled this out in black and white. In June 2020, Judge Royce Lamberth warned that Bolton had “likely jeopardized national security by disclosing classified information in violation of his nondisclosure agreement obligations.” The judge only allowed the book to hit shelves because “the horse is already out of the barn,” given the publication of excerpts and the shipment of 200,000 copies of the book.

Lamberth went further in his ruling, stressing that Bolton had “gambled with the national security of the United States” and that the government was “likely to succeed on the merits” of proving he unlawfully disclosed classified material. Translation: Bolton didn’t just break trust — he may have also broken the law. 

I served with Bolton, and he was far too frequently a loose cannon, bent on bombings and coups— Doctor Strangelove with a mustache. He agitated for airstrikes, pushed regime-change fantasies, and obsessed over military solutions when diplomacy was working. Then, instead of honoring executive privilege and confidential debate, Bolton acknowledged that in writing his memoir he relied on the “copious notes” he had conspicuously taken inside the White House. 

That isn’t service. That isn’t patriotism. That’s profiteering off of America’s secrets. 

Keep reading