Tag: perpetual war

Why So Many Countries Around the World Quietly Root for Iran

I have been stunned by the number of officials from a wide variety of countries who, while hardly favoring Iran or feeling much empathy for the Islamic Republic, have privately expressed to me a huge sigh of relief over Tehran’s success in thwarting US-Israeli aggression.

Given that many of these officials represent countries squarely in the US camp and have deep problems with the Islamic Republic, this “tacit rooting” for Iran tells us something about the state of global affairs.

There is relief that aggression and violations of international law did not pay off for the US and Israel in Iran, just as they didn’t for Russia in Ukraine. Venezuela was, in the eyes of many, a terrifying case. Regardless of one’s views of Maduro, the idea that a superpower could surgically kidnap the head of state of another country, install its favored ruler – who must now get her social media posts approved by the US Secretary of State – and gleefully announce that Venezuela is now American territory was petrifying to a lot of countries. So was the fact that European leaders praised the regime-change operation while dismissing concerns about its legality.

Europe, which had by and large stood against the George W. Bush administration’s illegal invasion of Iraq, was now enthusiastically onboard with regime change in Venezuela, all while insisting on the sanctity of international law in Ukraine and Greenland. That lack of resistance made the cost of a US neocolonial rampage all the more manageable. And given Donald Trump’s proclivities, both friends and foes of the United States feared they could be next.

The remarkable military success in Venezuela was one reason Trump became so gung-ho about war with Iran. If Venezuela took a few hours, he believed Iran would take four days at most. He promised skeptical regional leaders that the whole ordeal would “take no longer than 100 hours,” according to an Arab official.

Six months later, he is stuck in a losing war with no end in sight. And officials around the world feel relieved because Iran’s successful resistance has effectively prevented Trump from moving on to his next targets.

As one official from a traditional American ally told me: “Had it not been for the resilience of the Iranians, Trump would likely have attacked Cuba by now and perhaps even annexed Greenland.”

Keep reading

Beyond the Ukraine War, NATO and Europe Are Still Dependent on the US

The Ukraine war has underscored NATO and Europe’s continued reliance on the United States for defense. Ukraine’s air defense is running short of Patriot interceptors, and Europe has not been able to close the gap on its own. President Volodymyr Zelensky told reporters that Ukraine has only about a tenth of the interceptors it needs from the United States.

The Chatham House reports that the Ukraine Contact Group of European states pledged $4 billion for Ukrainian air defense in June 2026, including more than $1 billion earmarked for Patriots, but notes that it remains doubtful the United States will supply the missiles. Europe does not build the Patriot system itself, and Ukrainian-made Patriots are not a near-term solution. Analysts cited by Chatham House estimate it would take 18 to 24 months just to establish a pilot production line domestically.

European governments have responded by purchasing American-made systems for Ukraine rather than replacing them with European production. Germany pledged more than $2 billion in military aid, including Patriot interceptors, while Estonia, Finland, Lithuania, and Sweden joined the fast-track purchasing program. However, the arrangement still relies on American manufacturing capacity rather than an independent European supply.

Four years into the war, Europe has not built the domestic capacity to cover its own air defense needs, let alone Ukraine’s, leaving Kyiv’s interceptor stocks dependent on U.S.-made weapons.

Beneath the missile shortfall sits a deeper dependency: NATO lacks sufficient independent capacity in satellite intelligence and reconnaissance, strategic airlift, air-to-air refueling, command-and-control infrastructure, and nuclear deterrence, relying heavily on the United States for all five. The NATO Intelligence Fusion Centre, based at RAF Molesworth in the UK, brings together NATO and partner-nation analysts to produce shared intelligence assessments on military threats and terrorism for the alliance as a whole.

Though housed in Britain, the Fusion Centre was established with the United States as the “framework nation,” meaning American intelligence architecture and staffing underpin an institution that operates as a multinational NATO body. The Supreme Allied Commander Europe, who oversees NATO’s intelligence and surveillance forces, has by convention always been an American general.

A Kiel Institute report, produced with Bruegel, states that Europe depends heavily on the US not only for deployable troops but also for ‘strategic enablers,’ pointing to continued reliance on American systems for critical modern military capabilities even as European defense budgets have surged. Sven Biscop of the Egmont Royal Institute told Defense News that Europe is “almost completely dependent” on U.S. intelligence for satellite capability and everything that goes with it, adding that closing the gap will take time. The United States operated 246 military satellites as of 2023, compared with 49 for all of European NATO combined, led by France with 15, according to the same reporting.

Keep reading

Putin Says Kiev ‘Opened Pandora’s Box’ by Striking Russian ‌Economic Targets – Moscow To Hit Back At Ukraine’s ‘Most Sensitive Economic Sectors’ 

Kiev is starting to see shortages of a wide variety of produce in grocery stores and markets.

Early in the summer, Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky announced a ‘40-day campaign of deep strikes in Russia’ to pressure Russians to end the war.

Like in the 2023 failed counteroffensive or the disastrous 2024 Kursk incursion, Globalist shills and the MSM were ready to claim that Ukraine was ‘now turning the tide’, had a ‘decisive upper hand’, and was even ‘winning the war’.

But what really happened was that Russian forces increased attacks on all of Ukraine, with combined missile/drone packages primarily targeting Kiev.

We saw massive strikes on July 19 and 29, and August 1, 5, 8 and 20.

And now, besides the power generating and transmission on the brink, food shortage is another threat to the population.

Responsible Statecraft reported:

“The [Ukrainian] drone attacks have elicited the most severe Russian retaliation yet. Moscow has markedly stepped up its strikes on Ukraine, including one of the largest ballistic missile attacks of the entire war [August 20], at the precise time the United States and Europe are running low on interceptors to defend it. With Russia now attacking Ukraine’s port facilities and commercial vessels in the Black Sea, the country is being starved of billions of dollars of revenue, and its GDP could drop by as much as 1.5%.”

Some outlets estimate the drop at 2% of GDP.

“In other words, the ultimately unsuccessful Ukrainian drone assault is something we have now seen over and over again: Kiev embarks on an audacious, headline-grabbing military gambit; Western media and officials seize on it to claim the tide is turning; and then when the smoke clears, it turns out nothing has been achieved but an escalation of the war. Ukraine winds up battered even worse, and with less favorable negotiating terms on the table.

Aa It’s a consistent pattern: a combination of wishful thinking and misinformation does just enough to keep the idea of a military victory alive, undermining the chance for painful but necessary negotiations, and ultimately rebounding in ever worsening ways on Ukraine and its people. The major human, economic, and social costs for Ukraine of continuing war, meanwhile, remain invisible to much of the Western public, which is instead fed a recurring diet of headlines and rhetoric assuring it that victory is close at hand.”

Now, as the upcoming winter promises to be the most severe for the population, there’s another nightmare scenario: empty shelves.

Keep reading

U.S. Ambassador Barrack: Israel Bombed Syria During Election Cycle — Without Warning Turkey, Despite Intelligence Clearance

U.S. Ambassador to Türkiye Tom Barrack stated that the Israeli strikes on Syrian airfields had been conducted without the knowledge or consent of the Turkish government. Ambassador Barrack revealed that, via their respective intelligence services, the Syrian government and the Israeli Mossad had ascertained prior to the strikes that there were no Turkish military assets in the area.

Barrack laid out the diplomatic efforts the U.S. took to facilitate peaceful Israeli monitoring of Syrian activities — efforts that ultimately fell apart.

“Israel had told us for a preceding five days they were concerned about what was going on,” Barrack stated. “We went to our intelligence agencies. Syria talked to Mossad, gave them the information that there were no Turkish military, there were no Turkish convoys, there were no Turkish armaments, and that there was nothing adversarial or offensive going on. That was on Friday. They were supposed to meet again the next week.”

Despite that, Israel struck — without warning Ankara.

“Something went wrong,” Ambassador Barrack continued. “And they decided in the last minute to bomb the craters on the two runways. The problem was that the Turkish side was not notified.”

Keep reading

$40tn debt: U.S. unhinged empire is a threat to world peace

The United States hit a dubious milestone this week, announcing that its national debt had exceeded $40 trillion. No other nation comes close to this level of absolute financial indebtedness.

This is not simply a matter of out-of-control financial bankruptcy. It is an ominous sign of an unhinged empire that is desperately trying to salvage its historic failure by scorched-earth tactics of endless war.

The world is being held hostage by a pathological system that is no longer tolerable for the sake of humanity, development and peace.

Perhaps of more significance than the total figure – astronomical though that is – is the accelerating pace of U.S. debt growth. Since 2016, the arrears have doubled, up from $20tn. Over the next decade, the U.S. national debt is predicted to climb to $64tn.

In the year 2000, the American account stood at a “mere” $6tn. The last quarter of a century has seen the arrears pile up from endless wars, reckless military spending, and massive tax cuts for the corporate elite. The debt has become irreversible under prevailing policies.

Servicing interest on the arrears now runs at $1tn a year and is one of the largest federal budget expenditures. This means that the United States is caught in a debt spiral from which it cannot extricate itself. It is digging a deeper and deeper hole.

There are profound implications for the United States as a society. As Robert Reich, a former Labour Secretary, noted, the servicing of runaway debt means less money for “schools, healthcare, roads and bridges and social safety nets.” The grim conclusion is that social inequality in the U.S. – already at record levels – will become even more destructive. That speaks of social immiseration and collapse.

There are also far-reaching detrimental impacts on the U.S. and global economy. Even mainstream commentators warn of a historic fiscal crisis pending for the United States from soaring interest rates and hyperinflation. That, in turn, will be transmitted to the rest of the world, especially those countries with large holdings of American debt.

But the exceptional U.S. financial mess is not just a matter of economics. It is an urgent issue of global peace and security.

There are several causes of mounting American debt. However, the main driver, by far, is that nation’s relentless warmongering and militarism, as economist Jeffrey Sachs and other commentators have long contended. It is systemic and chronic.

This year saw the United States celebrate its 250th anniversary since its founding as a modern state. For most of its history, about 95 per cent of the 250 years, the United States has been at war, either through conquest or subterfuge, according to its own Congressional records and eminent historians like David Vine.

No other modern nation comes close to this bellicose conduct, and that is a reason why no other nation comes close to the level of financial debt of the U.S.

Keep reading

Russia Puts German Journalist on Wanted List Over Nazi Question to Zelensky

Conflict Began With Question to Zelensky

The conflict began on August 8 during a joint appearance by Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. During the question-and-answer session, Martens addressed the Ukrainian leader with an offer to help.

“Can you tell us Europeans what exactly we can do to help you kill more Russians?” Martens asked, later clarifying that he meant Russian soldiers specifically.

In response, Zelensky, who is now trying to conceal the systemic collapse of Ukraine’s economy, asked the West to increase military and financial assistance. Aleksandar Vučić expressed hope that all the killing would end as soon as possible.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova called the reporter’s words an expression of segregation, after which the Russian Embassy in Germany launched legal proceedings.

“The journalist’s statement contains direct signs of the offense provided for under Part 2 of Article 282 of the Russian Criminal Code. From a legal standpoint, public calls for the destruction of people on the basis of nationality are unacceptable, regardless of the speaker’s professional status. In this situation, the investigation will seek an arrest in absentia in order to establish the defendant’s legal status,” corporate lawyer Roman Lavrentyev explained in an interview with Pravda.Ru.

Martens faces a criminal case under the article concerning “incitement to hatred or enmity.” The maximum punishment under this provision is up to six years in prison.

However, the prospect of extradition is complicated by Interpol’s position, as the organization often blocks Russian requests on the grounds that they are politically motivated. This means that the “Red Notice” mechanism will not work in most Western countries.

Where Could Martens Face Arrest?

“Martens could be detained only in jurisdictions where direct bilateral extradition agreements are in force. Since Western countries are currently in a state of acute conflict with Moscow, the likelihood of his arrest there is approaching zero. Risks arise for him when he visits countries in the Global South or Russia’s allies,” political analyst Sergei Mironov told Pravda.Ru.

The main difficulty for Russian investigators is that Germany, where Martens’ publication is based, will not extradite its citizen over this charge. This turns the case into a long-term instrument of legal pressure that restricts the journalist’s freedom of movement.

The list of territories where Martens could be detained is limited to countries that maintain close legal cooperation with Russia. These include CIS states such as Belarus, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. Risks are also high in countries with which Russia is strengthening ties amid Washington’s sanctions pressure, including Iran, Syria and North Korea.

Keep reading

Nord Stream bombing suspect arrested while working on film about attack

A Ukrainian man arrested in the Nord Stream bombing was detained while working on a Hollywood movie about the gas pipeline attack starring Adrien Brody and Sean Penn, a report said Thursday.

Police in Pula, Croatia on Wednesday arrested Volodymyr Zhuravlyov under a European arrest warrant put out by Germany, which is seeking his extradition.

German prosecutors say Zhuravlyov is a trained diver and accuse him of helping plant explosives on the Baltic Sea energy link between Russia and Germany that destroyed three of the four pipelines in 2022.

Germany’s Legal Tribune Online reported he was arrested while working on the set for the movie “Snake Island” by US director Doug Liman (“Bourne Identity”), with Brody and three-time Oscar winner Penn.

Zhuravlyov worked as an advisor for the film, according to media reports AFP was unable to immediately verify with German or Croatian authorities.

The Ukrainian suspect had previously been held in Poland for his alleged role in destroying the pipelines.

But authorities there refused to extradite him and let him go, judging that any such Ukrainian attack would have been a legitimate act of war rather than a crime.

The Baltic Sea sabotage attack came months after Moscow’s February 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

German investigators believe the attack was ordered by a Ukrainian state agency with the aim of depriving Russia of future energy revenues to finance its war in Ukraine.

Prosecutors charge Zhuravlyov worked closely with Sergiy Kuznetsov, another Ukrainian man who was arrested in Italy last year before being extradited to Germany.

The case is politically awkward for Germany and Ukraine, as Berlin has strongly backed Kyiv in its fight against Russia.

Keep reading

US Meddling In Brazilian Elections, Preparing For Possible Military Intervention

The United States is interfering in the Brazilian presidential elections, pressuring the Brazilian electorate into voting for right-wing candidate Flavio Bolsonaro, the son of disgraced former president, Jair Bolsonaro. If that does not work and President Lula da Silva secures a fourth term in office, the groundwork is already being laid for a potential military intervention. From sanctions and economic warfare, to coaching influencers and journalists on how best to attack the left-wing government, the Trump administration is doing everything it can to overthrow Lula.

Meanwhile, the State Department’s recent decision to designate Brazilian gangs as “foreign terrorist organizations” just as it did with Venezuela’s Tren de Aragua, signals a willingness to intervene militarily.

Brazil is Trump’s next target, and builds upon recent U.S. and Israeli interference in May’s Colombian elections, where pro-Trump candidate Abelardo de la Espriella won a razor-thin victory.

MintPress examines the Trump administration’s attempts to undermine Brazilian democracy and install another Bolsonaro back into power.

A Thumb on The Scale

Brazil’s October elections are rapidly approaching, and while thirteen people are standing for president, two principal candidates have already emerged: current left-of-center president Lula da Silva, and far-right challenger, Flavio Bolsonaro. Flavio is the son of disgraced former president, Jair (sentenced to 27 years in prison for leading a January 6th-inspired coup attempt), and the brother of Eduardo (convicted in absentia for lobbying the United States to intervene in his father’s trial).

It is obvious which candidate Washington prefers. The Bolsonaro’s are politically, ideologically, and personally very close to the MAGA movement, and Flavio has already promised that, if elected, his country will become one of the U.S.’ closest allies.

Lula currently holds a double-digit lead on Bolsonaro (40% to 28%, with no other candidate holding more than 10% of the public’s voting intentions). But Brazilian politics can change very quickly; in 2018, Lula held a 20-point lead over Jair Bolsonaro when the Brazilian Supreme Court blocked him from running. He was imprisoned on bogus charges in a case orchestrated by the U.S. government, leaving the path clear for Bolsonaro’s victory.

Lula has sounded the alarm that Brazilian democracy is once again under threat from Washington. “As far as I’m concerned, [Trump] can continue liking Bolsonaro, the father, the son, the grandson… There is no problem with that. It’s his problem. There’s no accounting for taste,” he said. “Now, don’t meddle in the Brazilian elections, because the Brazilian elections are a Brazilian problem, just as American elections are their business, not mine,” he added: “All I want is the same respect for Brazil that I have for the United States. That’s it.”

Washington, however, has other ideas. On May 26, Flavio Bolsonaro traveled to Washington to meet with Trump, Vice President J.D. Vance, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio to sell them on the concept of military intervention in Brazil. Two days later, the U.S. State Department designated two Brazilian gangs, Comando Vermelho and Primeiro Comando da Capital, as “Specially Designated Global Terrorists” and “Foreign Terrorist Organizations, a decision that Brian Mier, an American journalist who moved to Brazil in 1991 and is now Brazil correspondent for TeleSur English, described as “a preemptive move to possibly invade if Lula wins reelection.”

In 2025, the State Department did the same with Venezuelan gang, Tren de Aragua. Just months later, the U.S. carried out an operation to kidnap President Nicolás Maduro, decapitating the Venezuelan government.

Keep reading

The Strait of Hormuz Is Repricing the Entire World Economy

The politicians continue to speak about the Strait of Hormuz as though this were merely a regional dispute between Iran and its neighbors. That is complete nonsense. The strait is one of the most important arteries in the global economy, carrying roughly one-fifth of the world’s oil and gas shipments. Brent crude has moved above $91, but the headline price of oil is only the beginning. The real economic damage appears in shipping rates, insurance premiums, refinery margins, diesel prices, electricity costs, and ultimately government borrowing. War does not remain confined to the battlefield. It enters every household through inflation.

Washington claims the strait is open while Iran insists it remains closed. Both statements are political propaganda because it is the shipowners, insurers, and commodity traders who determine whether a waterway is commercially open. A tanker can theoretically pass through Hormuz, but that means nothing if the insurance premium becomes prohibitive or the crew refuses to accept the risk. Most politicians have never operated a business and do not understand that commerce depends upon confidence—not government declarations. Once confidence collapses, trade will retreat regardless of how many officials stand before cameras insisting that everything remains under control.

This is why the cost of the conflict cannot be measured solely by the number of barrels temporarily removed from the market. Every vessel delayed or redirected reduces available shipping capacity and increases freight rates elsewhere. Insurers must reprice the probability of a tanker being damaged, captured, or destroyed. Refineries must compete for alternative supplies, while countries dependent upon Gulf energy begin building precautionary inventories. Traders add a geopolitical premium because nobody knows whether the next missile will strike a ship, a refinery, a pipeline, or an export terminal. These costs compound through the entire system long before the average person notices the increase at the gasoline station.

Keep reading

Has Trump Turned the Tables on Iran – or Is Another Round of War Coming?

The Trump administration believes it has turned the tables on Iran. Washington assesses that the rerouting of maritime traffic through the Omani corridor, combined with a global shift away from Persian Gulf oil, has reduced the effectiveness of Tehran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz. At the same time, the U.S. blockade has sharply constrained Iran’s ability to sell its oil. The result, in Washington’s view, is a status quo that imposes greater costs on Iran than on the United States.

That calculation changes the strategic equation. Rather than being forced to accommodate Iranian demands, President Donald Trump now believes he can afford to wait Tehran out. For the first time since the war began, the White House has concluded, time is working in America’s favor.

Assuming that assessment is correct, the more important question is what Trump intends to do with this newfound leverage. If Washington interprets Iran’s vulnerability as an opportunity to extract capitulation rather than to negotiate a durable settlement, the result is more likely to be another round of war than an end to the conflict. Tehran has already demonstrated that when confronted with a choice between surrender and escalation, it will choose the latter. Giving Iran the same choice again is therefore unlikely to produce a different outcome.

The only way to turn this unexpected shift in the balance of leverage into a political victory is through diplomacy. If Washington’s assessment is correct, it now has an opportunity to use its leverage to secure a compromise that addresses its core interests while giving Tehran sufficient reason to accept an agreement. If, instead, the administration pursues maximalist demands, it risks converting a moment of leverage into another cycle of war.

Historically, however, Washington has tended to make precisely this mistake. Whenever U.S. policymakers have concluded that time and leverage are on their side, they have often treated Iranian weakness not as an opening for compromise, but as an opportunity to seek capitulation. The danger is that Trump will repeat that pattern. He will mistake leverage for victory and turn a potentially favorable negotiating position into the continuation of the tragedy that is US-Iran relations.

Trump failed militarily, but thinks he can win economically

America has run out of military options. The clearest indication is that the Trump administration has stopped striking Iranian targets even as Tehran continues to attack ships transiting the Strait. On Monday, an Iranian attack killed a sailor aboard a vessel using the southern corridor. Yet Washington did not respond militarily – even though the second round of the war began precisely because the administration had declared that it could not accept Iran firing on ships.

According to Reuters, U.S. forces have used virtually all of their global stockpile of ATACMS and Precision Strike Missiles (PrSM) during the five-month Iran conflict. Moreover, roughly 65% of Patriot interceptors, 38% of THAAD interceptors, and almost half of the Navy’s Tomahawk cruise missiles have been expended.

The depletion of these stocks appears to have forced Trump to abandon its pursuit of a military knockout and instead shift the burden of economic pressure onto Tehran. That strategy, in turn, appears to be producing results faster—and to a greater degree – than the administration anticipated.

Keep reading