First it was regime change, now they want to break Iran apart

Washington’s foreign policy establishment has a dangerous tendency to dismantle nations it deems adversarial. Now, neoconservative think tanks like the Washington-based Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) and their fellow travelers in the European Parliament are openly promoting the balkanization of Iran — a reckless strategy that would further destabilize the Middle East, trigger catastrophic humanitarian crises, and provoke fierce resistance from both Iranians and U.S. partners.

As Israel and Iran exchanged blows in mid-June, FDD’s Brenda Shaffer argued that Iran’s multi-ethnic makeup was a vulnerability to be exploited. Shaffer has been a vocal advocate for Azerbaijan in mainstream U.S. media, even as she has consistently failed to disclose her ties to Azerbaijan’s state oil company, SOCAR. For years, she has pushed for Iran’s fragmentation along ethnic lines, akin to the former Yugoslavia’s collapse. She has focused much of that effort on promoting the secession of Iranian Azerbaijan, where Azeris form Iran’s largest non-Persian group.

Shaffer’s views align with a recent Jerusalem Post editorial which, amid the euphoria of Israel’s initial strikes in this month’s war against Iran, called on President Trump to openly embrace Iran’s dismemberment. Specifically, it urged a “Middle East coalition for Iran’s partition” and “security guarantees to Sunni, Kurdish and Balochi minority regions willing to break away.” The same outlet is on the record calling for Israel and the U.S. to support the secession from Iran of what it calls “‘South Azerbaijan,” (meaning the Azeri-majority regions in northwestern Iran).

Meanwhile, the foreign affairs spokeswoman for a centrist liberal group in the European Parliament convened a meeting on the “future of Iran,” ostensibly to discuss the prospects for a “successful” revolt against the Islamic Republic. The fact that the only two Iranian speakers were ethnic separatists from Iran’s Azerbaijan and Ahwaz regions made clear her agenda. Since the European Parliament unilaterally cut all relations with Iran’s official bodies in 2022, it has become a playground for assorted radical exiled opposition groups, such as monarchists, the cultish MEK (Mojaheddeen-e Khalk), and ethnic separatists.

Yet Iran is not some fragile patchwork state on the verge of collapse. It is a 90-million-strong nation with a deep sense of historical and cultural identity. While proponents of balkanization love to fixate on Iran’s ethnic diversity — Azeris, Kurds, Baloch, Arabs — they consistently underestimate the unifying force of Iranian nationalism. As the scholar Shervin Malekzadeh noted recently in the Los Angeles Times, “There is a robust consensus among scholars that politics in Iran begins with the idea of Iran as a people with a continuous and unbroken history, a nation that ‘looms out of an immemorial past.’ Nationalism provides the broad political arena in which different groups and ideologies in Iran compete for power and authority, whether monarchist, Islamist or leftist.”

Decades of foreign pressure, from sanctions to covert operations to war, have only reinforced this cohesion. The idea that stirring separatist sentiment will fracture Iran is a dangerous fantasy — one that deliberately overlooks how schemes hatched, in major part, by pro-Israel neoconservatives, have backfired in Iraq and Syria leaving chaos in their wake.

Such a strategy also exposes its proponents’ deep ignorance of the realities on the ground. Shaffer, the champion of Azerbaijani irredentism, has gone so far as to cheer Israeli airstrikes on Tabriz, the cultural and economic heart of Iranian Azerbaijan.

Keep reading

Post-coup juntas across the Sahel face serious crises

In Mali, General Assimi Goïta, who took power in a 2020 coup, now plans to remain in power through at least the end of this decade, as do his counterparts in neighboring Burkina Faso and Niger. As long-ruling juntas consolidate power in national capitals, much of the Sahelian terrain remains out of government control.

Recent attacks on government security forces in Djibo (Burkina Faso), Timbuktu (Mali), and Eknewane (Niger) have all underscored the depth of the insecurity. The Sahelian governments face a powerful threat from jihadist forces in two organizations, Jama‘at Nusrat al-Islam wa-l-Muslimin (the Group for Supporting Islam and Muslims, JNIM, which is part of al-Qaida) and the Islamic State Sahel Province (ISSP). The Sahelian governments also face conventional rebel challengers and interact, sometimes in cooperation and sometimes in tension, with various vigilantes and community-based armed groups.

The roots of instability in the Sahel extend both to specific crises in the 2010s (especially a rebellion in northern Mali in 2012) and to broader, systemic issues having to do with land use, resource competition, poverty, official corruption, the spread of jihadist mobilization through a chain of socially combustible zones, and citizens’ loss of faith in institutions. Government responses largely fueled insurgencies, as security forces committed abuses and collective punishment, and as civilian leaders pursued inconsistent and often tone-deaf policies.

Foreign intervention also inflamed the situation. France, the European Union, and the United States pursued a narrowly security-focused policy matrix that failed to reverse the escalation in violence in the 2010s and that crumbled upon contact with the coups of the early 2020s. Russia, the new partner of choice for the central Sahelian regimes, supplied an even more brutal dose of violence, but one that produced no concrete gains for national governments other than the Malian authorities’ triumphant but ultimately isolated victory in Kidal, a northern rebel stronghold. The jihadists, who delight in having a foreign adversary, have replaced the French with the Russians in much of their propaganda and targeting.

As the juntas have struggled on the battlefield, they have hollowed out their countries’ politics, subverting decades of fragile but meaningful democratic experiences. Political parties have been banned, journalists arrested, critics conscripted, and associations dissolved. There are a few niches of resistance remaining, particularly labor unions, but those have largely challenged the juntas on a sector-by-sector basis over issues connected to pay and conditions; unlike in 1991 in Mali or 2014 in Burkina Faso, broader revolutions involving multi-sector coalitions have not coalesced. In fact, although it is difficult to measure given the lack of regular and reliable polling as well as the near absence now of investigative journalism, the juntas appear to enjoy substantial popularity. Military men have made invigorating promises about restoring security, championing national sovereignty, revitalizing economies, and bringing people dignity. Even as those promises remain unfulfilled, the message is clearly thrilling to a wide domestic audience.

Keep reading

China’s Nuclear Force Buildup: A Direct Challenge to US Strategic Superiority

China’s nuclear force expansion has fundamentally transformed the global strategic environment, according to senior congressional leaders who characterize Beijing’s modernization program as a shift from limited deterrent capabilities to comprehensive nuclear forces designed for strategic competition with the United States. By 2035, China aims to possess the world’s most powerful nuclear arsenal, surpassing that of the United States.

Representative Scott DesJarlais, Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee’s Strategic Forces Subcommittee, assessed that China’s nuclear modernization has created “a new tripolar environment (U.S., China, Russia, and China) that is less stable and more competitive” than the bipolar strategic framework that characterized the post-Cold War period.

Defense Intelligence Agency analysis confirms that China’s nuclear warhead inventory has surpassed 600 operational weapons. Its missile arsenal includes over 2,000 missiles capable of reaching Taiwan, including advanced hypersonic systems. The PLA Rocket Force has already deployed hypersonic weapons and nuclear-capable H-6N bombers. U.S. intelligence projects that China will field 700 nuclear warheads by 2027 and over 1,000 by 2030, with continued expansion expected through at least 2035.

Ultimately, China aims to field an estimated 1,500 nuclear warheads, marking the fastest peacetime nuclear expansion in modern history and underscoring its drive for strategic parity with the United States. This modernization includes both quantitative growth and qualitative upgrades, such as low-yield precision strike systems and multi-megaton intercontinental ballistic missiles, giving China what DIA analysts describe as “a broader range of nuclear response options” than ever before.

Much of China’s expanding nuclear arsenal is being deployed at higher readiness levels than in the past, enabling faster response times and signaling a shift away from its traditional posture of minimal deterrence and low alert status. This evolution is supported by a vast industrial infrastructure designed for sustained nuclear modernization, bolstered by the systematic acquisition of foreign nuclear technology.

China’s nuclear buildup is further enabled by the world’s largest civilian nuclear construction program, which provides both a technological foundation and strategic cover for military development. With at least 28 reactors currently under construction, nearly half of all global reactor projects.

Keep reading

Building the Largest Army in Europe

They say it takes a generation to reshape the way a nation views its military allegiance. Germany dwindled its military capacity significantly after its defeat in the last world war, wearing their loss as a badge of shame. Neither the people nor the government wanted to reinvigorate Germany’s military power after the destructive nation building and expansion under the Third Reich. The times have changed, as they always do, and Germany is now on the defensive. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz envisions forming the largest army in Europe.

“Building up our military is our top priority,” said Merz. “From now on, the federal government will provide the military with as much money as it needs to ensure it becomes Europe’s strongest armed force. We are Europe’s most populous country and Europe’s biggest economy, and nothing less should be expected from us. Our partners not only expect this — they demand it.”

Merz stated that Germany will spend 3.5% of its GDP on military defense over the next decade, placing spending as a percentage on par with the United States. Germany already found a loophole to spend on defense indefinitely after declaring an emergency and deciding to ignore prior military spending limits. The Germany government now plans to spend $400 billion on defense alone through 2029. Simultaneously, the nation will not cut social programs or readjust its overall budget as a constitutional amendment now permits lawmakers to bypass the debt brake and borrow in perpetuity without calculating that spending in the federal budget.

Keep reading

Moscow Forces Complete Conquest of Luhansk Region, One of the Cradles of the War, Fighting Since 2014 to Secede from Ukraine and Join Russia

While the world is fixated on Middle East tensions, Russian forces continue pounding military and strategic targets all over Ukraine.

Having amassed an enormous cache of kamikaze drones and missiles, Moscow is methodically implementing its ‘war of attrition’.

As we have often discussed here on TGP, in this kind of warfare the main objective is not so much territorial gains, but rather a campaign to degrade the enemy’s capabilities to the point it can’t fight anymore.

The only reason why this ‘attrition’ took more than a few months to be accomplished is that the US under Biden and all the other western powers have flooded the Kiev regime with unprecedented amounts of military aid to the tune of half a trillion dollars – but now, three and a half years later, the Ukrainian capabilities are again on the brink of destruction.

To accomplish that, the Russians have now in June unleashed the strongest drone and missile strike campaign of the whole war.

Keep reading

Europe’s Defense Reality Check: The Mathematics of Military Inadequacy

Following President Trump’s successful push for NATO allies to commit to spending 5% of GDP on defense by 2035, Europe now faces the potentially insurmountable challenge of reversing decades of military neglect. Building a force capable of defending the continent against Russia or China will be a massive undertaking, made even more difficult by declining birthrates, a shrinking workforce, and the political cost of maintaining generous welfare states and pacifist norms.

NATO allies agreed on June 25, 2025, to more than double their defense spending target from 2% of GDP to 5% by 2035, with the commitment structured as 3.5% for “core defense” and 1.5% for broader security measures including infrastructure and cyber defense. This achievement was widely praised, with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte stating: “Would you ever think that this would be the result of this summit if he would not have been re-elected president? … I think he deserves all the praise”. However, the magnitude of this commitment becomes clear when examining current spending levels and capability gaps.

In 2024, European NATO members spent a combined $454 billion on defense, just 30% of total NATO spending, while the United States spent $997 billion, or 66%. Reports claim European military spending rose by 17% to $693 billion in 2024, but that figure misleadingly includes Russia’s estimated $149 billion. Given that NATO exists primarily to deter Russian aggression, it is absurd to include Russia’s defense budget in Europe’s total.

Even in terms of GDP percentage, Russia continues to outpace the European Union in defense spending. The EU’s total defense spending is projected to reach around 2.04% of GDP in 2025, while Russia is expected to spend 7.5% of its GDP on the military. But the gap in spending is just one part of Europe’s broader capabilities deficit.

Unlike Russia or the United States, Europe’s $454 billion in defense expenditures is fragmented across more than 30 countries, each with its own command structure, procurement system, administrative overhead, and military bureaucracy. In contrast, the United States achieves far greater efficiency and combat power through its unified $997 billion defense budget, which supports a single military structure with global reach.

Keep reading

Trump Says He Gave Iran Permission to Bomb U.S. Base in Qatar and…Well, Mostly Crickets?

When political scientist Seth Masket shared this story on Bluesky yesterday, I couldn’t believe it was real. The right-wing Washington Times reported that at a press conference at the NATO Summit in the Netherlands on Wednesday, Trump revealed that he had given Iran permission to bomb the U.S.’s Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar in retaliation for the American bombing of their nuclear sites. 

“They said, ‘We’re going to shoot them. Is one o’clock OK?’ I said it’s fine,” Trump said. “And everybody was emptied off the base so they couldn’t get hurt, except for the gunners.”

I poked around for other major coverage of this extraordinary admission, and landed only on a transcript of the press conference. And yes, amid a characteristically meandering monologue, Trump actually said that he let a foreign adversary bomb an American military installation. But this story has pretty much come and gone with virtually no attention and certainly none of the outrage commensurate with what Trump said.

Let’s consider what Trump’s verbal diarrhea here could mean. Suppose he is (for once) telling the truth. Wouldn’t that represent the most shocking dereliction of duty one could imagine for the commander-in-chief? (A high crime or misdemeanor, perhaps?) Is he saying he let Iran get its retaliation out of its system with what he called “a very weak response” to bring an end to hostilities? Perhaps Trump simply was rambling incoherently as he basked in his new “daddy” glow at NATO.

Keep reading

Prophecy, not politics, may also shape America’s clash with Iran

When most people contemplate the future of America’s conflict with Iran, they hunt for clues in grainy satellite photos, statements from military analysts and President Trump’s social media posts.

But when scholar Diana Butler Bass considers what could happen next, her thoughts turn toward another group she says is now thinking more about prophecy than politics.

She recalls warnings from her childhood about the rise of an Antichrist, stories about weeping mothers clutching their empty blankets after their babies were suddenly “Raptured” to heaven and paintings of an angry Jesus leading armies of angels to an Armageddon-like, final battle in modern-day Israel.

Those stories terrified and thrilled Bass when she heard them growing up in a White evangelical church in the 1970s. It was a time when the end always seemed near, and books like the bestseller “The Late Great Planet Earth” warned Christians to gird their loins for a period of Great Tribulation and prepare for Jesus’ triumphant return to Jerusalem.

Bass, a prominent, progressive religious author who hosts a popular Substack newsletter called “The Cottage,” no longer believes those stories. Yet when she considers why the US struck three nuclear facilities in Iran this month and what could happen next, she now offers a prophecy of her own: Bombing Iran will reinforce Trump’s status as God’s “Chosen One” and Israel as His chosen nation among many of the President’s White evangelical supporters.

Many of these supporters dismiss the dangers of a larger war, she tells CNN, because such a clash would mean the world is approaching the “end times” — a series of cataclysmic events ushering in the Second Coming of Christ and the rise of Israel as the fulfillment of biblical prophecies.

“There’s almost a kind of spiritual eagerness for a war in the Middle East,” says Bass, describing attitudes among some White evangelicals. “They believe a war is going to set off a series of events that will result in Jesus returning.”

Trump’s decision to bomb Iran has so far been examined almost exclusively through the lens of politics or military strategy. Yet there is a religious dimension to his decision – and what could happen next – that’s been underexplored.

Keep reading

US Approves $510 Million Arms Deal for Israel

The Trump administration has approved a new arms deal for Israel that will provide the country with $510 million worth of Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMS), kits that turn bombs into precision-guided weapons, as the US continues to provide military aid to support the genocidal war in Gaza.

According to the Pentagon’s Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA), the State Department notified Congress of the sale of 3,845 JDAMS for 2,000-pound BLU-109 bombs and 3,280 JDAMS for 500-pound MK 82 bombs. The deal also includes US “government and contractor engineering, logistics, and technical support services; and other related elements of logistics and program support.”

The DSCA said Boeing is the principal contractor for the deal. The notification of the potential deal begins a time period when US lawmakers could potentially block the sale, but there’s little opposition to US military support for Israel within Congress, despite the many war crimes the US is implicated in by providing Israel with weapons.

Fragments of bombs with US-provided JDAM kits have been found at the scene of Israeli airstrikes in Gaza that have massacred many civilians. In 2023, Human Rights Watch said it identified JDAM fragments that were found in two airstrikes on homes in central Gaza that killed 43 civilians, including 19 children, and 14 women.

Keep reading

Israel Called Its Initial Attack on Iran ‘Red Wedding,’ Referring to a Fictional Massacre that Relied on Deception

According to The Wall Street Journal, Israel codenamed its initial attack on Iran that killed senior military leaders “Red Wedding,” referring to a gruesome massacre from the book series “Game of Thrones,” which was adapted into a TV series on HBO.

In the Red Wedding scene, one family murders the members of the other, including a pregnant woman, during a wedding feast, a surprise attack that relies on betrayal and deception. Israel’s attack also relied on deception as it used the cover of nuclear talks between the US and Iran to catch Tehran off guard.

The Israeli attack was launched on Friday, June 13, two days before the US and Iran were set to hold another round of nuclear negotiations. According to the Journal report, part of the ruse involved Israeli officials leaking stories to the media about a split between President Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu about the possibility of Israel attacking Iran.

Trump and Netanyahu held a phone call on Monday, June 9, the day the Journal report said Israel had decided to launch the attack on June 13. Axios reporter Barak Ravid, a former IDF intelligence officer, reported the day after the call that an Israeli official and a US official told him that Trump expressed to Netanyahu that he believed he could reach a nuclear deal with Iran and opposed military action at that time.

According to the Journal, on the day of the attacks Trump told reporters that the US and Iran were “fairly close to an agreement” and that he didn’t want the Israelis “going in,” and Israeli officials told reporters they would wait to see the results of the next round of US-Iran nuclear talks before attacking.

The Journal report said: “The key to the deception, said a security official familiar with the planning of the operation, was the idea implanted in the minds of the Iranians that Israel wouldn’t strike without US authorization and participation. As long as the US wasn’t mobilizing its forces and was engaged in negotiations, Israel could threaten to attack and even mobilize its troops in plain sight of Iran without giving away the element of surprise.”

Hours before Israel’s bombing campaign started, Trump wrote on Truth Social that he was still committed to a diplomatic solution with Iran. The Journal report said Israeli warplanes were already getting in the air when he made the post.

Keep reading