Tag: perpetual war

Iran unleashes wave of attacks on US bases

The Iranian military has attacked US bases in multiple Gulf states, and warned locals to keep their distance from “US terrorist army forces” in anticipation of more strikes. The attacks came immediately after US forces bombed the Iranian cities of Ahvaz, Khorramabad, and Jask.

Sirens sounded twice in Bahrain on Friday morning, as two waves of attacks targeted Sheikh Isa Air Base and Naval Support Activity Bahrain, the headquarters of the US Navy’s Fifth Fleet. 

“This morning, the fuel tanks, large equipment warehouses and silos, and the barracks of the US terrorist army forces at the Isa Air Base in Bahrain were targeted by Arash kamikaze drones,” the Iranian Army said in a statement broadcast on Iranian state media. In a separate statement, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said that it had damaged an observation tower at Naval Support Activity Bahrain.

Both facilities have come under Iranian attack on multiple occasions since the US-Israeli war on Iran began in February. Footage shared on social media showed plumes of smoke rising from the area of the naval base after the second round of sirens sounded.

Keep reading

US-Israel Defense Integration on Horizon as House Keeps Section 219 in NDAA

The House is preparing to vote on the Fiscal Year 2027 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) with Section 219 (formerly section 224) still embedded in the roughly $1.1 trillion bill.

The House approved the rule governing debate on H.R. 8800 by a 214-211 vote Tuesday, July 21. The vote allowed the chamber to proceed with the NDAA but excluded the amendment from Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) that would have removed Section 219.

Lawmakers will not receive a separate vote on the bipartisan amendment that sought to remove the section, a proposal to expand U.S.-Israel defense technology cooperation that has garnered strong rebukes in certain political and defense circles.

The House expects to hold a recorded vote on the complete NDAA on Wednesday.

What Section 219 Would Do

Section 219 would direct the defense secretary to designate a Pentagon “executive agent” to oversee the United States-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative. That official would coordinate bilateral defense research, development, testing, evaluation and industrial cooperation.

The proposal originated as the bipartisan, bicameral United States-Israel FUTURES Act, introduced in the House by Reps. Ronny Jackson (R-Texas) and Don Davis (D-N.C.) with companion legislation from Sens. Ted Budd (R-N.C.) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.).

Jackson framed the proposal as a way to preserve America’s technological advantage and deliver new battlefield capabilities to service members. Davis emphasized its potential to prepare troops for evolving threats, particularly unmanned systems and electronic warfare.

Sens. Budd and Gillibrand have similarly presented the initiative as an expansion of existing work on missile defense, drones, and underground threats as a means to strengthen American military and technological capabilities.

Keep reading

Trump “Close” To Ordering “Massive Attack Greater Than Anything Before” On Iran

New Iraq PM Tries Hand at Mediation

After being at the White House just last week, Iraq’s new “Washington approved” prime minister is apparently now the new shuttle diplomacy guy, after Qatari and Pakistani peace efforts on Iran have come to naught. 

The NY Times is reporting Thursday afternoon that “Iraq’s prime minister, Ali al-Zaidi, is in Tehran carrying a proposal for a cease-fire between Iran and the United States, according to Iranian and Iraqi officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about matters of national security.”

But the messaging apparently went the other way to, from Tehran to Washington, per more from the Times:

Iran’s foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, told local news media that the Iraqi leader had shared with Iranian officials his “insights and impressions” from his recent meeting with Trump. Araghchi added that Tehran and Washington don’t have a problem when it comes to finding mediators, “the problem is America’s attitude.”

At the moment, Trump is threatening new, massive attacks on Iran, which could come tonight or at any time, with the whole region on edge and the State Department telling Americans to urgently find flights out of the Middle East.

Trump “Close” To Bigger Strikes Than Ever Before: Interview

President Trump has newly been cited in Axios as saying he’s seriously considering restarting major combat operations in Iran. He’s previewing strikes that would be bigger than anything before, including in the opening days of Operation Epic Fury, when dozens of Iranian government and military leaders were killed, including the Ayatollah. There’s also chatter that Israel could rejoin the attacks this time, after Israeli jets have been absent in the past twelve days of renewed bombing raids.

However, Axios stipulated that Trump has yet to make a final decision. Mideast regional Al Hadath and Israel’s Channel 12 are separately reporting that US officials have told regional allies to “be prepared” for such a new major assault on Iran.

Axios writes, “In a brief interview, Trump acknowledged that such a decision would have consequences and stressed he hasn’t made a determination yet.” This as Brent Crude has climbed past $100 per barrel on Thursday, and as the prospect of all-out war remains unpopular among American voters, especially with months to go ahead of the midterms.

“I am considering a massive attack. Bigger than ever before. I am close to making a decision. We are all set for it,” the president said. And more via the Axios interview:

  • Trump said Israel “would join in two minutes if I ask them to,” but added that “we don’t need anybody” to launch a new operation against Iran.
  • He also said there would be “consequences” for Israel joining the strikes, hinting at Iranian retaliation against Israel.
  • Trump said the Iranians “want to negotiate” but are not ready to make a deal at the moment.
  • “They haven’t received enough pain yet,” he said.
  • Two regional sources with knowledge of mediation efforts said Iranian leadership hasn’t accepted the latest proposal put forward.
  • “We are trying, but the Iranians are not being helpful,” one of them said.

The Houthis have meanwhile been ratcheting their involvement, apparently having been called upon by Tehran to help it keep leverage over key oil transit chokepoints. All the while, there have been widespread reports of the Pentagon surging large aircraft, especially refueling tankers, from Europe to the CENTCOM area.

Houthis Threaten Saudi Aramco

After the Iranian-aligned Houthis confirmed they struck two Saudi oil tankers as part of a naval blockade on Saudi Arabia, as a second chokepoint on global oil supplies opens alongside the Strait of Hormuz, on Thursday the Shia militant group is now openly threatening Aramco facilities inside the kingdom… or at least some unnamed officials are telling regional media.

The Houthis have characterized their campaign as “a blockade for a blockade,” saying it is intended to pressure Saudi Arabia. The Saudis have already been blockading Houthis controlled-ports in Yemen for years, which hearkens back to a Gulf vs. Houthi chiefly aerial war that opened in 2015.

Keep reading

“A Bridge Too Far”: Middle East Set For A Massive Escalation

Unless things change dramatically, the Middle East seems set for massive escalation.

President Trump yesterday warned every missile, rocket, or drone Iran fires at ships in Hormuz will be met with the destruction of an Iranian bridge or power plant.

This morning, the IRGC says a tanker is on fire after an explosion in the strait and Kuwait is under drone attack. Moreover, the Houthis claimed attacks on two Saudi tankers in the Red Sea, raising the risks of a new global energy chokepoint besides Hormuz.

Reports say the US is surging military forces to the region, heavy bombers are being prepared, and Mossad is coordinating with the CIA. Equally, Iran’s Ghalibaf has stated there will be no safety if Iran’s security is not guaranteed, read as more or less a declaration of war against the entire region’s infrastructure and energy should its own be hit.

Worse, Iranian strikes on CIA Middle-East facilities are prompting US questions about Russian involvement, which would conflate the war more deeply with Russia-Ukraine, where epic damage to Russian energy, shipping, and logistics infrastructure continues to mount. On that note, after Kazakhstan was forced to stop piping oil via the Black Sea due Ukraine’s drone attacks, the EU is launching a mission to board Russian shadow fleet ships in the Indian Ocean; however, Russian LNG is to remain exempt from EU sanctions – realpolitik or real weakness?

In the Middle East, the UK is evacuating its remaining diplomatic personnel from Iran, just as it did the day before the Iran war started in February, but Bulgaria is aiding US military operations from its territory. That could potentially make it a target for Iranian reprisals – and it’s a NATO and EU member, each with collective defense clauses.

If we see military escalation, it’s likely to drive energy prices even higher than the $95.5 level Brent was at this morning with benchmark crack spreads at $68. However, it’s unlikely to last long. Neither the US nor Israel, nor Iran, nor the GCC can sustain a no-holds-barred war for long – and the world economy obviously can’t either. As such, we may be close to the beginning of the end of this crisis – it’s just unclear if it will prove a bridge too far for the US or Iran.

Keep reading

NATO’s Shadow Bank: Financing a New Era of Militarisation

As the war in Ukraine continues to reshape European security, tensions surrounding Iran and the Middle East intensify, and NATO members accelerate defence spending, the alliance is entering a more openly militarised phase. Behind the familiar language of deterrence, resilience and collective security lies a deeper question: how will this expanding confrontation be financed, and who stands to benefit from it?

In this special broadcast, Kevork Almassian, host of Syriana Analysis, speaks with Mats Nilsson, senior analyst at Sweden’s Dissident Club, about the NATO summit in Ankara and the emerging financial architecture behind long-term rearmament. Their discussion examines the proposed Defense, Security and Resilience Bank, a mechanism presented as supporting allied preparedness but viewed by critics as a means of locking Western states into permanent military expenditure.

Almassian and Nilsson place Turkey’s growing regional weight, Israel’s strategic position, and the conflicts involving Russia and Iran within a wider geopolitical contest extending toward China and Eurasia. As conventional diplomacy gives way to enlarged military budgets, arms transfers and financial instruments designed to sustain them, the stakes reach far beyond any single battlefield.

Keep reading

The Collapse of the Bipartisan Consensus Over US-Israel Ties

For decades, U.S. support for Israel rested on one of Washington’s strongest bipartisan assumptions: that military assistance was strategically necessary and politically untouchable. But Gaza has weakened that consensus.

Critics now see Israeli military aid as a misguided strategy and political target. The most visible shift has occurred inside the Democratic Party.

A collapsing bipartisan consensus on Israel

Driven by voter and demographic shifts, humanitarian concerns in Gaza, and the unwarranted conflict with Iran, more than 100 House Democrats recently supported an amendment seeking to block billions of dollars in Israel-related assistance, an extraordinary departure from previous voting patterns.

House Democratic leadership (including Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries) has officially called for a “major reset” in U.S.-Israel relations.

Senate efforts to restrict weapons transfers have also attracted substantial Democratic support, reflecting growing concern about civilian casualties, international law, and U.S. responsibility.

The Republican coalition is also less unified than before. While most Republican lawmakers remain strongly supportive of Israel, MAGA-aligned figures influenced by anti-interventionism, “America First” priorities, and skepticism toward foreign aid have increasingly questioned open-ended commitments.

Growing opposition within the MAGA movement to U.S. arms transfers centers on a deep ideological rift over foreign interventionism. Former Georgia Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene left office in January 2026 after a bitter falling out with President Trump.

While much of the base supports President Trump’s foreign policy, a growing, vocal faction – backed by prominent voices like Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, and Representative Thomas Massie – challenges continued, unconditional weapons shipments.

The result is a new political landscape: traditional pro-Israel Democrats, evangelical conservatives, progressive Democrats, libertarian Republicans, and anti-interventionist conservatives now approach the issue from fundamentally different premises.

The debate is therefore no longer simply “pro-Israel versus anti-Israel.” It concerns whether U.S. strategic interests, domestic law, international obligations, and humanitarian concerns can continue to be reconciled under existing policy.

From political controversy to legal challenges

At the same time, legal initiatives accusing U.S. officials of complicity or failure to prevent alleged Israeli violations have moved the debate from politics into courts, international institutions, and questions of historical accountability.

The legal debate has developed along several tracks. The most significant U.S. case was Defense for Children International–Palestine v. Biden, brought by Palestinian organizations, Gaza residents, and Palestinian-Americans against President Biden, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, for their alleged “failure to prevent and complicity in the unfolding genocide against Gaza.”

Along with the human rights organizations, the lawsuit was promoted by Josh Paul who had resigned from the U.S. State Department over arms shipments to Israel; Jewish Voice for Peace; and genocide and Holocaust scholars spearheaded by international lawyer William Schabas.

The plaintiffs proposed that a genocide, or serious risk of genocide, of Palestinians in Gaza was occurring. They also argued the U.S. is violating its duties under international law to prevent and not be complicit in the genocide. Those U.S. failures were seen to contribute to the erosion of “long and widely held norms of international law,” including the Genocide Convention and Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The Palestine et al. v. Biden et al. case was dismissed by the U.S. Court with a ruling that “while it is plausible that Israel’s conduct amounts to genocide,” U.S. foreign policy was a political question over which courts lacked jurisdiction. In a written decision, U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White quoted approvingly from a prior preliminary ruling (by the ICJ in the case brought against Israel by South Africa). It found Israel’s conduct in Gaza may amount to genocide and ordered it to stop killing and wounding Palestinians.

Other initiatives include advocacy and legal campaigns by groups such as Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN), which warned U.S. officials that continued assistance after awareness of alleged violations could raise questions of aiding and abetting.

DAWN wanted the ICC to investigate Biden, Blinken, and Austin for violating Articles 25(3)(c) and (d) of the Rome Statute. These crimes featured those identified in the ICC arrest warrants against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. Intriguingly, the DAWN submission widened the net of “accessorial liability” to include several other U.S. officials as well.

More recently, DAWN and allied organizations have also challenged Trump administration’s measures targeting ICC-related advocacy.

Genocide scholar William Schabas and other international-law experts have supported arguments that third-party states may face responsibility if they knowingly facilitate atrocities. In the mainstream corporate media, these remain contested (though increasingly popular) legal interpretations. Yet, the latter have expanded the debate beyond Israel itself to states providing weapons, diplomatic protection, or political cover.

Keep reading

Could Zelensky Suffer Diem’s Fate?

U.S. and NATO leaders have waged a multi-year propaganda campaign to convince Western publics that Ukraine is a splendid democracy and that President Volodymyr Zelensky is an extremely popular elected leader who epitomizes those values.  Multiple aspects of that carefully crafted image are untrue.  Ukraine is a corrupt, autocratic state that maintains strict censorship and brutally represses political opponents.  When Zelensky’s term ended in 2024, he and his obedient followers in parliament simply postponed elections indefinitely.  Even absent adverse election result, though, there are ample signs that NATO’s much-lauded hero has alienated Ukraine’s public.

The systematic campaign to present Zelensky as a hero is crucial to NATO’s overall portrayal of the ongoing Ukraine-Russia war as nothing less than an existential struggle between freedom and dictatorship – a conflict with truly global implications.  New York Times columnist David French contends that “for the first time in my adult life, the moral and strategic heart of the defense of liberal democracy doesn’t beat in Washington.  It doesn’t beat in London or Paris or Berlin or Ottawa, either.  It’s in Kyiv, where a courageous leader and a courageous people have picked up the torch America has dropped.”

Western leaders have redoubled their propaganda initiatives efforts in recent months to sell the proposition that underdog Ukraine is beginning to win the military contest against Russia.  Despite a few flashy Ukrainian military successes, however, the overall picture of an eventual Russian victory in a war of attrition remains essentially the same.

Domestic developments in Ukraine even more strongly suggest that Zelensky may be closer to the precipice of disaster than to the summit of victory.  Indeed, his position bears an eerie resemblance to that of an earlier U.S. client and political darling, South Vietnam’s Ngo Dinh Diem.  U.S. officials gradually soured on Diem, however, and in 1963 they quietly encouraged South Vietnamese military leaders to oust him.  Those generals did so on November 2, killing Diem as well as his brother and chief adviser, Ngo Dinh Nhu.

The Diem episode highlights a broader theme.  U.S. foreign clients who become inconvenient to Washington have not fared well over the decades.  Given the recent adverse domestic developments with respect to Zelensky, he has ample reason to worry about his long-term survival prospects.

Major political fractures have occurred in Ukraine over the past year, and they are intensifying in both frequency and severity.  Zelensky’s actions even alienated some of his most reliable supporters and apologists in the West.  For example, the decision by Zelensky and his parliamentary allies in 2025 to curb the independence of anti-corruption agencies proved to be extremely unpopular.  Several rounds of anti-government demonstrations erupted in Kiev and several other cities.  Zelensky’s reputation throughout the West of being a noble leader dedicated to democracy and honest government was always unwarranted, but this time a good portion of Ukrainian public opinion became disillusioned as well.

Several new incidents indicate mounting political turmoil. General Oleksandr Syrskiy was once considered a national hero. During the early days following Russia’s expanded invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, he masterminded the successful defense of Kiev against a much larger Russian force surging toward Ukraine’s capital.  He then planned the counteroffensive that helped his country regain some conquered territory in the east.  Zelensky made him commander-in-chief of Ukraine’s armed forces two years later.

By the summer of 2026, though, most Ukrainians no longer viewed Syrskiy as a heroic figure whom they wished to follow.  Moreover, Zelensky himself came under intense political fire and confronted waves of street protests throughout the country after siding with the 60-year-old general to fire the country’s charismatic young defense minister, Mykhailo Fedorov, in mid-July.  For only the second time since February 2022, thousands of people joined mass anti-government demonstrations. The goal was to pressure Zelensky to change course and reaffirm Fedorov’s vision of technology-driven warfare increasingly relying on drones and robots. (The first large protests, in the summer of 2025, denounced Zelensky’s purge of government anti-corruption agencies.)

Keep reading

Wait, I Thought We Won the War Already?

The Iran war was originally intended to be short. Due to the fast-paced news cycle, this fact has been forgotten by many. On February 28, 2026, when the U.S. and Israel officially launched their military campaign, the administration was expecting this war to last only weeks, and for the Iranian regime to fall rather quickly. President Trump told The New York Times that he intended for strikes on Iran to continue for “four to five weeks.”

That was on March 1, 2026. It is now July.

The sporadic timeline shifts have not deterred the administration’s attempts to portray the campaign as a massive success. We have heard dozens of times now from Donald Trump that we have won the war, and that it will be wrapping up shortly.

However, the words of Donald Trump don’t comport with the military realities.

All pain, no gain

If we look back at the stated objectives set by the administration for what they sought to achieve from this war, none of them have come to fruition.

The Iranian’s stockpile of missiles and drones have not been meaningfully diminished.

The Iranian’s enriched uranium stockpile has not been destroyed or removed from the country.

The IRGC has not been cut off from their network of proxies across the Middle East. We have seen this in Lebanon, where Hezbollah has managed to deal some significant blows to the IDF in the south of the country. The Iranians are also considering activating the Houthis in Yemen to cut off the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, should U.S. strikes on Iranian infrastructure continue.

Regime change has also not occurred. The rhetoric coming from the White House at the beginning of this conflict described their intent to overthrow the IRGC and make room for “the people” to rise up and implement liberal democracy in its place.

Not only did this not happen, but by all accounts, this war has had the opposite effect. At the funeral of the slain Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the streets of Tehran were flooded with Iranian citizens pledging to defend their nation and avenge the death of their leader. We saw a “rally around the flag” effect, the predictable result of bombing major cities and killing government and religious leaders in foreign lands.

If the goal was to inspire an embrace of Americanism within Iran, this war has done the opposite.

Perhaps launching a war of aggression against a population and killing their religious leader isn’t the most effective way to make them embrace your influence over their society. Just a thought.

The biggest U.S. blunder has been seen in the Strait of Hormuz, where a waterway previously open to international transit has been shut down by the IRGC, putting a massive strain on the global energy market. By using missiles and drones to close the Strait, Iran has gained a major piece of leverage. They have the ability to hold 20% of the world’s energy supply hostage, inflicting tangible financial pain on U.S. consumers at the gas pump. This will also likely cause domestic political pain for Donald Trump and the Republican Party in this year’s midterm elections.

Keep reading

Inspired by Trump, Israel Advances Plan for Crocodile-Ringed Prison for Palestinians

The Israeli government this week stripped Nile crocodiles of their protected status in order to advance a proposal that National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir said was inspired by the Trump administration’s now-shuttered Alligator Alcatraz to build a prison for Palestinians surrounded by a moat full of the ravenous reptiles.

“You read that right,” the liberal US Jewish group J Street said in response to the news. “When cruelty becomes a governing principle instead of an aberration within the Israeli government, something has gone deeply wrong.”

Israeli Environmental Minister Idit Silman signed a directive Wednesday reclassifying Nile crocodiles as “specially managed wild animals,” a novel legal category enabling the government to keep them for security purposes.

Ben-Gvir, who heads the Israel Prison Service (IPS), said he was inspired by the Trump administration’s recently closed Alligator Alcatraz immigrant detention center in Florida. He is seeking to first introduce crocodiles into a moat around Ketziot Prison in southern Israel.

While it is not certain that the plan will come to fruition, Ben-Gvir celebrated Silman’s decree in a social media post showing him petting a crocodile, with the caption: “Cursed terrorist, thinking of trying to escape? Think again.”

Palestinians have occasionally escaped from Israeli lockups, such as in September 2021, when six men used improvised tools, including spoons, to tunnel out of the high-security Gilboa Prison. All six escapees were caught within weeks.

Keep reading

‘Sip your coffee while watching the sunrise’: How Israel is colonizing the West Bank by selling Palestinian land to Jewish Americans

In mid-May, protesters gathered outside a synagogue in Brooklyn to demonstrate against a real estate expo being held inside. The properties advertised for sale were not located in New York City, but in illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, and the target clientele was members of the Jewish American community. 

The “Great Israeli Real Estate Event,” organized by the Israeli company, My Home in Israel, was one of many property fares held across the U.S., Canada, and the UK, targeting prospective Anglophone Jewish buyers. A recently scheduled London event carrying the same name drew widespread condemnation last June from human rights groups and over 100 British lawmakers.

The settlements at the top of the event’s promoted property listings included Ma’ale Adumim, Givat Ze’ev, Karnei Shomron, and Kfar Eldad. Each listed area is undergoing urban expansion and new construction, concurrent with seizure and confiscation orders targeting the Palestinian lands surrounding them  — a systematic process aimed at entrenching settlement dominance.

The promotional advertising for these settlements deploys seductive language to attract investment. An advertisement for a real estate project in Kfar Eldad, located within the Gush Etzion Regional Council southeast of Bethlehem, pitches a rural lifestyle “close to Jerusalem, far from the routine.”  The ad reads: “Time flows a bit differently around here. In the morning you can sip your coffee while watching the sunrise, and just 12 minutes later, before your coffee has even cooled, find yourself in Jerusalem. And in the evening, you’ll return to soothing tranquility. This makes Kfar Eldad the perfect alternative for those seeking reasonably priced housing close to Jerusalem, but away from the noise and traffic of city life.”

Behind the glossy brochures and manicured images of “modern residential communities” lie painful chapters of systematic Palestinian land confiscation — a process that has expanded in recent years to encompass nearly half of the total area that Israeli occupation authorities have declared “state lands” since the Oslo Accords were signed.

The “soothing tranquility” in the hills and open terrain of Bethlehem was, until recently, home to Palestinian and Bedouin communities who practiced seasonal farming and herding. Those original inhabitants were barred from accessing their land, which was confiscated under military orders decades ago, before settlement projects were built on it.

“I owned land in the area of the Gush Etzion bloc’s expansion — land covered in hanging grapevines and almond trees of all kinds,” Ibrahim Ataallah, a resident of Khirbet Beit Skaria, told Mondoweiss. “But I was barred from accessing it after a confiscation order was issued [in 1984]. Even though we in Beit Skaria hold the legal documents proving ownership of the land we live on, they see us as an obstacle to the settlement expansion in Gush Etzion.”

As Atallah described the location of his plot of land, and the grapevines and almond trees it once bore, he looked at the maps and advertisements published by Hebrew real estate websites advertising properties in the Gush Etzion area. An advertisement describing the features of a plot for sale caught his eye. Though he could not pinpoint his own land on the map due to its lack of clarity, the descriptions of the land for sale and the lifestyle being offered to potential settlers hit close to home. 

“I really did drink my coffee at sunrise and waited for my friends from Jerusalem to join me,” he said. “We would talk about the price of grapes at the market, the coffee still warm by the time they arrived.”

“All that separates us from Jerusalem was a few kilometers,” he lamented. Today, that short distance no longer implies access. As a Palestinian ID holder, Atallah is barred from entering Jerusalem without a permit, transforming what was once a routine trip to visit friends into a near-impossible journey.

Keep reading