The Omani delegation during a meeting with the State Council Premier of People’s Republic of China in the Great Hall of China of the People in the Chinese Capital, Beijing, on November 2, 2026 (Social media/x)
An Iranian delegation took part in Beijing talks on Oman’s proposed US-Iran mediation, backed by Chinese guarantees, according to an Asian source.
The Sultan of Oman’s visit to China centered on a new Omani initiative to mediate between Tehran and Washington, backed by Chinese economic and security guarantees, an Asian source told Al Mayadeen’s correspondent in Beijing.
The same source affirmed that the visit was “by no means merely protocol-driven,” with bilateral relations ranking second on the agenda.
The “Omani channel” returned to the table after mediation led by Pakistan and Qatar stalled, according to the source.
Oman revives US-Iran channel with Chinese guarantees
China has worked to make those efforts succeed, the source added, identifying the reasons for the stall as declining trust, the activation of the Mecca defense alliance, and an attempt to separate the Yemeni file from Iran.
The source said Oman had been excluded from that track and had faced US accusations of being too close to Tehran. Beijing, however, views it as the only Gulf state that keeps open channels with all parties and works on several fronts, according to the source.
The source noted that the same channel was behind indirect US-Iran talks in February 2026, which China backed secretly and strongly. It was described as having achieved “unprecedented progress” before Washington resumed the war and ended the process. The source also cited Oman’s record in Yemen, where Muscat sponsored a deal to exchange 1,600 prisoners.
Iran joins closed-door talks with Chinese, Omani FMs
Iran’s ambassador arrived in Beijing with a delegation an hour before the Sultan met the Chinese president, the source said, adding that the delegation held separate talks with Chinese officials on the second floor of the Great Hall of the People.
After the leaders’ meeting, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi and Omani Foreign Minister Badr al-Busaidi stayed for a closed trilateral meeting with the Iranian delegation, in which Deputy Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council Ali Bagheri Kani took part, according to the source.
The talks focused on Oman’s proposed mediation and the guarantees China would provide.
The source said a trilateral or parallel negotiating track is now in operation. It described China as no longer merely an indirect sponsor but “directly present at the negotiating table,” brought in by Oman.
Xi warns against turning the Gulf into great-power chessboard
The remarks come as Sultan Haitham bin Tariq al-Said landed in Beijing on Sunday for a two-day trip, the first ever by an Omani head of state since the two countries opened diplomatic relations in 1978.
According to Omani state media, Haitham told Xi that Muscat greatly values China’s stance on major regional matters. He stressed that growth and stability go hand in hand and that national prosperity relies on security, peace, respect for sovereignty and international law, and the peaceful settlement of disputes.
In a related development, Chinese President Xi Jinping stated on Monday that the Gulf and broader Middle East must not be turned into a contest ground for rival superpowers, as reported by Channel News Asia.
Meeting with Oman’s Sultan in Beijing, he asserted China’s readiness to work alongside Arab countries toward a lasting peace.
Beijing has historically kept a modest profile in Middle Eastern diplomacy. That has shifted as the US-Israeli aggression against Iran, which has disrupted traffic through the Strait of Hormuz and pushed up energy and shipping prices worldwide, has intensified its involvement in peace efforts.
With only days to go before the US midterm elections, Democrats are leading Republicans by 51.4% to 43.2%, according to the figures cited. A Democratic takeover of the House of Representatives could constrain President Donald Trump’s agenda and open the door to investigations into his administration. Yet Trump has continued to focus on Netanyahu’s political future. After publicly endorsing the Israeli prime minister, Israeli media suggested Trump could intervene directly in Israeli politics.
Iran has held neither direct nor indirect negotiations with the United States, and the Strait of Hormuz will not reopen unless Tehran’s seven conditions are met, a senior Iranian lawmaker told Al Mayadeen on Sunday.
Hassan Ghashghavi, spokesperson for the parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, said Tehran is ready for diplomacy if those conditions are fulfilled and is awaiting the US response.
“Our discussions are with the Qataris,” Ghashghavi said, ruling out any direct or indirect contact with the US.
The spokesperson stressed that the lack of progress is on Washington, which he said has yet to settle on a position. “The Americans cannot make up their minds, and the Zionist lobby is blocking an agreement,” he stated.
Tehran’s reference point remains the Islamabad understanding, which provides for a complete end to the war, with the nuclear issue to be discussed in a second phase, Ghashghavi said.
Washington’s own demands are another obstacle. “The ball is in the Americans’ court, and their conditions are unclear,” he noted, cautioning that “the Americans are running out of time.”
Ghashghavi also addressed the message Vance sent to Rezaei, which he described as “personal and restrained in tone.”
A country still at war
The talks have not changed Iran’s wartime footing, according to the spokesperson. “We are still at war. The blockade is part of that war,” he stated.
He affirmed the country is withstanding the pressure, with no shortage of any goods and “multiple routes for transporting goods,” and pointed to a leadership that speaks with one voice. “There is a unified position across Iran’s political and military leadership,” he said.
On the economic front, he added, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi appeared before the committee for two and a half hours and presented a report on economic diplomacy.
Warning of a wide response
Iran has made major advances in missile technology, radar systems and defense capabilities, Ghashghavi said, warning that an attack would not stay contained.
“Any attack on Iran will trigger a major response across a wide geographic area,” he said, adding that “any war our enemies start will end on terms dictated by the Iranian armed forces.”
He pointed to US and Israeli military movements as a sign that they are positioning for an offensive. “We will not start a war, but if one breaks out, even think tanks cannot predict how we will respond,” he stated.
Alongside the standoff with Washington, Iran has moved on its own arrangements for the strait. Ghashghavi said Iran and Oman have agreed on a framework governing transit through the Strait of Hormuz, and parliament is about to review the agreement to approve it and make it binding.
Regional alignment, the Resistance Front
Iran is also working on its regional ties, Ghashghavi explained. “Pakistan, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia agreed that Muslims must confront the Zionist threat. We have no disagreements with the Mecca alliance,” he told Al Mayadeen. The four-party talks in Tehran between Iran and the alliance will continue, with another meeting scheduled in the capital at a lower level of representation.
Egypt is also seeking to join. “Egyptian officials want to join the consultations following the four-party meeting in Tehran,” he said, adding that dialogue between Iranian and Egyptian officials has intensified recently. Iran, he stressed, “will play an active role in the region’s security framework.”
He framed the push for regional cooperation as a response to Israeli aims. “The Zionist movement seeks to divide the region’s countries to serve ‘Israel’s’ interests,” he stated, before reaffirming Iran’s commitment to the Resistance Front.
“We will not abandon the unity of the fronts. Iran remains committed to a shared destiny and common security with the Resistance Front.”
Iranian officials have reaffirmed Tehran’s position against nuclear negotiations under pressure, while warning that any threat against the country will prompt an immediate and stronger response, with no geographical restrictions on potential targets.
“We will respond to any threat immediately and with greater firmness than before, and there will be no geographical restrictions on our targets,” Azizi said.
He stressed that Iran would determine when the war ends, not those who lost the 12-day and 40-day wars.
Window to negotiations closed: Nikzad
Meanwhile, Iranian Parliament Deputy Speaker Ali Nikzad said Iran’s enemies must understand that the Iranian people will not negotiate over the country’s nuclear program under any circumstances or pressure.
Nikzad said the Iranian people had given their adversaries ample opportunities to negotiate over the nuclear issue, but that these opportunities were repeatedly undermined by violations of commitments and attacks on Iran’s peaceful nuclear facilities.
He added that the window for negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program had now closed, stating that Iran’s adversaries had nothing left to say to the Iranian people.
Iran’s nuclear doctrine could change: Rezaei
On Saturday, upreme National Security Council Secretary Mohsen Rezaei said that Iran is discussing whether to keep its nuclear doctrine in place if war breaks out again, though no new decision has been made to change it.
Rezaei told Iranian state television that the push for change is coming from the public. Watching the enemy strike nuclear facilities, he said, people naturally wonder why Iran should remain bound by its previous doctrine.
Anew Democrat-led House Committee on the Judiciary report released this week sheds more light on President Donald Trump’s close relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. The Document, entitled “‘We Have Certain Things in Common, Jeffrey’: The Case Against Donald Trump Emerging in the Epstein Files and DOJ’s Desperate Efforts to Cover it Up,” is based on the accounts of eleven women, five of whom alleged Trump raped or sexually assaulted them in the presence of the disgraced financier. Two of those women were 13-year-old children at the time of the alleged events.
The report portrays both Trump and former United States Special Representative for Global Partnerships Paolo Zampolli as being members of Epstein’s trafficking inner circle, and catalogs how Trump’s Department of Justice (DOJ) “actively obstructed the Epstein investigation into any co-conspirators” and attempted to block the release of the Epstein Files in order to protect the president.
Even so, Trump’s name still appears roughly 38,000 times in the released Epstein Files, with Epstein himself claiming that he introduced Trump’s future wife Melania to him, and that the pair first had sex aboard his infamous “Lolita Express” jet. Melania was, at the time, a model working for Zampolli’s agency.
A Host of Women Come Forward
Beatrice Keul – In 1993, Miss Switzerland Beatrice Keul was in New York City competing in Trump’s American Dream Pageant. It was there that she met both the future president and Jeffrey Epstein. Trump offered to secure her a place at New York University, and for Zampolli to arrange her visa. Epstein, she said, described himself as “Don’s best friend.”
Keul went to a suite in the Plaza Hotel for what she thought was a meeting about NYU. However, upon entering the suite, she said, Trump grabbed her from behind and “brutally” raped her, tearing her dress and caused bleeding and bruising across her body.
“Katie Johnson” – (a pseudonym) alleges in a lawsuit that Trump raped and sexually abused her on multiple occassions in 1994, when she was just 13-years-old. At an Epstein party in New York, she states that she was ordered to strip down to her underwear, massage Epstein, and touch Trump’s penis. Trump and Epstein argued over who would take her virginity, with Epstein getting angry and “violently raping her” when he found out Trump had already done so.
Johnson also alleges that Trump and Epstein threatened to kill her if she went to the authorities, stating “we will make you disappear like [name redacted].”
In a separate complaint, Johnson said that, on another occasion, she pleaded with Trump to wear a condom, to which he struck her in the face and screamed that he “would do whatever he wanted.” After he finished, Johnson claimed that Trump threw money at her and screamed “get a fucking abortion.”
Jane Doe 4 – Another 13-year-old allegedly assaulted by Trump was Jane Doe 4. She told the FBI that, in 1983, she bit Trump while performing oral sex on him, in response to which he hit her in the face. She said that Epstein flew her to New York City on multiple occasions, where she was offered up as “fresh meat” at “intimate gatherings with other, prominent, wealthy men,” where she was “brutally and forcibly battered, assaulted, and raped by these other men.”
Stacey Williams – Williams, a Sports Illustrated swimsuit model, dated Epstein in the 1990s. While at Trump’s Christmas party at the Plaza Hotel, she said that Trump groped her in front of Epstein. “His hands were all over me. They were on my breasts, they were on my butt, they were on, you know, my hips, up and down,” she said. Epstein berated her for letting Trump touch her.
Jill Harth – Harth alleges that in 1993, Trump bundled her into his daughter’s bedroom at Mar-a-Lago, kissed and groped her, and prevented her from leaving.
Jane Doe 1 – At just 14-years-old, Epstein brought her to Trump’s Mar-a-Lago property, telling him “this is a good one, huh?” to which Trump responded “Yes.” She described in detail the sexual abuse she received from Epstein and others, but did not name Trump as one of those individuals.
Maria Farmer – Epstein’s former assistant alleges that, while at the financier’s New York City office, Donald Trump marched into the office in an imposing “predatory” manner. Epstein then appeared and told Trump that Farmer was “not for you,” escorting him to another room where Farmer believes another girl was waiting. She also stated that Trump said he “thought she was 16” although she was actually 25 at the time.
“Kate” – Kate (another pseudonym) states that Epstein’s partner Ghislaine Maxwell introduced her to Trump, “with the clear understanding that she was available for sex.” This sex, she said, did not happen. However, in 1997, the British tabloid, The Sunday Mirror, ran a story reporting how “America’s best known billionaire Donald Trump has fallen under the spell of a 20-year-old English girl” (Kate). It also noted that Maxwell had “introduced several of her attractive friends” to Trump. The Sunday Mirror was owned by Ghislaine’s father, Robert Maxwell, until his death in 1991.
Obfuscating Reality
Many of these allegations were already publicly available. But the fact that they are appearing in an official government publication is highly significant, especially as the report concludes that “there is more than enough evidence” against Trump and that he “must be investigated and prosecuted.”
It also goes into detail analyzing what it sees as a “relentless” Trump Department of Justice cover-up in order to protect the president. In vociferously defending themselves, the report notes, Trump and his team have been caught telling “brazen lies” about his relationship with Epstein.
Among those, it notes, is Trump’s claim that he kicked Epstein out of Mar-a-Lago after he was caught being a “creep”. This assertion, it notes, is contradicted by Trump himself. A 2009 document detailing a conversation between Trump, his Mar-a-Lago manager and his legal team shows that Trump admitted and his manager confirmed that Epstein “was never asked to leave” the premises. “This document remains under redaction in the DOJ database, in clear violation of federal law,” the House report notes.
In 2024, Trump also took to social media to insist that he was “never on Epstein’s plane.” Yet flight records show that he, in fact, flew at least eight different times on the “Lolita Express” during the 1990s alone.
Furthermore, the report takes aim at Trump’s Department of Justice, which, it claims, has attempted to obfuscate the truth and prevent the public from knowing more about the case. “To cover up” Trump’s relationship to Epstein, it states, the “DOJ has actively obstructed the Epstein investigation into any co-conspirators, attempted to prevent the release of the Epstein files, and then released an incomplete and heavily redacted set to the public—all while withholding key information about Trump in the process.”
As a result, it concludes, the DOJ has effectively “given a pass to all the individuals who took part in this decades-long, multibillion-dollar international sex trafficking ring that victimized over 1,000 women and girls.”
Prospects for Justice
While the report makes many explosive allegations and explicitly calls for a special investigation and prosecution, it is unlikely that it will lead to real consequences, at least in the short term. The report was authored by House Democrats, who are the minority in Congress, and are unable to compel witness testimony or solicit documents through subpoenas without some Republican support. Few Republicans have voiced support for more transparency into Epstein, and those who have, such as Thomas Massie or Marjorie Taylor Greene, have been attacked and marginalized by the party.
The potential for the investigation could dramatically change if Democrats win back power in either chamber, but it would rely on them following through on their rhetoric and actually prosecuting the president. Historically, Democrats have shown little interest in declaring a political civil war. This is compounded by former president Bill Clinton’s own ties to Epstein.
The White House brushed off the report as “nothing more than a desperate attempt by crazed Democrats to distract Americans from the surging Republican momentum driven by President Trump’s historic achievements.”
It remains completely uncertain whether Trump will face real consequences as a result of this report. What is clear, however, is that his relationship with the world’s most notorious pedophile sex trafficker is a lot closer than many people understand.
Washington has a plan for Iran. According to a source close to the White House, the plan is to seize one or more of Iran’s islands in the Persian Gulf. Senator Chris Murphy, who says he has been briefed on what the administration intends to do after Tuesday’s midterms, summed it up this week in four words: “their plan is insane.” For once, a United States senator has understated something.
My friend Karl Miller has just finished a report on the limits of American and Israeli war power, and its conclusion fits on a bumper sticker: they can start it, but they can’t finish it. Let me explain why, and then let me explain why the island scheme takes a bad strategic position and makes it considerably worse.
The cupboard is bare
Start with the thing nobody in the White House wants to talk about: missile-defense interceptors. According to public estimates from September that Miller cites, the United States has spent between one-half and two-thirds of its inventory of certain interceptor types since June 2025. Rebuilding those stocks will take at least five years, even with production ramped up. You cannot order a factory to work faster. It needs parts, qualified suppliers, trained workers and testing, and it is competing with demands from the Pacific and from allies who would also like to be defended.
And no, the Pentagon cannot fix this by firing more Tomahawks. Offensive missiles and bombs do a different job from the interceptors that protect ships, bases and cities. You can have a warehouse full of bombs and still be unable to stop the missiles coming back at you. Israel, meanwhile, depends on Washington to resupply its own defenses, which means Israel’s endurance problem is really an American endurance problem with a different flag on it.
The bill comes after the headlines
Miller’s central insight is that retaliation, not the opening strike, sets the limits of this war. Any president can order the first wave. The question is whether he will keep paying after Iran answers: protecting sailors and bases, replenishing defenses, repairing damage, keeping sea lanes open and explaining to voters why gasoline and diesel just went up again. On that score, I share Miller’s blunt judgment. Donald Trump and the Israeli leadership do not have the stomach to carry this fight through to an Iranian surrender.
The economic bill is already staggering. Miller puts the global shortfall in diesel and jet fuel at a minimum of 3 million barrels a day. That is 90 million barrels a month and about 1.1 billion barrels a year. At $150 a barrel, replacing it would cost $13.5 billion a month. His reconstruction estimates for the Gulf’s damaged energy system run from $550 billion to $2.3 trillion, over seven to ten years. Another campaign does not reduce any of those numbers. It adds to them.
And blowing things up does not produce surrender. A destroyed facility is not a permanent loss of capability. A dead leader does not produce a compliant successor. Nuclear restrictions require inspectors, access and verification, none of which can be delivered by a B-2. That is why Miller expects the same cycle we have seen all year: threats, strikes, retaliation, and then a frantic search for an exit that can be called a victory.
Enter the islands
Which brings us to the island plan. Here is how I understand it came together. The week of October 19, Trump was presented with a menu of options for a renewed war on Iran. The plans were not drawn up by the Joint Staff’s J5, the Pentagon’s chief planning directorate, but by the J5 at Central Command, the headquarters that will actually fight the war. Trump, my source says, chose the option of seizing one or more islands. Murphy’s “insane” comment, after his briefing, fits that choice. Murphy has not publicly named the targets. Analysts discussing his briefing have mentioned Kharg, Iran’s main oil export terminal, and Qeshm, the large island that sits across the Strait of Hormuz.
And then, on October 29, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth fired Lieutenant General Brett Sylvia, the Joint Staff’s J5. The Pentagon says he was removed for leaking classified information and failing polygraph tests. Two other Pentagon sources told CBS those accusations are false. What I am told, and what other analysts have heard from their own sources, is that Sylvia opposed the island plan. If that is right, the administration just fired the general whose job was to tell it which plans were bad, a week before it intends to carry out one of them. That is not leadership. That is shooting the smoke detector.
I understand the appeal for Trump. An island is a tangible thing. You can plant a flag on it, take a picture and call it a win. That’s the theory. Now let me walk you through the practice.
Getting there
The traditional way to take an island is an amphibious landing: ships, landing craft, Marines wading ashore. That is almost certainly off the table. Any American amphibious ship that sails into the Persian Gulf puts itself inside range of Iranian anti-ship missiles, drones, mines and fast attack boats. Kharg sits about 16 miles off Iran’s coast. Larak, near Qeshm, sits just a few miles off it. Sending a big-deck amphibious ship into that space is an invitation for the first American capital ship to be lost to enemy fire since the Second World War. Even Proceedings, the Naval Institute’s own journal, ran an analysis in April warning that the Navy might not be able to get close enough to launch amphibious vehicles at all.
That leaves the air. Either you drop paratroopers or you land C-130 transports on the island and offload troops. Here is the arithmetic problem. A C-130 carries fewer than 100 combat-loaded troops, and typically somewhere between 64 and 92 paratroopers, depending on the model. To put 1,000 soldiers or Marines on the ground, you need at least a dozen sorties, and far more once you add vehicles, ammunition, water, medical teams and air defense. Every one of those aircraft is a large, slow, unarmored target flying into airspace where Iran has had years to position short-range air defenses and shoulder-fired missiles. One aircraft shot down on approach and you have lost a company.
The first wave also has to secure the runway before anyone else can land, and we know who gets that job. Airfield seizure is the signature mission of the 75th Ranger Regiment. It is what the Rangers did at Point Salines in Grenada in 1983, at Rio Hato in Panama in 1989 and at Objective Rhino in Afghanistan in 2001. Ranger battalions are reportedly already in the theater, and they would almost certainly be handed the mission of jumping in and seizing the strip so the C-130s can follow. These are the finest light infantry in the world. They are also light infantry: lightly armed, carrying what they can jump with, and dependent on everything that comes in behind them. In Grenada and Panama, the defenders could not shell the airfield from the mainland a few miles away. Here, Iran can. Iran also knows the Rangers’ playbook as well as anyone who has read the history, which means it knows exactly which runway to watch. Sending the Rangers to seize an airfield within sight of the Iranian coast is asking America’s best to hold the door open in a room that is already on fire.
Staying there
The landing is not even the hard part. The hard part is the day after. Once American troops are on the island, they are sitting a few miles from the Iranian coast with no hardened fortifications, inside range of Iranian artillery, rockets, ballistic missiles and swarms of drones. Iran will not need to retake the island. It will simply shell it, around the clock, for as long as the Americans choose to stay. And the Americans will be defending themselves with the same depleted interceptor stocks Miller describes, against targets that are cheap for Iran to build and expensive for us to stop.
Then there is resupply. A Marine Expeditionary Unit carries enough to sustain itself for roughly 15 days. After that, every bullet, every gallon of fuel, every bottle of water and every replacement part has to arrive by air or by sea, through the same gauntlet that made the landing so dangerous. Casualties have to go out the same way. That means an endless air bridge of vulnerable transports, or ships parked inside the Gulf, or both. The island becomes a hostage, and the American public watches the casualty count rise every evening on the news.
And what would it achieve? Seizing a couple of small islands near the Strait does not neutralize Iran’s long southern coastline, which is where the missiles and drones that threaten shipping are actually launched. Taking Kharg would cut into Iran’s oil exports, but Iran has other terminals, and the most likely response would be more strikes on the Gulf states’ oil and water infrastructure, the infrastructure that is already being held together with tape. We would be trading a symbolic flag-raising for a permanent target.
No wonder the general said no
This is the kind of plan that looks wonderful on a whiteboard in Tampa and terrible on the ground in the Gulf. It assumes Iran will not shoot down transports, will not shell an exposed garrison, will not attack resupply and will not widen the war. Every one of those assumptions has been proven wrong this year.
So here we are. The interceptors are half gone. The diesel is gone. The Gulf’s energy system needs a decade of repairs. The general who reportedly warned against this plan has been fired. And the President is preparing to send American troops to sit on an island off Iran’s coast, a few miles from the enemy’s artillery, waiting for C-130s that may not arrive. If you wanted to design a war that the United States can start but cannot finish, you could hardly do better. Somewhere in Tehran, they are probably hoping we go through with it.
Colonel Wilkerson and I discuss with Nima the latest military developments in the Persian Gulf:
Back with my friend Rasheed Muhammad:
I discuss the problems with a US land attack on Iran with Edmund DeMarche:
Scott and I hold court today with Judge Napolitano:
Brandon Weichart and I discuss the indicators that Trump is going to attack Iran:
Robert Barnes breaks down the Brazilian, Israeli and upcoming US elections:
(Republished from Sonar21 by permission of author or representative)
Turkiye’s new defense alliance with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan risks drawing Ankara into Washington’s regional agenda, turning a potential security partnership into a confrontation with Iran and Yemen’s Ansarallah.
Turkiye’s defense pact with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan raises a fundamental question: Can Ankara build an independent regional security order while assuming military commitments that serve Washington’s interests?
The Mecca Alliance is a positive development if it offers an alternative to the US security architecture. But if it merely complements that architecture, aligns with Washington’s burden-sharing strategy, and positions itself against Iran, it becomes a negative one.
An alliance built around US priorities
Unfortunately, the latter tendency currently prevails, for three reasons.
1. The Mecca Alliance aligns with US strategy.
The Trump Doctrine, which seeks US dominance over the Western Hemisphere, also involves transferring some of Washington’s responsibilities in Europe and West Asia to its allies. This is why it is described as a “burden-sharing strategy.”
US officials’ responses to the alliance fit this approach. US President Donald Trump reportedly welcomed the agreement as a sign that countries could take greater responsibility for their own defense. Former US ambassador James Jeffrey also reportedly called it a “good idea,” referring to Washington’s commitments involving China and Iran. In effect, the US is transferring part of the security burden it historically assumed for Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states onto Turkiye.
2. The Mecca Alliance complements NATO and US defense agreements.
Since the agreement was signed on 7 August 2026, officials from Turkiye, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia have maintained that the alliance complements their existing bilateral defense arrangements with Washington. Ankara also regards the agreement as complementary to NATO.
The agreement also provides for defense industry cooperation, joint weapons production, technology transfers, intelligence sharing, and military coordination.
3. Washington, Tel Aviv, and the Mecca Alliance share a common enemy in Yemen.
US Representative Joe Wilson welcomed the agreement and stated, “Now is the time for Turkiye, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to destroy the Houthis.” After the alliance’s 5 October decision to support Saudi Arabia, Wilson again praised the initiative:
“The Mecca Defense Alliance has the potential to be the NATO of the Middle East. I am grateful to our allies Türkiye, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia for activating the alliance in the face of Houthi Iranian-backed aggression.”
Wilson’s enthusiasm is hardly surprising. The Ansarallah-aligned Yemeni Armed Forces (YAF) is an enemy of both Washington and Tel Aviv. Saudi Arabia has conducted military operations against Ansarallah for 11 years, bombing Yemeni territory.
During this period, the US has repeatedly launched operations against Yemen. Retired US Colonel Douglas Macgregor has also claimed that US and Israeli special forces entered Yemen in 2024, only to be repelled by the YAF.
Washington’s long pursuit of a Sunni bloc
The Mecca Alliance partially overlaps with projects the US and Israel have pursued in the region for years, variously described as a “Middle East NATO” or a “Sunni Alliance.”
In a 2012 interview with Charlie Rose, former Shin Bet chief Ami Ayalon advocated a Sunni coalition led by Turkiye and including Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. He argued that the main conflict in West Asia was not between Israel and Palestine but between Sunnis and Shias, and that such a coalition, backed by Washington, could confront Iran. Ayalon also called for Israel to be accepted as a legitimate regional actor.
In 2015, Saudi Arabia established the Islamic Military Alliance Against Terrorism. However, the initiative failed to develop into an effective military force.
In 2017, US Defense Secretary James Mattis outlined a regional security architecture linking Israel with Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and other Gulf states to confront shared threats, particularly Iran.
In 2018, Washington launched the Middle East Strategic Alliance (MESA), envisaged as an umbrella organization for its regional Arab allies and widely dubbed an “Arab NATO.”
In January 2021, the White House recognized Bahrain and the UAE as major US security partners. Reports the following month described Israeli discussions with Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Bahrain over a four-way defense alliance.
In January 2021, Washington transferred Israel from US European Command to US Central Command (CENTCOM), placing it within the same military command structure as Washington’s Arab partners to facilitate regional cooperation against shared threats.
In 2022, Israeli Defense Minister Benny Gantz announced Israel’s participation in a US-led Middle East Air Defense Alliance. Jordan’s King Abdullah II subsequently expressed support for a “Middle East NATO.”
Whose enemies will Turkiye be fighting?
Officials from Turkiye, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan insist that the alliance is not directed against any country and remains open to other states wishing to join. Yet joint defense alliances are generally formed around threats their members perceive as common.
The three countries, however, perceive different threats. Saudi Arabia is fighting the YAF and regards Iran as a threat. Pakistan periodically clashes with India and confronts the Taliban. Turkiye is not engaged in those same confrontations. Ankara is therefore assuming substantial new risks.
Nevertheless, at the request of its partners, Turkiye agreed at the 5 October meeting to consider military support for Saudi Arabia against attacks attributed to the YAF. The alliance’s collective-defense mechanism envisages coordinated assistance, subject to national procedures.
The three countries also lack a common definition of terrorism, designating different organizations as terrorist groups. This is another problem for Ankara.
Ankara’s shifting positions on Yemen
The ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) has never maintained a consistent, principled position on Saudi Arabia’s military operations against Ansarallah over the past 11 years. Instead, Ankara has shifted its position three times.
When Saudi Arabia launched its military intervention in Yemen in 2015, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan declared: “We support Saudi Arabia’s intervention. Turkiye may consider providing logistical support based on the evolution of the situation.”
When Ankara–Riyadh relations deteriorated following journalist Jamal Khashoggi’s murder, Erdogan reversed course. In September 2019, he questioned who had first bombed Yemen and who was responsible for the country’s destruction.
The following month, he directly challenged Riyadh, declaring:
“Saudi Arabia should look into the mirror. Who brought Yemen to this state? Look at its current condition. Did tens of thousands of people not die in Yemen? Hey Saudi Arabia, give account for this first.”
When Ankara subsequently decided to repair relations with Riyadh, its position changed for a third time. In 2022, Erdogan acknowledged sharing Saudi Arabia’s concerns over Ansarallah, stating that while Riyadh remained sensitive to the issue, Ankara had “certain common concerns.”
The arms trade behind Mecca and Badr
After signing the Mecca Alliance agreement with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, Turkiye also signed the Badr Memorandum with Pakistan, Indonesia, and Qatar.
The Badr arrangement primarily concerns military and defense trade. Turkiye sells drones, assault boats, and armored vehicles to Qatar, builds corvettes for Pakistan, and cooperates with Indonesia on tank production.
The economic objective behind the Mecca Agreement also appears to involve equipping Pakistani soldiers with Turkish weapons, financed by Saudi Arabia, for operations linked to Yemen.
Ankara has been building a military-industrial complex around its expanding defense sector, including Baykar.
According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), Turkiye rose to 11th place among the world’s largest arms exporters in 2021–2025, doubling its share of global exports from 0.9 to 1.8 percent compared with 2016–2020. Its arms export volume surged by 122 percent, with Pakistan accounting for 16 percent of Turkish exports, followed by the UAE at 12 percent and Ukraine at 8.4 percent.
Figures from the Defense and Aerospace Industry Exporters’ Association further illustrate this expansion. Turkiye exported approximately $54 billion in defense and aerospace products between 2012 and September 2026. More than $30 billion of that total – over 55 percent – was exported between 2023 and September 2026, exceeding the combined exports of the preceding 11 years.
A 10-year commitment before full ratification
The Mecca Alliance was signed on 7 August 2026, yet before receiving approval from the Turkish Grand National Assembly (TBMM), its members had already held meetings, established committees, and agreed on a secretary-general.
The 16-article agreement reached the TBMM Foreign Affairs Committee on 27 October, where the ratification bill was approved despite opposition objections. It still required consideration by the full assembly.
Opposition lawmakers challenged the provision preventing withdrawal during the first 10 years. The agreement has an indefinite duration, but members can withdraw after the initial decade with at least three months’ written notice.
Why impose this restriction, which retired diplomats have also criticized? Which member stands to benefit?
The economic objective outlined above offers one possible explanation. A decade-long commitment could help Ankara secure Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Pakistan, and Indonesia as long-term markets for Turkish arms exports.
Turkish Deputy Foreign Minister Levent Gumrukcu told lawmakers that activities undertaken before ratification were preparatory and created no personnel, legal, or financial obligations for Turkiye. Any deployment of Turkish forces abroad would require separate parliamentary authorization under Article 92 of the constitution.
The Iran factor: A trap for Ankara
The Mecca Alliance’s rapid move from signing on 7 August to a support decision on 5 October, before completion of domestic ratification, suggests a sense of urgency. What drives it, and whose interests does it serve?
Following Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz, Ansarallah-aligned forces advanced along Yemen’s western coast toward the strategically vital Bab al-Mandab Strait, alarming Washington. Disruption around these two vital energy and trade routes helps explain the pressure for swift military coordination.
The alliance is being called upon to achieve what Saudi Arabia has failed to accomplish over the past 11 years. Turkiye and Pakistan risk being drawn into efforts to push back Ansarallah, a task Washington and Tel Aviv have repeatedly attempted.
This also risks bringing Turkiye into confrontation with Iran, an outcome long sought by the imperialist US and Israel.
For Ankara, assuming a military role in Yemen through the Mecca Alliance would be a trap. The interests at stake there are not Turkiye’s, but those of Washington, Tel Aviv, and the Gulf states. Ankara appears to regard the prospective arms-export revenues as sufficient compensation for that risk.
Turkiye has two ways out.
1. Refuse to ratify the agreement. Although the 16-article pact cleared the TBMM Foreign Affairs Committee on 27 October, the full assembly could still reject or shelve the ratification bill.
2. Bring Iran into the Mecca Alliance. Transforming the pact into a platform for an independent regional security architecture requires expanding it to include Tehran. This would help Turkiye avoid the Yemen trap and facilitate a regional settlement to the Riyadh–Sanaa confrontation.
But is that possible? Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has expressed openness to joining the Mecca Alliance. On 26 October, senior officials from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Turkiye met Iranian officials in Tehran. The four sides agreed to continue discussions on regional peace and security.
Whether the talks are aimed at bringing Iran into the Mecca Alliance or securing concessions over Sanaa amid mounting US-Israeli threats against Tehran remains unclear.
The photo combo shows Leader of the Islamic Revolution and Commander-in-Chief of Iran’s Armed Forces Ayatollah Seyyed Mojtaba Khamenei (R), alongside top commanders of the Iranian Armed Forces.
Leader of the Islamic Revolution and Commander-in-Chief of Iran’s Armed Forces Ayatollah Seyyed Mojtaba Khamenei has ordered senior military commanders to ensure that any level or type of enemy threat is met with an “immediate, impactful, and geographically unrestricted response.”
During a meeting with senior commanders of the Armed Forces, Ayatollah Khamenei emphasized that “intelligent combat readiness for a powerful confrontation with enemies is a fundamental prerequisite for achieving maximum deterrence.”
He stated that should Iran’s enemies resume military or terrorist attacks, “it will be the Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic and the Iranian nation that will determine when and under what conditions those attacks will end.”
The Commander-in-Chief also underscored the need to “strengthen military intelligence architecture,” deepen indigenous defense capabilities in both “doctrine” and “tactics,” and “enhance modernized defense and security capacities through the utilization of emerging technologies.”
He further highlighted the importance of “strengthening spiritual foundations and the spirit of jihad,” alongside “unremitting efforts to meet the livelihood needs of Armed Forces personnel and provide them with the necessary support.”
In another directive, the Leader ordered the “comprehensive updating of the military target database” to ensure that “all physical and non-physical assets of the US-Zionist enemy are brought within the reach of the Armed Forces.”
He described nationwide support for the Armed Forces as “one of the pillars of deterrence against anti-Iranian foreign powers and their domestic mercenaries.”
Referring to the eight-month presence of people in public squares across Iran, the Leader said it was “a continuation of the Eight-Year Sacred Defense,” which, alongside the steadfastness of military, police and Basij forces, “has protected, and will continue to protect, the territorial integrity of Iran and the Islamic system.”
Ayatollah Khamenei also expressed his appreciation for “the intelligent steadfastness of the Resistance Front in various countries,” describing the “unity of operational domains” as “a decisive factor with a strategic impact on shaping the new political and security order in West Asia.”
He expressed hope that the new order would increasingly “lay the groundwork for unity among Muslim nations and governments and the formation of the New Islamic Civilization.”
During the meeting, Major General Ali Abdollahi, Chief of the Joint Staff of Iran’s Armed Forces, Major General Amir Hatami, commander of the Army, and Major General Ahmad Vahidi, commander of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC), presented reports on the high readiness of the country’s defenders along the Persian Gulf coast, in the operational areas of the Strait of Hormuz and the Sea of Oman, and along the northwestern and southeastern borders.
They also briefed the Leader on the multi-fold increase in the production of various types of key munitions and reconnaissance, support, and combat weapons.
Expressing satisfaction with the measures taken, Ayatollah Khamenei asked the senior commanders to convey his “gratitude and profound appreciation” to all military, police, and Basij forces, personnel of these organizations, dedicated Ministry of Defense staff, and their families.
Political facilities and headquarters of the aggressor and its regional backers would be targeted in any Iranian retaliation, a senior official tells Al Mayadeen.
Iran’s Armed Forces have completed a comprehensive, updated plan in response to any possible aggression, and it is now fully ready, a senior regional political-security official told Al Mayadeen.
The official added that the Islamic Republic’s procedural and operational plan greenlights an immediate response to any military aggression, coupled with a firm decision to launch a comprehensive and very wide-ranging response.
According to the official, Tehran is confident that its adversaries and their backers in the region will be shocked by the scale and severity of the Iranian response, in a way like never before.
More extensive target list
The official said that should the aggressor carry out “terrorist acts”, Iran’s list of “legitimate targets” would be similar and even more extensive.
Furthermore, the official told Al Mayadeen that the immediate, wide-ranging Iranian response would include the political facilities, centers, and headquarters belonging to the “enemy and its regional backers.”
The official invoked the saying “Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones,” warning countries against allowing the US and “Israel” to use their territory and capabilities to target their “big neighbor”.
The remarks come amid reports of US mediation efforts involving Tehran, which Iranian international affairs and foreign policy expert Mostafa Khoshcheshm described in comments to Al Mayadeen as a show of diplomacy.
US uses mediation to create Iran talks illusion to ease oil prices: Excl
Earlier, Iranian international affairs and foreign policy expert Mostafa Khoshcheshm stated that the United States is sending mediators to Tehran to create the impression that negotiations are underway, with the aim of easing pressure on oil prices.
He described the US proposals as a return to the starting point of the negotiations in Islamabad, saying Washington had already presented its demands on the nuclear file during those discussions.
“The US proposals represent a return to square one,” he told Al Mayadeen.
Economic war, not military
Characterizing the confrontation with Washington as primarily an economic and technological war rather than a military one, the Iranian expert argued that the economic confrontation between the two countries was being fought through opposing measures: the US was imposing a blockade on Iran, while Tehran was resorting to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, thus the surge in oil prices.
To this end, Khoshcheshm said, Iran possesses a broad range of military equipment that enabled it to maintain control over the Strait of Hormuz. He cited military vessels, remotely operated boats, and autonomous submarines as capabilities Tehran possesses.
He warned that the coming weeks would bring further escalation in the confrontation over the strategic waterway.
Khoshcheshm warns of possible US attack after midterm elections
The Iranian expert said substantial US military capabilities have been deployed across several countries, arguing that Washington was preparing to launch an attack on Iran after the US midterm elections.
He added that Tehran knew which countries hosted secret US military bases and was monitoring preparations for a possible assault. Khoshcheshm also dismissed the role of the US vice president in decision-making, saying President Donald Trump was the central figure in the US administration.
In this context, he warned that Iran would open new fronts in any future confrontation and has developed capabilities to counter the US naval fleet in the region.
Iran will take no new step before the United States implements the seven conditions Tehran has communicated to Washington, an informed Iranian source told Al Mayadeen, describing the demands as a “red line” that cannot be reversed.
The source also said US Vice President JD Vance recently exchanged correspondence with the Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, Mohsen Rezaei, and dismissed US President Donald Trump’s account of the exchange as “completely false”.
Disputed account of Vance letter
The source slammed Trump’s claim that Vance’s letter was a response to an Iranian request for equipment and medicine as “false”. American reports portraying the correspondence as a sign of progress in talks, or of an Iranian retreat, are also incorrect, the source stressed.
Exchanges of messages between US and Iranian officials are “not exceptional” and have known precedents, the source noted.
However, according to the source, the turn by senior US officials to correspondence reflects Washington’s inability to achieve its goals by other means.
Tehran will disclose the contents of the letter “when it deems the time appropriate,” the source revealed.
Seven conditions ‘all at once’
The source told Al Mayadeen that the seven terms must be carried out “all at once” and not in stages. Neither the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz nor the launch of new talks will take place before Iran’s conditions are met, the source said.
Iran will not back down from the conditions under pressure from diplomatic moves, the source emphasized.
Nuclear file
Regarding the nuclear question, the source said the renewed focus on the file reflects an American attempt to strip Iran of its nuclear deterrence card. Washington wants to use the issue to present the war as a success, the source said, and is seeking through psychological and diplomatic pressure to destroy or seize Iran’s nuclear capabilities.
“If the United States claims it destroyed the enriched nuclear material, why does it continue to demand it?” the source asked.
Tehran is wary that removing the enriched material from the country would prompt Washington to launch a new act of aggression instead of ending the war, the source said.
Message to mediators
Through Al Mayadeen, the source called on mediators to abide by the principles of mediation and refrain from trying to impose US demands on Iran. Tehran, the source said, will not accept mediation limited to relaying US demands and pressing Iran to accept them.
Turning to the Gulf, the source said Iran has shown goodwill toward the Gulf states and will not allow any of them to exploit Tehran.
Any use of American bases in countries of the region to launch any aggression on Iranian interests will be met with a response “commensurate with the nature of the attack,” the source noted.
No one has the right to object to Iran targeting sites inside countries whose territory is used as launchpads for attacks on Iranian interests, the source concluded.
Iran insists on all seven conditions as Trump seeks a deal
On his part, former Iranian Ambassador to Lebanon Mojtaba Amani told Al Mayadeen that Iran is reviewing a message sent by US Vice President JD Vance to Major General Mohsen Rezaei.
Amani said US President Donald Trump is seeking to save face ahead of the US midterm elections.
He added that Trump has no choice but to reach an understanding with Iran, which hinges on the seven conditions it set, stressing that Tehran has not changed its position in this regard.
The Iranian diplomat also said Washington’s “America First” policy has alienated many of its allies.
Meanwhile, Al Mayadeen’s Tehran bureau chief said Iran’s central message is that all seven conditions must be implemented simultaneously.
The bureau chief added that Iran seeks to convey that its correspondence with the US stems from Washington’s inability to achieve its objectives.
What are the seven conditions?
Iran has repeatedly demanded that Washington fulfill the seven conditions before the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.
The conditions are as follows:
Ending all military and hostile actions on all fronts, including Lebanon;
Releasing frozen Iranian assets;
Lifting the naval and oil blockade;
Removing economic and political sanctions;
Withdrawing US naval and air forces from areas near Iran;
Hezbollah Secretary General Sheikh Naim Qassem, emphasized that the resistance continues under the legitimate right of resistance and what is guaranteed by the Taif Agreement, and that it will confront any aggression against it and against Lebanon. He stressed that “there is no room for discussion about disarming the resistance as long as the occupation exists and its aggression continues.”
In a statement regarding Hezbollah’s position on political developments in Lebanon and the region—addressed to “our loyal, sacrificing, and honorable people”—Sheikh Qassem demanded that the enemy withdraw in accordance with the November 27, 2024 agreement and Resolution 1701, and that the Lebanese Army deploy south of the Litani River.
He affirmed that “the framework agreement holds no legitimacy” as it violates the constitution, the Taif Agreement, laws, the presidential oath, and the government’s ministerial statement. He considered it “null and void,” arguing that it grants the enemy what it does not deserve, compromises Lebanon’s sources of strength, and relies on sedition and the sabotage of the country.
He explained that Hezbollah attaches importance to the Iran-US agreement because it is the sole available source of strength alongside the steadfastness of the resistance, its people, and its supporters. He noted that the agreement proved its effectiveness as soon as the memorandum of understanding was launched, by lowering the level of aggression against Lebanon.
He added that the Islamic Republic of Iran places stopping the Israeli aggression against Lebanon and withdrawing from its lands at the top of its priorities, describing this as “a great sacrifice that we appreciate for the icon of the free people of the world.” He stated: “It does not concern us who governs the usurping Israeli entity, but let it know that it will not be able to continue its occupation, and it must leave our land.”
He called for putting an end to American tutelage and its control over certain junctions of the state, stressing that “tutelage is like occupation, and both are a violation of sovereignty.”
He saluted the wonderful cohesion of their people and all honorable citizens in the country around the resistance, renewing the pledge launched by Hezbollah under the title “A Promise and a Commitment.” He said: “We will remain together for sheltering, restoration, and reconstruction, with our capabilities and efforts so that the Lebanese state performs its duties, with the assistance of fraternal and friendly countries.”
He emphasized keenness on national unity and readiness to do everything possible to bridge the rift and unify stances, adding: “However, we want actions from others that practically confirm this conviction in unity.”
He reassured that the relationship between Hezbollah, the Amal Movement, and allied forces supporting the resistance is solid regarding the titles of Lebanon’s sovereignty, the importance of the national army’s role and support for it, the rejection of sedition in all its forms, and dialogue and understanding with all components of the people and the authority within the framework of the constants of sovereignty and the constitution.
Sheikh Qassem began his statement by emphasizing that the resistance arose in our region due to the Israeli occupation supported by the tyrants of the world, led by America. He noted that Hezbollah in Lebanon has pursued this resistance since its inception in 1982, alongside all honorable people in Lebanon and the region, to confront the occupation and liberate the land and the people.
He stated that all wars instigated by this Zionist enemy under flimsy pretexts are expansionist wars aimed at establishing “Greater Israel,” and that agreements concluded with it and those it attacked—such as Madrid and Oslo—were merely stations to cement what it occupied in anticipation of a new phase for a new war, which is why it never abided by any agreement.
He added that without American and Western support, the enemy would not have been able to solidify its occupation or expand, stressing that this support led to genocide against the steadfast and struggling Palestinian people in Gaza, the West Bank, and all of Palestine. However, the steadfastness of this people in the face of the occupation and the supporting hegemony will keep Jerusalem and Palestine for its people, God willing.
He stressed that “the cost of the resistance is exorbitant, but surrender and concession leave nothing.”
In Lebanon, he affirmed that without the resistance, the sacrifices of the people, the offering of righteous martyrs—led by the Master of the Martyrs of the Nation, Mr. Hassan (may God be pleased with him) and Al-Hashimi—the wounded and prisoners, the endurance of displacement burdens, and the destruction of homes and crops, and without this great steadfastness, the Israeli enemy would have begun establishing settlements, controlled all of Lebanon in terms of politics, administration, and land, and would not have stopped at the limits it is at now.
He said: “Our steadfastness and the continuation of our resistance is our only path to liberate our entire land, even after a while.”
He viewed the counterpart image on the enemy’s side as one of failure to achieve objectives, internal turmoil, and political, economic, and social crises whose results are successively unfolding and reflecting on its future performance, considering that the outcome of the Israeli elections is “one of the pictures of defeat.”
Regarding America, Sheikh Qassem said that “the tyrannical America’s situation is no better,” pointing out that Iran and its great people stood firm, and Iran offered martyrs—led by the dearest Master, the leader of its march and the march of the nation, the martyred Imam Khamenei (may his secret be sanctified) and his family, and martyrs from leaders and the people—yet it thwarted the objectives of America and Israel in overthrowing the Islamic system and partitioning the country.
He added that it has become clear it is impossible for America to control Iran, at a time when America is experiencing turmoil in its political decisions, a sharp economic crisis, and has lost its global standing as it prepares to withdraw from the region.
He affirmed that all of this was achieved thanks to the steadfastness of the great Iranian people and the wise and courageous leadership of Ayatollah Sayyid Mojtaba Khamenei (may his shadow endure). He concluded his statement with the Quranic verse: “And Allah will surely support those who support Him. Indeed, Allah is Powerful and Exalted in Might.” (Al-Hajj: 40)
With 76.8% of ballot boxes counted, partial results show gains for the Joint List and Ra’am, with neither Netanyahu nor Eisenkot’s camp securing a parliamentary majority.
Arab-led lists reached a combined 19 seats in the Israeli parliamentary election count, Al Mayadeen‘s correspondent in occupied Palestine reported on Wednesday, highlighting their strong showing with around 70% of votes counted.
The Joint List secured 13 seats, while Ra’am stood at six, according to the correspondent.
The figures place the Arab-led parties in a potentially influential position as the two main rival blocs remain below the 61 seats needed for a majority in the 120-member Knesset.
Netanyahu ahead, but short of a majority
A subsequent update published by The Times of Israel, citing partial Central Elections Committee results, put Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s bloc at 54 seats, compared with 47 for the camp led by Yashar leader Gadi Eisenkot. The Arab-led parties retained their combined 19 seats.
That update reflected 76.8% of ballot boxes counted as of 10:58 am, leaving Netanyahu’s camp seven seats short of a parliamentary majority and Eisenkot’s camp 14 seats short.
Al Mayadeen‘s correspondent reported that Eisenkot had pledged to bring Netanyahu’s rule to an end, yet a wide gap between the rival camps tells a different story.
Based on the reported figures, Eisenkot’s bloc and the Arab-led parties would together hold 66 seats. However, translating that numerical majority into a governing arrangement would depend on political agreements; the seat totals alone do not indicate an agreed coalition.
Unity government among possible scenarios
Al Mayadeen‘s correspondent in occupied Palestine reported that Eisenkot’s camp faces several possible paths, including entering a “national” unity government with Netanyahu.
Another scenario is that neither camp succeeds in forming a government, the correspondent added, leaving the political deadlock unresolved.
The correspondent also assessed that removing Itamar Ben-Gvir from government would, in itself, represent an achievement for Palestinians.
Remaining ballots could shift the balance
Several smaller parties remained below the electoral threshold. Reservists stood at 2.6%, People of Israel at 1.7%, and Charedi Public at 0.2%.
Parties must obtain at least 3.25% of valid votes to qualify for representation in the Knesset.
The distribution remains provisional as counting continues.
Ballots submitted in double envelopes, including those cast by soldiers, are processed later and could alter the eventual allocation of seats.
The Israeli elections, scheduled for October 27, 2026, will determine the future of Benjamin Netanyahu’s rule amid deep political divisions, the ongoing genocide in Gaza, and growing Israeli attacks, with far-reaching implications for Palestine and the wider West Asia.
Alaeddin Boroujerdi, a member of the Iranian Parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, speaks in an exclusive interview with Al Mayadeen, Oct 26, 2026 (Screengrab)
Member of the Iranian Parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, Alaeddin Boroujerdi, tells Al Mayadeen that Tehran will not negotiate with Washington before its seven conditions are met, warning of a harsher response to any new war.
Alaeddin Boroujerdi, a member of the Iranian Parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, told Al Mayadeen on Monday that Tehran would not negotiate with Washington unless Iran’s seven conditions were implemented, warning that any renewed war would trigger a harsher Iranian response and further damage across the region.
In an interview with Al Mayadeen, Boroujerdi said Iran was not ruling out the possibility of the United States making “another foolish move.” He stressed that Tehran’s response to any new war would be more severe and that its conditions would become more stringent.
Boroujerdi said Iran’s missile stockpile had increased by more than 50%, adding that it “will not run out even if the war continues for two years.”
He also argued that Iran’s missile and drone capabilities were equivalent to a nuclear bomb in their impact, while insisting that Tehran would not agree to surrender its enriched uranium.
“Some parties in Iran believe there is no point in adhering to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty if the United States does not abide by it,” he said.
Strait of Hormuz navigation will not return to previous status
Addressing the Strait of Hormuz, Boroujerdi said Oman had agreed to a new arrangement reached with Iran and that a joint statement on the waterway had been planned before US pressure intervened.
He stressed that no oil would be exported from the region if Iran were prevented from exporting its own oil, adding that “the navigation system in the Strait of Hormuz will not return to its previous status.”
His remarks come as Tehran continues to insist that any diplomatic process must take account of Iran’s conditions and its position on regional security and the strategic waterway.
Tehran meeting signals push for regional security cooperation
Boroujerdi stressed that Monday’s quadrilateral meeting in Tehran involving Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Turkey is highly significant, calling it a positive development following the US defeat in the region.
He said Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Turkey had informed Tehran of their intention to send a security delegation for dialogue, adding that Iran welcomed the move. He stated that the meeting is an initial step that saw a positive exchange of views under the leadership of Major General Mohsen Rezaei, secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council.
According to Boroujerdi, the repercussions of US President Donald Trump’s defeat had become visible in the security sphere, as regional countries had lost confidence in Washington’s ability to guarantee their security. He said governments across the region were reconsidering their broader security policies.
He urged regional states to recognize that “the United States cannot help provide their security,” adding that countries that established relations with the Israeli regime had miscalculated and would bear the consequences.
Boroujerdi said one outcome of the two wars imposed on Iran had been the destruction of US bases in the region. He also linked public protests against governments in Europe to the repercussions of the “terrorist attack” on Iran.
He stressed that Lebanon’s security was inseparable from Iran’s, arguing that Muslim countries should place greater confidence in their own capabilities. The Islamic world, he said, possessed substantial independent capacity and regional governments should work toward a new roadmap.
On Qatari mediation efforts, Boroujerdi said the initiatives were being coordinated with the United States and expressed doubt that they would produce results as the US elections approached.
On Yemen, he said the key to resolving the crisis lay with Saudi Arabia rather than Iran, expressing hope that Riyadh would reconsider its policies.
Boroujerdi also highlighted the importance of Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian’s visit to Moscow, describing it as significant for relations between Tehran and Russia.
His statements follow a quadrilateral meeting held in Tehran on Monday, during which Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Türkiye agreed to continue discussions aimed at strengthening cooperation in regional peace and security, according to the meeting’s statement.
The gathering brought together the Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council Mohsen Rezaei; Saudi Defense Minister Prince Khalid bin Salman; Pakistan’s Army Chief Asim Munir; and Turkey’s intelligence chief Ibrahim Kalin
Israeli Channel 12 reported that Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir refused a request by Benjamin Netanyahu to make preparations regarding the Iranian front, out of concern that Tehran would interpret them as an indication of the Israeli entity’s intention to launch a war against it.
Following up on a report it broadcast yesterday regarding the dispute between Netanyahu and Zamir, the channel explained that the Chief of Staff considered that the move could prompt Iran to launch an attack, leading to being dragged into a confrontation.
Trump is reviving the Monroe Doctrine to assert US dominance across Latin America, but growing opposition at home raises a deeper question: who gets to decide the region’s future?
In 1823, US President James Monroe introduced his namesake doctrine, establishing that European powers should not interfere in or establish new colonies in the Americas, while the United States would refrain from intervening in European affairs.
More than two centuries later, the principle has taken on a very different meaning. Over time, Washington’s interpretation evolved from a warning against European interference into a broader justification for US neo-imperialism across the Western Hemisphere, treating the Americas as its own playground, rather than a collective of sovereign countries.
This transformation took a significant step in 1904, when President Theodore Roosevelt expanded the doctrine through the Roosevelt Corollary, asserting a US “right” to intervene in Latin American countries when Washington deemed it necessary, infringing on their independence, sovereignty, and decision-making.
Now, President Donald Trump has revived the Monroe Doctrine in full force as a guiding principle of US policy toward the Western Hemisphere, raising a question that has shaped Washington’s relationship with Latin America for generations: Who gets to decide the future of the Americas?
The Trump Corollary
Trump did not keep his revival of the Monroe Doctrine subtle. In his administration’s National Security Strategy published in November of 2025, the document calls for a “Trump Corollary” to this principle, with page 16 stating, “After years of neglect, the United States will reassert and enforce the Monroe Doctrine to restore American preeminence in the Western Hemisphere.”
Trump announced this Corollary in a December 2, 2025 message marking the Monroe Doctrine anniversary, declaring it “alive and well” and linking its revival to his administration’s efforts to expand US influence across the hemisphere. He cited efforts to secure US access through the Panama Canal, reestablish American maritime dominance, combat drug trafficking networks, and curb migration.
The three ways the US is imposing its influence on Latin America
The National Security Strategy goes further, pledging to prevent outside powers from influencing strategically important countries in the region. In practice, this approach could constrain Latin American countries’ freedom to choose foreign investors and partners when those relationships conflict with Washington’s strategic priorities.
The document states that Washington “will deny non-Hemispheric competitors the ability to position forces or other threatening capabilities, or to own or control strategically vital assets, in our Hemisphere,” which, in other words, means the US would affect Latin American countries’ decisions about foreign investment, ownership, and security partnerships.
This crystallized in the Panama case. After Trump threatened to take back the Panama Canal and refused to rule out military force, his administration demanded that Panama reduce Chinese influence around the waterway.
Panamanian President José Raúl Mulino rejected the demand, insisting that the canal belonged to Panama and that its sovereignty was not negotiable. The canal had come under full Panamanian control in 1999 under the Torrijos-Carter Treaties.
During a February 2025 visit, Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned that Washington would take “measures necessary” if Panama failed to make immediate changes.
Those concerns included the operations of two ports by Hong Kong-based company CK Hutchison, although the canal itself remained under Panamanian administration. Following the meeting, Mulino announced that Panama would not renew its agreement with China’s Belt and Road Initiative and would review arrangements involving Chinese businesses.
Cuba offers another example of Washington using its economic power to influence the decisions of other sovereign countries. On January 29, 2026, Trump signed an executive order authorizing additional tariffs on goods from countries that supply oil to Cuba, extending the economic pressure beyond Havana to governments that maintain energy ties with the island. The order also allows the measures to be modified if Cuba or the affected countries take steps to align with US national-security and foreign-policy objectives.
Mexico, one of Cuba’s major oil suppliers, was among the countries facing this dilemma. Following Trump’s announcement, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum said her government would seek a diplomatic solution while avoiding tariffs on Mexican exports to the United States.
With this, the US hits two birds with one stone: it exerts more pressure on Cuba’s energy sector, which is struggling due to decades of sanctions, while affecting decision-making in Mexico, which has to choose between additional tariffs or maintaining a partnership with Havana.
The question of military deployment
In another passage, the NSS declares that Washington would use “targeted deployments to secure the border and defeat cartels, including where necessary the use of lethal force to replace the failed law enforcement-only strategy of the last several decades.”
The most dramatic example came in the January 3, 2026 abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, whom Trump alleges is leading the Cartel de los Soles and is involved in drug trafficking, with no evidence yet presented for these claims, which remain unproven in court.
This illustrates how the US would justify the use of force to impose political changes in a country through an action as extreme as abducting a President of said country.
The aggression also raises a separate question about Washington’s willingness to use military force against a sitting Latin American president in pursuit of its political and security objectives, and how it can do this.
The use of force extended beyond Venezuela’s leadership. Beginning in September 2025, US forces also carried out repeated strikes against boats they claimed were transporting drugs in the Caribbean Sea and the eastern Pacific. By August 2026, the strikes had reportedly killed 223 people across 67 attacks, according to Associated Press reporting, all without any evidence presented.
The administration defended the strikes as part of its fight against drug-trafficking groups, but questions persisted over the evidence supporting individual targeting decisions and the legality of using lethal force against suspected traffickers without due process.
If Washington can classify alleged traffickers as targets in an armed conflict and carry out lethal strikes without bringing them before a court, how much room remains for conventional law enforcement and due process? Can the US classify anyone it wants as a narco-terrorist and carry out extrajudicial killings under the pretext?
The concerns became particularly concrete in Ecuador. In October 2026, Human Rights Watch reported that US forces had intercepted and destroyed eight Ecuadorian fishing vessels in August and September, alleging that they served as refuelling stations for drug-trafficking operations. Neither government had publicly disclosed compelling evidence linking individual crew members to criminal activity.
The legal questions extend beyond the evidence against individual crews. In November 2025, UN human rights experts warned that the repeated strikes against alleged drug-trafficking vessels appeared to lack a valid basis in self-defense or an armed conflict, and raised concerns over the absence of efforts to apprehend those targeted. The Trump administration’s designation of its targets as “narco-terrorists” does not, by itself, resolve whether the use of lethal force against them is lawful.
The broader question, then, is who gets to decide when a Latin American country poses a threat to US security, and what Washington is entitled to do in response. If the United States can unilaterally determine who constitutes a threat and use military force to pursue its own assessment, the sovereignty of countries across the region risks becoming conditional on Washington’s security priorities.
Alliances or subjugations?
Even the seemingly friendly parts of this strategy have a darker underbelly to them, specifically where it says Washington will “reward and encourage the region’s governments, political parties, and movements broadly aligned with our principles and strategy.” On the surface, this measure looks innocent, as alliances and partnerships are a natural part of politics. The issue rises when these incentives become a means of influencing political outcomes in a country.
Argentina may be the prime example of this measure. In October 2025, the Trump administration announced a $20 billion currency-swap arrangement to support Argentina’s economy ahead of legislative elections. Trump subsequently tied continued US backing to the electoral performance of President Javier Milei’s party, stating, “If he wins, we’re staying with him. And if he doesn’t win, we’re gone.”
The episode illustrated how financial assistance can become entangled with a country’s domestic political process when Washington links continued support to the electoral success of a government aligned with its interests. For a country facing economic instability like Argentina, the prospect of losing such support raises questions about how independently its political leadership can make decisions without considering the preferences of its most powerful partners.
While such a scenario may be unlikely given the close relationship between Trump and Milei, the arrangement raises questions about Argentina’s room for independent decision-making. If Milei were to pursue domestic policies that conflicted with Washington’s priorities, would his government risk losing US support? The possibility of such a consequence illustrates how tying financial assistance to political alignment can influence a country’s domestic policy choices, even without direct intervention in its decision-making.
Brazil offers another example of Washington using its economic power to influence a sovereign country’s domestic affairs. During Bolsonaro’s presidency from 2019 to 2022, he cultivated a close relationship with Trump, aligning Brazil more closely with Washington’s foreign policy. In 2019, Trump designated Brazil a major non-NATO ally, while the two leaders pledged to deepen cooperation on security, trade and regional affairs.
That political alignment resurfaced after Bolsonaro was convicted by Brazil’s Supreme Court in September 2025 for plotting to overturn the results of the country’s 2022 presidential election. Trump publicly defended his ally, denouncing the proceedings as a “witch hunt” and announcing tariffs that would raise duties on many Brazilian imports to 50%. His executive order explicitly cited Bolsonaro’s prosecution and Brazil’s judicial policies among the grounds for the measures.
The move went beyond expressing support for a political ally: Trump linked trade penalties against Brazil to a domestic judicial proceeding. Leveraging access to the US market over a case handled by Brazil’s own institutions, Washington raised questions about the extent to which it was prepared to use its economic power to influence another country’s internal affairs.
Trump’s policies face widespread disapproval amid falling ratings
Trump’s assertion of US dominance over the Western Hemisphere has not translated into broad support among Americans. Across several of the administration’s actions in Latin America, public opposition has outpaced support.
In a January 2026 AP-NORC poll, 57% of Americans disapproved of Trump’s handling of Venezuela, while 56% said he had gone too far in using the US military to intervene abroad. A separate Pew Research Center survey later that month found Americans divided over the initial military action against Nicolás Maduro, but 64% opposed sending US ground troops to Venezuela.
The objections were not limited to military intervention. A September 2025 AtlasIntel poll found that 56.6% of Americans opposed Trump’s 50% tariffs on Brazilian goods when presented as a means of pressuring Brazil’s judiciary over its investigation of former President Jair Bolsonaro, compared with 28.4% who supported them.
In February 2026, a YouGov poll found that 46% disapproved of the US blocking oil shipments to Cuba, while 28% approved. Earlier, a December 2025 Reuters/Ipsos poll found that 48% opposed strikes against suspected drug-smuggling boats without prior judicial authorization, compared with 34% who supported them.
The same pattern appeared when Washington’s ambitions turned toward the Panama Canal. An August 2026 Economist/YouGov poll found that 58% opposed using force to take control of the canal. Meanwhile, an October 2025 Economist/YouGov poll found that a majority disapproved of providing financial assistance to stabilize Argentina’s currency.
These polls measure different policies and cannot be treated as a single verdict on Trump’s Latin America agenda. Taken together, however, they reveal a recurring gap between the administration’s willingness to assert US power in the region and public support for some of the means it has chosen to do so.
Americans disapprove of Trump’s foreign policy
But here lies the real problem for Trump’s vision of American dominance: how much of this interventionist agenda do Americans themselves actually support? Is the public ready for a return to a more interventionist US role in Latin America, or does it still believe that the region’s countries should determine their own political futures?
A January 2026 YouGov survey offers an important answer. 46% of Americans favoured a US policy of acting as a good neighbour and avoiding interference in Latin American countries’ domestic affairs, compared with 27% who favoured military intervention to address serious wrongdoing.
And the unease was not confined to Latin America. An AP-NORC poll that month found that 61% disapproved of Trump’s handling of foreign affairs. By October 2026, only 35% of Americans told Pew Research Center that they were confident in Trump’s ability to make good foreign-policy decisions, down from 53% in November 2024.
There is a contradiction at the heart of Trump’s vision of American dominance: as he seeks to expand Washington’s reach across Latin America, his standing at home continues to weaken. With approval ratings falling and the 2026 midterms approaching, growing discontent with his presidency could threaten Republican control of Congress and complicate his ambitions across the hemisphere, and his foreign policy is playing a role in this decline.
Midterms expose risk facing Trump and the GOP
Trump’s declining approval ratings are increasingly putting Republicans under pressure ahead of the November midterm elections, and this decline is particularly striking when compared with the beginning of Trump’s second term.
In February 2025, Pew Research Center found that 47% of Americans approved of his performance, while 51% disapproved. By October 2026, approval had fallen to 30%, with disapproval rising to 68%, bringing his rating close to the lowest point of his first presidency.
The dissatisfaction is translating into the congressional race: 44% of registered voters said they viewed their vote as a way to oppose Trump, compared with 19% who saw it as a vote of support for the president. The same survey put Democratic candidates ahead of Republicans by 44% to 36% in the general congressional vote.
The latest polling points to growing Democratic strength in the House race, while control of the Senate remains more uncertain. RealClearPolitics’ polling average for September 28 to October 19 put Democrats ahead by 8.3 percentage points in the national congressional ballot, with 50.4% support compared with 42.1% for Republicans.
The Senate presents a tighter contest: a Pew Research Center survey found that 46% of Americans expected Democrats to take control, while 48% believed Republicans would retain their majority. Republicans currently hold 53 of the Senate’s 100 seats.
The prospect of Democrats reclaiming the Senate has grown more credible as the electoral climate has shifted against Republicans, and the numbers behind that shift deserve real attention.
In the 2024 elections, Republican candidates led the aggregate House vote by nearly three percentage points. By September 2026, Democrats had opened an eight-point lead in the national congressional ballot, a swing of roughly 11 points toward the party.
That movement has reached the key Senate contests as well: October polling shows Democratic candidates leading in Republican-held states including Ohio and North Carolina, while the race in Texas remained closely contested.
RealClearPolling’s averages showed Democratic candidate Sherrod Brown leading Republican Jon Husted in Ohio by 47.7% to 44.8%, based on polls through October 19. In North Carolina, Democrat Roy Cooper led Republican Michael Whatley by 50.6% to 40.7% in the average through October 20. Texas presented a tighter contest, with Democrat James Talarico leading Republican Ken Paxton by 48.3% to 46.8% in the average covering October 6 to 19.
These figures do not guarantee a Democratic victory in any of the races, but they show the party competing strongly in states that could prove important in determining control of the Senate. This is not a marginal drift but a genuine realignment of the electoral landscape, and it is unfolding in the very states that will decide control of the Senate.
Democratic-controlled House spells trouble for the Monroe Doctrine
A Democratic-controlled House would not automatically reverse Trump’s policies, but it could force his administration to justify its use of military force, economic pressure, and political leverage across Latin America. They could also expose the legal and political assumptions behind decisions that affect countries whose sovereignty Washington is supposed to respect.
Ultimately, the question remains whether Washington has the right to shape the region’s future or whether Latin American countries should determine their own political and economic paths without US interference.
The administration’s military actions against Venezuela and suspected drug-smuggling boats, its pressure on Panama over Chinese influence, its tariffs against Brazil over the prosecution of Jair Bolsonaro, and its economic pressure on Cuba and its oil suppliers could all face greater congressional scrutiny.
Democrats could investigate the legal grounds for military action, question the use of economic coercion against sovereign governments, and demand explanations for decisions that affect the region’s political and economic future. Immigration policy, too, could become a battleground, particularly where US enforcement measures involve Latin American governments.
Trump’s revival of the Monroe Doctrine has brought the consequences of his interventionist foreign policy into sharper focus at home.
Opposition to his actions across Latin America forms part of a broader pattern of public discontent, reflected in falling approval ratings and growing electoral pressure on Republicans ahead of the November 2026 midterms. The same presidency seeking to expand Washington’s influence abroad now faces mounting questions at home over the direction of its foreign policy and the costs of asserting American power.
The midterms could turn that discontent into a direct political constraint on Trump’s regional ambitions. A Democratic-controlled Congress could subject military interventions, economic pressure, and financial leverage over Latin American countries to greater scrutiny. The election will not determine Latin America’s future, but it could shape how freely Washington can attempt to influence it.
Ultimately, the Monroe Doctrine’s revival has exposed the limits of treating US dominance as a “right” rather than a contested political ambition. Trump’s approach has not only raised questions about the sovereignty of Latin American countries, but has also become part of a wider domestic debate over how American power should be exercised.
The fundamental issue is not simply whether Trump is reviving the Monroe Doctrine, but whether its claim to US primacy can be reconciled with Latin America’s sovereignty. A region cannot determine its own future if its governments must continually account for the threat of American economic or military pressure.
The doctrine’s future therefore rests on whether Washington continues to claim the authority to shape the hemisphere or accepts that Latin American countries have the right to decide their own political and economic paths.
Iran’s IRGC have implemented an intensive strike strategy in the Strait of Hormuz, changing the nature of their conflict with the United States, while working alongside their regional allies to create new conditions on the ground. In this Monday’s episode of The Target looks at the shifts in the power balance and the battle-front in Yemen.
The United States has issued warnings to its citizens, through 11 different embassies and missions across West Asia, all as Israel signals its intent to launch yet another attack on the Islamic Republic of Iran. Meanwhile, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has been running military drills and testing new variations of its ballistic missiles, announcing publicly that it will use new weapons that have not previously been revealed if they are subjected to yet another US-Israeli aggression.
The Yemeni Armed Forces managed to shoot down an AH6i Helicopter over the border area with Saudi Arabia, in an embarrassing affair that exposed Riyadh’s denial propaganda. Yemen initially announced that they had shot down an Apache Helicopter. Because they misidentified the kind of aircraft, their Saudi opponents believed that they had scored an opportunity to create a damage control narrative.
Saudi Arabia then went on to announce that the helicopter, an AH6i, had simply malfunctioned and in the midst of admitting that the two pilots had died. Yemen’s Ansarallah-led government waited to allow Saudi propagandists to begin bragging about exposing their alleged lies, before releasing footage of them shooting the helicopter down and admitting that they had misidentified the aircraft initially.
On the show, Inlakesh also looks at some of the latest battle footage from Yemen, including of Yemen’s Armed Forces using quadcopter drones to take out enemy gathering with anti-personnel munitions and their successful defensive fight to repel an advance by Saudi-backed PLC forces.
He also spends time on the stream, dedicated to exposing British journalist Sami Hamdi’s false depiction of Yemeni history. The show goes through the distortion of the timeline of the Yemen-Saudi war, sectarian and tribalist arguments, while delving into the history of the Ansarallah movement and where it truly came from.
At a time when sectarianism and division is rampant, in an attempt to convince audiences that the regional resistance to US-imperialism and Israeli expansionism is itself just as evil as those it fights, this historical context cuts through the propaganda.
According to a recent report by Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), a leading Tel Aviv-based think tank, has altered its security doctrine to consider all surrounding Arab Nations as a mere collection of tribes, opposed to real sovereign nations. We look at how this fits into the so-called ‘Greater Israel’ project and why it is likely doomed to fail.
Republish our stories! MintPress News is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 International License.
The IRGC reports four ships caught fire after being struck during oil transfers in the Gulf, while three others were damaged by mines west of the Strait of Hormuz.
Four ships were struck and caught fire while transferring oil cargo between vessels in the northern part of the Gulf, and three other ships were damaged by mines west of the Strait of Hormuz the previous night, the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps Navy (IRGC-N) announced on Thursday.
In a statement by its Public Relations Office, the IRGC Navy said its forces struck four vessels simultaneously in the north-central Gulf after tracking them along unauthorized routes and discovering them conducting ship-to-ship oil transfers.
The vessels were subsequently engulfed in flames, the statement added.
According to Fars, the four vessels targeted are either US-owned or carrying cargo for an American company.
Three other vessels hit mines west of the Strait of Hormuz the previous night, resulting in fires and leaving the vessels immobilized, according to the statement.
The IRGC also affirmed that the United States is encouraging ships to use an unauthorized route, warning that this is contributing to an increase in maritime incidents.
‘This is a serious warning’
“The invading US military must understand that, if this course continues, the confrontation will extend to the aggressors’ bases across the region,” the IRGC warned
This comes amid numerous similar incidents, as Iran maintains an effective closure of the vital waterway in retaliation to the US-Israeli aggression on the country, while Washington continues to deceive ships into passing through the Strait with claims of safe passage.
Iranian Navy reports fire on oil tanker in Strait of Hormuz
On October 20, the Iranian Army’s Navy reported a fire aboard an oil tanker in the southern corridor of the Strait of Hormuz, saying the vessel had entered a restricted area despite prior warnings.
According to the Navy, the tanker had disabled its tracking systems before attempting to cross the restricted zone.
Separately, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei stressed that responsibility for securing the Strait of Hormuz and the Gulf should rest with the countries bordering the waterways.
“The Strait of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf must derive their security from the countries bordering this vital waterway,” Baghaei said, adding that Russia’s proposal concerning the strait had not been fully presented to the public.
He also said Iran, Russia, and China had plans to establish security in the Strait of Hormuz, calling on regional countries to cooperate and build mutual confidence instead of depending on outside powers.
Earlier on October 17, the IRGC Navy said a supertanker carrying more than two million barrels of crude oil caught fire after striking a naval mine while attempting to cross the Strait of Hormuz through a prohibited route.
The IRGC Navy said the vessel had disabled its positioning and radar systems to bypass Iranian navigation restrictions. According to the statement, the mine triggered an explosion in the engine room, sparking a fire and bringing the tanker to a halt.
In its statement, the Navy attributed the incident to “deception by the US military,” accusing Washington of encouraging vessels to disregard Iranian restrictions despite repeated warnings. The statement did not identify the tanker or provide details about its crew.
Posted on October 23, 2026 by uprootedpalestinians
The IRGC Navy says four offending vessels were struck while transferring oil in the Persian Gulf and warns of retaliation against US bases in the region if Washington continues to force vessels to use unauthorized routes in the Strait of Hormuz.
This file photo shows an oil tanker catches fire near the Strait of Hormuz.
The IRGC Navy says four vessels that had used unauthorized routes in the Strait of Hormuz were struck while transferring oil in the northern Persian Gulf, as it warned of retaliation against US bases in the region if Washington continues to force vessels to use unauthorized routes in the Strait of Hormuz.
The naval forces of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) continue to manage and control the Strait of Hormuz, the force said in a Thursday statement.
Following previous warnings to maritime companies that violated navigation rules after being misled by the “aggressor US military,” IRGC Navy forces monitored and pursued four offending vessels that had previously used unauthorized routes.
The statement said the vessels were discovered transferring oil cargo from ship to ship in the northern central Persian Gulf. All four were struck simultaneously and were burning, it added.
The IRGC Navy also added that three other offending vessels suffered incidents and caught fire after striking mines west of the Strait of Hormuz last night. The vessels were stopped, according to the statement.
Public Relations office of the IRGC Navy:
🔹 To the heroic and steadfast people of Iran, your unwavering support strengthens our fighters as the IRGC Navy continues to manage and control the Strait of Hormuz, bringing despair to Iran’s enemies.
The naval force said the US has continued to encourage vessels to navigate through an unauthorized passage that has been mined.
The insistence of the United States on this course of action has caused maritime incidents to increase day by day, the statement said.
“The aggressor US military must know that, if this trend continues, the scope of confrontation will extend to the aggressor bases in the region. This is a serious warning,” the statement said.
The warning follows an October 9 declaration by the IRGC that action against vessels using unauthorized passages would no longer be confined to the Strait of Hormuz.
University of Tehran Professor Mohammad Marand and chairman of Shiller insitute in Sweden, Uif the Sandmark, on Al Mayadeen’s The Grand Standoff Iran and the world (Al Mayadeen English)
Speaking on Al Mayadeen’s The Grand Standoff, Mohammad Marandi said that an Iran-US agreement requires Washington to implement its commitments.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said negotiations with the United States were continuing through mediating countries, including Pakistan and Qatar, stressing that Tehran remained open to diplomacy but would not yield to sanctions or threats.
In remarks to Iranian and Iraqi media, Araghchi said Iran had previously presented Washington with an initiative known as the “7-day plan,” in which Tehran had “clearly and frankly” outlined its conditions.
“The Americans informed us that they agreed to these conditions, but they want to add a few more clauses,” he said, adding that “there is no trust whatsoever in the American approach.”
Araghchi stressed that diplomacy remained an option, provided Washington honored the understandings reached. “From our point of view, the doors of diplomacy are fully open, on the condition that the other side adheres to the understandings,” he said.
“The negotiating table is still in place, and the world must know that it is the American side that is closing the path, not Iran,” the Iranian foreign minister added.
Araghchi says US failed to achieve war objectives
Araghchi also rejected the effectiveness of Washington’s pressure campaign against Tehran, saying Iran would not capitulate to economic restrictions or military threats.
“Iran will not surrender to sanctions and threats,” he said, arguing that the United States had failed to achieve its objectives despite more than eight months of war.
“Failure to achieve these objectives constitutes a strategic defeat for Washington and a strategic success and victory for Iran,” Araghchi said.
He urged Washington to recognize that its pressure tactics would not produce results. “The American side must understand that its pressure and measures will lead to no outcome,” he added.
Araghchi addresses Strait of Hormuz and regional allies
Addressing the strategic Strait of Hormuz, Araghchi said the waterway fell within the internal waters of Iran and Oman, rejecting its characterization as international waters.
“The Strait of Hormuz lies within the internal waters of Iran and Oman and has no connection to international waters,” he said.
Araghchi also addressed Iran’s relations with Hezbollah in Lebanon and Ansar Allah in Yemen, describing both as friends of Tehran because of their resistance and stated objectives.
“Hezbollah and Ansar Allah are our friends because they resist and seek to achieve legitimate, lawful, and just objectives,” he said.
Iran warns Hormuz undersea cables at risk
Iran has the technology to strike US bases outside West Asia, a senior Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC) commander said Tuesday, cautioning that any attack on Iranian infrastructure would put the undersea cables of the Strait of Hormuz at risk.
“Vital cables in the Strait of Hormuz will not be safe if our infrastructure is targeted,” Brigadier General Yadollah Javani, IRGC deputy commander for political affairs, said.
Iran’s armed forces would answer any aggressor with force and resolve, Major General Ali Abdollahi, chief of staff of the Iranian Armed Forces, said separately.
“The enemy will face a response that makes it regret any reckless action against us,” he said, adding that the armed forces are more determined than ever to confront the enemy.
The Strait of Hormuz is completely closed, and Iran will not allow any US or Israeli vessel to enter, IRGC spokesperson Brigadier General Hossein Mohebbi said Tuesday. US warships are keeping 700 kilometers away from the strait, he added.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is facing mounting accusations that he ignored warnings ahead of the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack, as a bitter blame game over one of Israel’s worst security failures emerges in the final weeks of the election campaign.
Former Shin Bet chief Ronen Bar has filed a defamation suit against Netanyahu, accusing him of falsely blaming intelligence officials for the attack despite receiving repeated alerts about security threats.
The Hamas-led assault killed around 1,200 people in southern Israel, with another 251 taken hostage. Israel’s subsequent military offensive in Gaza has killed more than 74,000 Palestinians, according to the local health authorities.
Bar is seeking nearly $1 million in damages, claiming he warned the prime minister of growing danger in the months preceding the assault. He says a long trail of documents will expose Netanyahu’s account of events as false.
“Israel’s worst disaster has become political kryptonite,” RT correspondent Charlotte Dubenskij reported from Jerusalem on Friday, as the country prepares to vote on October 27.
Netanyahu, however, maintains that Bar failed to alert him to the imminent threat on the morning of the attack, despite discussing warning signs with senior military officials. He has accused the former intelligence chief of failing to take measures that could have prevented the bloodshed.
Further questions have been raised by Netanyahu’s former military secretary, Avi Gil, who claims officials attempted to alter the recorded time of a phone call made on the morning of October 7.
The prime minister has also denied reports that he received advance warnings from Egyptian intelligence and UAE President Mohamed bin Zayed. The claims have drawn criticism from political rivals, including former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett and former military chief Gadi Eisenkot.
Questions have also emerged over Netanyahu’s handling of the subsequent Gaza war. Former Israeli hostage negotiator Nitzan Alon has suggested that political considerations delayed a deal that could have brought captives home much earlier.
“We could have possibly saved hostages who were killed in captivity, and we missed this opportunity,” Alon said, adding that an earlier agreement might also have saved thousands of lives on both sides.
VT Condemns the ETHNIC CLEANSING OF PALESTINIANS by USA/Israel
$280+ BILLION US TAXPAYER DOLLARS INVESTED since 1948 in US/Israeli Ethnic Cleansing and Occupation Operation 150B direct “aid” and $ 130B in “Offense” contracts Source: Embassy of Israel, Washington, D.C. and US Department of State.
Aftermath of Iranian strike on Camp Buehring, Kuwait, undated photo.
The US-Israeli war on Iran has triggered changes that extend far beyond the battlefield, threatening to reshape the balance of power in the Middle East and across the world. These shifts include the possibility of an expanded Chinese military presence, Israel’s adoption of a strategy of permanent border wars, and Tehran’s increased ability to threaten its adversaries despite the losses it has suffered.
In an article published by Foreign Policy, Kenneth Pollack, vice president for policy at the Middle East Institute, says the war could mark a historic turning point that redraws the rules of geopolitics. He warned that its long-term strategic consequences could prove more serious than its immediate military effects.
According to Pollack, a former military analyst at the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the war demonstrated the effectiveness of Western defense systems in intercepting most Iranian missiles and drones. However, the small proportion that got through was enough to cause significant damage and raise economic and psychological concerns across the Gulf states.
A war meant to limit Iranian hegemony in the Middle East may have instead enabled it. https://t.co/NkRjWsI0MQ
Pollack argues that intercepting around 90% of incoming attacks does not provide sufficient protection, as the remaining damage threatens the energy, trade, investment and tourism sectors and undermines the Gulf’s image as a safe haven for business and stability.
After recognizing the limitations of relying on US and Israeli protection, countries in the region began purchasing Turkish drones, while others are seeking to develop their own production capabilities in cooperation with American, Israeli, Chinese and Ukrainian companies.
China and Military Power
Pollack also notes that the war exposed the limits of China’s ability to protect its interests and partners in the region, despite its heavy reliance on Gulf oil, which accounts for up to half of its oil imports, and annual trade with regional countries exceeding $500 billion.
He suggests that these developments could prompt China to strengthen its ability to project military power in the Gulf and the Arabian Sea, taking advantage of the expansion of its navy and aircraft carrier fleet.
If this shift materializes, it could alter the region’s military balance and security relationships, presenting Washington with a new competitor in a sphere it has dominated for decades.
‘Israel’ and Permanent Wars
In a possible development, Pollack expects ‘Israel’ to adopt a strategy based on establishing buffer zones in the Gaza Strip, Lebanon and Syria, while conducting continuous military operations to prevent its adversaries from developing capabilities that threaten its security.
He compares this approach to the strategy of the Roman Empire, which relied on buffer zones and wars beyond its borders to maintain domestic stability.
However, such a strategy would require long-term military and societal mobilization, potentially straining Israeli economy and harming its technology sector, which depends on global openness.
Continued military operations could also deepen Israeli isolation and widen disagreements with the United States, where criticism of the alliance between the two countries is growing.
Iran Could Emerge Stronger
Regarding Iran, Pollack does not rule out the possibility that the war could strengthen Tehran’s influence rather than weaken it. Iran has learned that threatening the Strait of Hormuz and targeting Washington’s allies can impose substantial economic and psychological costs on all sides.
Pollack also believes that the rise of those he describes as hardliners could make reaching a nuclear agreement more difficult, particularly if they become convinced that acquiring nuclear weapons is the only way to prevent future attacks.
He noteds that Russian and Chinese support could help Iran rebuild and upgrade its arsenal. Therefore, ending the war without deterring Iran’s ability to disrupt maritime traffic and threaten the Gulf could leave Tehran with greater regional and international influence, despite its military losses.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, right, speaks during a press conference after a meeting with Russian Sergey Lavrov left, in Taehran, Iran, Monday October 19,2026 (AP)
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said negotiations with the United States were continuing through mediating countries, including Pakistan and Qatar, stressing that Tehran remained open to diplomacy but would not yield to sanctions or threats.
In remarks to Iranian and Iraqi media, Araghchi said Iran had previously presented Washington with an initiative known as the “7-day plan,” in which Tehran had “clearly and frankly” outlined its conditions.
“The Americans informed us that they agreed to these conditions, but they want to add a few more clauses,” he said, adding that “there is no trust whatsoever in the American approach.”
Araghchi stressed that diplomacy remained an option, provided Washington honored the understandings reached. “From our point of view, the doors of diplomacy are fully open, on the condition that the other side adheres to the understandings,” he said.
“The negotiating table is still in place, and the world must know that it is the American side that is closing the path, not Iran,” the Iranian foreign minister added.
Araghchi says US failed to achieve war objectives
Araghchi also rejected the effectiveness of Washington’s pressure campaign against Tehran, saying Iran would not capitulate to economic restrictions or military threats.
“Iran will not surrender to sanctions and threats,” he said, arguing that the United States had failed to achieve its objectives despite more than eight months of war.
“Failure to achieve these objectives constitutes a strategic defeat for Washington and a strategic success and victory for Iran,” Araghchi said.
He urged Washington to recognize that its pressure tactics would not produce results. “The American side must understand that its pressure and measures will lead to no outcome,” he added.
Araghchi addresses Strait of Hormuz and regional allies
Addressing the strategic Strait of Hormuz, Araghchi said the waterway fell within the internal waters of Iran and Oman, rejecting its characterization as international waters.
“The Strait of Hormuz lies within the internal waters of Iran and Oman and has no connection to international waters,” he said.
Araghchi also addressed Iran’s relations with Hezbollah in Lebanon and Ansar Allah in Yemen, describing both as friends of Tehran because of their resistance and stated objectives.
“Hezbollah and Ansar Allah are our friends because they resist and seek to achieve legitimate, lawful, and just objectives,” he said.
Iran warns Hormuz undersea cables at risk
Iran has the technology to strike US bases outside West Asia, a senior Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC) commander said Tuesday, cautioning that any attack on Iranian infrastructure would put the undersea cables of the Strait of Hormuz at risk.
“Vital cables in the Strait of Hormuz will not be safe if our infrastructure is targeted,” Brigadier General Yadollah Javani, IRGC deputy commander for political affairs, said.
Iran’s armed forces would answer any aggressor with force and resolve, Major General Ali Abdollahi, chief of staff of the Iranian Armed Forces, said separately.
“The enemy will face a response that makes it regret any reckless action against us,” he said, adding that the armed forces are more determined than ever to confront the enemy.
The Strait of Hormuz is completely closed, and Iran will not allow any US or Israeli vessel to enter, IRGC spokesperson Brigadier General Hossein Mohebbi said Tuesday. US warships are keeping 700 kilometers away from the strait, he added.
MP Mohammad Raad, head of the Loyalty to the head of the Loyalty to the Resistance bloc, in the Lebanese parliament, speaking in public adress undated (Resistance Media)
Lebanese MP Mohammad Raad says resistance is Lebanon’s legitimate defense option, condemning calls for direct negotiations and warning against threats to sovereignty.
Resistance is “the necessary and legitimate national defense option for Lebanon,” head of the Loyalty to the Resistance parliamentary bloc, Mohammad Raad, affirmed on Monday, stressing that attempts to demonize it and undermine its standing constitute “a national and moral crime.”
In a statement, Raad condemned repeated remarks and social media posts from official and unofficial sources that, he said, endorse direct negotiations with the Israeli occupation and submission to its conditions, which undermine Lebanon’s sovereignty and legitimize the occupation of Lebanese territory.
Raad said such positions seek to weaken the Resistance’s role and challenge its legitimacy while targeting its members and social base, stating this approach is in compliance with US directives. He added that these positions serve external powers pressuring Lebanon to align with the Israeli occupation and pursue surrender and normalization projects, while disregarding the Lebanese Constitution and applicable laws.
The Hezbollah MP concluded that “the legitimacy of the Resistance is the mother and origin of all legitimacies,” warning that denying the Resistance its rights constitutes an assault on life itself.
“Discussing details without acknowledging the fundamental right amounts to squandering the homeland and its citizens,” he said.
Similarly, Baalbek-Hermel parliamentary bloc member Ali al-Miqdad said Lebanon faces multiple forms of warfare extending beyond military confrontation to include economic, security and political pressure. He described the situation as reflecting US-Israeli tutelage over Lebanon’s political decision-making and sovereignty, stressing that the country’s independence must not be compromised.
Fadlallah warns against US agenda in Lebanon
Last Thursday, in a similar address, member of Lebanon’s Loyalty to the Resistance parliamentary bloc Hassan Fadlallah condemned Lebanese officials over the seizure of a vehicle and its cargo in Dahr al-Baidar on October 5, accusing some authorities of pursuing measures that serve the Israeli occupation’s interests and implement a US agenda.
Speaking at a press conference, Fadlallah said the Resistance had promptly informed security agencies that the vehicle belonged to Hezbollah following its seizure. He demanded the immediate release of the detainees and the vehicle’s contents, stating that the cargo is part of the capabilities the Resistance relies on to defend Lebanon.
Fadlallah also rejected the Lebanese Cabinet’s March 2, 2026 decision banning Hezbollah’s military and security activities, calling it a violation of the Constitution and the National Pact. He declared the decision null and void, stressing that the Resistance did not recognize its effects.
Warning Lebanese officials against implementing “an American agenda”, Fadlallah said their actions contradicted efforts to achieve stability through dialogue. He also accused the authorities of responding with silence and helplessness as the Israeli occupation continued its attacks on Lebanon.
War… what is it good for? That might be the best way to sum up the difference between Republicans and Democrats in the midterms.
Imagine this. It’s 2024, and it’s the US presidential election. What are your main points of concern as a voter? Why the economy and healthcare, of course, with foreign policy way off in the distance in fourth place after the Supreme Court appointments.
Two world-changing wars, thousands of sanctions, and half a world order later, what are your main concerns? Again, the economy tops the list.
You might wonder why the economy has topped voters’ concerns for years, yet the foreign policy decisions driving so many of your most pressing economic woes still rank lower on your own list of priorities.
Never mind the war in Ukraine, which already put you on the path of sanctioning Russia and driving up fertilizer and diesel prices, but a months-long war on Iran in which one of the world’s most important pathways for oil is blocked seems like shooting yourself in the foot.
It almost seems like voters in the US still haven’t learned from these past decades: When their country goes to war, they’re the ones left footing the bill, except that this is a bill they have to read in fine print.
That’s what voters have come to see firsthand. The US-Israeli war on Iran and Trump’s tariff wars reach voters through expenses they usually classify as domestic: keeping a car on the road, buying oil for your engine, buying food, receiving a parcel. These choices travel through supply chains before becoming part of your calculations. You know life has become more expensive, but you’ve only just been able to place your finger on why.
Many Americans now recognize the connection, but whether they punish the governing party for it is a separate question.
The journey from war to checkout
You can see the fallout clearly through the motor-oil shortage. According to the Financial Times, one Iranian defensive strike during the war damaged a Qatari plant producing Group III base oils, essential ingredients in many synthetic lubricants. The war also disrupted supplies feeding other producers. US base-oil prices almost quadrupled from February to a record $12.45 a gallon, according to Argus data.
Valvoline raised oil-change prices by $5 to $7 after lubricant costs climbed 60% since March. Costco priced a ten-quart synthetic-oil package at $57.99, compared with about $30 last year, and limited purchases. Those are consumer costs, attached to a service many drivers cannot postpone indefinitely.
People don’t need to know the technical specifications of a lubricant to understand what another seven dollars means. The question is what they have to give up to find it, and whether they believe the people responsible will ever be asked the same question.
Fuel is another blow that voters felt. By October 16, AAA figures reported by AP put gasoline at $4.33 a gallon, 45% above its prewar level, and diesel at $6.33, up 68%. The second number reaches people who never drive a diesel vehicle: their groceries and household goods still require transport.
For a household asking how to get by before payday, paying for the commute can mean spending less elsewhere. Maintaining the car remains necessary precisely because losing it would make earning that money harder. So, they postpone a service, put off a journey, reconsider a purchase, and that’s just gas and oil for your own family.
Agriculture paints another picture. Natural gas helps produce nitrogen fertilizers, including urea; sulfur recovered from oil and gas processing is converted into sulfuric acid for phosphate fertilizers. IFPRI identifies disruption caused by the US-Israeli war on Iran as a threat to both supply routes. The consequences travel through crop production, animal feed, processing, refrigeration, and distribution before reaching consumers, who have to absorb the brunt of the price increases.
Russia adds another dimension to this confrontational policy adopted by the West. Western sanctions following the Ukraine war reshaped diesel trade, with Europe replacing Russian supplies and Russian cargoes seeking other buyers.
On October 9, the US Treasury authorized transactions involving Russian diesel. Washington was now effectively backtracking on its previous sanctions because Trump was in a bind so close to the elections.
Tariffs, now that’s another fumble that damaged ordinary people. Research published by the New York Fed estimates that the 2025–26 tariffs had added 2.9 percentage points to inflation in the non-oil consumer goods studied by February
The tariff contribution to annual inflation can fade while the price level remains elevated. A slower increase won’t restore the money already missing from a family budget.
Turns out America First is remarkably efficient at finding Americans to invoice.
Are voters making the connection?
The connection between foreign policy (i.e. war, tariffs, US meddling, etc.) and the troubles faced by the US economy cannot be ignored. But this is where optics matter. This is where the analysis should focus. Not simply on whether or not foreign policy has an impact, but how that impact is seen, and what decisions are made thereafter.
If narrative and media overtake reality, then this is where perception of the effects of the war matters. People who do not believe Trump made a mess of his war of choice and that they have to pay up for it out of their own pocket will be more likely to excuse Trump’s fiascos as cases of strategic “oops”, to put it in light terms.
So do people see these links themselves? A Chicago Council–Ipsos survey conducted May 1–3 found 86% of adults believed the Iran war was bad for the US cost of living. That included 76% of Republicans and 89% of independents. This was a question about perceived economic consequences, not simply whether respondents liked Trump.
The Council’s July survey found 81% considered tariffs bad for living costs, including 62% of Republicans. Yet 63% of Republicans said the Iran war had been worth fighting. Different questions reveal different judgments: Republicans recognize the economic cost of the war, but they won’t abandon the party over it because they’ve been made to believe this sacrifice was worth it.
The broader responsibility question is more divided. AP-NORC’s September poll found 65% attributed higher-than-usual prices to Trump’s policies. Among Republicans, however, 67% assigned higher prices to factors beyond his control. Beyond the fact that these prices can’t be attributed solely to any one reason, this goes to show how Trump’s popular base has found excuses for his blunders, in the sense that: “Yes, the cost of living is higher, yes, the sacrifice was worth it, but it’s not Trump’s fault; things just happened.”
This is exactly where the political campaigns operate, in that gap of understanding between fact and perception. A voter may feel the damage, even identify its connection to war, and still regard the president as justified. Another may interpret the same bill as evidence that the administration has broken its bargain with the public.
The bill reaches the ballot
In July’s Chicago Council survey, 37% selected inflation and living costs as their single most important voting concern; only 2% selected the Iran war. An October AP-NORC poll, allowing voters to identify several important issues, found 85% naming the economy and 84% living costs. It also found 79% disapproving of Trump’s handling of living costs. Together, these responses show an exposed administration facing an electorate preoccupied with affordability. They do not calculate how many votes any particular policy will cost it.
Democrats and allied groups are acting on that vulnerability. AP found that 61 of 65 distinct Iran-themed advertisements in competitive congressional races emphasized household costs. The ads aired more than 43,000 times from September 1 through October 14, costing an estimated $42 million. That measures the effort to turn war into an affordability issue, rather than proof that the effort persuaded anyone.
So foreign policy may help decide these midterms without ever topping voters’ lists under its own name. Farmers don’t have to know the chemistry of fertilizer to vote against the cost of it. Trump is not on the ballot, but his congressional allies may discover that his foreign policy has followed them all the way into the voting booth. That’s the main issue at stake. Yes, Trump’s foreign policy choices have had terrible repercussions on the economy. Yes, voters do recognize that they’re footing the bill for it. But does that translate to more of the same, or a change of course in the ballots?
Democrats have an opening, then. Whether they have an alternative is a less comfortable question. AP-NORC’s late-September poll found that 27% of registered voters trusted neither party to handle the cost of living. A Republican defeat would not automatically amount to faith in the opposition, much less an endorsement of whatever foreign policy it offers.
If Democrats win a congressional majority, the test will be whether they challenge the policies behind those bills with the enthusiasm they’re lambasting Trump in their ads. Otherwise, Americans could get a new congressional majority and the same expensive foreign policy, now with a more sympathetic complaints department.
US President Donald Trump alongside a military honor gard carring a casket, in comming missile strike, a fighter jet, the Iranian flag, and midterm election graphis (Illustrated by Mahdi Rtail; Al Mayadeen English)
From depleted THAAD stockpiles to rising gas prices, see how Pentagon logistical shortages in the Middle East are quietly deciding the 2026 midterm vote.
As American voters prepare to head to the polls for the November 2026 midterms, political strategists are obsessively tracking the usual metrics of presidential approval ratings, inflation indices, and consumer sentiment. But beneath the surface of campaign rhetoric lies a hidden variable quietly shaping the electoral landscape: the severe depletion of the United States military’s air defense munitions.
What began as a highly technical logistical challenge for the Pentagon has rapidly metastasized into a pervasive political and economic vulnerability. Following a grueling aggression against Iranian assets earlier this year, the US military burned through a staggering portion of its high-end interceptors.
Now, an inability to rapidly replenish those stockpiles is forcing difficult tactical compromises for the US and its allies in West Asia. The US military’s reduced capacity to unilaterally secure vital shipping lanes in the Gulf and Red Sea has sent shockwaves through the global supply chain. For the American electorate, this strategic shortfall is not an abstract geopolitical concern; it is a kitchen-table crisis felt directly at the gas pump and the grocery store.
US President Donald Trump currently faces approval ratings hovering around 36%, with public dissatisfaction heavily anchored in economic anxiety and the fatigue of a prolonged, indecisive conflict.
A thorough analysis of military supply chains, economic indicators, and public sentiment reveals a profound link between the erosion of America’s munitions stockpile and the erosion of the governing party’s political capital.
Running on empty
To understand the political fallout, one must first confront the tactical reality of modern asymmetric warfare. The Iranian response to American aggression was defined by the relentless barrage of inexpensive drones and ballistic missiles, which the US attempted to counter using some of the most sophisticated, expensive, and difficult-to-produce air defense systems in its arsenal.
According to an April 2026 assessment by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), US forces expended roughly 45% of their Patriot interceptors and an alarming 50% of their Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) interceptors during the seven-week aggression. The sheer volume of incoming fire forced the Pentagon into an unsustainable cost-exchange ratio, routinely firing multimillion-dollar interceptors to neutralize threats that cost a fraction of that amount to produce.
The crisis lies in the fact that these interceptors cannot be quickly replaced. The US defense industrial base, optimized for peacetime efficiency rather than wartime surge capacity, is currently strained to its limits. In May 2026, War Secretary Pete Hegseth warned that replacing the munitions heavily used during the Iran conflict would take “months and years… depending on the weapon system.”
CSIS analysis corroborates this timeline. While the Army has requested 857 THAAD interceptors in its Fiscal Year 2027 budget, deliveries are not projected to begin until mid-2029. Replacing the expenditures from the Iran campaign alone will take the US until the end of the decade.
Standard Missiles (SM-3s and SM-6s) utilized by the Navy face similar bottlenecks, with inventories not expected to return to prewar levels until early 2029. This massive gap between consumption and production has left the US military in a precarious state of rationing.
Tactical hesitation and the illusion of decisive victory
For military planners, a hollowed-out interceptor stockpile alters every operational calculus. Prior to the escalation, ousted US Army Chief of Staff General Randy George warned in late 2025 that THAAD and Patriot stocks were critically low. Those warnings were borne out as the US-Israeli aggression progressed.
Because the military cannot guarantee an impenetrable defensive shield, commanders are forced into a strategy of “selective countering”. They must conserve dwindling interceptors for high-value military targets, sometimes leaving lesser infrastructure exposed. The human cost of this vulnerability became clear in July, when a restart of attacks and counterattacks saw Iranian retaliatory strikes penetrate these thinned defenses, killing three US troops.
Depletion has also affected offensive capabilities, as Mark Cancian, a senior advisor at CSIS, noted that a lack of long-range interceptors and standoff munitions requires US forces to use “short or medium range munitions instead… and that means you have to get in much closer. Makes the platforms much more vulnerable.”
This vulnerability naturally breeds operational hesitation. The US is constrained from launching the kind of overwhelming, large-scale offensive operations required to force an adversary’s surrender because it lacks the defensive umbrella to protect its own forces from the inevitable counter-attacks. Consequently, the prospect of a “decisive victory” evaporates.
Historically, the American public has little patience for wars of attrition. Voters crave clear objectives and definitive resolutions. Public support rapidly decays when a military campaign drags on with no apparent end in sight. The electorate perceives a superpower bogged down by its own logistical limitations, fostering an anxiety that the nation is trapped in a perpetual, low-boil conflict that drains resources without delivering security. A recent AP-NORC poll from early 2026 found that 59% of Americans felt US military action in Iran had “gone too far.” This fosters an anxiety that the nation is trapped in a perpetual, low-boil conflict that drains resources without delivering security.
The toll at the pump, checkout aisle
If the munitions shortage were purely a battlefield concern, its impact on the 2026 midterms might be muted. But West Asia is the central artery of global energy markets and international shipping, and the US military’s inability to secure it has immediate domestic consequences.
Without a sufficient stockpile of high-end interceptors to counter persistent drone and anti-ship missile salvos, the US Navy cannot maintain a persistent defensive umbrella over commercial shipping lanes in the Red Sea and the Gulf. Commercial carriers, wary of unintercepted strikes, have increasingly rerouted vessels around Africa’s Cape of Good Hope or absorbed soaring war-risk insurance premiums to transit the Gulf. These maritime bottlenecks act as an indirect tariff on the US economy, driving up freight fees, delaying components, and reinforcing elevated energy benchmarks.
That logistical friction translates rapidly into domestic consumer sentiment. According to an October 2026 Harris Poll conducted for The Guardian, the vast majority of Americans report struggling to afford everyday necessities like gas and groceries, forcing households to cut back on discretionary spending. The reporting characterized consumers as “angrier than ever” ahead of the midterms, caught between high baseline food and energy costs and a cooling, uncertain labor market.
While a voter in a swing district is unlikely to track the inventory figures of PAC-3 MSE or SM-6 interceptors, they register every price change at the pump and the grocery checkout. The logistical shortfall that limits US power projection abroad translates into economic vulnerability at home.
Public sentiment shift
The political weaponization of this dynamic is already evident in the polling data. A recent Pew Research Center survey conducted in early October 2026 highlighted how deeply the war on Iran and its economic ripples have permeated the electorate.
The data illustrate a striking intersection of foreign policy and domestic anxiety. Seventy-three percent of surveyed respondents reported being “extremely or very concerned” about higher gas and fuel prices directly resulting from the US military action against Iran, up from 69% in March. Furthermore, public awareness of the military’s logistical struggles is growing, as 45% expressed extreme or very high concern over a “shortage of weapons for the US military,” a significant jump from 31% earlier in the year.
These are not isolated data points; they are the architecture of a midterm backlash. The public is highly averse to further escalation, with 72% expressing deep concern over the prospect of the US sending ground troops to Iran.
The administration finds itself in an electoral trap. It cannot achieve a decisive military victory without an unacceptable loss of American lives or a miraculous surge in munitions production, yet the ongoing confrontation continues to drive the inflation that is sinking its political fortunes.
Trump’s approval ratings reflect this inescapable bind. With an aggregate approval sitting around 36%, and dipping as low as 30% in Pew’s October tracking, the administration is facing the brunt of an electorate that feels squeezed economically and anxious globally.
Verdict on the ballot
The 2026 midterms will be debated in terms of inflation, leadership, and economic policy. Yet, any post-mortem of this election must recognize the profound, indirect role of the defense industrial base. The US munitions depletion is the structural foundation upon which much of the current economic and political instability rests.
After the world’s leading superpower expended half of its critical air defense interceptors in seven weeks, the consequences inevitably bled out of the battlefield and into the supermarket. The inability to protect shipping lanes drives up energy prices; the resulting inflation angers voters; and the lack of a decisive military resolution fuels a narrative of perpetual instability.
As the new Congress convenes after November, the most pressing question will not just be how to manage inflation, but how to rebuild the hollowed-out shield of the American military. Until the gap between munitions consumption and production is closed, the logistical limits of the US armed forces will continue to act as a silent, powerful constraint on both American foreign policy and domestic political survival.
“The U.S. government has observed the power of hip hop culture as a vehicle for expression, protest, and a political voice for young people,” Professor Sujatha Fernandes, a sociologist at the University of Sydney and the author of the book, “Close to the Edge: In Search of the Global Hip Hop Generation,” told MintPress News.
“Groups like the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and USAID earlier consistently chose Black cultural expressions from jazz to hip hop as a way of infiltrating those societies and trying to promote regime change,” she added.
One of those countries is Bangladesh. In 2024, longstanding prime minister Sheikh Hasina was toppled in a U.S.-supported revolution. Hasina’s relationship with Washington had seriously deteriorated over her friendliness towards China and her refusal to cede control of the strategically-located Saint Martin’s Island in the Bay of Bengal so the U.S. could build a military base there.
Just days after meeting with Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asia, Donald Liu, Hasina publicly warned that a “white skin country” had threatened there would be trouble for her if she did not grant it permission to build a base in Bangladeshi territory. Nevertheless, she remained obstinate; “I do not want to come to power by leasing out parts of the country or handing it over to someone else,” she said.
Three weeks later, nationwide protests erupted across the country. Specifically targeted at a controversial quota system that reserved 30% of government jobs for the families of those that fought for the country’s independence in 1971, the movement quickly expanded to include people from a wide swath of society. It also turned extremely violent: over 1,4000 people were killed before the military stepped in, forcing Hasina to ignominiously flee to India by helicopter.
Hasina was replaced by Muhammad Yunus, a longtime associate, mentor, and close friend of Bill and Hillary Clinton. One month after the affair, Yunus traveled to New York to meet with President Biden, who offered “continued U.S. support as Bangladesh implements its new reform agenda.” Yunus also spoke at the Clinton Global Initiative, where he revealed that the protests were not a spontaneous uprising, but an operation “meticulously designed” by young Bangladeshi leaders.
One of the leaders of the demonstrations was rapper and barrister Towfique Ahmed, who shot to prominence after he offered to provide free legal support to anyone arrested by Hasina’s forces.
Yet Ahmed had for years been on the U.S. government payroll, explicitly as an agent of change, the International Republican Institute (IRI) – a CIA front group – funding and promoting his music career far and wide.
A leaked IRI document published by The Grayzone shows that the organization’s expressly stated goal was to “destabilize Bangladesh’s politics.” To that end, they spent millions funding all manner of opposition groups and figures, including musicians like Ahmed, whom, the document notes, “are neither solely an artist nor solely an activist; instead, they are functioning as a hybrid agent of change.”
“If the public is more aware of current issues of government oppression, discrimination and shrinking space for political participation, then the Bangladeshi people will be more active to drive [a] power shift through social and political reforms,” it concludes.
As it was never intended to see the light of day, the report is unusually frank about the U.S. government’s explicit goals of regime change, and does not mask it with vague language alluding to democracy promotion.
The IRI produced a number of music videos for Ahmed, and helped spread his music far and wide. His song, “Tui parish” (You Can Do It) is a thinly-veiled call for regime change. As the IRI notes, “Tui Parish” “targets youth with a message of perseverance in difficult times and encourages those who are committed to strengthen democracy in Bangladesh in every possible way including protests and street movements.”
Another song, “E Daay Kaar” (Demand It!) the IRI states, was specifically “designed to reveal social issues in Bangladesh and build up disappointment and even dissent to government so as to call for social and political reforms.”
Ahmed’s music became an anthem of the protests, thanks in part to the IRI consistently promoting it, including on its own televised cultural program, that, it boasted, “reached over 79,000 households in Bangladesh.” In total, the IRI spent millions supporting a wide range of artists, musicians, dancers and actors, all with the goal of removing Hasina from power.
Today, Bangladesh and the United States are in the final stages of agreeing a new strategic military partnership that will grant the U.S. the rights to use a plethora of Bangladeshi ports and airbases for military purposes.
Senegal: The Revolution Will Be Organized
If Bangladesh was the perfect insurrection, Senegal was the blueprint. Western media called it the “Rap Revolution.” In 2012, enormous protests against President Abdoulaye Wade broke out. The 85-year-old leader was seeking a controversial third term in office, and was attempting to bring his son, Karim, into high office – a move many critics saw as Wade trying to establish a family dynasty.
The demonstrations were led by a rap collective called “Y’En a Marre” (Enough is Enough). Y’En a Marre capitalized on public discontent over corruption, blackouts, and economic stagnation, inflaming tensions and encouraged people out on the streets.
One rapper in particular had been sowing the seeds for action for quite some time. In 2010, Cheikh Oumar Touré, known by his stage name, Thiat, released the song with his group, the Keurgui Crew called “Coup 2 Guele” (Diatribe), in which he and his partner, Kilifeu, excoriated Wade and called for a revolution.
“Old man, your seven year presidential reign has been expensive,” “You cheated during the last elections,” “This lusty regime has wasted all our money,” he raps. “Let’s fight this buffoon who is stealing all our money” he tells his countrymen, while concluding that the people of Senegal must “act on our words in the same way we resisted Hitler and De Gaulle.”
Surprisingly, the Kergui Crew immediately released an English version of the song, suggesting their intended audience was not purely Senegalese. Thiat was elevated to stardom in the West, where he received a great deal of positive press, long before the protests even began.
Coup 2 Guele became the soundtrack to the struggle, and Wade was decisively beaten at the ballot box, as Western media applauded this innovative form of activism. Thiat and Y’En a Marre became known worldwide as “the rappers who took down a dictator.”
Many expected Thiat to formally enter electoral politics. Instead, however, one of his first major post-revolution moves was to announce that he had been appointed a Reagan-Fascell Democracy Fellow at the National Endowment for Democracy (NED).
The NED was explicitly set up as a front group of the Central Intelligence Agency.
In the wake of a series of public scandals that seriously hurt the agency’s credibility, the Reagan administration established the NED in 1983. It proceeded to act as a front group for the CIA, carrying out many of its most controversial regime change operations abroad, in an effort to give the U.S. some level of plausible deniability. The endowment interfered in the 1996 Russian elections to ensure U.S. puppet Boris Yeltsin remained in power. Six years later, it bankrolled a briefly successful coup against Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez. It has also funded and supported insurrections in Ukraine, Hong Kong, and Belarus, among other countries.
Although it is funded and staffed by the U.S. government and its officials, the NED is technically a private entity, meaning it is not subject to the same transparency laws and public scrutiny as a body like the CIA.
In their more candid moments, NED leaders are unequivocal about the organization’s role. “It would be terrible for democratic groups around the world to be seen as subsidized by the CIA,” Carl Gershman, NED president from 1984 to 2021, said, explaining why his organization was set up. NED co-founder Allen Weinstein agreed: “A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA,” he told The Washington Post.
USAID – an official government body – has functioned in much the same way, acting as a CIA front group, spying on both enemy and friendly countries, and organizing countless coups around the world. When the Trump administration cut funding to USAID last year, it inadvertently exposed a global network of over 6,000 journalists and nearly 1,000 “independent” media outlets that suddenly faced immediate bankruptcy. In 2025, USAID and its activities were formally subsumed into the State Department.
It was this context that explains why so many were shocked when Thiat made his announcement, and led some to wonder how much the United States was involved in the seemingly spontaneous, grassroots uprising.
Certainly, the NED had been agitating in Senegal for years. In 2006, it funded a project whose public goal was to “strengthen understanding and advocacy for democracy among the urban middle class and youth in Senegal.” The NED’s local partners, it stated, would “lead a civic education campaign on democracy consisting of a series of published investigative reports on Senegal’s democratic development and training seminars for young people, civic organizations, and political parties.
Another 2009 NED project, entitled “Partners for Democratic Change” promised to “create a platform for dialogue between civil and military actors in Senegal,” suggesting that Washington was eager for its chosen activists to have closer ties to the military.
The Reagan-Fascell Fellowship gave Thiat an international platform, and allowed him to travel worldwide. The fellowship, the NED itself noted, provided him the time and resources to compose a new album.
Thiat, however, appears to dismiss any criticism or claims of U.S. involvement in Senegal. In a recent interview, he stated that, “We are showing that we can change everything without the intervention of other countries and without military interventions. And without the West, of course.” “Most African presidents are puppets of the West,” concluded the NED-funded activist.
Washington continues to fund hip hop artists in Senegal. In 2018, the NED’s sister organization, USAID, collaborated with political rapper, Last Under to produce an album, while in 2023, it partnered with Sister LB to release a track to promote “transparency and accountability” in the country’s extractive industries.
And if there is one Senegalese rapper that receives more effusive Western press coverage than Thiat, it is Babacar Niang, better known as Matador. “You can learn everything you need to know about the main challenges facing Africa today by talking to just two people in Senegal: the rapper and the weatherman” wrote Thomas Friedman in the pages of The New York Times, describing Matador as a “pioneer,” and the “voice of the voiceless,” and featuring him in his documentary, “Years of Living Dangerously.”
Perhaps unsurprisingly, then, Matador is also closely connected to Washington. Africulturban, the multimedia center he cofounded, is directly funded by the U.S. Embassy in Dakar.
West Africa: Rage on Behalf of the Machine
Both Thiat and Kilifeu from the Keur Gui Crew also later participated in a much wider hip hop project bankrolled and overseen by the NED’s World Movement For Democracy. As part of a 2019 attempt to build bridges and links between “pro-democracy” (i.e. U.S.-backed) forces across Western Africa, the NED sponsored the production of a rap album, “Music as a Messenger of Democracy,” featuring a plethora of political artists from the region.
In addition to the Keur Gui Crew, this included Sengalese/Beninise rapper Moonaya, Awa Bling and Killa Ace from The Gambia, Nigeria’s Cill, Togo’s Elom 20ce, as well as Ami Yerewolo and Master Soumy from Mali.
Not only did the NED fund the production and promotion of the album, but it further supported the artists by hosting rap shows across the region. One example was a 2018 hip hop night in Dakar, Senegal, where, in addition to Thiat and Kilifeu, it flew in Elom 20ce and Killa Ace for the performance. Meanwhile, Cill spoke at the World Movement For Democracy’s Tenth Global Assembly.
Another West African hip hop act with a close relationship with the NED is DJ Switch, a popular Nigerian artist who collaborated with rap legend Busta Rhymes on a remix to her hit song, “So Tey.”
DJ Switch campaigned against police brutality, and even livestreamed the shooting of anti-government protestors, an act that jeopardized her safety in her home country. Only a few months after this incident, it was announced that, like Thiat, she had become an NED Reagan-Fascell Fellow.
For the United States government, the point of sponsoring huge numbers of individuals and organizations around the world is far less about training the shock troops who will lead a color revolution (although that certainly happens), and more about ensuring that a giant cadre of pro-U.S. agents exists in all countries and in all manner of influential fields, from politics and business to academics and the arts. This is so if the U.S. does decide to do something, there will be a loyal intelligentsia to support it. Rappers are merely a tiny piece of this puzzle.
One country, however, where hip hop artists are very much at the forefront of the U.S.’ regime change plans is Cuba.
Cuba: The Great Astroturfed Revolution
The United States has been trying to overthrow the government of Cuba since the Revolution of 1959. And in July 2021, they thought they had concocted the perfect plan. Washington spent enormous amounts of resources encouraging Cubans into the streets in an attempt to topple President Miguel Díaz-Canel.
America believed it had found the ideal figurehead in Yotuel, an aging rapper who left Cuba in the 1990s, and had released the anti-government song, “Patria y Vida” (Fatherland and Life) to great U.S. fanfare just months earlier. “For those new to the issue of Cuba, the protests we are witnessing were started by artists, not politicians,” tweeted Cuban-American senator Marco Rubio, “This song ‘Patria y Vida’ powerfully explains how young Cubans feel. And its release was so impactful, you will go to jail if caught playing it in Cuba,” he claimed, sharing a link to the track with his millions of followers.
Collectively, this coverage identified “Patria y Vida” as the clarion call for a new generation, noted that it was a retort to the communist slogan “Patria o Muerte” (fatherland or death), and presented Yotuel as a crusading warrior of democracy. But none told readers that anti-government Cuban rappers like Yotuel had been sponsored, hothoused, and coached for years by the U.S. government for precisely this purpose.
The NED was, at the time, financing numerous schemes training Cuban rappers as agents of regime change. One project entitled “Empowering Cuban Hip-Hop Artists as Leaders in Society,” stated that its goal was to “promote citizen participation and social change,” and to “raise awareness about the role hip-hop artists have in strengthening democracy in the region.” Another, called “Promoting Freedom of Expression in Cuba through the Arts,” claimed it was partnering with local musicians on projects related to “democracy, human rights, and historical memory,” and to help “increase awareness about the Cuban reality.” This “reality,” as President Biden himself stated the week of the insurrection, was that the Cuban government is an “authoritarian regime” that has meted out “decades of repression” while its leaders only “enrich themselves.”
At the same time, USAID was offering $2 million worth of funding to groups that could use culture to bring about a color revolution in Cuba. The announcement directly referenced Yotuel as a model to follow, stating that,
“Artists and musicians have taken to the streets to protest government repression, producing anthems such as ‘Patria y Vida,’ which has not only brought greater global awareness to the plight of the Cuban people but also served as a rallying cry for change on the island.”
In the end, despite the impeccable coordination from the U.S. government, social media, the Cuban-American lobby, celebrities, and the press, all of whom came together to bombard the country with messaging telling them to get out on the streets, barely a few thousand people island-wide heeded their call. Moreover, they were dwarfed by far larger, pro-government counter-demonstrations (images of which, for some time, Western media often presented as anti-government marches).
The reality was that Patria y Vida’s supposed popularity was largely astroturfed. Yotuel had not even lived in Cuba for a quarter-century, and instead led a much larger sympathy demonstration in Miami. Days later, President Biden invited him to the White House for a special meeting.
Despite its failure, the U.S. government has evidently still not given up on Yotuel as a potential regime change leader. This September, he appeared at the NED’s 2026 Democracy Awards and performed “Patria y Vida” live to those in attendance.
This was not the first time that Washington had been caught using hip hop to overthrow the Cuban government. In fact, inside Cuba, the rap scene is notorious for being full of undercover U.S. agents. Gaining popularity in the late 1990s, local rappers had a considerable impact on society, helping bring to the fore many previously under-discussed topics. The United States saw their biting critiques of racism as a wedge they could exploit, and attempted to infiltrate their ranks.
In 2009, the U.S. government sent Serbian music promoter Rajko Bozic to the island with a mission: to recruit a stable of rappers to use as anti-government shock troops. Bozic was a veteran of Otpor, a CIA-backed political group that led the insurrection against Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic – the first successful color revolution of the century.
Bozic soon found willing partners in rap group, Los Aldeanos. With seemingly limitless funds for the operation, he immediately started aggressively promoting the duo, producing an anti-government TV show they starred in. Although it was not broadcast on television, Bozic and his team simply paid for it to be distributed around the country on DVDs and USB drives instead.
He also used Washington’s money and connections to get their music on the radio, and to bribe big Latino music stars into allowing them to open for them at their gigs, thus buying them more credibility and exposure. Los Aldeanos were even flown to Serbia for secret training, under the guise of playing at the Exit Music Festival.
Cuban authorities eventually exposed the scheme, however, and Los Aldeanos fled to Florida.
Being a hip hop fan in Cuba is fraught with difficulties. Without realizing, many Cubans are listening to albums, reading hip hop magazines, or even going to concerts secretly funded by the U.S national security state. The Caribbean island is without doubt where Washington has most concentrated its efforts in attempting to co-opt the rap scene.
Yet, for all its efforts, Fernandes told MintPress that the U.S. government has had little success. Cuba, she said, is a place with an organic hip hop movement built from the ground up, and rappers are “not trying to overthrow their government but to create more spaces for their demands of anti-racism and equality under an expanding market economy. They had little reason to collaborate with U.S. agencies.”
As Fernandes explained, being found to be in the pay of a CIA front group would be seen as something of a scarlet letter:
“Cuban artists are wary of working with any U.S. government agencies, because it would completely damage their credibility and compromise their own belief systems. That’s not to say there aren’t newer and younger artists who may be more willing to engage with the U.S. government. But among long-term and established artists, they realize that any such engagement would risk closure of their critical spaces and loss of their credibility.”
Nevertheless, the Trump/Rubio administration has made toppling the Cuban government a major foreign policy priority. If they continue with this plan, it is quite possible we will soon be seeing more Yotuels and Los Aldeanos.
Funding a Global Medium
In the Republic of Congo, President Denis Sassou Nguesso has been faced with over a decade of opposition from the Ras-le-Bol movement, which, in 2015, coordinated the largest anti-government protests in the country’s history in response to his attempts to change the constitution.
Ras-le-Bol shares many similarities with Y’En a Marre in Senegal. For one, they were both co-founded by a rapper, in this case, Martial Pa’nucci. Pa’nucci noted that he took direct inspiration from Senegal. Indeed, Ras-le-Bol is a direct translation of Y’En a Marre, both meaning “enough is enough.” And like Thiat, Pa’nucci is a former Reagan-Fascell Democracy Fellow at the National Endowment for Democracy.
While at the NED, he used the time to produce “Music for a Democratic Future in Congo”, a 12-track album the NED describes as “denouncing the dictatorship and kleptocracy that undermines his country.”
Unlike in Senegal, however, Ras-le-Bol has been unsuccessful in dislodging Sassou Nguesso, who first came to power in 1979.
The U.S. government has also supported the career of Moroccan political rapper Youssra Oukaf, better known as Soultana. Soultana takes on issues such as patriarchy and sexism in her music, and has helped other women enter the arena. While finding no aid from her own government, she has found plenty from Washington. “For me, it’s so big. It’s not just support, it’s an honor,” she said of her U.S. backing.
In Jordan, a USAID audit reveals that the agency greenlit a project to produce a rap song “targeting first-time voters” ahead of the 2007 elections. The song, it claims, was “played by most commercial radio stations” and reached “more than 2 million Jordanians.”
The U.S. government has also sponsored rap projects on a smaller scale in Uganda, South Africa, Tanzania, Ghana, and El Salvador. These initiatives range from concerts in Haiti featuring Wyclef Jean, to small scale workshops aimed at youths.
For Fernandes, hip hop is such a powerful medium because of its history and its universality:
“[It] goes back to its origins at a time when the organized left/Black Power was under attack and in decline, and the culture provided a voice for Black youth in the U.S. and globally when so many other avenues were closed. That continues to be true today. But the other reason is its musical innovation and style – the rhythm and beats derived from African-American culture that caught on like fire in the diaspora and beyond.”
To this day, hip hop still maintains its rebellious spirit. But even counter-cultural art forms are not immune to being co-opted by the powerful.
Rap as a Pacifying Force
While successive American administrations have used rap as a wedge to divide populations against each other and heighten existing contradictions within societies, they have also used it as a uniting force in nations with friendly governments, tamping down tensions and papering over divisions.
That was the case in Colombia, a country ravaged by decades of brutal drug war and mass killings by U.S.-backed far-right militias. In 2020, USAID’s Alliances and Reconciliation Program created an initiative aimed at the country’s youth with a message of coexistence, truth, dialogue, and reconciliation.
It appointed local rappers, Melisa MC, and Ken Zingle, as ambassadors of the program. Together, the pair produced the song, “Rímalo” (Rhyme It), which served as the project’s anthem.
Later, USAID also developed an outreach program targeting youths in conflict-affected areas of Colombia (where it was often the United States itself supplying the weapons). The program aimed to channel young people’s anger and frustration into peaceful co-existence and music creation. USAID published one of these rap songs, “Queremos” (We Want) on YouTube.
At the same time in Kenya, USAID partnered with well-known rapper King Kaka to launch its #16BarsforPeace hip hop campaign, wherein it challenged Kenyan youth to submit videos of themselves rapping about peace and conflict resolution.
Hundreds entered the competition, with the winner getting to rap with King Kaka on his song, “Mbekse” (“Two”: an allusion to the two fingers used to make the universal “peace” sign). Also appearing on the track was U.S. Ambassador to Kenya Kyle McCarter, who delivered a short verse in Swahili.
From “Fight the Power” To Working For Power
The United States government has long understood the power of hip hop. Since 2001, the State Department has sent American hip hop artists, DJs, and beatboxers across the globe as cultural envoys to spread pro-U.S. messaging. Why would it do this? Mark Katz, the former director of the State Department’s hip hop diplomacy’s program explained:
“Hip hop is well known to be the product of young, marginalized Americans of color who insisted on being heard and seen and who reveled in their survival. As the embodiment of struggle and celebration, hip hop resonates deeply with young people around the world. It’s the perfect vehicle for promoting a more nuanced and positive image of the United States and for connecting with populations that our embassies rarely engage.”
In 2024, the State Department announced it was joining forces with YouTube to create a new “Global Music Ambassador” program. The initiative was directly modeled on Washington’s Cold War-era efforts to use the arts to inspire U.S.-backed regime change in Eastern Europe, and to use musical tours as covers that the CIA could use to assassinate foreign leaders.
A number of rap artists, including Chuck D and Armani White, are signed up to the program. Also participating is Lyor Cohen, the Israeli former head of the iconic Def Jam record label, and current head of YouTube Music. Cohen noted that YouTube would strive to help the U.S. government “leverage global events.” “We will utilize major international gatherings to inspire action,” he said. What kind of “actions” the State Department is interested in fomenting was not directly stated, and so is open to speculation.
Chuck D’s participation in the project surprised and shocked many. The Public Enemy frontman and writer of songs such as “Fight the Power” and “Rebel Without a Cause” portrays himself as Malcolm X with a microphone. And yet, he willingly volunteered for an endeavor that Cohen explicitly presented as a thinly veiled regime change project.
The CIA has long used music as a cover for overthrowing foreign governments. In 1960, it embedded itself on Louis Armstrong’s tour of the Congo, accompanying the jazz legend in order to secretly gather information on the movements of the country’s prime minister, Patrice Lumumba, whom CIA director Allen Dulles described as Africa’s Fidel Castro. Lumumba was assassinated later that year, plunging the country into decades of U.S.-backed dictatorship, from which it has never recovered.
The project continued until the successful overthrow of Communism and Eastern Europe; events in which the U.S. government played a significant role. There have long been credible rumors that the CIA wrote and promoted the Scorpions’ hit song “Winds of Change” as regime change propaganda. Meanwhile, David Hasselhoff – the American singer who has long been inexplicablypopular in Germany – has strongly insinuated that he worked with the agency to bring down the Berlin Wall. His song, “Looking for Freedom,” became the unofficial anthem of the wall’s destruction, and he played it to a huge Berlin crowd in 1989.
More recently, in Venezuela, the NED funded and supported rock bands producing music aimed at destabilizing and overthrowing the socialist government. In 2011, for example, it was involved in approximately two dozen agreements for funding its performance and distribution. This included funding a national music contest, with the winners playing in Caracas. The documents, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, note that the project aimed to “promote greater reflection among Venezuelan youth about freedom of expression, their connection with democracy, and the state of democracy in the country.”
The NED got more than it bargained for, however, when the contest’s local organizers chose “Primates” – an overtly racist track that compared the (primarily Black and mixed race) government and its supporters as subhuman monkeys and gorillas – as its national winner. This sort of music was far less easy to support internationally than something like “Patria y Vida.”
Breakdancing With The Devil
The United States has been at war for 231 of its 250-year history. Its military spending rivals that of all other countries combined, and it operates a network of nearly 1,000 military bases worldwide. Its post-9/11 wars have killed at least 4.5 million people and displaced over 38 million more. Even by the most charitable metrics, it militarily supports three-quarters of the world’s dictatorships, and has launched nearly 500 foreign military interventions in its history. President Trump has bombed eight countries in the past 12 months, and has threatened military action against Greenland, Canada, Panama, North Korea, and Cuba.
It has also overthrown or attempted to overthrow the governments of more than 50 foreign countries, including some of the most vibrant experiments in democracy the world has ever seen. It does this through a network of institutions influenced, directed, or financed by the Central Intelligence Agency, including the IRI, NED, and USAID.
That is why it is so inappropriate and problematic for any individual or entity claiming to support democracy, freedom, and human rights to work with these agencies. Many of the musicians profiled here truly have put their lives in danger by opposing genuinely repressive governments. But their claims to be fighting for justice are undermined by their decision to liaise with organizations representing the most dangerous threat to freedom in modern history.
In short, while many of these rappers may have good intentions, if they have not realized this basic truism of human rights, they are either hopelessly naive and ignorant (and therefore unworthy of attention) or, worse, have chosen to become unofficial agents of the U.S. government, attempting to further extend Washington’s control. In either case, they should be heavily scrutinized. Even for genuine activists in extremely poor and repressive countries, where money and support are hard to come by, collaborating with the CIA and its cutouts should be a non-starter.
Hip hop grew out of Black struggles against oppression in America. As it flourished, both the artform and its message resonated with people worldwide. Aware of this, the U.S. government has attempted to hijack it, and use it for its own, nefarious ends. (Although, contrary to some more outlandish conspiratorial claims put forward by the likes of Joe Rogan, its involvement in the rap scene as a whole still remains marginal).
Nevertheless, what Washington has proven is that rappers can be regime change artists, too. Some rappers choose to fight the power. Others choose to represent it.
Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Saeed Khatibzadeh reaffirmed Friday Tehran’s commitment to securing an end to the Israeli war on Lebanon as part of any broader regional agreement, emphasizing that the conflicts across the region are interconnected and cannot be resolved independently.
In an interview with Al Mayadeen, Khatibzadeh stressed that Iran continues to pursue a diplomatic resolution despite repeated violations of existing agreements by Washington and “Israel”, maintaining that there is no alternative to negotiations based on mutual respect and the fulfillment of commitments.
His remarks followed a series of meetings in Beirut, including discussions at the Lebanese Foreign Ministry and with Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri and the Prime Minister’s Office, which he described as positive and reflective of the close and ongoing consultations between Lebanon and Iran.
Khatibzadeh emphasized that Tehran had worked during the visit to bring positions closer together and ensure that Lebanon would be included in any final agreement.
He stressed that the Israeli occupation must end its war on Lebanon and the wider Levant, emphasizing that developments across the region cannot be separated from one another.
In an exclusive interview with Al Mayadeen, Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Saeed Khatibzadeh said that the Washington track has reached a dead end, arguing that it was opened by the Israeli occupation to undermine the Islamabad process.
According to the Iranian official, ending the wars across all fronts was among Tehran’s fundamental conditions during mediation efforts.
He argued that continued hostilities on any single front would effectively mean that the wider war remained ongoing, reaffirming Iran’s commitment to securing an end to the Israeli aggression against Lebanon.
Khatibzadeh also accused Washington and “Israel” of undermining the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding, saying the agreement had been violated through attacks against Iran and Lebanon just days after its signing.
He maintained that subsequent developments represented a continuation of those violations, accusing “Israel” of attempting to derail the Islamabad peace process by pursuing a separate Washington-backed negotiating track with Lebanon.
The Iranian diplomat further accused the Israeli occupation of evading its commitments, arguing that Washington bears responsibility for restraining its regional ally and ensuring compliance with agreements.
Hezbollah, deterrence, and Iran’s relations with Lebanon
Turning to Iran’s relationship with Hezbollah, Khatibzadeh emphasized the Lebanese origins of the Resistance movement, describing its establishment as a response to Israeli aggression and the occupation of Lebanese territory.
He explained that Hezbollah emerged through the efforts of Lebanese youths from different religious and sectarian backgrounds who united around the objective of ending the occupation.
The Iranian official stressed that Tehran’s relationships with its allies are rooted in shared principles, convictions, and values, affirming that the Islamic Republic remains committed to standing by its friends.
Khatibzadeh also condemned the Israeli occupation’s disregard for international law, calling on the Lebanese people to support Hezbollah and contribute to strengthening the country’s deterrence capabilities against further aggression.
Regarding the issue surrounding the Iranian ambassador in Beirut, he confirmed that efforts to address the matter had been set in motion, expressing confidence that it could be resolved through dialogue and diplomatic prudence.
Iran rejects US pressure, insists on diplomatic solution
Addressing Washington’s policies toward Tehran, Khatibzadeh dismissed the significance of US domestic political developments, including elections and statements by President Donald Trump, maintaining that Iran’s position would not be dictated by American political considerations.
Instead, he stressed that Washington must be held accountable for failing to honor its commitments.
The deputy foreign minister reiterated Iran’s readiness to engage in balanced negotiations and pursue reconciliation based on mutual respect, provided the United States demonstrates a genuine willingness to act responsibly.
Reflecting on the US-Israeli war on Iran, Khatibzadeh described the aggression as illegal and a violation of international law, arguing that Washington had sought to overthrow the Iranian government, undermine the country’s territorial integrity, and dismantle its deterrence capabilities.
He maintained that those objectives had failed, describing the confrontation as an existential war in which Iran resisted attempts to undermine its sovereignty.
Despite the scale of the confrontation, Khatibzadeh emphasized that diplomacy remains the only viable path toward a lasting resolution.
He reaffirmed Tehran’s willingness to address concerns surrounding its nuclear program while safeguarding its right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy.
On the Strait of Hormuz, Khatibzadeh recalled Tehran’s comprehensive operational proposal to reopen the strategic waterway for a limited period of seven days, pointing to the initiative as part of Iran’s approach to addressing the ongoing crisis.
He nevertheless warned that Iran remained prepared to defend itself should further military aggression be imposed upon it, affirming Tehran’s readiness to fight to the last drop of blood.
Discussing the broader international situation, Khatibzadeh argued that the world was undergoing a transition from the existing international order toward a new global arrangement, with technological competition, particularly over artificial intelligence, emerging as a central arena of geopolitical rivalry.
He maintained that the war had exposed the limitations of US military power in the region and shattered illusions of strength held by the Israeli occupation.
Iran warns neighboring states against involvement in aggression
Addressing relations with neighboring countries, Khatibzadeh accused Kuwait and Bahrain of allowing their territories to be used to launch attacks against Iran during the war.
He argued that countries involved in facilitating such operations could not subsequently portray themselves as victims of the conflict.
The Iranian diplomat stressed that neighboring states must refrain from participating in regional alignments directed against Iran and Iraq, underscoring Tehran’s opposition to the use of neighboring territories for hostile military operations.
Tehran calls for immediate end to Saudi blockade on Yemen
Turning to Yemen, Khatibzadeh called for an immediate ceasefire and an end to the Saudi blockade, warning of the severe humanitarian consequences of continued hostilities.
He highlighted the acute shortages of food and medicine facing the Yemeni population, stressing the need to alleviate civilian suffering and create the conditions necessary for Yemenis to resume their normal lives.
His remarks reaffirmed Tehran’s position that ending the humanitarian crisis in Yemen requires both an immediate halt to military operations and the lifting of restrictions that continue to obstruct access to essential supplies.
Yemen’s Health Ministry reports 124 martyrs and 327 wounded since the Saudi escalation began on September 3.
Photo shows a girl killed in a Saudi cluster munition strike on residential homes in Yemen’s Dhamar Ans district, which killed at least three children, on October 16, 2026. (Photo: Al Masirah)
At least 124 people have been killed, and 327 others wounded as a result of the Saudi-led coalition’s escalating aggression against Yemen since fighting intensified on September 3, Yemen’s Ministry of Health has announced.
The devastating toll comes as Saudi warplanes carried out 101 airstrikes and missile attacks targeting civilian infrastructure across the country in just the past 24 hours, underscoring the criminal and indiscriminate nature of the Saudi war machine.
According to a statement by the Yemeni Armed Forces, Saudi F-15 and Typhoon fighter jets, which took off from the Khamis Mushait and Taif military bases, along with missile attacks launched from Najran, struck civilian sites in the capital Sanaa and the provinces of Dhale, Taiz, Hodeidah, Dhamar, Marib, Saada, Al-Jawf, Amran, and Lahj. The strikes have left civilian casualties, including women and children.
The latest barrage brings the total number of Saudi airstrikes and missile attacks since the escalation began to a staggering 2,489.
Yemeni forces strike Saudi command center
In a separate development, the Yemeni Armed Forces carried out a missile strike on a military facility adjacent to the Aden airport.
An unnamed military source told the Yemen News Agency (Saba) that the attack successfully hit a command headquarters of Saudi-led forces and a weapons depot located in the Badr camp in Aden province.
No casualties were reported from the operation.
It was the second major strike in Aden in two days, following a Thursday attack on a palace complex in the city used as a headquarters for the Saudi-backed mercenaries.
Despite the precision of the operation, Saudi-backed mercenaries and their media apparatus immediately sought to distort the facts, attempting to portray the Yemeni Armed Forces as targeting civilian sites.
This propaganda campaign is part of a broader effort by Riyadh and its proxies to obscure the reality that Yemen’s retaliatory strikes are directed exclusively at military positions, command centers, and weapons depots used to wage war against the Yemeni people.
The latest escalation comes against the backdrop of more than a decade of brutal Saudi-led war and blockade against Yemen, which began in 2015 when Riyadh intervened militarily in an attempt to restore a Saudi-aligned regime in Sana’a.
Initial reports suggest strikes on the Al-Maashiq Palace in Aden, Yemen.
Yemeni Armed Forces spokesperson Brigadier General Yahya Saree recently dismissed Saudi outrage over Yemen’s retaliatory strikes on Saudi airports, pointing to the coalition’s record of carrying out 274,302 airstrikes against Yemen over the course of 12 years.
He renewed the warning that Saudi airspace and airports remain unsafe, with the exception of the airspace over Mecca and Medina.
Saudi Arabia has sharply escalated its aggression in recent weeks, with Yemeni officials reporting hundreds of airstrikes across the country as Riyadh seeks to restore a Saudi-aligned regime in Sana’a.
In response, the Yemeni Armed Forces have launched several major counteroffensive operations along the Red Sea coast, driving Saudi-backed mercenaries from strategic positions.
Yemeni forces have also seized strategic areas and islands around the Bab al-Mandeb Strait, significantly strengthening their position at one of the world’s most important maritime chokepoints.
With the November 3 US midterm elections approaching amid mounting economic pressure and growing public opposition to the US-Israeli war on Iran, the possibility of Democrats regaining control of Congress has prompted debate over whether an electoral shift could alter Washington’s policies toward West Asia.
Since Washington and “Israel” launched their military aggression against Iran on February 28, 2026, the confrontation has evolved into a prolonged regional crisis, disrupting global energy supplies, straining American military resources, and exposing the costs of Washington’s regional security commitments.
The repercussions have extended into US domestic politics, where rising fuel prices and dissatisfaction with President Donald Trump’s handling of the war have provided Democrats with an opportunity to challenge Republican leadership.
However, the prospect of a Democratic majority raises a more fundamental question than whether Congress could restrain Trump.
Would a change in congressional leadership challenge the foundations of American military intervention in West Asia, or would it primarily alter the methods through which Washington pursues longstanding regional objectives?
The question carries particular significance given the Democratic Party’s own record.
The Israeli genocide in Gaza began in October 2023 under Democratic President Joe Biden, whose administration maintained extensive military assistance and diplomatic protection for “Israel” despite mounting Palestinian civilian casualties and international condemnation.
Similarly, successive Democratic and Republican administrations have maintained economic sanctions against Iran, expanded military partnerships across the Gulf, and supported the strategic relationship between Washington and the Israeli occupation.
An examination of these policies, alongside recent congressional votes and the legal powers available to lawmakers, reveals the distinction between opposing a particular administration’s military decisions and challenging the broader political and military structures sustaining US influence in the region.
Gaza genocide began under a Democratic administration
Any assessment of whether Democrats would fundamentally change American policy toward Palestine must begin with the party’s most recent record in government.
The Israeli genocide in Gaza began during Biden’s presidency, following the October 7, 2023 attacks and the subsequent Israeli military offensive against the Palestinian enclave.
Although the military campaign was initiated and conducted by Israeli authorities, Washington’s role extended beyond expressions of political support.
The Biden administration continued supplying weapons, approved additional military assistance, and used American diplomatic influence to protect “Israel” from international measures seeking to halt its operations.
According to Brown University’s Costs of War project, the United States approved at least $17.9 billion in security assistance for Israeli military operations in Gaza and elsewhere during the first year following October 7, 2023.
The researchers estimated that American spending on military assistance to “Israel” and related US military operations across the region amounted to at least $22.76 billion during that period.
Washington’s support continued even as Israeli operations devastated Gaza’s healthcare system, destroyed civilian infrastructure, displaced much of its population, and created catastrophic humanitarian conditions.
On December 8, 2023, Washington blocked a resolution demanding an immediate humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza.
It subsequently vetoed another ceasefire resolution on February 20, 2024, and a third on November 20, 2024.
These decisions prevented the Security Council from adopting the proposed measures despite substantial international support.
The administration’s position became particularly contentious in May 2024, when the US State Department acknowledged that it was reasonable to assess that American-supplied weapons had been used by Israeli forces in instances inconsistent with international humanitarian law.
Nevertheless, Washington maintained its broader military assistance relationship, although Biden temporarily suspended the delivery of certain heavy bombs amid concerns over Israeli operations in Rafah.
The commission identified four acts prohibited under the Genocide Convention and concluded that Israeli authorities possessed genocidal intent. “Israel” rejected the findings.
The significance of the Biden administration’s record extends directly into the current electoral debate.
Yet their party’s most recent administration provided substantial military and diplomatic support to “Israel” during the period that the UN commission subsequently determined constituted genocide.
This does not mean Democratic lawmakers held identical positions. Progressive members of Congress increasingly demanded a ceasefire and challenged weapons transfers.
However, the administration’s decisions demonstrate why opposition to Trump’s policies cannot automatically be interpreted as opposition to the broader American military relationship with “Israel”.
US support for “Israel” is institutional, not merely presidential
Washington’s military relationship with “Israel” is not dependent on a particular administration or the personal relationship between an American president and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
It is sustained through long-term financing arrangements, intelligence cooperation, weapons procurement, joint military programs, and congressional legislation.
In September 2016, the Obama administration negotiated a ten-year memorandum of understanding committing Washington to seek $38 billion in military assistance for “Israel” between fiscal years 2019 and 2028, subject to congressional appropriations.
The agreement includes $33 billion in foreign military financing and $5 billion for missile-defense programs.
The arrangement established the framework under which subsequent Republican and Democratic administrations have continued allocating substantial military resources to “Israel”.
Its importance lies not simply in the amount of assistance involved, but in the institutional continuity it created.
Military procurement commitments, weapons development programs, and defense-industrial partnerships can extend across administrations, limiting the practical consequences of political disagreements over particular Israeli operations.
These relationships have also continued to expand.
In June 2026, Human Rights Watch warned that Section 219 of proposed American defense legislation could deepen US-Israeli military integration through cooperation involving missile defense, artificial intelligence, surveillance technologies, and intelligence-sharing systems.
The organization warned that increased technological integration could create further risks of American involvement in unlawful Israeli military operations.
The proposed provisions had not become law at the time of the warning, but they illustrated how military cooperation could become embedded in arrangements extending beyond individual weapons transfers.
A Democratic-controlled Congress could challenge such provisions.
However, doing so would require confronting established military and technological partnerships, rather than simply criticizing Netanyahu or opposing specific military campaigns.
Democrats divided over ending military assistance
Recent congressional voting records reveal significant divisions within the Democratic Party over how far Washington should go in restricting support for “Israel”.
On July 15, 2026, the House of Representatives considered an amendment introduced by Republican Representative Thomas Massie seeking to eliminate $3.3 billion in annual security assistance to “Israel” from a proposed spending measure.
The amendment failed by 314 votes to 104.
However, the Democratic caucus was almost evenly divided.
House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries opposed the proposal, arguing that its language was excessively broad and could affect humanitarian assistance, refugee-related initiatives, and other activities beyond military aid.
House Democratic Whip Katherine Clark supported the amendment, arguing that continued assistance could not remain unconditional.
The result demonstrated increasing Democratic willingness to challenge military assistance to “Israel”, but also highlighted the absence of agreement over the extent and mechanisms of any restrictions.
One concerned $295 million in Caterpillar bulldozers, equipment associated with Israeli demolition operations, while the other targeted a $151.8 million sale involving approximately 12,000 bombs and related services.
Both measures failed, with procedural votes of 40-59 and 36-63.
Although the attempts were unsuccessful, Sanders emphasized the increase in Democratic support compared with previous efforts.
Among Americans overall, 41% expressed greater sympathy for Palestinians, while 36% favored Israelis, a difference that was not statistically significant.
These figures represent a substantial shift in American public attitudes compared with earlier decades of consistently greater sympathy for Israelis.
However, electoral preferences do not automatically translate into legislative outcomes.
Following the July vote on military assistance, AIPAC publicly criticized the 103 Democratic lawmakers who supported the amendment, defending continued American security assistance to “Israel”.
At the same time, progressive candidates and lawmakers have increasingly challenged the party’s longstanding positions on Palestine.
The resulting political divide suggests that future Democratic policy may depend not only on whether the party controls Congress, but also on which factions exercise influence within its leadership and committees.
Iran: Opposing Trump’s war is not the same as opposing US pressure
The distinction between challenging an administration’s military decisions and reconsidering Washington’s broader regional strategy is particularly evident in the US-Israeli war on Iran.
Since the February 28 offensive, Democratic lawmakers have repeatedly questioned Trump’s constitutional authority to conduct military operations without specific congressional authorization.
The confrontation has generated substantial financial and military costs.
According to a September Congressional Research Service report, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that US military operations had cost approximately $38 billion by August 1, 2026.
The conflict has also depleted military inventories, strained missile-defense resources, and disrupted shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.
Democratic lawmakers have responded by introducing resolutions seeking to restrict unauthorized military operations.
Four Republicans joined Democrats and independents in supporting it, while Democratic Senator John Fetterman opposed the measure.
The vote demonstrated substantial congressional resistance to the administration’s conduct of the war.
However, the central question concerns what that opposition actually represents.
The resolution sought to restrict the president’s military authority. It did not establish a comprehensive alternative to Washington’s sanctions policy, regional military deployments, or strategic commitments.
A Democratic lawmaker could oppose Trump’s decision to launch military strikes while continuing to support financial restrictions on Tehran, military cooperation with Gulf governments, and efforts to limit Iran’s regional influence.
Such positions would represent opposition to particular methods of intervention rather than necessarily rejecting the broader policy of pressuring Iran.
This distinction is essential when assessing the prospects of a Democratic majority.
Bipartisan sanctions expose a deeper continuity
Perhaps the clearest recent demonstration of bipartisan continuity emerged in September, even as Democrats intensified criticism of Trump’s military operations against Iran.
Although the legislation primarily targeted Russia, it also extended the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 through 2031, prolonging existing statutory restrictions affecting Iran’s energy sector and other activities.
The measure received support from lawmakers belonging to both major political parties.
The Senate approved the legislation by 86 votes to 11 in August, while the House endorsed the final version by 262 votes to 159 on September 16.
Among House Democrats, 58 supported the bill, although others opposed it, including Jeffries, who raised objections to its broader provisions concerning tariffs.
The legislation is important because it demonstrates that opposition to the US-Israeli military campaign does not necessarily translate into opposition to economic pressure against Tehran.
This is not a new contradiction.
Under Obama, Washington negotiated the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, providing sanctions relief in exchange for restrictions and monitoring of Iran’s nuclear program.
Trump subsequently withdrew from the agreement in 2018 and reimposed sweeping sanctions.
The Biden administration attempted to restore nuclear diplomacy but maintained extensive restrictions while negotiations continued.
These policies were not identical. The nuclear agreement represented a substantial diplomatic departure from Trump’s maximum-pressure approach.
Nevertheless, the persistence of sanctions across administrations illustrates how economic coercion has remained an important instrument of American policy toward Iran.
A Democratic majority could therefore attempt to halt additional military escalation while supporting continued financial pressure.
Such an outcome could meaningfully reduce the risk of further direct attacks without necessarily ending Washington’s broader confrontation with Tehran.
What could Congress actually change?
Although American regional policy has demonstrated substantial bipartisan continuity, congressional control remains consequential.
Under the US Constitution, Congress possesses authority over appropriations, legislation, declarations of war, and oversight of federal agencies.
A Democratic-controlled House could investigate military operations, scrutinize weapons transfers, refuse certain new appropriations, and propose restrictions on the use of federal funds.
The financial dimension is particularly significant.
In June 2026, the White House submitted a supplemental request that included $21 billion for munitions and $17.3 billion for operational costs associated with military operations against Iran.
A future Democratic majority could challenge comparable requests, demand reporting requirements, or seek legislative restrictions preventing funds from being used for specified military activities.
However, Congress would need to enact binding legislation to establish many such limitations.
Control of the House alone would not allow Democrats to unilaterally terminate military operations or prohibit all weapons transfers.
A Democratic-controlled Senate would offer opportunities for additional oversight, scrutiny of presidential appointments, and consideration of resolutions opposing arms sales.
But most contested legislation would remain subject to the Senate’s filibuster rules.
Even if Democrats gained control of both chambers, Trump would retain his presidential veto.
Overriding that veto would require two-thirds majorities in both the House and Senate.
The Arms Export Control Act presents additional difficulties.
Congress can introduce resolutions seeking to block notified weapons sales, but such measures must become law to impose binding prohibitions.
The executive branch also possesses emergency authorities that can allow certain transfers to bypass standard congressional review periods.
A Congressional Research Service analysis has noted that Congress has never successfully blocked a proposed arms sale through a joint resolution of disapproval under the established process.
These limitations do not render congressional control irrelevant.
They demonstrate why the ability to hold hearings, pass symbolic resolutions, or criticize the president must be distinguished from the ability to impose enforceable changes.
Oversight could expose US military conduct without ending intervention
One area where Democratic congressional control could produce more immediate consequences is oversight of American military operations.
Committee leadership would allow Democrats to investigate the legal basis for the US-Israeli aggression against Iran, examine intelligence assessments, scrutinize military spending, and seek information concerning civilian casualties.
According to the Congressional Research Service, a US Tomahawk missile reportedly struck the school, killing more than 150 people, most of them children.
A preliminary American military investigation reportedly concluded that US forces were responsible and had relied on outdated targeting information.
Similar investigations could examine whether American weapons supplied to “Israel” were used in violations of international humanitarian law in Gaza or Lebanon.
However, oversight alone would not guarantee accountability.
Investigations could expose evidence of misconduct without compelling changes in military policy, particularly if the administration resisted congressional demands or lawmakers failed to secure support for subsequent legislation.
The distinction between documenting the consequences of military intervention and preventing their recurrence would therefore remain central.
Iraq shows the limits of a Democratic congressional victory
The Iraq War offers a historical example of the difficulties facing a congressional majority attempting to challenge an ongoing military campaign.
Following the 2006 midterm elections, Democrats gained control of both chambers amid widespread opposition to the American invasion and occupation of Iraq.
In 2007, Congress approved legislation linking additional military funding to a timetable for withdrawing US forces.
Unable to secure the votes required to override the veto, the Democratic-controlled Congress subsequently approved additional funding without the proposed withdrawal timetable.
The confrontation demonstrated that congressional opposition could create significant political pressure without necessarily forcing a change in military strategy.
It also exposed the difficulty of using appropriations to confront a president conducting an ongoing military campaign.
For Democrats in 2027, similar tensions could emerge over Iran.
Would lawmakers be willing to withhold additional funding if the administration argued that the money was necessary to protect deployed American forces?
Would restrictions extend to military operations involving “Israel” or Gulf partners?
And would opposition to Trump’s decisions develop into a broader challenge to Washington’s regional military commitments?
These questions concern political willingness as much as constitutional authority.
The regional military architecture remains largely bipartisan
The wider implications of a Democratic majority extend beyond the immediate confrontations involving Iran and Palestine.
Washington’s influence across West Asia rests on extensive military partnerships, arms agreements, intelligence cooperation, and strategic infrastructure maintained under successive administrations.
American military facilities across the Gulf have faced attacks, regional energy infrastructure has experienced disruption, and shipping restrictions have demonstrated the global economic consequences of escalation around the Strait of Hormuz.
Nevertheless, Washington continues to pursue military cooperation with regional governments.
According to the Congressional Research Service, between February 28 and September 2026, the Trump administration notified Congress of more than $64 billion in proposed arms sales to “Israel” and several Arab governments, including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Jordan, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates.
Of that amount, approximately $25.3 billion involved emergency procedures that bypassed standard congressional review requirements.
These arrangements illustrate the extent to which Washington’s regional presence depends on a network of military relationships rather than direct operations alone.
A Democratic majority could seek changes in those relationships, but opposition to Trump’s campaign against Iran would not automatically imply support for reducing American military deployments, limiting arms sales to regional partners, or restructuring Washington’s security commitments.
The same distinction applies to Palestine.
Congress could condition military assistance, investigate weapons transfers, and increase humanitarian funding.
However, formal diplomatic recognition of Palestinian statehood remains within the president’s exclusive constitutional recognition authority.
Similarly, a Democratic congressional majority could pressure the administration over its diplomatic support for “Israel”, but could not independently determine Washington’s voting position at the United Nations.
The persistence of these powers and institutions means that substantive foreign policy change would require more than a new congressional majority.
What would meaningful change actually require?
The central question following the November elections would not simply be whether Democrats introduce legislation criticizing Trump.
It would be whether Congress adopts measures capable of changing the financial, legal, and military arrangements underpinning Washington’s regional policies.
On Iran, such measures could involve enforceable restrictions on offensive military operations, changes to sanctions legislation, or limits on funds supporting further escalation.
On Palestine, they could include binding conditions on weapons transfers, restrictions on military assistance used in unlawful operations, and stronger legal accountability requirements.
More broadly, Congress could reconsider the scope of American military commitments, the terms of security assistance agreements, and the role of US forces across West Asia.
These decisions would represent a more substantial departure than symbolic resolutions or investigations focused exclusively on the actions of the Trump administration.
However, the current Democratic voting record does not establish a unified commitment to pursuing such a transformation.
The party contains lawmakers advocating far-reaching restrictions alongside others who support longstanding military and security arrangements.
This internal division matters because a narrow congressional majority could be sufficient to control committee leadership without providing the votes necessary to enact major changes.
The distinction between electoral control and policy transformation is therefore not merely constitutional.
It also concerns the political priorities of the lawmakers who would exercise that control.
Different leadership, enduring strategic commitments?
The November midterms could alter the balance of power in Washington and create additional obstacles to Trump’s military campaign against Iran.
A Democratic majority could strengthen oversight, challenge additional military spending, increase scrutiny of weapons transfers to “Israel”, and raise the political costs of further escalation.
Such developments would have tangible consequences, particularly if Congress enacted binding financial or legal restrictions.
Nevertheless, the historical record demonstrates that Washington’s regional policies have been sustained through institutions and commitments extending across Democratic and Republican administrations.
The Biden administration maintained military and diplomatic backing for “Israel” during the genocide in Gaza.
The Obama administration negotiated the long-term military assistance framework that continues to structure American support for the Israeli occupation.
And even as Democrats criticized Trump’s war on Iran, Congress approved legislation extending sanctions against Tehran through 2031.
These decisions reveal a crucial distinction between contesting the conduct of American military intervention and reconsidering the broader strategy behind it.
Changes in the pace of military operations, diplomatic tactics, or congressional oversight can carry considerable consequences without necessarily reversing established security commitments.
A Democratic majority could therefore constrain how Washington exercises its regional power without fundamentally changing the military, economic, and diplomatic policies through which that power has historically been maintained.
Whether the next Congress goes further would depend on the legislation lawmakers introduce, the restrictions they are prepared to enforce, and their willingness to challenge policies supported by administrations of their own party.
For Iran, Palestine, and the wider region, the significance of the elections will ultimately be measured not by which party controls Congress, but by whether American policy itself undergoes a substantive change.
Voters who put Donald Trump back in office over their ecconomic concerns now give him some of his rating on the ecconomy. (Illustrated by Ali al-Hadi Shmiiess for Al- Mayadeen English)
US growth of 2.2% looks solid on paper, yet prices, pay, hiring and mortgage rates are squeezing households as the Iran war and federal debt push costs up.
Donald Trump won the White House in 2024 largely on voters’ frustration with the economy. Of the 45% of voters who told exit pollsters that their families were worse off than four years earlier, 80% chose him, and AP VoteCast found that nearly two-thirds of the voters who said inflation mattered most to their decision did the same.
Fast forward to 2026, and less than three weeks before the midterm elections, that frustration is working against his party. Emerson College Polling finds that voters who rank the economy first now favor the Democratic candidate by 55% to 41%, and gasoline averages $4.36 a gallon, $1.24 more than a year ago, according to AAA.
The economy is also the issue voters rank highest this year. In a Pew Research Center survey, 29% of registered voters named it as the topic they most want candidates to address, ahead of every other issue, and 41% of likely voters in Emerson’s poll said it concerns them most. A July Washington Post/Ipsos poll found that the economy and high prices were the factors registered voters cited most often in their congressional choices.
Trump’s ratings explain the shift. An AP-NORC poll released October 1 found that 26% of Americans approve of how he is handling the economy and 17% approve of his handling of the cost of living, and 65% say his policies, more than outside factors, are responsible for high prices.
Trump’s explanation, given at a White House event on September 30, was that he had done “a very bad job of explaining how good the country is doing,” alongside his claim that the country is doing better than it ever has.
Three things explain why the economy officials describe and the one voters live in look so different. A war that raised the price of fuel for every household, borrowing that has helped push long-term interest rates to their highest level in 24 years, and a growth engine that runs on a small group of high-income households, AI companies, and government deficits.
An economy growing, on paper
By the standard measures, the economy is expanding. Real GDP grew at a 2.2% annual rate in the second quarter after 2.5% in the first, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis; unemployment was 4.2% in September against 4.4% a year earlier, and the Census Bureau reported that real median household income reached a record $87,460 in 2025, although income at the 10th percentile showed no significant change.
Officials describe a stronger economy than these figures show. US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick predicted in January that first-quarter growth would top 5%, and the quarter finished at 2.5%.
National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett said in May that growth could reach “north of four, north of five” percent, particularly if the war on Iran ended soon. US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told Axios this month that the numbers are strong “apart” from headline inflation.
The figures that arrived after those statements do not match them. Growth came in at 2.5% and 2.2% in the first two quarters, about half of what Lutnick predicted for the first, and Bessent’s exception covers the two measures households check first.
Inflation stood at 2.4% earlier this year, when Trump described it as defeated, and reached 3.7% in September, while real hourly earnings ended the same month 0.7% below their level a year earlier.
Higher prices, thinner pay and costlier loans
Consumer prices rose 3.7% in the 12 months to September, up from 3.4% in August and from 2.4% in February, before the war, with gasoline up 9.1% in September alone and 34.2% over the year, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The $1.24 rise in the average pump price adds about $19 to filling a 15-gallon tank, and AAA says this is the first October in which the national average has topped $4.
But pay has not kept up. Average hourly earnings rose about 3% over the year, which left real hourly earnings 0.7% lower in September than a year earlier, whereas BLS data show them growing about 1.2% in January and February before energy prices rose.
Hiring has slowed as well, with employers adding 29,000 jobs in September against about 90,000 expected and revisions removing 60,000 jobs from July and August, so a 4.2% unemployment rate protects people who have jobs while people looking for work or a better job face fewer openings.
Loans have become costlier too. Freddie Mac’s survey put the average 30-year mortgage at 7.40% on October 8 against 6.30% a year earlier, which adds about $290 a month in principal and interest to a $400,000 loan.
The University of Michigan’s preliminary October sentiment index of 46.3 included a record-low reading on current conditions, with confidence down 20% among Republicans and 13% among Democrats since January.
Bessent attributes the current price pressure mainly to the war on Iran, so the war is the next place to look.
What the US war on Iran has cost
Before the war, the Strait of Hormuz carried about a fifth of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas shipments, so its disruption raised fuel prices everywhere, and crude was still above $90 a barrel in early October according to AAA.
The cost reaches households first through gasoline and diesel and then through the goods that diesel moves. Brown University’s Iran War Energy Cost tracker estimates about $100 billion in extra gasoline and diesel spending by early September, more than $760 per household, and Moody’s Analytics chief economist Mark Zandi estimated in July that higher energy and borrowing costs had cost the typical household about $1,100.
Officials said the shock would pass. Bessent told the Senate Finance Committee in June that the inflation was a short-term blip, yet headline inflation held at 3.4% in July and August and rose to 3.7% in September when gasoline climbed again.
The Federal Reserve responded to inflation that its chair, Kevin Warsh, described as too high for too long, raising its policy rate unanimously on September 16 to a range of 3.75% to 4%, its first increase since 2023, and 16 of 18 officials projected at least one more by year-end.
That tightening arrives on top of a federal deficit and a bond market that were already under strain.
The federal government borrowed about $2.0 trillion in the fiscal year that ended September 30, $218 billion more than the year before, according to the Congressional Budget Office, with $7.4 trillion of spending set against $5.4 trillion of revenue.
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates that the deficit equals 6.2% of GDP and that interest costs reached a record $1.1 trillion, and its president, Maya MacGuineas, says the government now spends more on yearly interest than on national defense.
That borrowing meets a more expensive bond market. The 10-year Treasury yield, which is the return investors demand for lending to the government for ten years and the benchmark for mortgages and corporate loans, reached 5.34% on October 1, its highest since 2002. It stood near 4% in February and has risen about 60 basis points, or 0.6 percentage points, since the end of July, and mortgage rates rose with it from just under 6% at their low to 7.40%.
No single cause explains the rise. The Fed’s September minutes, released October 7, record that yields from two to ten years climbed about 35 basis points between meetings, with market commentary citing geopolitical developments, uncertainty over a Treasury buyback program and competition for capital from heavy corporate borrowing to finance artificial intelligence infrastructure.
The New York Fed’s estimate of the term premium, the extra return investors require for holding a long-term bond, reached its highest level since 2014, which Reuters said reflects concern about rising debt and government financing. Bessent has called the bond moves global, and yields have also risen in Britain, France and Germany, though the term premium suggests US debt is part of the explanation.
The Dallas Fed cited Wall Street estimates of about $300 billion in AI-related investment-grade bond issuance this year, roughly an eighth of the long-term bond supply from Treasury issuance, which puts AI companies and the Treasury in competition for the same lenders.
The medium-term effects fall first on housing, where mortgage rates above 7% discourage buying and building, and on business projects outside the AI sector, which must promise higher returns to justify borrowing. The long-term effect runs through the federal budget, because the Treasury refinances maturing debt at prevailing rates and each new issue at a higher yield locks in a larger interest bill until it matures.
CBO projects that publicly held debt, now about 100% of GDP, will reach 120% by 2036. CBO Director Phillip Swagel said at a Minneapolis Fed conference on October 8 that growth alone is unlikely to stabilize that path, and Fortune reported that he put the necessary growth at 5% to 6% a year, a figure CBO has not separately confirmed, against its baseline of 1.8% from 2027 and the roughly 3% growth Bessent has argued could help.
What is holding growth up?
Three supports account for much of the growth that continues despite the squeeze on households.
Consumer spending is the largest, rising at a 3.8% annual rate in the second quarter, and a January analysis by Moody’s Analytics of Federal Reserve data found that households in the top 20% by income account for 59% of it, which helps explain why spending stays firm while sentiment sits near record lows. That spending is also outrunning income, since personal outlays rose $190.7 billion in August against a $66.6 billion rise in personal income, and the saving rate was 4.1%, according to BEA.
Share prices support the same households through what economists call the wealth effect, in which owners of rising assets spend more. The Kobeissi Letter, a market research newsletter, calculated that 42 AI-linked companies produced two-thirds of the S&P 500’s price gains since the start of 2024, while the Fed minutes record that this year’s rise in equity prices came entirely from higher earnings as price-to-earnings multiples fell.
AI investment adds to growth directly through spending on data centers, software and equipment. No official statistic isolates it, and imported chips subtract from GDP when counted as imports, so estimates vary, with ING putting the contribution near a third of year-over-year growth.
Government borrowing is the third support, because a $2.0 trillion deficit equal to 6.2% of GDP, nearly three times the economy’s 2.2% growth rate, sustains demand through tax cuts, transfers and government purchases, although no official figure divides growth by cause.
The three supports depend on one another. Rising share prices lift spending by wealthy households, technology companies borrow to build data centers, their bond sales add to the long-term debt that Treasury borrowing already supplies, and higher yields then raise mortgage costs for everyone else. If AI earnings disappoint, share prices, wealth-driven spending, investment, and the debt financing it would all come under pressure together.
What to watch for in October
Three releases will show whether the pressures are easing before the election.
The University of Michigan publishes its final October sentiment reading on October 23, the Federal Reserve announces its next rate decision on October 28 after a two-day meeting, and the Commerce Department publishes September personal income and outlays on October 29.
Oil shipments through Hormuz matter as much as any of them, because gasoline accounted for more than half of September’s monthly price increase.
The evidence before November 3 shows an economy that is growing on a narrow base, that took a price shock from a war the United States launched, and that will carry the borrowing costs after the shock fades.
What this means for the midterms
When asked how they judge the economy, a CBS News survey found that almost all Americans use prices to gauge the well-being of the economy. And if conditions continue as is, costs are likely to compound.
Gas prices tend to fall more slowly than they rise, according to CNN’s reporting, so relief at the pump would trail any end to the fighting. Sixteen of 18 Fed officials expect another rate increase this year, which would keep mortgage and business loan rates high at a time when employers added only 29,000 jobs in September, and the government’s interest bill would grow with them, narrowing its room to offer relief.
The effect on the election shows up in the polling. The CBS News Battleground Tracker estimates that Democrats hold a narrow House majority, with the advantage coming mostly from frustration over prices and a Republican base that looks less likely to vote. Reuters/Ipsos found that 64% of Republicans give the White House at least some blame for rising costs.
Trump told supporters on September 30 that his failure was in explaining how well the country is doing, and the voters he is addressing have spent the year comparing that description with their own receipts.
By Christopher Lynn Hedges (born September 18, 1956) American journalist, author, commentator and Presbyterian minister.
In his early career, Hedges worked as a freelance war correspondent in Central America for The Christian Science Monitor, NPR, and The Dallas Morning News. Hedges reported for The New York Times from 1990 to 2005, and served as the Times Middle East Bureau Chief and Balkan Bureau Chief during the wars in the former Yugoslavia.In 2001, Hedges contributed to The New York Times staff entry that received the 2002 Pulitzer Prize for Explanatory Reporting for the paper’s coverage of global terrorism.
Chris Hedges
”Donald Trump exhibits the classic traits of psychopaths — superficial charm, grandiosity and self-importance, a need for constant stimulation, a penchant for lying, deception and manipulation and incapacity for remorse or guilt.
But is he evil?
Susan Nieman
If, as the philosopher Susan Nieman writes, evil is not simply the opposite of good but inimical to it, if the aim of evil is to destroy all moral distinctions, then Trump qualifies as evil. Morality, for Trump, is for losers. All life is transactional. Self-interest and self-enrichment usurp all other considerations. No one else matters.
In her new book, “Call It Evil: Understanding the Trump Era,” Neiman argues that evil “isn’t cruelty but something much worse: the ideas that allow cruelty to become ordinary.”
She continues:
There’s a difference between calling one action evil and calling another a crime. Crimes are things for which we have procedures—at least for punishing, if not for preventing. This means that a crime can be fit in some way into the rest of our experience. To call an action evil is to suggest it cannot—and that it thereby threatens the trust in the world that we need to navigate it. There’s no signpost on the border between evil and awful. Evil is what you say when your jaw begins to drop if you sense that a line has been crossed.
Trump crosses line after line. He declares wars on a whim. He enriches himself and his family in crypto schemes, from which he has made over a billion dollars. He orders assassinations and the kidnapping of heads of state. He uses billions of taxpayer dollars to sustain genocide in Palestine and since January 2025 has provided over $20 billion in new arms sales to Israel. He guts government departments designed to lift up the vulnerable and bloats the war budget. He builds rogue paramilitary forces to terrorize citizens and immigrants. He attacks and attempts to censor the news industry.
In short, he does what all who commit evil do.
He fosters a world where nothing is sacred and where democracy and civic virtues do not exist.
Concepts of fairness, decorum, justice and empathy are imploded by the Trump administration. His threat to annihilate Iran – i.e. carry out genocide – announced of all places at the United Nations, is greeted with indifference by a public rendered numb by his moral vacuity.
“Once the supremacy of self-interest is enshrined as commonsense realism rather than a philosophical idea, moral capacities like empathy and shame become not just naïve but suspect,” Neiman writes. “Sadists exist and cause no end of pain. But the most common forms of evil arise from the view that only fools believe in anything but their own advantage.”
The institutions designed to protect democracy, to safeguard civic virtues, to foster equality — including the courts, law firms, universities and the media, all of which have been captured by the billionaire class — swiftly fell to their knees to curry favor with the Trump White House. The titans in Silicon Valley showered him and his campaign with millions of dollars. The supposed virtues these institutions and individuals claimed they championed were jettisoned. These virtues, they illustrated, were nothing more than branding, performance art, a sham.
To an enraged public Trump’s transparent greed and cruelty is preferable to the slick hypocrisy of the politicians, Republican and Democrat, who preceded him. He does not engage in their faux empathy. In fact, he seems incapable of empathy.
Once morality is for fools, virtue makes no sense. Once we believe we should grab what we can, even at the expense of those around us, we surrender to evil.
“Unlike the rest of us, he permanently exhibits the combination of motives we are told are the true forces driving human behavior,” Neiman writes of Trump:
Nor does he appear to understand any other. Though he recognizes that other people, aka losers, have norms, he has no idea of how norms work, moving people to override self-interest in order to honor them. In acting on the international stage like Richard Dawkins’s ruthless genes, he has attracted millions of followers who tell us they admire his authenticity. This doesn’t mean his followers are deplorable. They may not be evil at all, but in a world where implacable self-interest is usually camouflaged in soft colors, they find his candor refreshing. They have so often heard that people conceal the raw self-interest that really moves things, they’re relieved to watch a man who never hides it.
The worst evil, Neiman argues, “may be the denial of evil – as well as disdain for any goodness that might oppose it. When self-interest becomes the basis of reason, evil no longer needs to justify itself. It’s already been mistaken for rationality.”
This evil leads us down the familiar road to fascism. It was Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during Trump’s first term, who warned us, calling Trump “fascist to the core.”
The media — too spineless to label Trump a fascist — prefers the word “authoritarian,’ which Neiman notes may be a more bearable word, but “will not make fascism more bearable.”
Authoritarianism, she notes:
[I]s a word that can be useful for describing certain German professors, and the softer sort of Latin American military regime. But a country where masked men deport people to wastelands they’ve never seen? Combat troops occupy major cities and shoot peacefully protesting citizens? A government that coerces media, universities, and other countries to suit its will? A military that blows fishermen to bits with the meagerest of justifications, then begins the kind of wars the International Military Court at Nuremberg condemned? As it wrote in 1946, ‘To initiate a war of aggression is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.’ It would be easy to go on, but counting crimes is pointless. Before these words are printed, the administration will have found countless new ways to flout the rule of law.
We are in deep trouble.
The moral rot in our society preceded Trump. He is its logical conclusion. He is the apotheosis of a culture where greed, exploitation and self-interest, the core tenets of neoliberalism, are held up as the defining forces of human existence.
We must fight back while we can. But to do so requires that we recapture the language of good and evil. It requires us to make moral choices and to accept self-sacrifice. It requires us to name the bleakness before us, not turn our faces from the fascist monolith being cemented into place.
Denying these truths and refusing to defy evil will ensure our enslavement.
Speaking these truths and standing with the oppressed and the marginalized, even at the cost of our own financial and physical security, will set us free.”
Claudio Resta was born in Genoa, Italy in 1958, he is a citizen of the world (Spinoza), a maverick philosopher, and an interdisciplinary expert, oh, and an artist, too.
Grew up in a family of scientists where many sciences were represented by philosophy to psychoanalysis, from economics to history, from mathematics to physics, and where these sciences were subject to public display by their subject experts family members, and all those who they were part of could participate in a public family dialogue/debate on these subjects if they so wished. Read Full Bio
VT Condemns the ETHNIC CLEANSING OF PALESTINIANS by USA/Israel
$280+ BILLION US TAXPAYER DOLLARS INVESTED since 1948 in US/Israeli Ethnic Cleansing and Occupation Operation 150B direct “aid” and $ 130B in “Offense” contracts Source: Embassy of Israel, Washington, D.C. and US Department of State.
ATTENTION READERS
We See The World From All Sides and Want YOU To Be Fully Informed In fact, intentional disinformation is a disgraceful scourge in media today. So to assuage any possible errant incorrect information posted herein, we strongly encourage you to seek corroboration from other non-VT sources before forming an educated opinion.
Due to the nature of uncensored content posted by VT’s fully independent international writers, VT cannot guarantee absolute validity. All content is owned by the author exclusively. Expressed opinions are NOT necessarily the views of VT, other authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, or technicians. Some content may be satirical in nature. All images are the full responsibility of the article author and NOT VT.
Posted on October 15, 2026 by uprootedpalestinians
Saudi Arabia’s expensive air defenses and sustained airstrikes have failed to neutralize Yemen’s resilient missile capabilities and underground infrastructure, exposing the strategic limitations of technological superiority against adaptive, decentralized warfare.
The Saudi infrastructure spurring its petroleum economy is under sustained, repeated, and increasingly precise retaliatory attacks from the Yemeni armed forces as tensions escalate.
For a kingdom that has spent hundreds of billions of dollars constructing what it imagined would be an impenetrable security architecture, US fighter jets, French air defense batteries, German naval vessels, British training contracts, and the crown jewel of it all, the US-built Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system, the recent developments have sent jitters through the power corridors of Riyadh.
Yemeni armed forces lack sophisticated weapons industries, satellite constellations, or foreign exchange reserves. Still, the Sana’a government has managed to effectively sever Saudi Arabia’s access to Bab al-Mandeb, the narrow maritime chokepoint through which a critical fraction of global energy trade flows.
It is this force that compelled the closure of King Khalid International Airport in Riyadh through drone and missile operations, a siege-for-siege response to the years-long Saudi aerial and maritime blockade that has strangled Yemen’s civilian population.
It is this force whose precision strikes on Aramco facilities at Abqaiq and Khurais, on pumping stations, and on refinery infrastructure across the kingdom’s vital petroleum belt have demonstrated, with regularity, that Saudi Arabia cannot defend what matters most to it.
The kingdom’s response has been a characteristic search for foreign saviors. Delegations to Islamabad requesting Pakistani air defense expertise. Urgent consultations in Ankara. Emergency procurement discussions in Washington and London. The image projected is not of a self-sufficient regional power but of an anxious client state, checkbook in hand, shopping for solutions to a self-imposed problem its own military has proven structurally incapable of solving.
King Khalid International Airport burns after a retaliatory Yemeni strike
Air defense collapse, and the THAAD failure
Before turning to the specific subject of Saudi airstrikes against underground Yemeni installations, the most visible symptom of strategic incoherence, it is worth situating that failure within the broader collapse of Saudi military credibility.
Saudi-backed ground forces in Yemen have consisted primarily of foreign forces, Yemeni tribal militias of variable loyalty, and special operations elements from various foreign actors. Against the organized, ideologically motivated, and tactically experienced ground forces of the Sana’a government, they have repeatedly failed to hold terrain.
More damaging to Saudi prestige than any ground reversal, however, has been the comprehensive failure of domestic and foreign air defense systems. The kingdom paid in excess of $15 billion for its THAAD battery, a system purpose-built to intercept ballistic missiles.
The procurement involved years on the American waiting list, diplomatic negotiations at the highest levels, and the deployment of US military personnel to operate and maintain the system.
Saudi leadership purchased THAAD not merely as a military capability but as a political statement: ‘We have bought the best the Americans make, and we are protected.’
Yemeni ballistic missiles, launched in single-digit coordinated salvos, sometimes as few as two or three per strike, have penetrated this layered defense with regularity. Whether through saturation, trajectory manipulation, or simple exploitation of the system’s well-documented limitations against short-range ballistic missiles, Yemeni forces have consistently gotten through.
Saudi military personnel posing with a THAAD launcher
The Air Force that cannot win
By almost any metric of hardware quality, the RSAF is a formidable force on paper. It operates the F-15SA, the Saudi Advanced variant of the F-15 Eagle, in numbers that make it the second-largest F-15 fleet in the world, behind only the United States Air Force itself.
The F-15SA incorporates the APG-63(V)3 Active Electronically Scanned Array radar, the latest mission computer architecture, digital fly-by-wire flight controls, and compatibility with the full American precision munitions inventory.
Alongside the F-15 fleet, the RSAF fields Eurofighter Typhoons, Panavia Tornadoes, and a supporting infrastructure of tankers, electronic warfare aircraft, and intelligence-gathering platforms that most regional air forces can only dream of.
The RSAF has operated over Yemen since March 2015, a decade, with complete air superiority. There is no Yemeni air force capable of contesting the airspace. Saudi pilots fly with impunity in the sense that no enemy aircraft will challenge them.
The operating environment, in terms of air-to-air threat, is essentially zero.
And yet the strategic outcome is failure. The Yemeni military’s ability to launch ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and drones at targets inside Saudi Arabia, and to do so with increasing accuracy and frequency, has not been degraded in any measurable way.
The missile production infrastructure has not been destroyed. The command structure has not been decapitated. The flow of materiel has not been stopped.
What the RSAF has accomplished, at tremendous financial cost and with horrific humanitarian consequences for the Yemeni population, is the destruction of civilian infrastructure – bridges, markets, hospitals, water treatment facilities, and residential neighborhoods.
A Royal Saudi Air Force F-15SA on the tarmac at a Saudi airbase
The underground problem
The specific absurdity the Saudi Ministry of Defense has presented to the world as evidence of effectiveness involves strikes against underground installations in northern Yemen.
The footage is remarkably consistent in its production values and in its uselessness as evidence, involving dramatic angles, slow-motion detonations, epic orchestral or nasheed-inflected soundtracks, plumes of smoke and dust rising from ridgelines or hillsides, and the implicit claim that something of military significance has been destroyed.
What is actually being shown is a hole in a mountain, or the entrance to a tunnel, or a surface vent of an underground complex.
To understand why this constitutes the expenditure of very expensive munitions for essentially no military return, one must understand the history of underground military infrastructure in Yemen, and the specific context in which Ansarullah developed it.
The Yemeni military in its earliest form, from the first Sa’ada war in 2004 through the subsequent cycles of war before the 2014-2015 collapse of the Saudi-backed Hadi regime, was concentrated largely in the mountainous terrain of Sa’ada governorate.
These highlands are geologically ideal for irregular warfare. The terrain is broken, the rock is workable, and the valleys create natural defensive corridors.
The Saudi Air Force bombing tunnel entrances and causing little more than a few hours of work for construction crews
By the time the Ansarullah movement formed the popular government in Sana’a in 2014-2015 and inherited the full infrastructure of the Yemeni state, including the military bases, ammunition depots, command centers, and technical facilities that had been under construction since the 1970s, it had already developed deep institutional knowledge of subterranean operations.
What it then did was scale. The former Yemeni armed forces had invested substantially in hardened underground facilities, many of them constructed with Soviet and Chinese assistance during the Cold War competition for influence in the Arabian Peninsula.
Some of these facilities were designed to survive exactly the kind of air campaign now being directed against them. The result is a layered underground infrastructure: legacy hardened military sites, expanded and modified; natural cave systems developed into military use; and new purpose-built tunnel complexes constructed during the ongoing war itself, using both local engineering capacity and the technical lessons accumulated over a decade of surviving devastating Saudi airstrikes.
Satellite footage from 2024 depicting activity and construction efforts at Yemeni underground facilities during the ceasefire period.
What a tunnel strike actually achieves
The operational reality of striking a tunnel complex with conventional air-delivered munitions is well understood in military literature, and the conclusion is uncomfortable for anyone proposing that Saudi airstrikes are achieving meaningful degradation of Yemeni underground facilities.
A strike on a tunnel entrance achieves, at best, a temporary blockage of that specific entrance. The structural integrity of the tunnel itself, which may extend hundreds of meters into solid rock, is essentially unaffected by a bomb detonating at its mouth.
The debris created by the strike can typically be cleared by a team with hand tools and light equipment in a timeframe ranging from hours to a few days, depending on the extent of the collapse and the resources available.
If the complex has multiple entrances, which any competent military facility will, the affected entrance is irrelevant to operational continuity from the moment the strike lands.
More Saudi strikes against hardened Yemeni positions
The B-2 precedent: When America tried and came up short
The limits of even the most capable bunker-busting capability in the world were demonstrated twice by American attacks against Yemeni underground facilities.
In 2024 and 2025, the United States deployed B-2 Spirit strategic bombers against Yemeni targets on at least two documented occasions.
The B-2 is the only aircraft currently in service capable of carrying the GBU-57/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), a weapon specifically designed to destroy hardened underground facilities. The MOP weighs approximately 30,000 pounds, of which roughly 5,300 pounds is explosive fill.
The B-2 strikes on Yemen, involving aircraft worth approximately $2.1 billion each operating from Diego Garcia, did not stop or meaningfully degrade Yemeni missile and drone operations. Attacks against Saudi Arabia and against shipping in the Red Sea corridor continued with no observable reduction in tempo or capability.
American B-2s stationed in Diego Garcia in 2025
In the aftermath of these aggressive attacks, American officials indicated that MOPs had not been used, and that the strikes employed BLU-109 configurations. The explanation offered, that MOPs were available but not used, is curious.
One reading is that the Americans assessed the targets as not requiring MOP-class munitions, implying the strikes achieved their objectives. Another reading, perhaps the most operationally honest, is that the facility hardening had been assessed, the limitations of available munitions were understood, and the strikes were ordered for political and deterrent signaling purposes rather than with genuine expectations of permanent infrastructure destruction.
Alternatively, it is possible that MOPs were used but failed to cause the desired impact. Whatever the reasoning, the operational result is the same. The most expensive aircraft in the world, using serious penetrating munitions, operating with complete air superiority, did not stop Yemeni strikes.
A B-2 Spirit in flight dropping a test version of GBU-57/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP)
What Is Saudi Arabia actually trying to achieve?
Against this backdrop, a decade of strikes, an unimpaired and growing Yemeni strike capability, and a demonstrated American inability to eliminate the Yemeni resistance with the world’s most capable penetrating weapons, the question of Saudi strategic intent becomes genuinely difficult to answer charitably.Several possible explanations exist, and they are not mutually exclusive.
The footage released recently is domestic and regional political products as much as military communications. Saudi leadership is under significant pressure, from the ruling family itself, from the business community whose assets are being struck, from foreign partners watching the kingdom’s security guarantees erode in real time.
Producing footage of dramatic explosions and pairing it with inspiring music is a way of asserting that something is being done, regardless of whether that something is achieving anything.
Perhaps most honestly, the RSAF may be striking underground entrances and hardened facilities because it has exhausted every other target category and this is what remains on the approved list. The visible Yemeni military infrastructure in exposed positions was struck and restruck in the first years of the aggression.
Mobile missile launchers, a notoriously difficult target category even for the most capable intelligence-surveillance-reconnaissance assets, have proven largely elusive. Leadership targets are well protected. Logistics nodes are dispersed and mobile. The mountain tunnel entrance, in this reading, is not a strategic choice but a default, the target that is findable, strikable, and filmable, even if not destroyable.
The structural problem: An Air Force without a purpose it can fulfill
The deeper failure of the RSAF is not a problem of hardware or pilots. It is a problem of strategic function. The RSAF was designed, equipped, and trained for air superiority operations against a peer air force, long-range strike operations against a state with a coherent target set, and close air support for conventional ground forces in maneuver warfare.
None of these missions exist in Yemen. There is no peer air force. The target set is not a coherent state infrastructure that can be collapsed by strategic bombing. It is a distributed, mobile, dispersed, and deeply underground military system that has been hardened specifically against air attack and has had a decade to learn the precise capabilities and habits of the air force striking it.
The result is an air force conducting a strike campaign that is unable to produce the strategic effect its users require. The Yemeni missile and drone capability is not going to be destroyed from the air with the munitions the RSAF has available.
It was not going to be destroyed by the Americans with significantly better munitions. It will not be destroyed by any future configuration of Saudi, American, or other coalition air power.
Saudi Arabia is in the position of a man who has spent his fortune on the finest locks and alarms, watched his house burn down anyway, and is now asking locksmiths in Islamabad, Ankara, Washington, and London whether they have something better.
Iran’s Foreign Ministry has reiterated that the Islamic Republic stands prepared to defend its national sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Irish novelist Sally Rooney speaks at a Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) Super panel at the Teachers Club in Dublin, Ireland, April 9, 2026.
Irish novelist Sally Rooney says her books can no longer be sold in the UK because of her support for Palestine Action, warning that fulfilling her British publishing contracts could now constitute a “criminal offense.”
The bestselling author of Normal People and Conversations with Friends made the remarks in a statement provided to The Guardian on Wednesday, saying her support for the pro-Palestinian activist group means her books can no longer be sold in the UK and she can no longer receive royalties from British sales.
She said she had made every effort to be transparent about her beliefs and intentions and was prepared to accept the consequences.
Rooney has previously said she would donate her earnings to Palestine Action.
The pro-Palestine group that carries out direct action against Israeli weapons factories in the UK and their supply chains was proscribed as a “terrorist organization” in July 2025.
The following month, Rooney published an opinion piece declaring her intention to continue supporting the group, which remains legal in the Republic of Ireland.
In a witness statement submitted to the High Court in London, Rooney warned that the group’s proscription could undermine freedom of expression, force her existing books off British shelves and prevent her future works from being published in the UK.
Her publisher, Faber, has consequently decided to stop supplying her books in the country, a decision Rooney fully supports.
In a separate statement, Faber said UK legislation had created circumstances in which it could no longer pass on to Rooney the earnings generated by British sales of her books.
Rooney also canceled a planned trip to the UK to receive an award, fearing she could be arrested over her declared support for Palestine Action.
Rooney’s books have enjoyed major commercial success in the UK, with Normal People selling more than one million copies, while Conversations with Friends and Beautiful World,Where Are You have each sold more than 500,000 copies.
The BBC adaptation of Normal People attracted 62.7 million views, becoming the broadcaster’s most-streamed series of 2020.
Under the UK government’s ban on Palestine Action, both membership in the group and expressing support for it are “criminal offenses.”
Wearing clothing or displaying items in circumstances that indicate support for the organization can also lead to prosecution.
Last year, Palestine Action co-founder Huda Ammori challenged the ban. The High Court ruled in her favor in February, but the Court of Appeal overturned that decision in June. The Supreme Court is due to hear an appeal next month.
More than 3,700 people have been arrested since the ban came into force, many for holding signs in support of the group. About 2,500 people have been charged, although none have gone to trial, as the legal challenge to the ban continues.
A Yemeni official has revealed that mediation efforts are underway to free the city of Taiz without a fight and hand its administration to its own people, as the Yemeni Armed Forces continue to advance against Saudi-backed forces.
Arif al-Ameri, coordinator for relations and communication for the parties opposed to the aggression, told Al Mayadeen Wednesday that the armed forces are pressing ahead with efforts to “liberate land from the mercenaries and aggression forces.”
He explained that the approach is to free an area, hand its administration to local residents, and then move on to the next.
Taiz a ‘capital of culture’
Al-Ameri described Taiz as the “capital of culture” and said its liberation would amount to a “geopolitical shift.”
He disclosed that mediation efforts to free the city without fighting are already in progress, and that messages of reassurance are being sent to say the people of Taiz will be the ones to run its affairs.
He added that intensive efforts are also underway to spare the governorates not yet liberated from bloodshed, through the same assurances and the same handover of administration to local residents.
Al-Ameri concluded that Sanaa welcomes any mediation that meets the demands of the Yemeni people, lifts the siege and protects national sovereignty.
Al Mayadeen’s bureau chief in Yemen had reported earlier that the Yemeni Armed Forces have reached the outskirts and entrances of Taiz city, while mediation continues to secure the withdrawal of forces from some districts.
Saudi raids bomb civilian sites
The developments come against a backdrop of continued Saudi aggression against Yemen. Yemeni Armed Forces spokesperson Brigadier General Yahya Saree announced that Saudi warplanes carried out 42 airstrikes and missile attacks over the past 24 hours, targeting civilian sites in Sanaa and in the governorates of Taiz, Lahj, Marib and Amran, as well as Mayun Island.
Saree said Saudi F-15 and Typhoon jets took off from the Khamis Mushait and Taif air bases, while the missile attacks were launched from Najran. He added that the total number of Saudi airstrikes and missile attacks on Yemen since the latest escalation began has reached 2,323.
On Tuesday, Saree announced a special military operation targeting Aramco facilities in Dhahran in the Eastern Province, King Khalid International Airport, and the Aramco refinery in Riyadh, in response to wide-scale Saudi attacks on Sanaa earlier the same day.
“The operation involved a large number of ballistic and cruise missiles, as well as drones,” Saree said. “By the grace of Allah, the strikes hit their targets accurately, causing destruction and fires at the targeted sites.”
He vowed that operations deep inside Saudi territory will continue in the coming days, targeting Saudi Arabia’s airports and oil facilities, warning that “the consequences will be severe for it.”
Saree urged international shipping companies, along with civilians and workers at the targeted airports and companies, to stay away from those sites and evacuate them immediately, as they have become legitimate targets.
He reaffirmed Sanaa’s military equation of “blockade for blockade, escalation for escalation,” and said Yemeni forces will keep targeting Saudi military buildups “until the aggression against our beloved country stops and the blockade is lifted.”
Israeli Army Spokesperson announced, “Following the explosion in the north of the country, a preliminary investigation conducted by IDF forces at the scene indicates that the blast was likely caused by a Hezbollah cluster bomb that had remained in the area and detonated.”
The military spox added that the incident remained under investigation, noting that the IOF continue operating in the area.
Israeli media reported that 20 Zionist settlers were injured to varying degrees in Yiftah, in the Ramim Ridge area along the Lebanese border. The reports said the injuries were believed to have resulted from an explosion at the scene, possibly caused by unexploded ordnance.
Supreme Political Council President Mahdi al-Mashat says strikes on Saudi Arabia aim to end the 12-year war and blockade on Yemen, reclaim national resources, expel occupiers, and safeguard holy sites and maritime security.
Sanaa’s military operations against Saudi Arabia are justified and aim to force Riyadh to end its longstanding aggression and blockade of Yemen, Mahdi al-Mashat, the president of the Supreme Political Council, said on Tuesday.
In remarks to SABA News Agency, al-Mashat said the most immediate path to a solution lies in ending the Saudi war and blockade against Yemen. He emphasized that the battle is now aimed at bringing an end to 12 years of continued aggression and siege, reclaiming the country’s national wealth and resources, and expelling every occupier from Yemeni territory.
He reaffirmed Yemen’s determination to confront Saudi Arabia until its war and blockade are brought to an end, including by striking its military build-ups to thwart its objective of occupying the country.
Addressing Saudi Arabia directly, al-Mashat stated that “the sensible one among those involved in the invasion of Yemen is the one who takes the initiative to leave it before it is too late.”
Al-Mashat further noted that Saudi policies had repeatedly obstructed major national milestones, weakened the Yemeni state, and prevented the country from harnessing its resources and wealth. Yemenis, he maintained, now face a historic opportunity to consolidate their national project and build a strong and just state, free from subservience to foreign powers or external dependency.
Holy sites are a red line, international navigation is safe
Al-Mashat held KSA fully responsible for any attack on holy sites or any attempt to implicate the Yemeni people in such acts. Emphasizing that holy sites constitute a red line, he warned that Sanaa would not remain silent in the face of any reckless act.
He argued that Saudi Arabia’s repeated allegations that Yemen had targeted Medina exposed its state of helplessness and failure, while reflecting its actions in accordance with Zionist plans. Al-Mashat also renewed his call for countries and entities endorsing these accusations to reconsider their positions and verify the claims.
In a separate statement, al-Mashat condemned “the crimes of Saudi aggression and the targeting of civilians,” saying they laid bare Riyadh’s “brutality” and affirming Yemen’s right to respond.
Concluding his remarks, he stressed that international navigation remains safe and that Yemen is committed to fulfilling its international obligations concerning maritime navigation.
He warned, however, that the threat to maritime security stems from Saudi Arabia turning the Bab al-Mandab Strait into a war zone, and called on the international community to condemn this course of action.
The agency added that the aggression has involved 300,000 Saudi airstrikes, which have hit homes, residential neighborhoods, markets, hospitals, and schools. It said the raids have also struck funeral gatherings, weddings, roads, bridges, displacement camps, airports, ports, and factories.
On Tuesday, Yemeni Armed Forces spokesperson Brigadier General Yahya Saree announced that Saudi warplanes carried out 104 airstrikes across Yemen over the past 24 hours.
Saree said the raids bombed the governorates of Sanaa, Dhamar, Taiz, Amran, Lahj, al-Jawf, Marib, Saada, and Saada.
In a separate incident, three citizens were martyred after an unexploded remnant of the Saudi aggression detonated in the Hays district, south of Hodeidah, Saba News Agency reported.
Iran’s top security official says the US will meet the same fate as previous powers that tried to conquer Iran.
Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, Major General Mohsen Rezaei, says powers greater than the US have tried to conquer Iran but ultimately ended up in the “dustbin of history.”
During an exclusive interview with Press TV on Saturday, Rezaei said the “US suffered repeated defeats in its confrontation with Iran and has consequently turned to economic warfare out of desperation.”
Iran, rather than the US, would determine when the confrontation ends, he said, stressing that Tehran would continue its resistance until its rightful demands are met.
Addressing the presence of US forces in the region, Rezaei told Press TV that the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq reflected Washington’s failure to impose its military agenda on the region, describing it as a vindication of Iran’s resistance to American military presence in West Asia.
Rezaei further said that more than “30 million Iranians have registered in ‘Janfada’ (Sacrifice for Iran) Campaign to take up arms in the event of US aggression.”
On the prospects for ending the war, Rezaei said Iran would continue to pursue diplomacy but would not return to its previous negotiating framework.
“We will not return to the diplomatic approach of the past,” he said, referring to three rounds of negotiations that he said had ended with the United States abandoning talks and attacking Iran.
“Of course, we have never abandoned diplomacy, and we never will. But we have changed our approach,” he added.
Rezaei said Iran had presented Washington with seven conditions, following contacts through Pakistan, Qatar and Iraq. According to him, the United States had responded to the proposals, accepting some conditions while leaving others unclear.
He described the American response as inadequate and said Washington needed to clarify the outstanding issues before further steps could be taken.
“We are not in the process of responding to the Americans. They have responded to us, and we consider their response inadequate,” he said.
$2 trillion in US tech infrastructure could be targeted
The senior official warned that, if Washington launched another act of aggression against Iran, American assets could be targeted, including key data systems and artificial intelligence sensors.
Rezaei further warned that US-linked technology infrastructure worth more than $2 trillion in the region could be targeted if Iran came under attack again.
“The pulse of the American economy in this region runs through our part of the world,” Rezaei said, adding that the United States has placed valuable technological assets in West Asia, including data centers and artificial intelligence facilities.
“We have not yet included these assets among our targets. But if war breaks out, many of these cables, data centers, artificial intelligence facilities, and numerous other sites will be destroyed,” he said.
He also warned that Iran is prepared to deploy additional military capabilities if the war resumes.
He said Tehran had deliberately held back some of its military capabilities during the 12-day war and had used more of its capabilities during the subsequent 40-day aggression.
“Today, we are fully prepared to introduce new capabilities if the war starts again,” he said.
Rezaei also identified Washington and its regional allies as the root of the problem surrounding the Strait of Hormuz.
Rezaei said Tehran would retain control over the management of the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic waterway through which a substantial share of global energy supplies normally passes.
“Our control over the Strait of Hormuz represents enormous national wealth and a major national asset,” he said, adding that Iran’s interests extended beyond collecting fees from passing ships.
He said Iran could derive economic benefits from charging vessels for security, insurance and environmental protection, but maintained that the strait’s wider strategic value lay in ensuring security in the region.
“From now on, therefore, we will maintain control over the management of the Strait of Hormuz. It will remain under our management to ensure peace and security in the region. We will not back down on this issue,” he said.
Rezaei rejected US claims that the waterway was open, noting that some vessels are operating through smuggling networks and that the current level of maritime traffic remained far below prewar levels.
He also said Iranian forces had been striking five or six vessels involved in such operations on any given night over the preceding two or three months.
Rezaei pointed out that restrictions on shipping had affected the movement of oil, gas, helium and fertilizers, while contributing to higher energy prices and economic pressure.
Before the war, he said, the strait had been open and maritime traffic had proceeded without such disruption.
Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz in response to the latest round of US-Israeli aggression, preventing US and allied ships from navigating the strategic waterway.
The move resulted in a significant increase in oil and energy prices across the globe, especially in the US, forcing Washington and the International Energy Agency (IEA) to release their strategic resources several times.
Following the signing of the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between Iran and the US in June, Tehran opened the Strait of Hormuz, but after the US violated the MoU by blockading Iranian ports, Iran’s Armed Forces closed the maritime corridor once again.
‘The Iranian people do not surrender’
Rezaei also rejected the prospect of Iran yielding to US pressure, stressing that the outcome of the war would ultimately depend on the Iranian people.
“The Iranian people do not surrender. They are the ones who force others to surrender before them. But they will never surrender to you,” he said.
He added that Iran would continue resisting until its rights were recognized, while saying that US officials are underestimating the country’s history and national resolve.
In his closing remarks, Rezaei said Washington’s efforts to weaken Iran had instead strengthened opposition to the United States among Iranians.
“The end of this war is in the hands of the Iranian nation,” he said. “They will not abandon their resistance, steadfastness, or defense until they force you to recognize their rights.”
A senior Yemeni source tells Al Mayadeen that over 400 Saudi-backed forces were killed or wounded in Ras al-Ara, as Saudi Arabia mobilizes its ground forces despite the scale of its losses.
Saudi Arabia has been pressing its military mobilizations to achieve any field advance, regardless of the cost, a senior Yemeni source told Al Mayadeen, amid mounting casualties among Saudi-backed forces.
The source said there is growing discontent among Saudi-backed forces over the “shocking” number of dead and wounded, while Saudi Arabia continues pushing its forces forward despite the losses.
The Yemeni source said more than 400 members of the Giants Brigades, a Saudi-backed formation, have been killed or wounded so far in Ras al-Ara in Lahj, including commanders.
The mounting casualties have fueled discontent among Saudi-backed fighters, according to the source, who said the scale of the losses has become a source of growing concern among the forces deployed in the area.
WATCH | Yemeni Armed Forces Military Media shares footage showing security operations in the remaining areas of Same'a , As-Silw, and Al-Mawasit districts, alongside Saudi-backed forces surrendering to the Yemeni Armed Forces in response to the general amnesty decree.#Yemen… pic.twitter.com/b2BygcveSx
The intensity of the Yemeni missile attacks, he said, has complicated Saudi Arabia’s efforts to achieve military gains and added pressure to its ongoing escalation against Yemen.
The source also pointed to growing fears in Saudi Arabia that the war could continue for an extended period, adding that some companies and investors have already begun considering leaving Saudi Arabia.
YAF repel second Saudi-backed advance toward Bab al-Mandab from Lahj
In a statement, Yahya Saree, spokesperson for the Yemeni Armed Forces, said the YAF struck the advancing forces with a large number of ballistic missiles, supported by artillery and heavy weapons, preventing them from making any further advances.
The forces also reported that more than 30 ambulances had arrived in Aden carrying dead and wounded members of the Saudi-backed formations.
The announcement comes amid conflicting accounts of control over areas around Bab al-Mandab, with Saudi-backed forces claiming to have secured positions in the area while the Yemeni Armed Forces say they have repelled repeated advances and driven back the attacking forces.
تمكنت قواتنا المسلحة بفضل الله وعونه وتأييده _وللمرة الثانية خلال ساعات_ من التصدي وطرد التحشيدات التابعة للعدو السعودي التى حاولت التقدم من جهة لحج باتجاه باب المندب ولم تحرز أي تقدم بفضل الله، وتم استهدافها بعدد كبير من الصواريخ الباليستية و الإسناد المدفعي وبالأسلحة الثقيلة…
The Israeli occupation entity is facing mounting criticism and growing isolation across Europe, as opposition to its war in Gaza and policies in the occupied West Bank moves beyond public protests into professional and trade union decisions and economic pressure that is beginning to raise concerns within the Israeli enemy’s defense industry.
While European Union governments struggle to agree on coordinated measures, segments of European society are taking steps to impose practical costs on the continuation of Israeli policies.
In a report from Brussels, The Guardian correspondent Jennifer Rankin examines the contrast between rising public anger across Europe and the EU’s inability to translate it into a common policy.
Despite a shift in Britain’s position, including London’s announcement of broad trade sanctions on illegal Israeli settlements and its condemnation of what it described as ethnic cleansing in the West Bank, these steps have yet to translate into collective European action on the scale anticipated.
Widening Divide
France and Canada have joined commitments to restrict settlement products and penalize entities that facilitate or benefit from settlement activities. Other countries have also announced plans to restrict trade with companies operating beyond the Green Line. However, these measures have yet to produce a unified European front capable of changing the calculations of the Zionist government.
Opinion polls reveal a widening gap between official policies and the views of large segments of the public. According to a Pew Research Center survey covering 10 European countries, unfavorable views of “Israel” increased in several countries compared with the previous year.
The proportion of respondents expressing negative views reached 75% in Italy, 73% in Germany, and 70% in Green Line, indicating that criticism is no longer confined to countries most supportive of the Palestinian cause.
Cultural Boycotts
The shift is also extending into the cultural sphere. Five countries have chosen to boycott this year’s Eurovision Song Contest in protest against the Israeli participation, after organizers rejected calls to exclude the country over its conduct during the Gaza war and escalating violence in the West Bank. The Israeli enemy’s participation in European events is thus facing opposition extending beyond political circles to cultural institutions and the public.
These developments come amid the continuing humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza. The Guardian reported that the Palestinian death toll had exceeded 74,000, including at least 21,200 children, since the war erupted following the October 7, 2023, attack.
Humanitarian conditions remain dire, with shortages of water, food, medicine, and medical equipment, alongside economic collapse, the spread of disease, and continued fatalities despite the announcement of a ceasefire.
Yedioth Ahronoth reported that the repercussions could extend beyond companies operating in settlements to other Israeli businesses, as foreign companies may prefer to avoid Israeli suppliers to reduce legal and commercial risks.
Pro-Palestinian demonstrators march through the streets of Paris, France, after gathering at Place de la Bastille for a demonstration organized by CAPJPO-EuroPalestine on September 12, 2026. (Photo by Umit Donmez/Anadolu via Getty Images)
Internal Divisions Within the EU
The European Union, which maintains extensive trade ties with the Israeli occupation worth approximately €68 billion ($73.4 billion), remains constrained by internal divisions.
Spain and Ireland are pushing for a review of whether “Israel” complies with the human rights conditions set out in the EU-Israel Association Agreement. Germany and Austria oppose measures targeting the Israeli government, while the positions of the Czech Republic and Italy are closer to those of Benjamin Netanyahu’s government. France, the Netherlands, and other countries have adopted more critical positions but have failed to secure consensus on sanctions.
Martin Konečný, director of the European Middle East Project in Brussels, described the EU’s stance as a continuation of a state of “self-imposed ineffectiveness.”
Pressure on Brussels intensified after more than 500 former European officials and diplomats issued a statement criticizing the bloc’s failure to act over developments in Gaza and the West Bank. They accused Germany and Italy of obstructing European measures, undermining the EU’s values and the two-state solution.
Pressure from Professional Bodies and Trade Unions
While governments have struggled to agree on collective action, pressure has begun to emerge through professional organizations and trade unions.
In another report for The Guardian, Denis Campbell wrote that Britain’s Royal Pharmaceutical Society had ended Israeli pharmaceutical company Teva’s sponsorship and participation in its annual conference following an internal review that raised concerns about company activities deemed inconsistent with the institution’s values.
The decision followed a similar move by the Royal College of Nursing, which severed its ties with the company after pressure from pro-Palestinian activists.
The campaign called on healthcare institutions to apply consistent ethical standards, noting that British professional bodies had taken action against Russian companies following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
Activists have called for the same ethical scrutiny to be applied to commercial relationships and investments linked to the Israeli occupation entity, urging other healthcare institutions to review their ties with Teva.
The controversy surrounding the company, however, is not based solely on its connection to the Zionist entity. Teva has previously faced fines and legal settlements in the United States and Europe, including a €462.6 million ($499.6 million) European fine in 2024 over anticompetitive practices in the market for a multiple sclerosis drug. The company has also faced earlier cases involving drug price-fixing and bribery.
Teva has rejected the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s decision, warning against the politicization of healthcare.
Defense Industry Faces Mounting Risks
In a more sensitive sector, concerns are growing in the Israeli occupation entity that trade restrictions could develop into broader pressure on its defense industry.
Yuval Azulai, writing for Ynet, the news website affiliated with Yedioth Ahronoth, reported that British and Canadian arms manufacturers had begun questioning the so-called Israeli defense companies about their activities in settlements, their sources of raw materials, and their commercial relationships with businesses operating there.
The responses could become a decisive factor in determining whether cooperation continues, particularly if foreign companies fear violating sanctions regulations.
The risk is that the consequences could extend beyond businesses operating in settlements to other Israeli companies, as foreign firms may choose to avoid Israeli suppliers to limit legal and commercial exposure.
Replacing components used in fighter jets, helicopters, drones, and communications systems could also take months because of the testing and modifications required to ensure system safety and operational readiness.
Attempts to Disrupt Shipments
In France, pressure has moved beyond calls for boycotts to attempts to disrupt shipments linked to the Israeli occupation’s military industry.
The Israeli newspaper Haaretz, in a report by Hagai Amit in collaboration with TheMarker, said French labor organizations claimed to have prevented a shipment of components intended for Israeli defense company Elbit Systems from being loaded onto an Air France flight from Charles de Gaulle Airport to Ben Gurion Airport.
The unions announced that they would also seek to prevent the shipment from being transported on an El Al flight, calling on French authorities and airlines to stop it.
Air France, meanwhile, confirmed that the shipment had not been carried aboard its aircraft and said it does not transport weapons or ammunition to “Israel.”
These developments do not mean Europe has agreed on a unified policy or that public opposition will automatically translate into a comprehensive trade and arms embargo. They do, however, point to a changing European environment in which government positions are no longer the sole factor shaping relations with the Zionist entity.
As trade unions, professional institutions, and companies move to reduce or reassess their ties with the Zionist enemy, continued cooperation is becoming more costly and complicated.
This highlights the dilemma facing Netanyahu: while his government speaks of building security and industrial independence to make “Israel” less reliant on foreign partners, European pressure underscores how difficult that goal is to achieve in a world of interconnected manufacturing, technology, and defense supply chains.
Governments may continue to delay action, but the growing number of European societies and institutions withdrawing their ethical and commercial support for the Israeli occupation entity is gradually narrowing the room for maneuver available to it.
Source: Agencies (translated and edited by Al-Manar)
University of Tahran Professor Mohammad Marandi and Former FBI special agent and whistleblower Coleen Rowley on Al-Mayadeen’s the Grand Standoff: Iran and the World (Al Mayadeen English)
Marandi argues that Iran’s pressure on the Strait of Hormuz is complicating Trump’s calculations, while Rowley raises concerns about a possible false-flag operation influencing the US midterm elections.
Iran will not trust US President Donald Trump’s diplomatic assurances without concrete implementation of Washington’s commitments, University of Tehran Professor Mohammad Marandi said.
Speaking on Al Mayadeen‘s nightly program The Grand Standoff: Iran and the World, Marandi argued that pressure on shipping through the Strait of Hormuz is complicating the US president’s efforts to manage oil prices ahead of the midterm elections.
Marandi added that Tehran had repeatedly experienced US deception in negotiations and violations of agreements, including the 2015 nuclear deal and a more recent memorandum of understanding (MoU). He argued that the United States could not expect Iran to change its approach to the strategic waterway while Washington continued to refuse to fulfill its obligations.
“The only thing that we know is that so that we can say for certain is that he’s trying to bring down the price of oil because the higher the price of oil the higher the price of gasoline,” Marandi stressed, linking the administration’s statements about diplomacy to concerns over rising energy costs and the approaching elections.
Former FBI special agent and whistleblower Coleen Rowley, speaking separately on the program, pointed to mounting affordability pressures in the United States, divisions among Republicans and growing opposition to Trump’s handling of the war. She argued that the economic consequences of foreign wars were increasingly affecting Americans who had supported the president.
Marandi: Iran will not trust US promises without implementation
The Iranian professor said Tehran had little reason to regard assurances from the Trump administration as credible, citing a pattern of Washington violating agreements after signing them.
Marandi accused Washington of violating the more recent MoU by failing to ensure Israeli forces left Lebanon and ended the genocide in Gaza, refusing to return “stolen” Iranian assets, and attempting to establish a US-backed corridor through the Strait of Hormuz.
US failed to honor its obligations
He maintained that Iran had begun to implement the MoU, with shipping through the waterway increasing, before the United States failed to honor its obligations.
“The Iranians have been very clear that that can only happen through implementation because we already have Trump’s signature and obviously since he signed the MOU in front of the world and he refused to implement it that is a clear indication that he is completely unreliable,” Marandi said.
He added that communications between Washington and Tehran could continue, but that exchanges of messages alone would not be enough to secure an agreement.
“For the Iranians, negotiations can take place. These messages can go back and forth in direct negotiations, but unless the United States carries out its obligations, the Iranians are going to continue pursuing their policy of limiting shipping through the Strait of Hormuz,” he emphasized.
Marandi argued that Iran’s approach to the waterway was therefore tied to its broader dispute with Washington rather than to diplomatic statements coming from the White House.
Strait of Hormuz puts pressure on oil prices
The Iranian academic argued that Trump was attempting to contain rising oil prices through public statements about negotiations and the possibility of postponing further aggression against Iran.
He attributed the increase in oil prices to a substantial decline in crude shipments through the Strait of Hormuz over roughly 10 days, which he linked to Iranian attacks on ships that Tehran considers to have violated its regulations.
Marandi said much of the oil that continued to pass through the waterway did so with Iranian consent, while other vessels had been struck after attempting to transit without Tehran’s permission.
He also addressed reports in Western media that Iran was collecting fees from ships permitted to pass through the strait, while stressing that he could not independently confirm the claims.
“I don’t want to say that’s true or not, but the point is that that is what we’re hearing now in the Western media,” he said.
‘The prices will remain high’
Marandi argued that Iran had decided from the beginning of the war to exercise control over the waterway and collect fees, particularly from regional oil and gas exporters that he accused of complicity in the war against Iran. He named Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates among the countries he held responsible.
The Iranian professor also disputed claims that US economic pressure had brought Iran close to collapse. He said flights between Iran and other countries, including China, were continuing despite restrictions and warnings from US officials.
While he acknowledged that Iran’s economic situation was difficult, Marandi argued that Washington was also facing mounting costs and political consequences.
He said higher oil prices were feeding into gasoline and diesel costs, as well as the prices of goods produced through refineries and petrochemical plants.
“The prices will remain high,” he said, arguing that Trump’s public efforts to talk down the oil market had not succeeded.
Midterm elections add to Trump’s political pressures
Marandi said the economic fallout from the war could damage Trump’s standing ahead of the US midterm elections, although he cautioned that the outcome remained uncertain because of problems with US polling.
He argued that Trump’s repeated statements about diplomatic progress and his reluctance to launch further attacks before the elections reflected concern about the domestic consequences of a wider war.
Marandi stressed that Iran had not officially declared a policy of seeking to punish Trump electorally. However, he said Tehran’s pressure on shipping through the Strait of Hormuz was worsening the economic conditions the US president is facing.
“If Trump loses that doesn’t mean the war is going to come to an end by any means but if he loses badly especially in the Senate then the pressure on Trump will increase,” Marandi said.
He attributed that potential pressure partly to opposition among Democratic voters to “Israel” and the war, while acknowledging that hostility toward Trump would also shape the political response.
Iran is militarily stronger now
Marandi further argued that Iran’s military posture was complicating US calculations in the region. He said Tehran’s warning that it could launch a preemptive strike was intended to make Washington more cautious about its military deployments.
He suggested that the withdrawal of US aircraft from a base in the United Kingdom could reflect concerns about vulnerability, but said that he did not know the reason for the move.
Marandi also said Iran was militarily stronger than it had been seven or eight months earlier and was preparing for the possibility of war breaking out again.
He cautioned that a defeat for Trump in the midterms would not necessarily prevent further US aggression, arguing that the administration remained capable of escalating the war despite its domestic political difficulties.
Rowley points to affordability crisis and Republican divisions
On her part, Rowley said Republican candidates were showing signs of concern about their association with Trump as the midterm elections approached.
She cited instances in which Republicans were distancing themselves from the president and said some candidates were emphasizing affordability and promising to end the war in an effort to appeal to voters.
Rowley cautioned that electoral forecasts remained uncertain, noting that Trump had previously defied expectations. She also criticized his public remarks, including comments she said suggested that the bombing of San Diego and Los Angeles would be a good thing.
She interpreted those remarks as an attempt to divide Americans into political allies and opponents, arguing that the president was treating people in the two cities as “expendable”.
‘Affordability is the problem’
Rowley also questioned whether Republican candidates could be trusted to deliver on their campaign promises, despite their growing emphasis on the cost of living.
“Affordability is the problem, because right now the cost of everything in the United States is going up, including especially including things like fertilizer,” she stressed.
She pointed to fertilizer, sulfur, and phosphate producers laying off workers or shutting down operations, arguing that the economic consequences were reaching people who had repeatedly voted for Trump.
“You got to end the foreign wars in order to make things affordable,” Rowley said.
Her remarks echoed Marandi’s assessment that the economic costs of the war could become a significant political liability for the Trump administration, although the two speakers approached the issue from different perspectives.
Rowley warns of escalation ahead of the elections
Rowley said some commentators believed Trump might escalate the war after the midterm elections, while arguing that a ploy before the vote could also be used to influence the political debate.
She raised the possibility of a false-flag operation, describing it as an incident that could be exaggerated to provide a last-minute political advantage to Trump and Republican candidates.
“But what he could do before the election, very possible, is they could use some kind of what they call a false flag, which is any incident. It could be something like the fly Dubai or the thing in the UK with the base where they said people were attacking the base. Anything like that, that they can exaggerate to turn into a last-minute assistance for Donald Trump and the Republican candidates,” she warned.
‘October surprise’
Rowley linked that possibility to the US political tradition of an “October surprise”, in which a late development can influence an election campaign.
“In fact, you know, this was called they called this in politics in the United States. They called it October surprise. So it’s really common that a politician will try to pull out some October surprise, revealing something, usually a lie or a false flag,” Rowley added.
She also criticized Trump’s threats of nuclear war, saying that people who had helped elect him were now calling for his impeachment over the danger of nuclear escalation.
Reflecting on her own opposition to the genocide in Gaza, Rowley said she had been protesting for three years and continued to be distressed by the killing of children.
She argued that the war and its wider consequences had undermined the image Trump had sought to cultivate as a president who would end foreign wars.
The lesser of two evils
In Rowley’s view, the US two-party system left voters struggling to choose between candidates they viewed as the lesser of two evils, while offering few guarantees that campaign promises would be honored.
“I’m frustrated with our political process here, but it’s going to be an interesting midterm election, that’s for sure,” she said.
Marandi, meanwhile, maintained that Iran would continue to apply pressure through its policy toward the Strait of Hormuz and would not reveal its full military intentions. He argued that Washington’s options were becoming more difficult as the conflict continued to weigh on the US economy and Trump’s political position.
Neither speaker suggested that the midterm elections alone would determine whether the war would end. Marandi explicitly warned that even a significant Republican defeat would not necessarily bring the war to a close.
Leader of Yemen’s Ansarullah movement, Sayyed Abdul-Malik Badreddin al-Houthi, affirmed that the crimes of the Saudi regime against the Yemeni people will not break their will or force them to surrender. Instead, they increase their conviction in the justice of their cause and their drive to confront the aggression. He warned that any participation by Arab or Islamic countries, groups, or organizations in the aggression against Yemen represents complicity in sin, crime, and injustice, along with all the consequences that entail in this world and the Hereafter.
In his speech today, Thursday, marking the tenth anniversary of the 2016 bombing of the Grand Hall in Sanaa by Saudi regime aircraft, he described the Saudi regime as a criminal regime that kills children and women. He stated that it engages in continuous collective targeting of civilians, mosques, markets, and residential neighborhoods in the capital, Sanaa, and other Yemeni provinces.
He emphasized that the Saudi regime’s approach in its aggression against Yemen follows a Zionist, tyrannical approach that contradicts the values and teachings of Islam, innate human values, and international norms and laws, relying on methods of deception in the name of religion.
The Grand Hall Massacre and the Targeting of Social Gatherings
The leader of Ansar Allah explained that funeral gatherings in Yemen are major social events. He noted that the 2016 funeral was widely attended by various segments of Yemeni society, filling the hall before the Saudi regime targeted the gathering with missiles to kill as many people as possible.
He added that this remains the enemy’s objective when attacking social gatherings, noting that it continued targeting funeral halls and wedding celebrations. He recalled the crime targeting a wedding in Sanban, Dhamar Governorate, which resulted in 49 martyrs and 70 wounded.
He stated that the Saudi regime has committed horrific crimes against the Yemeni people, to the extent that hardly a day passes without a anniversary of a crime committed, asking: “Is this not excessive bloodshed?”
He pointed out that this criminality continued year after year, as Yemen enters its twelfth year while the Saudi regime insists on continuing its aggression and blockade against the Yemeni people.
He addressed the Attan bomb crime as one of the most famous major atrocities, emphasizing that the bomb that exploded in Sanaa was an internationally prohibited weapon, as evidenced by the massive destruction, casualties, and injuries it caused.
He also recalled the crime targeting a bus carrying children in Dhahyan, where the Saudi aggressor described the children on board as “military experts,” even though they were students, in addition to the targeting of weddings in Dhamar and Hajjah, the Al-Mocha crime in Taiz Governorate, and crimes across Al-Hudaydah and other Yemeni provinces.
He stressed that Yemeni provinces have witnessed crimes under various classifications, including crimes against humanity, war crimes, and major atrocities, alongside targeting people in markets and mosques, noting that the Saudi regime continues collective targeting and strikes on markets and residential areas.
He recalled the first crime committed at the start of the aggression on March 26, 2015, which targeted residential neighborhoods in Sanaa, emphasizing that this approach has continued ever since.
He stated: “Since the escalation resumed, the Saudi regime has returned to the same methods through its crimes in Sanaa, targeting female students and residents, as well as strikes in Al-Hudaydah, Taiz, and Saada, leading to child and female casualties.” He emphasized that the killing of thousands of children and women in Yemen represents a systematic criminal act.
Targeting Civilians and the American, Zionist, and British Role
The leader of Ansar Allah noted that Western media outlets have recently reported an increase in civilian, female, and child casualties since the Israeli enemy resumed cooperation with the Saudi regime. He explained that this role was evident in earlier stages as well, as the Saudi regime relied on them to identify targets—what to bomb and where to bomb—in accordance with this tyrannical approach.
He stated that Saudi behavior in the aggression against Yemen is built on a Zionist approach that contradicts Islamic teachings, values, norms, and international laws, and that it builds its military stance on this direction and trains its military formations accordingly.
He added that this includes treating prisoners in a brutal and despicable manner that has no relation to Islamic ethics or the innate customs of the Yemeni people.
He affirmed that the Saudi aggressor follows the Zionist path and fits those characteristics, describing it as “the most fierce of opponents.” He pointed to the painful scenes people watch on satellite channels showing wounded women and children, as well as affected families.
Among these scenes, he mentioned Ali Muhammad Adhli in Hajjah Governorate, whose family was targeted by the Saudi aggressor, leaving only one survivor, alongside painful scenes in Sanaa, Al-Hudaydah, and other provinces.
He emphasized that there is absolutely no justification for these attacks, recalling the targeting of citizens’ homes and central markets in Taiz, including the central market at the Mawiyah junction, which was described as targeting “Houthi gatherings” when it was actually a gathering of citizens from all walks of life in a central market, noting that documentation is clear.
He said: “The Saudi regime, under American supervision and with Zionist and British participation, deliberately commits the most heinous crimes against the Yemeni people,” stressing the importance of sharing footage documenting these crimes within the Islamic community, across various media outlets, and on a human level.
He added that these images have spread widely over past years, exposing the criminal nature of the Saudi regime.
Quranic Awareness in Confronting Deception Under Religious Titles
The leader of Ansar Allah stressed the importance of Quranic awareness in safeguarding the Islamic nation against methods of deception and misdirection. He opened his speech with the Quranic verse: “And among the people is he whose speech pleases you in worldly life, and he calls Allah to witness as to what is in his heart, yet he is the fiercest of opponents.”
He explained that the verse provides a precise divine evaluation and diagnosis of a group of people inside and outside the Islamic arena, and that the Quran aims to raise the nation’s level of awareness so it remains insightful and is not deceived by the methods of oppressors and criminals.
He noted that this group presents flashy religious or humanitarian slogans to mislead people and win their admiration, emphasizing that Quranic awareness must prevent the nation from supporting any tyrant or entity that follows a deviant path.
He explained that the gap between deceptive slogans and the reality of those behind them becomes clear during times of conflict and confrontation, where masks fall and true values are revealed.
He added that those described by Allah as “the fiercest of opponents” strip themselves of moral and human values during disputes, indulge in injustice and aggression, insist on oppression and stubbornness, and refuse to yield to truth, justice, or sincere advice.
He pointed out that the aggressiveness and excessive criminality of this group reach the point of destroying crops and livestock by targeting agricultural and economic sectors through various means, committing genocide, violating human life, and targeting animal resources, alongside committing major atrocities and refusing calls to truth.
He denounced the Saudi regime presenting itself as the bearer of the banner of Islam and placing the Shahada and the sword on its national flag, while that sword was never drawn against the nation’s enemies, nor did it take a single military stance against them.
He questioned whether the Saudi aggressor ever took a military stance against the U.S. or Israel at any time or on any issue, emphasizing that its criminal history has been directed against the Islamic nation, primarily the Yemeni people—who are among the most harmed—as well as tribes across the Arabian Peninsula that were largely eradicated, noting these as documented historical facts.
He also questioned why the Saudi regime commits these crimes while presenting itself as the Servitor of the Two Holy Mosques, describing it as an addict to crime and the shedding of innocent blood.
He pointed to heart-wrenching scenes of killed children and women, stressing that killing them is unanimously considered a crime among Muslims and non-Muslims alike.
He stated that the Saudi aggressor is a criminal and killer of children and women, and not as it presents itself under deceptive religious banners that fool the naive. Following the Zionist path demonstrates that it represents neither Islam nor the Sunnah, but rather a brutal Zionist criminal approach that violates sanctities and attacks people.
He added that these crimes represent a heavy burden and sin in the scale of divine justice, and that the Saudi aggressor faces an evil fate in this world and the Hereafter, becoming the object of divine punishment.
The Sanctity of Human Life and False Claims of Protecting Holy Sites
The leader of Ansarullah noted that this fate has befallen many tyrants and arrogant figures throughout history who thought their tyranny guaranteed their survival and the realization of their goals, only for divine decree to surround them, changing their circumstances until they fell into the abyss.
He said that tyrants possessed massive armies, immense resources, and political influence, but when they turned toward injustice, divine punishment struck them a decisive blow, making their capabilities useless, noting many such examples in both the modern and Arab world.
He emphasized that Allah has magnified the sanctity of human life and that targeting communities and killing people is no simple matter in divine justice, even if some believe American backing is enough, forgetting divine retribution.
He described the Saudi regime’s self-portrayal as a defender of holy sites—and its framing of the war against the Yemeni people as a sectarian defense of them—as a lie and crime exposed by its actions. He asked how anyone committing daily crimes and killing women and children can act with credibility under the title of “defending holy sites.”
He stressed that the Yemeni people are among the most eager to protect holy sites and are at the forefront of those moving to defend them.
Aggression Crimes Increase the Yemeni People’s Commitment to Their Cause
The leader of Ansarullah affirmed that the Saudi aggressor’s attempt to break the will of the Yemeni people and force them into submission is a delusion, as the people become increasingly convinced of the justice of their cause and driven to confront the regime that kills women and children.
He stated that the Saudi criminal history against the nation and the eradication of tribes in the Arabian Peninsula reflect the truth of the Quranic descriptions of these practices.
He added that the past twelve years bear witness that the Yemeni society’s response differs from what the aggressor hopes: the more excessive its bloodshed and commission of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide, the more determined the people become to confront it.
He asked: “Are these feelings of brokenness, humiliation, and surrender, or does this noble, faithful people grow more determined to fulfill its moral and religious responsibility to confront the oppressive aggressor?”
He stressed that anyone counting on forcing the Yemeni people into surrender through these crimes is delusional, explaining that the armed forces and mobilization are moving earnestly out of this responsibility.
He added that tribes and social components reject these crimes with anger, taking a firm stance against those who commit them.
Supporting the Saudi Regime Is Complicity in Sin and Aggression
The leader of Ansar Allah warned any Arab or Islamic countries, groups, or organizations against getting involved in serving the Saudi aggressor in Yemen, stressing that whoever supports it implicates themselves in sin, crime, and oppression, with all the worldly and otherworldly consequences that follow.
He considered one of the nation’s greatest problems to be forgetting God in calculations of loyalty and enmity, which have strayed from religious and moral principles.
He stated that anyone involving themselves with the Saudi aggressor in killing women and children taints their own reputation and dishonors their country, adding that standing with a killer of children is the ultimate stain.
He added that such participation tarnishes history and honor, leaving dark pages of sin, crime, and aggression, burdening the participant with the sin of oppressing the Yemeni Muslim people.
He emphasized that the matter is not simple: the Yemeni people are a Muslim, oppressed nation, and the Saudi oppression against them is among the most heinous forms of injustice on earth.
He called on every country, government, army, and organization seeking a stance in the Islamic arena to support the oppressed Palestinian people, emphasizing that their cause is clear and deserving of the nation’s backing.
He questioned what the Saudi regime lacks in terms of money or military capabilities—being a partner to the U.S., Britain, and Israel with immense resources—stressing that it does not need support, and that standing with it is pure complicity in sin and aggression.
Financial Inducements and the Lesson of Sudanese Participation The leader of Ansar Allah noted that some who take stances far from God and Islamic principles act out of financial inducements, describing this motive as demonic when it leads to siding with oppressors against the oppressed for financial gain.
He called for taking a lesson from Omar al-Bashir, who believed changing his stances would achieve his interests, taking unjust positions against the Yemeni people without justification despite the brotherly relations between the Yemeni and Sudanese peoples.
He explained that Al-Bashir allied with the Saudi regime and supported its crimes against the Yemeni people, sending the Sudanese army and Janjaweed to participate in the aggression, where they committed terrible atrocities in the areas they attacked.
He asked about the outcome, emphasizing that financial gains proved to be a mirage in the face of divine punishment, as Omar al-Bashir lost everything and was overthrown, while the state of the Sudanese army and Janjaweed is now well known.
He expressed sadness over the crimes being committed in Sudan, emphasizing that it grieves the Yemeni people.
He added that governments turning into mercenaries for money reflects the issue of forgetting God, noting that some may act not out of financial motives, but due to political calculations and other drivers.
Advice to Qatar and Reviewing Stances on Aggression
noted that he advised Qatar yesterday, after it began adopting the Saudi aggression politically and media-wise, emphasizing that this represents participation in injustice, and quoting the tradition that whoever participates in the killing of a believer even with a single word will come on the Day of Resurrection written on him: “Despairing of Allah’s mercy.”
He stated that he reminded Qatar yesterday of what the Saudi regime did to it, and reminds it today of facts it lived in its own reality, after participating in 2015 in the aggression against Yemen, even at the military level. Yet the Saudi regime did not appreciate that, but rather mistreated it, launched a major campaign against it, and worked to blockade and isolate it.
He explained that Qatar was left with only an air corridor for civil aviation, while the Saudi regime worked to isolate it completely, boycotting it politically and economically, inciting others against it in the Gulf states and the United States, describing the Qataris as terrorists and supporters of terrorism, and inciting Trump against them.
He added that Saudi Arabia took negative stances toward Qatar in international files and public relations, almost isolating it from its Islamic surroundings, and even harassed it regarding the Hajj pilgrimage.
He emphasized that the Saudi regime did all of this without justification and that it despises Qatar, saying: “We know, and you know,” while pointing out that its ambitions toward Qatar are extremely negative, and that it wants to take control of it if it receives American permission.
He added that the bare minimum of Saudi Arabia’s goals is regime change in Qatar and installing a puppet emir who submits to all its dictates.
On the other hand, he pointed out that among Qatar’s virtues was working to resolve conflicts in Yemen and many other countries, describing that as a fine effort that allowed it to attain a prestigious status and aroused Saudi envy.
He considered that its return now to dependency on the Saudi regime represents a very significant decline from where it had reached and from the status it had attained.
Three years after Al-Aqsa Flood, Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza has claimed thousands of lives, including children, poets, academics, athletes, doctors and families whose stories reveal the human cost of the war.
Before Gaza’s martyrs were turned into statistics by the West-backed genocidal regime in Tel Aviv, they had names, families and dreams for the future.
A 13-year-old boy sat in front of a camera, excitedly talking about reaching 100,000 subscribers on YouTube. A poet kept writing as Israeli bombardment intensified around him. A grandfather held the body of his three-year-old granddaughter after an Israeli airstrike killed her, calling her “the soul of my soul.”
Three years after the historic Al-Aqsa Flood operation on October 7, 2023, which was followed by the Israeli regime’s all-out genocidal war on the besieged Palestinian territory, those images and words remain part of the record of a genocide that has transformed life in Gaza.
Since the regime launched its genocidal aggression, entire neighbourhoods have been destroyed, families have been eliminated, and people from across Palestinian society have appeared in long and dark casualty lists.
At least 74,000 Palestinians have been killed, including at least 21,000 children, since October 7, 2023. That is about one in every 30 people in Gaza, or roughly 3 percent of its pre-war population. The actual toll is likely higher, with thousands still buried under rubble.
The dead include children, parents, doctors, academics, athletes, journalists, artists and students. Some were killed by the regime with their families inside their homes.
Others were buried beneath buildings hit by Israeli airstrikes and are still not accounted for. Some were killed while sheltering in places they had fled to for safety.
Their cold-blooded murders were documented in news, photographs, videos, messages and the accounts of relatives and survivors.
The ten Palestinians featured here are among those whose lives and deaths became known beyond Gaza during the genocide.
Refaat Al-Araeer: Gaza’s beloved poet
Refaat Al-Araeer was killed when a missile struck his sister’s home in Al-Shujaiya on December 7, 2023. He was Gaza’s most prominent writer and professor of world literature.
He had taught creative writing at the Islamic University of Gaza, his classes a refuge for students who wrote under the brutal Israeli siege.
Before his death, he posted a short poem titled If I Must Die, ending with the line: “Let it be a tale.” The poem became Gaza’s anthem of endurance, recited at protests across the world.
Just two days before his death, Al Araeer wrote a tribute to the Palestinian resistance.
“More horrific Israeli bombardments…We could die this dawn. I wish I were a freedom fighter so I die fighting back those invading Israeli genocidal maniacs invading my neighbourhood and my city.”
In one of his last public interviews, the Palestinian poet vowed that, if necessary, he would die by the same pen through which he lived.
“I am an academic. Probably the toughest thing I have at home is an Expo marker. But if the Israelis invade and barge at us, charge at us, open door-to-door to massacre us, I am going to use that marker to throw it at Israeli soldiers even if that is the last thing that I would be able to do.”
Three-year-old Reem and five-year-old Tareq were among those killed when Israeli strikes levelled their home in Al-Nuseirat in November 2023.
Their grandfather, Khaled Nabhan, became a reluctant face of Gaza’s grief. In a viral video, he was seen kissing Reem’s lifeless body, holding her earring pinned to his chest.
“She was my ruh-el-ruh,” he said, the essence of my soul.
The haunting image joined a growing archive of unbearable civilian testimony, family photos turned into evidence.
Khaled Nabhan: ‘The soul of my soul’
Nabhan became a familiar face of Gaza’s grief after an Israeli airstrike killed his grandchildren.
Reem and Tareq had been inseparable from their grandfather. In a video, Nabhan fixed Tareq’s hair and photographed the bodies of the two children as they lay beneath white shrouds, waiting to be buried.
“We were inseparable. I loved her more than my soul,” he said after Reem’s killing.
The man who had lost his grandchildren did not leave the streets of Gaza after their killing.
Nabhan began appearing among displaced Palestinians, helping distribute food and assisting people who had lost their homes. He spoke about his own family’s losses while trying to help others endure theirs.
He also spoke of further Israeli attacks on his relatives, including the bombing of his brother’s home.
Then, in December 2024, Israel killed him. An Israeli airstrike struck a home belonging to the Abu Hajar family in Nuseirat refugee camp in central Gaza. Nabhan was among those killed.
In August 2022, 13-year-old Awni Eldous posted a video thanking his viewers for helping his channel reach 1,000 subscribers. Beaming at the camera, he spoke excitedly about his ambition to reach 100,000 subscribers, then 500,000, 1 million and, eventually, 10 million.
“I am Awni Eldous, a Palestinian from Gaza. I am 12 years old,” he said.
“The goal of this channel is to reach 100,000 subscribers. And 500,000, then 1 million, and God willing to reach 10 million subscribers with your support and love.”
More than a year later, in late October 2023, an Israeli airstrike struck Awni’s home in northern Gaza, killing him and his entire family.
Awni’s fascination with computers was inspired by his father, a computer engineer. He would imitate his father by taking apart laptops and trying to put them back together.
Photos shared on the Facebook page of his school, Safad Primary School (A) for boys, show him standing before a blackboard with a motherboard in his hands, teaching other students about computer technology as part of the Little Teachers Initiative.
His relatives affectionately called him “Engineer Awni” because of his love for computers.
His aunt, Ala’a, said Awni looked up to YouTubers who had turned their hobbies into careers. “He wanted to be like them – to have followers and fans.”
Awni’s channel now has 1.72 million subscribers. He was killed with his family at a time when he was still building the future he had described in his videos.
The call lasted over three hours. Hind, trapped in her family’s car under Israeli fire, was talking to the Palestinian Red Crescent Society (PRCS) team.
Her family lay motionless beside her. “Please come take me,” she whispered to the PRCS dispatcher. “It’s getting dark and I am afraid of the dark.”
Hind’s voice, recorded and circulated worldwide, became one of the most haunting records of Israel’s genocide in Gaza. The PRCS rescue team sent to reach her was itself targeted by Israel and killed before arrival.
Her story would later be immortalised in The Voice of Hind Rajab, a docudrama that won the Silver Lion award and received a record 23-minute standing ovation at its premiere.
In May 2024, pro-Palestine student protestors at Columbia University renamed Hamilton Hall to “Hind’s Hall”, carrying her name into the global protest movement against genocide.
A human rights body was also named after her – Hind Rajab Foundation – which documents Israeli war crimes in Gaza and exposes the war criminals behind those crimes.
Ibrahim Hamed Hussein al-Astal: Professor who prayed for Gaza
A day after Israel launched its war on Gaza on October 7, 2023, Professor Ibrahim Hamed Hussein al-Astal took to Facebook with a prayer for his city and its people.
“Oh God, Lord of the worlds, protect us from troubles, and protect Gaza and its people, and be our aid, O God, sustain it with Your help,” he wrote on October 8.
Fifteen days later, an Israeli airstrike hit his home in Gaza City, killing the 62-year-old professor, his wife Nadia Yassin Hussein al-Astal and their two daughters.
A total of 87 members of Al-Astal’s extended family were killed in the strikes.
For years, Al-Astal had been part of Gaza’s academic life. He served as dean of the Faculty of Education at the Islamic University of Gaza and taught and researched education, including curriculum and mathematics teaching methods.
He earned his PhD in 1996 and later taught at universities in the United Arab Emirates before returning to Gaza and joining the Islamic University. He became head of the Curriculum and Teaching Methods department and was appointed dean in 2019.
His work was centred on education and the students who would shape Gaza’s future.
Mohammed Barakat was preparing for the pre-dawn meal on the first day of Ramadan when an Israeli airstrike hit his family home in Khan Younis.
The Israeli attack killed the Palestinian football star and several members of his family.
Barakat had represented Palestine’s national football team and played as a striker and captain for Khan Younis Youth Club, where he became one of Gaza’s best-known footballers. He began his career in 2015 and quickly became a familiar name among football fans in Gaza and the occupied West Bank.
Supporters called him “the legend of Khan Younis.”
Over the course of his career, the 39-year-old scored 114 goals, including for several clubs in the occupied West Bank and Jordan, among them Al-Wehdat, as well as Saudi Arabia’s Al-Shoala.
Barakat, regarded as Gaza’s first centurion of goals and one of the besieged territory’s top scorers, also represented the Palestinian national team, making three appearances, and played for Ahly Gaza in the local league.
His final goal came on August 18, 2023, in a 1–1 draw against Shujayea Club at Yarmouk Stadium in Gaza City, during the second week of the Palestinian Premier League.
Ansar Allah supporters wave Palestinian flags during weekly rally against the US and the Israel regime in Sanaa, Yemen, Friday, July 11, 2025 (AP Photo/Osamah Abedulrahman)
The Yemeni Armed Forces’ Chief of the General Staff, Yousef al-Madani, tells the Al-Qassam and Al-Quds Brigades that Sanaa will stand with them in any new escalation.
Yemen’s Chief of the General Staff, Major General Youssef al-Madani, has pledged that Sanaa will stand with the Palestinian Resistance in any new phase of escalation, in two messages sent to the Al-Qassam and Al-Quds Brigades on the third anniversary of the Al-Aqsa Flood operation.
In his message to Al-Qassam, the military wing of Hamas, al-Madani said, “We are with you until victory, and our battle continues until Al-Aqsa and the site of the Prophet’s night journey are liberated.”
He said free people across the Ummah have joined the effort to support Gaza, with Yemen setting a “powerful lesson” in how to do so. Yemen, he added, has put its strategic location and all of its resources at the service of the Palestinian cause.
“Neither aggression, nor siege, nor wounds will deter us from supporting Palestine and Gaza,” al-Madani affirmed, stressing that Yemen stands with the Palestinian people and by their side in any new phase of escalation.
Al-Aqsa Flood drew the lines
Al-Madani said October 7 “revealed the truth” and put people and their positions to the test. The Al-Aqsa Flood, he added, dealt a decisive blow to the normalization project and drew a clear line between the Resistance front and the normalization front.
In his separate message to the Al-Quds Brigades, the military wing of the Islamic Jihad movement, al-Madani asserted that Gaza’s fighters “wrote the greatest epic” on October 7 and inflicted the biggest defeat the enemy has ever suffered.
He added that the United States, for its part, emerged defeated from its confrontation with Yemen.
He noted that the Yemeni people have done their Islamic duty since the Al-Aqsa Flood “to the fullest extent possible and at every level.” The military operations in support of Gaza, he stressed, “were carried out in large numbers and did not stop until the night the ceasefire was announced.”
Sayyed al-Houthi explained that Yemen’s stance was “the highest level the Yemeni people could offer.” He revealed that Saudi Arabia sought to cooperate with “Israel” from the start of Yemen’s operations in support of the Palestinian people, and took part in interception operations “even outside its airspace and over the sea.”
Hezbollah Secretary General Sheikh Naim Qassem stressed on Tuesday, October 6, 2026, that the liberation of southern Lebanon is “before our eyes”, and ‘Israel’ will not be able to remain in the south, even if it takes some time.
“This Resistance, which has stood steadfast, has been able to present a legend of steadfastness.”
Addressing a ceremony for launching the Foundation for the Preservation and Dissemination of Legacy of late Hezbollah S.G. Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah, Sheikh Qassem said, “The steadfastness of the Resistance is among the blessings of the Master of the Ummah’s Martyrs and his guidance, as well as of this dear and pure people. We can only be a Resistance as long as aggression exists.”
“The solution begins with the enemy leaving in humiliation, along with the American who supports it with all his might in order to attack our region,” His Eminence added, “As for internal Lebanese affairs, we are ready to cooperate, but without any dictates from abroad.”
Wars unfold in rounds, but the final round belongs to the people of the land and the truth, and to those who have followed the path of the mujahideen and martyrs, Sheikh Qassem stressed.
Sheikh Qassem saluted the dear Iraqi people, their religious authority, leadership, and the Popular Mobilization Forces [Al Hashd Al Shaabi], because “they succeeded in expelling the American occupier from Iraq, and through their sacrifices and steadfastness, they were able to drive the American tyrant out of their country”.
He added: “Therefore, whether the one seeking to control Iraq is the Takfiri [forces], or the arrogant and colonial power seeking to dominate Iraq, the Iraqi people are, by the grace of Almighty God, capable of expelling the occupiers, whoever they may be and whatever their orientations, so that Iraq can remain independent, dignified, and strong.”
“The sacrifices of the Palestinian people are immense, and the Israeli, American, and Western injustice is extraordinary and unnatural. But given the nobility of this people and its sacrifices, it must emerge victorious,” Sheikh Qassem said, “I pray to Allah Almighty to grant them success in occupied Palestine, in Gaza, the West Bank, and Al-Quds, so that they may attain the highest ranks and positions, and that they may be liberated and liberate.”
Speaking on the occasion of the launch ceremony of the Foundation for the Preservation and Dissemination of the Heritage of Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, Sheikh Qassem said: “Today, we gather under the auspices of the memory of the two noble martyrs, the two esteemed Sayyeds: the Master of the Martyrs of the Ummah, Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah, may God Almighty have mercy upon him, and the Hashemite Sayyed, may God Almighty have mercy upon him, as well as the righteous martyrs, to launch this foundation, which will be dedicated to preserving the works and heritage of the supreme martyr, Sayyed Hassan, may God Almighty have mercy upon him. Today, we announce the launch of the Foundation for the Preservation and Dissemination of the Heritage of the Master of the Martyrs of the Ummah, Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah, may God Almighty have mercy upon him.”
He continued: “This foundation was established by the Shura Council of Hezbollah and is supervised by the Secretary-General. It has a comprehensive organizational structure aimed at preserving the heritage presented by the Master of the Martyrs of the Ummah and making use of it in all cultural, social, educational, and political fields.”
He added: “This vast heritage filled the public sphere throughout the years of his life, which he devoted to obedience to Almighty God and to Islamic, jihadist, national, patriotic, and liberation work at the level of Lebanon and, indeed, at the level of the entire region.”
Sheikh Qassem noted that “Hezbollah was established in 1982, and His Eminence Sayyed Hasan, may God Almighty have mercy upon him, assumed the Secretary-Generalship in succession to the Master of the Martyrs of the Resistance, Sayyed Abbas al-Moussawi, may God Almighty have mercy upon him, in 1992, ten years after the establishment of the party.”
He explained: “The establishment had its foundations, its principles, and its men, and Sayyed Hassan was one of the men of the founding generation.”
He continued: “However, from 1992 until his martyrdom—31 years—he worked to consolidate the foundations of the Resistance, the foundations of this authentic thought, and the foundations of an orientation that would govern and influence future generations in pursuit of liberation, dignity, honor, and a virtuous and happy life in obedience to Almighty God.”
Sheikh Qassem said: “We are dealing with a very vast heritage: words, speeches, meetings, dialogues, meeting minutes, and an oral memory accumulated over this long period spanning decades. We need to collect and archive this material and make it available to researchers and the public through social media platforms, as well as through publications, books, and various works. It should also serve as material for analysis by institutions and researchers at universities and in different fields, so that they may benefit from the abundance of material presented at the intellectual and cultural levels, as well as at the political and practical levels.”
He stressed: “We are dealing with a great treasure that must be collected and made available to the public, researchers, and future generations. This is why the Foundation for the Preservation and Dissemination of the Heritage of the Master of the Martyrs of the Ummah, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, may God Almighty have mercy upon him, has been launched.”
Sheikh Qassem added: “On this occasion, I would like to mention some of the themes that constitute the pillars of this heritage and the foundations of this great structure, namely the structure of Hezbollah and the Resistance’s orientation in Lebanon and our region.
“First: One of the constants upon which he worked throughout this entire period was adherence to Islam and carrying the Islamic approach—the authentic Muhammadan Islam, which is concerned with cultivating the human being and providing him with a methodology that sets his life right and grants him reward in the Hereafter. Almighty God says: ‘Indeed, the religion in the sight of Allah is Islam.’ Islam excels through its methodology, its cultivation, its formation of the human being, its virtues and noble qualities, its construction of dignity, and its establishment of a happy life in this world and the Hereafter. This requires us to work according to it and to raise generations upon this great and righteous path.”
“Throughout that entire period, His Eminence Sayyed worked to highlight the concepts, ideas, and beliefs of Islam, as well as guidance and education based on Islam and the general policies upon which Islam is founded. This is extremely important, so that we understand that he was one of those who worked throughout history to preserve this approach and present it to humanity in a contemporary manner that remains consistent with the constants of this religion.”
“The second theme is education in jihad, and this is a fundamental point. Jihad is an essential principle and a foundation. In order to protect our generations, our land, our rights, and our dignity, we must struggle against the enemies, and we must confront those enemies who commit aggression for no reason other than domination and oppression, as is the case with America and Israel, as well as all enemies and colonizers who have come throughout history and may come in the future. Jihad is a fundamental principle and must be firmly established.”
“One of His Eminence the Sayyed’s distinguishing features was his strong emphasis, when addressing the issue of jihad, on the Karbala and Ashura dimension and on the leadership of Imam Hussein, peace be upon him, the undisputed Master of the Martyrs. The path embodied by Imam Hussein, peace be upon him, is the path of sacrifice in its highest form, a path that ensures the steadfastness of faith, the steadfastness of rights, and the steadfastness of the free and dignified human being.
“Likewise, in Ashura, there was Lady Zaynab, peace be upon her, who carried the banner and complemented the path of Imam Hussein, peace be upon him, within a system connected to the presence of family members, relatives, friends, and believers, conveying the message that the entire society is called upon to follow the path of Imam Hussein, peace be upon him.”
“The Master of the Martyrs of the Ummah excelled in conveying the Hussaini concept to the people and in emphasizing the commemoration of Ashura. In any case, Imam Khomeini, may God sanctify his soul, said: ‘Everything we have is from Ashura.’ The practical application of this statement was carried out by His Eminence, the Master of the Martyrs of the Ummah, Sayyed Hassan, who worked not only during the days of Ashura but continuously to encourage jihad, foster a culture of martyrdom, and educate the Ummah.”
“Thus, the path of jihad is an integrated path. We need to collect these themes and become acquainted with them, as well as with the details that he presented and upon which he educated people directly throughout these decades. This enabled us to experience in practice the true strength needed to confront challenges.
“Third: Wilayah. The third theme is wilayah. Wilayah is not something newly invented; it is a foundation and one of the principles of religion: ‘Indeed, your wali is only Allah, His Messenger, and those who believe—those who establish prayer and give zakat while bowing. And whoever takes Allah, His Messenger, and those who believe as his wali, then indeed the party of Allah will be victorious.’
“This wilayah extends from Allah to the Prophet, to Amir al-Mu’minin Ali, peace be upon him, to the Imams, peace and blessings be upon them all, to the authority of the Islamic jurist in our time, and ultimately to the handing over of the banner to Imam al-Mahdi, may God hasten his noble reappearance.”
“His emphasis on wilayah was part of this faith and part of his sincerity toward Almighty God. His emphasis on allegiance to Imam Khomeini, may God sanctify his soul, and then to Imam Khamenei, may God sanctify his soul, was an inseparable part of this integrated system, which falls under the banner of: ‘Indeed, the religion in the sight of Allah is Islam.’ It has also been proven through practical experience that this wilayah provides momentum, strength, and capability.”
“The fourth theme is the connection with Imam al-Mahdi, may God hasten his noble reappearance. His Eminence the Sayyed always spoke about the connection with Imam al-Mahdi and the Mahdist banner, and about being among the soldiers of Imam al-Mahdi, may God hasten his noble reappearance. Almighty God says: ‘And We desired to bestow favor upon those who were oppressed in the land and make them leaders and make them inheritors.’ This is one of the interpretations concerning the reappearance of Imam al-Mahdi, may God hasten his noble reappearance, and the leadership of victory at the level of humanity and the establishment of justice throughout the earth.”
“Our Sayyed always emphasized that we are living in the era of waiting, and that waiting means wilayah toward Imam al-Mahdi, may God hasten his noble reappearance; confidence in the overwhelming victory that will encompass the world; confidence in the justice that will spread throughout the world; and belief in the reappearance of the Proof, which the Lord of the Worlds, the Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him and his family, and the Imams have promised us. This, therefore, is a fundamental matter. We need to understand the steps upon which he built his approach and through which he mobilized people.”
“The fifth theme is Islamic unity. He was extremely keen on unity between Sunnis and Shiites, as well as unity within the Shiite community, and on extending this unity to the national and broader human levels. This education and approach that he promoted was what created this broad popular support. Do you not notice how Muslims in different parts of the world love him, feel attached to him, and believe in his path and orientations? This is because he addressed them—he addressed their minds and their hearts—and appealed to sound principles.”
“Likewise, free people around the world viewed him in a positive light because he also stood with the oppressed, and this is an inseparable part of faith.
“At the domestic level, he was a patriot par excellence, standing for coexistence, the Taif Agreement, national unity, and for us to stand together: the Army, the people, and the Resistance. This is his famous formula through which he sought to make us all one bloc, one united body, in confronting external enemies, particularly the occupying and aggressor Israeli enemy that has long targeted our region. These are matters that require us to examine them and produce statements, positions, and analyses that affirm this principle.”
“The sixth and final matter in my discussion of these themes is defense and resistance. If we want to define resistance in the modern era, we can say that the first resistance figure is His Eminence Sayyed Hasan, may God Almighty have mercy upon him. Why? Because he laid its foundations, mobilized people on its basis, and worked with all resistance fighters throughout the world to create unity, connection, and interaction.
“He adopted the Resistance as a duty and a project from Imam Khomeini, may God sanctify his soul, and then from Imam Khamenei, may God sanctify his soul, and from Imam Musa al-Sadr, may God return him and his two brothers safely. In building and establishing this path, he followed the approach of Sheikh Ragheb Harb and Sayyed Abbas al-Moussawi.”
“All these are resistance paths that lead to consolidating determination, strength, and will, while ensuring the necessary means and capabilities. We must not forget in this regard the major role played by the martyred commander Hajj Qassem Soleimani, who was highly capable, influential, and a major source of support throughout the region.”
“We need to study this heritage and become acquainted with it.”
Hezbollah Secretary-General says the war has rounds, asserting that the last round “belongs to the people of the land.”
The liberation of southern Lebanon is within sight, Hezbollah Secretary-General Sheikh Naim Qassem stated on Tuesday, stressing that the Israeli occupation would not be able to remain in southern Lebanon indefinitely, no matter how much time passes.
Speaking at the inauguration of an institution dedicated to preserving and publishing the legacy of Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, Sheikh Qassem said “Israel” will not be able to remain in southern Lebanon “even after a while,” adding, “Do not ask us what we will do because we cannot but be a resistance as long as this enemy exists.”
He credited the Resistance’s endurance, which he emphasized had “created a legend of steadfastness,” to the guidance of Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah and the resilience of the Lebanese people.
“We can be nothing but a resistance as long as the aggression continues,” Sheikh Qassem stressed, adding that “the solution begins when the enemy is forced to withdraw in defeat, along with the United States, which supports it with all its might and enables its aggression against our region.”
“The war has rounds, but the last round belongs to the people of the land and the rightful cause and to whosoever followed the path of the mujahideen and martyrs,” the Resistance leader asserted.
Sheikh Qassem hails Iraq, rejects US interference
Sheikh Qassem saluted the Iraqi people, their religious authority, leadership, and the Popular Mobilization Forces, saying they had succeeded in expelling the US occupier from Iraq.
On Lebanon’s internal affairs, he said Hezbollah is prepared to address domestic matters away from any US interference.
“We are ready to handle internal matters on the basis of the Constitution and laws and without American interventions,” Sheikh Qassem stated.
Hezbollah launches institution dedicated to legacy of Sayyed Nasrallah
On Tuesday, Sheikh Qassem announced the launch of an institution dedicated to preserving and publishing the legacy of Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, saying the institution’s aim is to preserve Sayyed Hassan’s “immense legacy” and make its “vast body of material available to the public, researchers, and future generations.”
He added that the “institution was approved by Hezbollah’s Shura Council and operates under the supervision of the Secretary-General through a comprehensive organizational structure.”
Preserving Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah’s legacy
Sheikh Qassem highlighted Islam as one of the core principles that guided Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, particularly its teachings on nurturing the individual and providing a framework for life based on sound principles.
He also emphasized Sayyed Nasrallah’s commitment to cultivating a spirit of jihad, particularly through Karbala and Ashura.
Hezbollah’s leader stressed that the martyred Sayyed “excelled in conveying the Hussaini ethos to the people and placed great importance on preserving the memory and traditions of Ashura.”
‘Israel’ maintains ceasefire violations
Sheikh Qassem’s remarks come as Israeli occupation forces continue to carry out attacks and demolitions in southern Lebanon, underscoring the violations that persist despite the ceasefire agreement.
The daily attacks are part of persistent, unabated Israeli violations of the ceasefire agreement, with the Israeli military carrying out demolitions, destruction, and bulldozing operations inside occupied southern villages despite the Lebanese government reaching an agreement with “Israel” under US auspices.
Commander of the Islamic Republic of Iran Army Major General Amir Hatami
Commander of the Islamic Republic of Iran Army Major General Amir Hatami has warned that the Iranian Armed Forces will deliver a crushing response to any renewed hostile action, declaring that Iran remains fully prepared and vigilant.
Hatami made the remarks during a visit to Army units stationed in Fars Province, where he reviewed the personnel’s combat morale, equipment readiness and defensive capabilities.
Referring to the Armed Forces’ achievements in the recent US-Israeli war against Iran, the Army chief said that although war causes damage, what matters is its outcome, which, rather than surrender, brought honor and pride to the country.
He maintained that the war has not yet ended, saying the enemy has turned to other methods after failing on the military battlefield.
“After failing on the military battlefield, the enemy has resorted to other methods and, through sanctions and economic pressure, is trying to put the people under pressure, while at the same time pursuing many measures to create insecurity and unrest,” Hatami said.
“The Armed Forces, while maintaining readiness and vigilance, will deliver a crushing response to the enemy’s threats if it makes another mistake,” he added.
Hatami also described war as an arena of resilience, saying the side capable of demonstrating greater resistance and resilience would ultimately prevail.
“We consider ourselves to be on the path of defending the truth, trust in divine promises, and with this belief, we will continue the path of confronting the enemy and defending the country,” he said.
The US and the Israeli regime waged their first criminal war against Iran, which lasted 12 days, in June 2025. Their second aggression began on February 28, 2026, and came to a halt in early April after 40 days.
In both wars, Iran’s resistance and successful retaliatory operations forced the aggressors to accept a ceasefire.
Iran has also maintained a tight grip on the Strait of Hormuz since the early days of the second imposed war.
In July, the US conducted waves of deadly air raids on Iran and imposed a naval blockade of the country in violation of the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the Islamic Republic, signed on June 17, to end the war.
In response, the Iranian Armed Forces launched devastating strikes against strategic American targets across West Asia and declared the Strait of Hormuz closed to all traffic.
Footage shows Yemeni strikes on Saudi concentrations in Ras al-Arah with several locally made ballidtic missles on October 5, 2026 (Yemeni mediavia Telegram)
Yemeni Armed Forces remain in Mokha and Bab al-Mandab, Yemeni field sources confirmed to Al Mayadeen on Monday, stressing that no breaches have been reported in the area.
Al Mayadeen’s bureau chief, citing sources, asserted that Saudi-backed forces control neither Mokha nor Bab al-Mandab or the surrounding areas.
The sources said Saudi-backed forces managed to make only a limited advance in al-Mudarabah, near Bab al-Mandab, where they were immediately targeted.
Al Mayadeen’s bureau chief also reported that the Yemeni Armed Forces are pressing ahead in Taiz governorate. He added that they expect further advances along the western coast under Saudi cover and are determined to strike them.
Al-Zubaidi: Claims of gains are psychological warfare
Brigadier General Abdul Ghani al-Zubaidi, a Sanaa-based expert in military and political affairs, told Al Mayadeen that fighting remains concentrated in an area bordering Dhubab. He noted the Saudi-aligned forces have made no gains on the ground and that claims otherwise amount to “media exaggeration and psychological warfare.”
Meanwhile, Iranian Professor Mohammad Marandi, citing a well-informed source, told Al Mayadeen that the news coming out of Yemen is “very good”, dismissing what some outlets have reported as “nothing more than a propaganda campaign.”
“We must not be fooled by what media outlets affiliated with the region’s regimes are saying about Yemen,” he added.
Similarly, Brigadier General Mujib Shamsan, a Sanaa-based political and military affairs expert, told Al Mayadeen that the Saudi-backed forces “fled as the Yemeni Armed Forces advanced,” just 48 hours after operations began on the western coast.
20+ strikes near Ras al-‘Arah
In a related development, the Yemeni Armed Forces carried out more than 20 strikes on Saudi troop concentrations between Ras al-Arah and al-Suqaya, a military source told Saba News Agency.
The strikes left dozens of forces killed or wounded and set a number of vehicles ablaze, the source said, adding that many of the wounded were taken to hospitals in Aden and Lahij.
The source also dismissed coverage by Saudi-aligned channels as “fake news” that points to their failure, accusing them of feeding their audiences “invented victories”. They added that the Yemeni Armed Forces are continuing to drive Saudi concentrations out of districts across Taiz governorate.
Yemeni forces advance in Taiz
Earlier on Monday, a senior military source told Al Mayadeen that the YAF have taken control of more than 2,000 square kilometers in Taiz governorate and expelled Saudi-backed forces from al-Ma’afer and al-Mawasit districts. The source said Yemeni forces reached Rashad al-Alimi’s residence and warned that any Saudi military buildup would be targeted wherever it takes place.
Saudi Arabia has escalated its aggression, bombing civilian infrastructure in Sanaa, Saada, Taiz, Hajjah, and Marib governorates and leaving civilians dead and wounded, according to Al Mayadeen’s correspondent.
Mohammad Abdul Salam, head of Sanaa’s negotiating delegation, said Monday that Riyadh was now stepping to the forefront of the aggression after the defeats suffered by the forces it mobilized, and that Saudi Arabia must bear all the consequences.
In response, the Yemeni Armed Forces continue to target vital facilities inside Saudi Arabia and Saudi military concentrations on Yemeni territory.
Iranian profesesor of English literature Orrientalism at the University of Tehran Mohammad Marandi and former US Pentagon official Mickael Maalouf (Al Mayadeen)
Michael Maalouf and Mohammad Marandi warn that a new Iran war could escalate rapidly, with US forces, “Israel”, NATO, and regional allies facing wider conflict.
“Israel” may act militarily against Iran before the November US elections and force Washington into a war it is committed to backing, Michael Maalouf, a former US government official, said, while University of Tehran professor Mohammad Marandi stated that Iran has adjusted to a wartime economy and will respond far more assertively to any new aggression.
On Al Mayadeen‘s The Great Standoff: Iran and the World, Maalouf said Trump “is being his usual hyperbolic self,” noting that US president has threatened “the annihilation, his words, of an entire civilization” while speaking of peace as close at hand.
Maalouf argued that Trump should return to the MOU he signed and is obliged to abide by it, but has chosen not to, attributing that choice to domestic pressure from the Israeli lobby within the United States, which is pushing a hardline approach.
“The usual thinking these days around here is that, well, he may do something militarily after the November elections,” Maalouf stated, noting that Trump’s own concern is more immediate.
Elections stand behind ‘Israel’ acting on its own
“Israel may do something on its own simply because they have their own elections come in October,” Maalouf said, adding that by late October, Netanyahu must show his people he is living up to what he promised in order to stay in office.
Maalouf explained that Netanyahu “May instigate something even before Donald Trump, which will force Donald Trump then to go militarily to back him up,” Maalouf continued, emphasizing that Washington is too committed to “Israel” at this point to pull out.
He further noted that many US assets are now based in “Israel” because most Gulf bases “have been eliminated or are useless.” With nothing new on the table, Trump refuses what he agreed to, and Maalouf does not see Iran backing off those points.
“I think that we’re on a collision course,” he stated, adding that it could come sooner than expected and “could be from Israel itself.”
NATO involvement would make Europe a target
Should European states get involved as NATO Secretary General Rutte suggested, Maalouf said, it “opens up them to attack.”
“If they were to attack and respond from their bases and let the United States use the bases, yeah, they are just as susceptible as a co-belligerent as the United States and Israel are themselves.”
Maalouf noted that the United States is reaching a realization that it is being pushed back by Iran’s increased military capabilities, which is why ships are being moved further out. Another carrier may bring the total to three strike groups, he said, but they will be “stuck out in the middle of nowhere,” with no ports or facilities to reload or restock.
Given Iran’s enhanced missile capabilities, Maalouf went on to explain that, “it’s very clear that they might be capable of hitting the aircraft carriers and strike groups as far away as Diego Garcia.” If so, US naval potential is very limited, he argued, since even launching aircraft would require refueling that puts those aircraft and the refuelers in jeopardy.
“I just don’t see any happy ending to this scenario as it’s now coming along,” he added.
Trump, Hegseth are offering no alternative
Maalouf said that Trump and his Secretary of War “are offering no alternatives,” while the Secretary of Treasury wants greater economic hardships, pointing to “the rise of a multipolar world order that just is going to reject working with the United States or feel pressured any longer,” because Iran has stood up to the United States over time.
This frustrates Trump’s calculations, Maalouf argued, since “he doesn’t have an easy way.”
On Europe, he said, “I don’t know what Route is talking about, frankly, when it comes to assisting the United States.”
Maalouf emphasized that Europe “never got involved when their own interests were involved and when the Strait of Hormuz was shut down,” despite depending on the strait more than the United States does. Their publics would likely be outraged at being drawn into further crises while their economies suffer from the Ukrainian war, he added.
He further clarified that involvement “also then thereby makes them targets,” since Iran “does have a missile capability to hit even targets in Europe.” Rutte, he said, “is just speaking out of, I think, just out of the corner of his mouth.”
Wartime production and shortages
Maalouf agreed that moving from a consumer economy to wartime production takes time and that the switchover has been difficult, with factories slow to reach production.
He also pointed to difficulties in obtaining components, noting that “every state in the United States has some aspect of production to contribute to that wartime production.” Delivery times, he added, are “much longer now,” while acquiring components takes longer and costs far more.
As an example, he cited limited supplies of some gasoline octanes for everyday US consumers and sky-high diesel costs that have driven many companies out of business. The disruption, he noted, “has really messed up the complete supply cycle.”
Rebuilding missiles could take years, Maalouf stated, while some may already be obsolete. The same problem applies to THAAD and Patriot systems, which “take years to rebuild, and we’re already very critically short in terms of supply,” including for European countries that have depended on US supplies.
Against that backdrop, Maalouf questioned Europe’s ability to sustain a war, saying, “I don’t see how they could conceivably go to war or fight a war,” since Europe is not sending supplies to Ukraine any longer and could not use limited stocks against Iran.
While “Pete Hegseth may brag about how completely capable the United States is,” Maalouf said, “the reality is, is that we are, the United States is very critically short on supply.”
Sophisticated systems take a very long time to produce and even longer to field, he added and restocking would also be limited because Iran can keep ships out of the area if they appear headed for use against Iran.
Direct action against Yemen will be costly, futile
Maalouf said direct military action against Yemen, which has been tried unsuccessfully before, “will just cost them the very limited stocks and supplies, stockpiles that they have of weapons.” The Yemenis, he added, “have shown a very capable way of surviving previous US, direct US attacks. And they are very mobile.”
He noted that even the Saudis are struggling against the Yemenis, while their supplies remain limited because they must come from the United States.
According to Maalouf, Yemen has demonstrated a strong ability to wage conflict against Saudi Arabia, shut down the Bab al-Mandab Strait, extend the conflict into the region, and withstand attacks from the Saudi-backed government of Yemen.
The Ansar Allah group is showing a tremendous capability and “a flexibility,” Maalouf stated, while noting that it has again targeted Aramco and pipelines, with a major impact on Saudi Arabia’s future economic capabilities that “could be destroyed entirely.”
For its part, the United States has chosen not to get involved, Maalouf said, arguing that it would rapidly run out of equipment and ammunition while also wanting to fight Iran.
He pointed to “a limitation that I think the American people have now begun to realize is reaching a very serious state,” with discussion already that the United States “has lost the conflict, the war in the Middle East, and has had to withdraw as a consequence.” Yemen, he added, “is holding its own.”
Marandi says Iran has prepared for a new round of warfare
“Fundamentally speaking, as you know as well as I, nothing has really changed,” Marandi said. Iran “has prepared itself for a new round of warfare” and “adjusted its economy to a wartime economy to make sure that it is prepared for a long war.”
As part of that preparation, the government has given the armed forces an exceptionally large budget for research and development, while also expanding underground missile and drone bases and other capabilities, Marandi explained.
Marandi pointed out that “the Iranians continue to say that we are willing to negotiate, but the negotiations must lead to the implementation of the MOU.”
That memorandum includes Article 1, which, Marandi noted, “means that the entire region must have peace.” Achieving that would require the Zionist regime to “end its occupation and end its genocide,” while other articles address Iranian stolen assets, sanctions, and other matters between Iran and the United States.
For now, however, Marandi sees little sign of a change in Washington. “We don’t see any fundamental shift in Washington, no major move,” he stated. Instead, “the expectation is that we may be moving or we will quite possibly be moving towards another round of US-Zionist aggression or US aggression against the people of Iran.”
Any such confrontation would be met with a different Iranian response, he warned: “But this time around, the Iranians are going to behave very differently. They’re going to be far more assertive in their response.”
The consequences would also extend to US coalition partners in the region. Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and the Emirates, Marandi argued, “all of them will pay heavily because they are co-belligerents.”
He said those governments are “guilty of slaughtering Iranian children and Iranian citizens” and said they are already deeply vulnerable after seven months of war they helped impose on Iran. Meanwhile, Yemen’s forces and Ansar Allah “are imposing their will on the Saudi regime and its proxies,” he noted.
These governments therefore face a more precarious position if Washington escalates, in Marandi’s assessment. “It is not an ideal time for these regimes because if the United States escalates, these regimes are already much more fragile than they were before.”
He added: “They’ve always been fragile regimes, and this could ultimately lead to their collapse. So they should be very careful about the road that they tread upon.”
Iran is also continuing to upgrade its missile systems, particularly in terms of range and maneuverability. Marandi described those improvements as “obviously going to be very critical in the next war if that happens, which is quite likely.”
Aggression on Iran could happen after Israeli elections
Marandi asserted that Iran is prepared, explaining that Iranian missiles will strike not only US targets across the region but also bases hosting US jets or assets further away, with the US Navy a target as well. “If the war escalates, the Iranians are going to escalate,” he said, and if the United States targets Iranian infrastructure, then “all bets are off.”
Iran “will obviously destroy the infrastructure of the regimes that assist the United States,” he continued, which would collapse the global economy because those regimes would collapse. Additionally, Iran will target US naval ships, aircraft carriers, and bases hosting US forces wherever they may be if Washington chooses that road, Marandi said.
On the other hand, Marandi said that the United States may launch an all-out genocidal war, which Trump has threatened, or carry out more limited strikes. Even then, the NATO head has gloated that “5,000 flights took off from European airports to assist the United States in bombing Iran,” making the Europeans complicit, Marandi said.
Marandi cautioned that if Iran feels it necessary to strike US assets in European countries, “it will do so,” noting Iran has told Bulgaria it risks attack for hosting US planes and that those planes were ultimately withdrawn. “Iran has countless missiles. The number of Iranian missiles are enough to last for years,” Marandi stated.
Yemen also has very large numbers of missiles and drones that can last a long time, he said, so “Iran and Yemen have more than enough to continue fighting for the years to come. So the Americans should take all of this very seriously.”
Economic pressure runs both ways
Marandi said the President’s office cited personal reasons for the resignation of a ministry figure, with details expected to emerge in the coming days. He noted there were differences with others in the ministry, and the appointment had been controversial from the start, with many in the ministry welcoming the change.
“The economic situation in Iran is difficult, but the Iranians are also imposing a difficult situation on the United States and its partners,” Marandi said. Strikes on tankers violating Iran’s rules are increasing daily in the Strait of Hormuz, and the amount of oil leaving the strait has decreased significantly, he noted.
A tanker was also struck off Yemen’s coast, Marandi added, saying “the news is not good for the United States and its allies.”
Marandi noted that oil leaving the strait on small ships costs about $20 a barrel, meaning that what reaches global markets arrives at great cost even before insurance is counted.
Marandi argued that “while the United States is strangling, and the United States and its partners in this war have been trying to strangle Iran, the Iranians are strangling the United States and its partners back.”
The countries most at risk of collapse, he said, are “US proxies in the region”, particularly those dependent almost entirely on oil and gas, which “will not be sustainable” if the situation continues.
With the Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Kuwait holding stocks and bonds in the United States, Marandi doubts Washington will allow them to sell those assets, meaning their economic situation will deteriorate further.
Saudi Arabia’s bombing of Sana’a International Airport was “foolish behavior” against Yemen’s people, Marandi said, adding that Riyadh “is now being badly mauled by Yemen.”
Iran’s economic situation remains difficult, but the pressure has not changed Tehran’s determination to resist. “The United States intends to make ordinary people suffer,” Marandi said, “the Iranians know that they have no option but to resist, and resist they will.”
Marandi contrasts Iranian and US military production
“One thing that we have to keep in mind is that the Iranian military industry is designed very differently from that of the United States,” Marandi said, adding that the same is true of Russia and China.
Marandi explained that in Iran, the state controls industry and may use the private sector but determines the path forward. “In other words, it is the state that controls the capital. In the United States, it’s the capital that controls the state,” including the military industry.
“US weapon systems are far too expensive and do not meet the practical needs of the armed forces because profit is prioritized,” Marandi argued.
He pointed to the resulting mismatch in US military production, saying many systems, ships, and planes “are not necessarily useful for today’s warfare or tomorrow’s warfare, but they make a lot of money for the private industries.” Iran, by contrast, has expanded its missile program to meet the needs of its armed forces.
“So Iranian missiles are much cheaper. They’re much larger in number. They are much more swiftly produced,” Marandi stated.
Despite spending infinitely more on defense, the United States “is incapable of fighting this sort of war with Iran,” he said, while also being overstretched by Ukraine and its confrontation with China. “The Iranians take advantage of that, and they’ve taught the American government, the Trump regime, a major lesson during the last seven months,” Marandi added.
Yemen victories bad news for ‘Israel’: Marandi
The victories of Ansar Allah and Yemen’s forces and government are “very, very welcome news” and “major victories of the Yemeni people” that should give hope across the region, Marandi stated.
Marandi asserted the developments are a broader setback for “Israel” and the United States. “This is very bad news for the Zionist regime. It’s very bad news for the United States, and it’s good for the people of Gaza and the people of Lebanon and, of course, for the people of Iran as well,” he continued.
In addition, Marandi recalled that the capabilities of Yemen and the resistance in Iraq are enormous, while many of Iran’s own capabilities “have been left untouched.”
The capabilities of US partners such as the Saudi regime are being degraded daily, Marandi noted, while pressure from Iran in the Strait of Hormuz is adding to the strain on other US proxies.
“None of this bodes well for the United States in the weeks and months ahead,” he concluded. “And, of course, anything that weakens the United States weakens the Israeli regime too.”
The Associated Press reports that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu asked UAE President Mohammed bin Zayed to deny a report that he had warned Netanyahu of an impending Hamas operation ahead of October 7, 2023.
This screengrab shows Rear Admiral Ali Fadavi, a senior advisor to the IRGC commander-in-chief and former IRGC Navy commander, speaking in an interview with the IRIB on September 4, 2026.
A senior Iranian military adviser said the United States has withdrawn its forces more than 1,000 kilometers from Iran’s borders, describing the pullback as a direct result of Iran’s authority and the power of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) Ground Force.
Rear Admiral Ali Fadavi, a senior advisor to the IRGC commander-in-chief and former Navy commander, made the remarks in a televised interview on Sunday night.
“The Americans fled and moved more than 1,000 kilometers away from our borders. This was not their choice; it was due to the authority of the Islamic Republic and the authority of the IRGC Ground Force,” Fadavi said.
He stressed that for the first time, no American vessels are present in the Persian Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz, the Sea of Oman, or even the northern Indian Ocean.
Fadavi said the Strait of Hormuz has been under Iran’s control for many months and that the United States has failed to achieve any of its objectives in the war.
“The fighters who stood against the world’s material superpowers thwarted all their goals. The enemy—the Great Satan America—has not achieved any of its objectives in this war,” he said.
He noted that ship captains crossing the southern part of the Strait of Hormuz have formally objected to the route but are forced to pass due to insurance, financial, and liability concerns.
The IRGC Navy has warned that any vessel traversing this route could be subject to Iranian naval action.
“The IRGC Navy has informed the ships that if they pass through this route, their vessels may be targeted at any point,” Fadavi said. “The captains have officially stated they are forced to pass and would never choose this route if it were up to them.”
He added that only three to four million barrels of oil per day are currently transiting an alternative route outside the area officially designated by Iran, a negligible amount compared to pre-war traffic.
US vulnerability
Addressing US military capabilities, Fadavi stated that Washington cannot assert sovereignty in the region without a physical naval presence.
“The Americans must use their vessels because you cannot exercise full sovereignty with air power. You can bomb the region every day, but unless your forces have a physical presence, you cannot impose your will,” he said.
Iranian Parliament Speaker Ghalibaf says the Strait of Hormuz won’t reopen as long as Tehran’s seven conditions are not met.
He stressed that American vessels are “100 percent vulnerable” to IRGC forces and that past attempts to enter the Strait of Hormuz were met with attacks by the IRGC Navy and Aerospace Force.
‘We target US bases, not regional countries’
Fadavi said Iran has never targeted regional countries but has struck US bases hosted on their soil.
“We did not hit Muslim countries. We hit bases that were at the disposal of Iran’s enemy—not just the enemy of Islam, but the enemy of humanity—and were located in regional countries,” he said.
He called on regional states to stand up to the United States, citing Iraq’s insistence on the withdrawal of American forces and the recent US War Department announcement that its troops have left Iraq.
Warning against ground invasion
Asked about a potential US ground invasion, Fadavi said any such move would be met with a response that targets American interests wherever they are.
“Any base belonging to the Americans, any vessel belonging to the Americans, will be targeted by the grace of God,” he said.
He also dismissed US threats, saying Washington has failed in Afghanistan, Iraq, and in its Daesh project, and will fail again.
He noted that the US military budget equals that of the entire world, yet Washington has failed to achieve its objectives due to the direct impact of the conflict on the global and American economies.
The Persian Gulf Strait Authority says three Emirati oil tankers that were struck by unknown projectiles when transiting the Strait of Hormuz on Tuesday were already on the authority’s Non-Compliant List.
Fadavi said Iran and Oman, as the two littoral states of the Strait of Hormuz, have written and agreed upon the rules governing the waterway and are implementing them.
He also highlighted that Iran and Oman, as the sovereign owners of the Strait of Hormuz, have jointly drafted and implemented the governing laws for the waterway, dismissing US attempts to impose its will from 10,000 kilometers away.
“We and Oman are the two parties that own the Strait of Hormuz. We have written the rules, agreed upon them, and are applying them,” he said. “The Americans, with all their material power, have not been able to impose their will.”
Saudi Arabia’s strike on Sanaa International Airport in July brought an end to more than three years of uneasy calm. The truce that began in April 2022 had never become a final settlement, but it had largely kept the Saudi-led coalition and Sanaa from returning to full-scale war.
Now, the fighting has spread along Yemen’s western coast and across the border into Saudi territory, while the prospect of negotiations remains as distant as it is unavoidable.
For Yemenis, the cost of the war reaches far beyond the front lines. The Saudi-led intervention began on 26 March 2015, and the blockade and destruction of infrastructure have compounded the damage of combat.
A UNDP estimate projected 377,000 conflict-attributable deaths by the end of 2021, including 154,000 from direct violence and 223,000 from hunger, disease, and other indirect causes.
Subsequent deaths and the renewed fighting have only deepened the toll. In the south and east, Saudi and UAE-backed forces have also held areas containing much of Yemen’s oil and gas wealth.
The withdrawal of the UAE’s remaining forces early this year left Riyadh with greater responsibility for the military and political direction of its Yemeni allies. It did not erase the competing loyalties within those forces.
Saudi Arabia has spent the intervening months trying to bring them under firmer command, while Sanaa has built up its own military capabilities. Each side entered this round of fighting with the previous years of restraint behind it and unfinished business ahead.
The road map that never took hold
The diplomatic opening began with the Chinese-brokered Saudi–Iranian rapprochement in March 2023. Riyadh, unable to secure a military victory in Yemen after eight years of war, could present a negotiated exit as part of a wider easing of regional tensions.
A joint Saudi–Omani delegation headed by Saudi Ambassador Mohammed al-Jaber visited Sanaa the following April. Meetings in Sanaa, Riyadh, and Muscat continued through the year.
On 23 December 2023, UN envoy Hans Grundberg announced commitments toward a nationwide ceasefire, the payment of public-sector salaries, the resumption of oil exports, the opening of roads, and the easing of restrictions on Sanaa Airport and Hodeidah Port.
These commitments were intended to be put into a UN road map leading to an inclusive political process. The announcement offered a framework, but the road map itself was not signed and implemented. Its unresolved details would become more consequential as the region moved toward a wider war.
Following the start of Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza, Sanaa launched its Red Sea campaign against shipping it identified as linked to Israel. US and British attacks on Yemen followed. Washington pressed for an end to Yemen’s operations in support of Gaza, while the political track with Riyadh stalled.
Sanaa says Saudi Arabia also failed to deliver the economic measures discussed during the earlier talks. What had been presented as a path to settlement became another period in which the parties prepared for the possibility of renewed combat.
That possibility became reality after the July airport strike. In September, the Ansarallah-aligned Yemeni Armed Forces (YAF) advanced through western Yemen, taking Mokha and positions near Bab al-Mandab, along with Red Sea islands.
Sanaa declared Saudi-linked shipping a target and launched missiles and drones at sites inside the kingdom. Saudi airstrikes resumed across Yemen. The blockade has disrupted Saudi oil shipments through the Red Sea, although the claim that Saudi exports have fallen to zero is contradicted by reported September export volumes.
Talks on new ground
Yemeni researcher and journalist Talib al-Hassani expects any new negotiation with Saudi Arabia to reflect the current balance on the ground. Sanaa has never ruled out talks, he says, but it cannot simply resume the unfulfilled understandings of 2023.
The first shots and airstrikes of this round ended any realistic prospect of carrying on as though the old process had remained intact. Riyadh may still invoke parts of it to preserve the appearance of continuity, but Sanaa would bring new demands to the table.
Hassani, editor-in-chief of the Sanaa-based Al Masirah channel, tells The Cradle that the strongest guarantee of any agreement is Yemen’s ability to enforce it. The 2022 truce and the subsequent road map commitments, in his account, arose from military pressure on Saudi Arabia.
Riyadh then found room to delay their implementation without immediately returning to war. No effective monitoring mechanism or enforceable guarantees made such delay costly.
He believes Saudi Arabia could seek another truce to regroup before resuming the war. Sanaa’s answer, he says, should be to demand concrete steps from the opening session, with deadlines that cannot be stretched indefinitely. Otherwise, a ceasefire could once again give Riyadh time to repair weaknesses in its forces and reorganize the factions fighting on its behalf.
Brigadier General Abed al-Thawr, an advisor to Sanaa’s Ministry of Defense and Military Production, offers a similar reading of the previous negotiations. Since 2015, he tells The Cradle, Riyadh has used talks to improve its military and political position. He contends that Saudi Arabia accepted de-escalation in 2022 to address gaps in its security system. He alleges that it subsequently sought help from the US, Britain, and Israel to do so.
Guarantees beyond Riyadh
Thawr says decades of troubled relations have left Yemenis unwilling to accept Saudi assurances on their own. He wants guarantees from outside the region, naming the UN Security Council, Russia, and China among possible guarantors.
He also points to Arab states Sanaa trusts, including Oman, Algeria, and Tunisia, even though several of the governments he names do not formally recognize the authorities in Sanaa.
Thawr wants international recognition of Sanaa’s government, arguing that its support at home gives it the authority to negotiate on Yemen’s behalf. He also rejects Riyadh’s claim to a mediator’s role.
“As for the question of Saudi mediation, which Riyadh has tried in recent months to portray as an effort to bring about calm, that is rejected entirely. Saudi Arabia is a party to the war, not a mediator in it. The Yemeni people understand that Saudi Arabia is the enemy responsible for all this killing, destruction, and hardship, and that it has long-standing designs on their wealth and land.”
He also wants any funds attached to a settlement held in accounts that can be monitored, including in a trusted Arab country such as Oman and at the central bank in Sanaa. A promise to pay salaries or finance reconstruction would mean little, in his view, unless the money were secured and its release tied to an agreed schedule. These proposals show how far Sanaa’s demands now extend beyond an immediate ceasefire.
Reports since July have named Egypt, Turkiye, and Pakistan as possible participants in mediation alongside Oman. Sanaa has neither confirmed nor denied those contacts, and their precise roles remain unclear.
The closer those countries move toward Riyadh militarily, however, the harder it may be for them to present themselves to Sanaa as neutral intermediaries. Saudi Arabia, Turkiye, and Pakistan consulted under the Mecca Defense Pact in late September as the fighting intensified.
Hamid Asim, a member of Sanaa’s national negotiating delegation, insists the door to talks remains open. Sanaa wants “an end to the aggression, the lifting of the blockade, payment of compensation, the release of prisoners, and the withdrawal of forces occupying parts of the country,” he tells The Cradle.
In his view, the earlier road map could still inform a settlement, provided it incorporates demands arising from the latest escalation and Sanaa’s new position on the ground.
Thawr argues that broader political issues must be settled before older, secondary files are addressed on a fixed timetable. His principal demands include an end to Saudi intervention in Yemeni affairs, an end to what he calls Riyadh’s tutelage, the lifting of the blockade, and Saudi responsibility for the consequences of the war. These positions go well beyond the economic and confidence-building measures that dominated the UN’s 2023 announcement.
Asim, a former assistant secretary-general of the Nasserist Unionist People’s Organization, says Sanaa’s leadership has ordered its forces to keep every option available until commitments are carried out in practice.
He names Ansarallah leader Abdul Malik al-Houthi, the Supreme Political Council (SPC), and the government in describing that decision. Past Saudi delays, he says, have made Sanaa unwilling to halt its campaign merely in exchange for a declaration of intent. The armed forces, he adds, are ready for any scenario.
Armies built during the lull
The years of de-escalation gave both sides time to prepare. Sanaa expanded its arsenal while fighting the US and Israel following the 7 October 2023 Operation Al-Aqsa Flood. Saudi Arabia worked to restructure the forces aligned with it inside Yemen, particularly as its rivalry with the UAE sharpened in the south and east.
The Saudi-backed Homeland Shield Forces, known in Arabic as Dera al-Watan, became central to Riyadh’s effort to establish a command less dependent on formations historically backed by Abu Dhabi.
The Southern Transitional Council (STC), the Giants Brigades, and forces associated with Tariq Saleh remained on the ground after the UAE withdrew its remaining troops. Their rivalries and local interests have made a unified command difficult.
Sanaa watched those deployments and says it acted before Saudi Arabia could open a new offensive. Its seizure of western coastal territory, including Mokha and positions around Bab al-Mandab, gave it a stronger hold on the approaches to the Red Sea.
Its strikes on Saudi energy and military sites then brought the confrontation back into the kingdom. The shipping campaign has forced tankers to divert and placed additional pressure on Riyadh’s oil export routes, already strained by the wider regional war.
Saudi aircraft have since carried out repeated strikes across Yemen. The Ansarallah-aligned armed forces reported 52 air and missile attacks in a single 24-hour period in late September, while Saudi authorities reported intercepting Yemeni missiles aimed at targets inside the kingdom.
Riyadh has also sought support from Pakistan and Turkiye under their defense agreement. Public statements from those countries have not established that either intends to send troops into Yemen.
Hassani sees little in these Saudi moves to suggest an imminent return to negotiations. Yet war also carries a growing price for Riyadh. Sanaa, in his view, would approach any talks after consolidating territorial gains and imposing costs across the border and at sea.
The Yemeni parties beyond the front
Sanaa also has to decide how to deal with Yemeni factions outside its control. Some are fighting alongside Saudi Arabia; others have stayed out of the latest battles or lost ground as the western front changed hands.
Any settlement with Riyadh would leave these internal questions unresolved unless those factions were brought into a political process of their own.
Asim says channels in Sanaa are dealing with tribes and districts still under the influence of Saudi-backed forces, though he gives no details of the discussions. He describes Yemenis as standing alongside the armed forces against the Saudi campaign. That account does not mean all the country’s factions share Sanaa’s political aims, and the differing loyalties visible across the south and east remain an obstacle to a national agreement.
Hassani distinguishes between groups Sanaa believes it can approach now and those it expects to confront on the battlefield first. He names the STC and some components in Hadhramaut that are not currently involved in the fighting as possible interlocutors.
Direct dialogue is preferable when it can produce an understanding, he says. With factions still committed to fighting, he believes negotiations will become useful only after they have suffered a military setback.
Riyadh can negotiate an end to its intervention, but it cannot settle Yemen’s internal divisions on behalf of the factions it has armed. Sanaa’s coastal advance gives it a stronger hand across the Saudi negotiating table.
Whether it can turn that advantage into an agreement with other Yemenis is a battle of a different kind, one the missiles and the blockade cannot decide.
As US President Donald Trump threatens Iran with annihilation, Iranian missiles and drones have been targeting Israeli Mossad proxies, American bases and destroying tankers in the Strait of Hormuz. Washington’s allies in Riyadh are meanwhile suffering enormous losses due to their war on Yemen, which has collapsed a joint project that sought to inflict regime change.
In the latest episode of The Target stream, MintPress News’ Robert Inlakesh takes a look at the silent ballistic missile attacks that are being carried out against US bases in Jordan that are no longer even receiving comment from US Central Command. As President Trump’s rhetoric at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) suggested genocidal intent, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has been acting preemptively to take out rising threats.
With gas prices continuing to go up, hitting working class people in their pockets, the Trump administration is refusing to end the war on Iran and continues to back up Israel at every turn. The US media, on the other hand, is leaking more damning reports about the stunning military failure in the Persian Gulf, exposing that the Navy noted a total of 8 attempted suicides aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln strike group.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also addressed the General Assembly, speaking to an almost empty room as up to 77 nations delegates walked out upon him taking to the podium. During his speech, he played victim while also holding up a prop pager in reference to the Mossad operation carried out against Hezbollah in Lebanon two years ago. Up to 3,000 people were wounded in what the former head of the CIA, Leon Panetta, labelled an act of terrorism.
Beyond that, the Israeli Premier’s speech was received as weak. Robert Inlakesh notes that two years ago Netanyahu had ordered the assassination of Hezbollah leader Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah from the United Nations building, while this time around he decided to complain about popular streamer Hasan Piker.
Back in Tel Aviv, the Israeli media have been signalling that their aid in targeting the Yemeni Armed Forces could be a stepping stone towards normalisation with Saudi Arabia. Yet, it hasn’t proven a very successful one. Riyadh’s proxy forces in Yemen continue to take a beating, losing more territory by the day, as the Ansarallah-led government in Sana’a vows to deliver more crushing blows to Saudi infrastructure in retaliation for ongoing air strikes.
Israel’s presence on the strategic Mayyun Island in the Bab el-Mandeb Strait has officially come to an end, as Yemen keeps a close eye on its military buildups in Somaliland and Socotra Island.
Last year, the Israeli leadership were presenting their grand plans for regional hegemony to the world, openly discussing the Greater Israel Project, however, the repeated failures of the US-Israeli alliance in their war against Iran and its allies have left them lashing out irrationally with no clear route to victory.
The Target stream analyses this growing shift, the change in power dynamics, the footage coming from the battlefield in Yemen and the desperate propaganda of the US empire’s allies.
The Yemeni Armed Forces announce seven operations targeting Saudi airports, oil facilities, and military sites after 100 Saudi airstrikes on Yemen.
Yemeni Armed Forces spokesperson Brigadier General Yahya Saree announced that Sanaa carried out seven military operations targeting airports, oil facilities, and military positions across Saudi Arabia, in response to 100 Saudi airstrikes on Yemen over 24 hours.
In a statement issued on Saturday, Saree said the operations are in response to Saudi aggression that targeted civilian residences and infrastructure in Sanaa and other Yemeni governorates, leaving dozens killed and wounded.
Saree said the latest attacks brought the total number of Saudi airstrikes and missile attacks on Yemen since the escalation began to 3,123.
The spokesperson stressed that the Yemeni Armed Forces’ operations were carried out using ballistic missiles and drones.
Operations detailed
Saree’s statement detailed the operations as follows:
The first operation targeted Khalid Airport in the Saudi capital, Riyadh, in two phases, achieving accurate hits.
The second operation targeted Aramco facilities in Yanbu, while the third struck the Rabigh oil refinery.
The fourth operation targeted crude oil pumping stations and the East–West crude oil pipeline.
The sixth operation targeted Najran Airport, while the seventh struck the Khamis Mushait air base. The statement said both operations achieved direct hits.
Yemen vows to continue operations against Saudi Arabia
Saree reaffirmed that the Yemeni Armed Forces would continue operations deep inside Saudi territory in defense of Yemen and its people, maintaining an equation of “blockade for blockade and escalation for escalation” until the aggression ends and the blockade on Yemen is lifted.
Saudi allegations about Mecca, Madinah false
In a separate statement, the Yemeni brigadier general said the Yemeni Armed Forces affirm that what the Saudi enemy is promoting about our forces targeting the holy sites in Mecca and Madinah is a “grave and blatant falsehood,” stressing that these lies and allegations no longer deceive anyone.
“Our operations target its oil facilities and military bases, and we announce them at the time they are carried out,” the YAF spokesperson stressed.
Footage released
Additionally, the Yemeni Military Media released footage showing sniper operations targeting several Sudanese mercenaries on border fronts.
#WATCH | On October 24, the Yemeni Military Media released footage of sniping operations targeting several Sudanese mercenaries on the border fronts. pic.twitter.com/MRGx3ezOv4
In an earlier statement, Saree revealed that the Yemeni forces targeted Saudi-backed mobilizations at what it called al-Nasr Camp and the naval military base in Aden.
According to Saree, “The forces were being assembled and equipped under the supervision of Saudi officers, led by Saudi Brigadier General Badr Salah al-Harbi, with the aim of attacking the Yemeni people and their Armed Forces.”
The YAF urged those being mobilized not to respond to Saudi calls to fight fellow Yemenis, warning them against being sent into “death traps” in pursuit of Saudi interests in Yemen.
YAF publish footage of Rajoum drones targeting Saudi forces
On October 23, the Yemeni Armed Forces released footage showing drone strikes targeting Saudi and Saudi-backed forces and vehicles on several fronts, as the YAF continue to employ unmanned aerial systems against opposing troop concentrations and military vehicles.
The footage, captioned “Scenes of targeting enemy Saudi troop concentrations and vehicles on several fronts using Rajoum drones, October 23, 2026,” shows drones dropping bombs on concentrations of Saudi and Saudi-backed forces and striking military targets.
#WATCH | On October 23, the Yemeni Military Media released footage of Rajoum drones targeting Saudi-affiliated concentrations and vehicles on several fronts. pic.twitter.com/ANGw7rIXc3
The director of Al Mayadeen’s bureau in Yemen said the footage demonstrates that the Yemeni Armed Forces possess a low-cost aerial capability with a significant operational impact.
He said the Yemeni Armed Forces have a highly effective and lethal weapon that can be deployed across different theaters of operations, adding that it can threaten and disable tanks.
The bureau chief also highlighted the skill of the crews operating Rajoum drones, saying they can accurately hit their targets and inflict significant damage.R
He added that Saudi-affiliated troop concentrations were being worn down, pointing to the impact of the Yemeni Armed Forces’ operations on forces deployed across multiple fronts.
Morocco’s normalization with Israel is taking root in the land, water, and farm data on which its people depend.
Photo Credit: The Cradle
Some 30 years ago, a handful of argan seeds arrived at a kibbutz in Israel’s Negev desert. The Times of Israel, profiling the botanist who planted them, records where they came from: “the late King Hassan himself.”
By 2012, one industry account put the number of argan trees in Israel at around 20,000; Israeli producers had already begun marketing a strain they claimed yielded 10 times as much oil as wild Moroccan trees.
The Israeli-founded cosmetics brand Moroccanoil, meanwhile, built its business around the same ingredient, although it claims its argan oil comes from the tree’s native region.
Since December 2020, normalization has opened much more of Morocco’s agricultural sector to Israeli business. Israel’s largest fruit exporter now farms Moroccan land and ships the produce to Europe as Moroccan-grown fruit, reducing its exposure to consumer boycotts of Israeli produce.
An Israeli irrigation app collects Moroccan farmers’ data under terms that allow storage in Israel; its local representative acknowledged in 2024 that the operation had not obtained Moroccan data-protection approval.
Behind its Moroccan partner lies a chain of companies reaching a holding owned by the king’s nephew. Access to the fruit, the water, the seed, and the knowledge of who grows what and where does not require ownership of the land.
On 16 September 2026, in New York, Foreign Minister Nasser Bourita agreed with his Israeli counterpart to upgrade diplomatic missions to full embassies and expand cooperation in agriculture and water.
A week later, Moroccan voters more than quadrupled the seats of the Justice and Development Party, which had campaigned against normalization. On 27 September, police in Tangier detained demonstrators protesting the embassy upgrade. The agricultural deals show how much is already at stake.
The palace connection
In September 2024, an advertisement began circulating on Facebook, aimed at Moroccan potato farmers: a free service, customized irrigation advice sent straight to WhatsApp, updated satellite images of soil moisture, a promised 30 percent saving in water.
To enroll, the farmer downloads the app and opens an account with his name, his phone number, the location of his field, the crop, and the size of the plot. The company is SupPlant, founded in Israel, which entered Morocco in January 2022.
What the farmer does not see is in the terms he accepts. SupPlant’s earlier terms of use, reproduced in the reporting behind this investigation, read:
“You hereby agree that SupPlant shall have free and unfettered access to and use of said data, and you hereby waive and relinquish any claims to such data, including under privacy laws, regulations or other applicable legal duties.”
A second clause disclaims liability for “SupPlant’s violation of any restriction on the processing or use of said data.” The policy examined by Hawamich provided for storage in Israel.
An August 2026 Google Play disclosure quoted in the reporting states: “Data can’t be deleted.” Morocco’s Law 09-08 regulates transfers abroad through adequacy requirements, specified exceptions, and CNDP procedures. Israel’s absence from the approved-country list raises a compliance question.
The company has addressed these concerns once, on the record. In December 2024, the Moroccan investigative site Hawamich put written questions to SupPlant in Israel, which did not reply, and then to Yassir Lamrani, its general manager in Morocco, who did.
He said some 1,500 to 2,000 farmers were enrolled in a pilot, that the operation was “controlled from abroad,” that the company had “not yet obtained a license from the CNDP” but held licenses in Europe, and that the app “does not rely on collecting private personal data” because it uses public satellite imagery.
The app’s own registration form asks for the farmer’s name, phone number and the location of his field. The liability clause, Lamrani said, had been drafted with lawyers and concerned farmers misusing the advice; asked about the clause covering data leaks, he did not answer.
Bouchra el-Assimi, a lawyer at the Marrakech bar, told Hawamich that a European license is no substitute for a Moroccan one and that the clauses are void under Morocco’s consumer law.
SupPlant’s Moroccan partnership leads through a chain of companies to a member of the royal family.
The first is Rahatech, registered in Casablanca on 2 February 2022 with share capital of 10,000 dirhams, about $1,000. The Inforisk report obtained for this investigation records negative equity of 335,377.97 dirhams in its 2023 accounts and a shareholder current-account balance of 1.18 million dirhams, roughly $120,000. It also records turnover of about 4.5 million dirhams.
The second is Rahatech’s sole shareholder, Ismo Invest. It was set up in 2021 as a joint venture, half owned by the British-Israeli Schimmel family and half by a Moroccan holding company, according to the Paris-based newsletter Africa Intelligence.
Hawamich identified Ahmed el-Fassi Fehri as the partnership’s Moroccan representative. The registry extract supplied with this investigation, however, names Meriam Afitou as Rahatech’s manager.
The third is the Moroccan holding company, International Moroccan Conglomerate. It belongs to Moulay Idriss Filali, the son of Princess Lalla Meryem and the nephew of King Mohammed VI, as the Casablanca news site Le Desk established in 2021.
The fourth link is Fehri, International Moroccan Conglomerate’s managing director, according to Agence Ecofin. He previously headed Morocco’s investment-development agency, leaving in 2014. The official once responsible for attracting foreign investment now manages the royal nephew’s holding company, which Moroccan reporting connects to SupPlant’s local partnership.
On 16 October 2024, Driss Sentissi, a member of parliament for the Mouvement Populaire, asked the agriculture minister in writing which foreign applications were collecting Moroccan farmers’ data and under what safeguards, according to Hawamich, who cites the question by number. Article 100 of the constitution gives the government 20 days to answer a written question. Hawamichreported that no answer came.
The harvest of farm data
Mohamed Naji, a professor at the Hassan II Institute of Agronomy and Veterinary Medicine in Rabat, toldHawamich, and has repeated on camera, that the service could assemble plot-level information on soil fertility, water sources, irrigation systems, cultivated land, crop types and yields.
Together, he said, they form “a comprehensive database on the Moroccan agricultural sector” and “a direct threat to Moroccan food sovereignty.” Hawamich raised the prospect of a map of the kingdom’s agricultural wealth held abroad, potentially more comprehensive than the ministry’s own records.
The material reviewed for this investigation does not establish that SupPlant has misused Moroccan farm data. It does expose an unanswered question about oversight: what access do Moroccan regulators have to information stored abroad, and what enforceable safeguards govern its use? A foreign server does not extinguish Moroccan law, but it can make supervision and enforcement harder.
The pilot has since become a wider commercial service. SupPlant’s current website claims 76,797 farmers on its WhatsApp product worldwide, around 500 new users a day, and more than half its users in Africa; it also carries a Moroccan avocado grower’s testimonial.
These are company figures, not a count of Moroccan farms. Alongside its introductory offer, it markets a “Governments & Enterprises” product for national food-security programs, including “satellite dashboards across every plot.” The capacity to aggregate farm information is now part of the sales pitch.
Rabat has addressed the wider issue without publicly resolving this case. In February 2024, Agriculture Minister Mohammed Sadiki confirmed that Israel would not be invited to that year’s international agriculture fair in Meknes, the country’s main farm show, and offered no explanation.
The CNDP president, contacted by Hawamich, requested written questions; the outlet reported receiving no response to its subsequent email and messages. In April 2026, the CNDP and Agriculture Ministry co-hosted a conference at the same fair on data protection and food sovereignty, signing agreements with the ministry, agricultural bank and sector bodies. The Moroccan outlet Al Omk’s report on the conference made no mention of SupPlant or any ruling on whether it complied with Moroccan law.
In July 2021, Rabat signed a cybersecurity accord with Israel’s National Cyber Directorate. A defense memorandum followed that November, formalizing intelligence cooperation in the first such agreement between Israel and an Arab state.
On 8 October 2026, Israel opened its first national pavilion at the Marrakech Air Show, alongside its major arms manufacturers. Israel’s exclusion from the agriculture fair had proved no barrier to a state-backed defense presence. Neither arrangement answers the separate question of SupPlant’s compliance with Morocco’s data-protection requirements.
Two thousand years ago, Virgil put the warning in the mouth of a Trojan priest: “I fear the Greeks, even when they bring gifts.” In Morocco, free irrigation advice gives an Israeli company access to farmers’ data, while partners close to the palace help it establish a foothold in the kingdom’s agricultural sector.
Cheap water, Moroccan origin
The exporter is Mehadrin, which describes itself as Israel’s largest grower and exporter of citrus, avocado, and other produce. Its Moroccan operations include farms in the Gharb, the fertile Atlantic plain between Rabat and Tangier, around Kenitra and the Sebou River.
The region has become the center of Morocco’s avocado expansion, accounting for about 90 percent of planted area, according to Moroccan agricultural reporting. National acreage has grown to around 12,000 hectares, putting an increasingly lucrative export crop on land dependent on already strained water reserves.
Mehadrin arrived in April 2021. It announced a joint venture to lease 5,000 dunams from the Moroccan state and plant avocado for Europe. A dunam is the Israeli unit of land, a tenth of a hectare, so 5,000 dunams is about 500 hectares, roughly 700 football pitches.
The chief executive at the time, Shaul Shelach, gave the reason in one sentence: “The price of water in Morocco is negligible compared to Israel.” The Moroccan partner, the Casablanca news site Le Deskreported, was Younes Cherdoud, a fruit grower and exporter from Souk El-Arbaa, a market town in the Gharb, and the deal was concluded with the support of the state.
That support is the key, because of legislation. Morocco restricted foreign ownership of agricultural land in 1975, after recovering foreign-owned colonial farmland in 1973. Foreign investment has nevertheless continued through leases and Moroccan companies, subject to the applicable rules. Mehadrin’s arrangement relies on a Moroccan partner holding the lease. It gives the Israeli exporter access to farmland without requiring it to acquire title directly.
Mehadrin’s filing to the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange for the first quarter of 2025 describes a further agreement signed that January: a French company owned 51 percent by Mehadrin and 49 percent by its Moroccan partner, whose stake is held through a Spanish company.
The French company owns two Moroccan companies. The Moroccan partner holds the land lease, while the local companies grow and pack the avocados. The fruit is marketed through Mehadrin for an eight percent commission. The land and lease remain Moroccan, and the fruit can be sold as Moroccan-grown, while Mehadrin holds the majority stake in the French venture and earns the marketing fee.
The same filing describes the commercial pressure behind that expansion. Since the genocide in Gaza began, it says, European consumers have avoided products associated with Israel and demand from distributors has fallen.
In June 2026, the Israeli business daily Calcalist reported that Israel’s seaborne citrus exports had roughly halved between 2017 and 2024, with exports to Europe down 41 percent in 2024. It identified Mehadrin’s “ability to market fruit from Morocco helps it cope” with the boycott. Moroccan origin can obscure the Israeli company’s involvement without any false declaration of where the fruit was grown.
Other company statements describe a larger Moroccan footprint than the 500-hectare agreement alone. In September 2025, the farming press reported Mehadrin’s account of a Moroccan entity established in 2023, focused on 1,000 hectares of avocado and 400 hectares of citrus. Its own LinkedIn page also associates Moroccan farms and a packing house with supplies to Britain’s largest supermarket chain, Tesco.
What this costs is water. By the Agriculture Ministry’s own figures, one irrigated hectare of avocado needs 4,000 to 8,000 cubic meters a year; the New Arabcalculated that Mehadrin’s 500 hectares alone would use as much as the city of Casablanca drinks in four months. Reporting relayed by Sky News Arabia in August 2026 described a 100-hectare avocado estate near Tiflet, about 60 kilometers east of Rabat, with 35 wells. Neighboring farmers said their old wells had dried up and that reaching water 150 meters down was beyond their means.
They described abandoning farming, selling their land, or working as day laborers. Moroccan outlet close to the state Le360reported the same month that growers around Tiflet and Sidi Yahya el-Gharb were considering uprooting their trees. Large investors can afford deeper wells; small farmers often cannot.
Mehadrin’s controlling shareholder, Delek Group, also controls NewMed Energy, which signed an exploration agreement covering waters off occupied Western Sahara. The agricultural and energy ventures are separate, but both give Israeli capital access to resources under Moroccan administration. In the Gharb, cheap water and proximity to Europe make that access especially valuable.
The king’s share
The argan seeds gifted by Hassan II became the basis for a commercial crop in Israel. The botanist who received them, Elaine Solowey of the Arava Institute in Israel’s southern desert, told the Times of Israel that she planted 1,000 wild trees, selected around 20, narrowed them to seven or eight, and cloned those. Samples went to the Hebrew University for further development. Israel’s Foreign Ministry now advertises “rare Moroccan argan oil” made in Israel. Troy, in this version, sent out its own horse.
The palace has private agricultural interests as well as authority over the state that approves land concessions. The king’s holding company, Siger, owns Les Domaines Agricoles, known until 2003 as Les Domaines Royaux. Long described as Morocco’s largest agribusiness, it has been reported to control some 12,000 hectares. Its interests also extend to the rights surrounding one of Morocco’s most valuable citrus varieties, the Nadorcott.
The Nadorcott is an easy-peeling mandarin, usually seedless when grown without cross-pollination, selected from Moroccan research material and developed commercially by Les Domaines Agricoles. Sold under the Nadorcott or Afourer name, it is subject to plant-variety protection in relevant jurisdictions.
European legal reporting identifies Nadorcott Protection as royal-family-owned. The trade press lists licensed production in Israel, and reports that Mehadrin’s Peruvian portfolio includes Nadorcott. That places the royal family’s commercial interests in the same agricultural network as Israeli growers and Mehadrin.
Alongside those private interests is the state’s role as landlord. A published assessment of Morocco’s agricultural public-private partnership program reported that, since 2005, around 135,000 hectares of public farmland had been leased to private operators, including foreign investors, under contracts extending to 40 years.
Israeli officials have openly promoted the commercial opportunities. The Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv calls Morocco a “gateway to Africa.” Economy Minister Nir Barkat, opening Israel’s pavilion at the same Meknes fair in May 2023, said Morocco was where Israelis could “feel comfortable coming here and creating joint ventures.”
On 28 September 2023, nine days before Operation Al-Aqsa Flood and the start of the genocide in Gaza, Agriculture Minister Avi Dichter, who ran the Shin Bet from 2000 to 2005, signed with his Moroccan counterpart a declaration of intent on agriculture and a memorandum on fish farming. The New York statement of 16 September 2026 names agriculture and water as fields to expand, and promises treaties on investment protection and double taxation before the end of the year. The planned treaties would give that expansion a firmer legal footing.
What Moroccans already know
Public opposition has grown as official cooperation has deepened. Arab Barometer found support for normalization falling from 31 percent in 2022 to 13 percent after October 2023; the separate 2025 Arab Opinion Indexput opposition to recognizing Israel at 89 percent.
In September’s election, the Islamist Justice and Development Party, the PJD, rose from 13 seats to 54. Its leader, Abdelilah Benkirane, attacked the Authenticity and Modernity Party (PAM) as a party of Zionists at rallies including one in Taroudant.
The PJD’s own record complicates that stance: its then-prime minister, Saadeddine Othmani, signed the 2020 normalization declaration. PAM, founded in 2008 by Fouad Ali el-Himma, a former schoolmate and royal advisor, is widely regarded as close to the palace. It still finished first, with 97 seats, on a turnout of 38.08 percent.
The monarchy’s constitutional powers help explain why the election offered little prospect of reversing the policy. Article 42 of the 2011 constitution makes the king head of state and guarantor of institutional continuity.
Article 55 empowers him to sign and ratify treaties, while requiring parliamentary approval for specified categories, including commercial treaties. Normalization was a royal decision in 2020. The promised investment and tax agreements will pass through a system in which the palace retains decisive authority over foreign policy. Opponents have also paid a more direct price. The Moroccan Front for Supporting Palestine and Against Normalization says at least 20 people have been jailed for anti-normalization speech since 2021. Moroccan reporting on 27 September 2026 described police detaining more than 30 protesters in Tangier during demonstrations against the embassy upgrade, before releasing them.
Jean Baudrillard called it hyperreality: a representation that displaces the world it claims to describe. In Morocco, the distance between official policy and public opinion is measurable. Almost nine in 10 respondents in the Arab Opinion Index opposed recognizing Israel, yet normalization continues through embassies, leases and commercial partnerships.
Agricultural cooperation is presented as a national opportunity while decisions about land, water and farm data remain concentrated among officials and businesses with little public accountability.
For the farmers whose wells are failing, and those handing over information in exchange for irrigation advice, that distance has material consequences.
US demands to disarm Hezbollah, Israeli accusations against the military, and UNIFIL’s approaching withdrawal threaten to push Lebanon’s army into a confrontation that could fracture its ranks.
Photo Credit: The Cradle
The Lebanese army is being asked to secure the borders, implement government decisions, and establish state authority over weapons at a time when US pressure is mounting, and Israel continues to occupy parts of southern Lebanon.
Hezbollah, meanwhile, refuses to surrender its arms while Israeli forces remain on Lebanese soil. The approaching end of the UN peacekeeping mission and Washington’s demands for direct military communication with Israel have made the army’s position still more precarious.
The military leadership must carry out the decisions of the political authorities, preserve foreign assistance, and retain public confidence without being drawn into an internal confrontation that could threaten the institution itself. Where, then, can the army draw the limits of its confrontation with Hezbollah, and who bears responsibility for deciding them?
A seized shipment tests the army
The seizure of a shipment of explosives at the Dahr al-Baydar checkpoint, which Hezbollah acknowledged belonged to it, offered an early test of the new pressures facing the army. Hezbollah MP Hassan Fadlallah said the explosives were intended for use against Israeli occupation forces inside Lebanese territory, rejecting allegations that they were meant for attacks within Lebanon.
Yet the case quickly moved beyond a security and judicial investigation to become a political test of the state’s determination to enforce its decisions on weapons.
During a call with Lebanese President Joseph Aoun, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio demanded accountability for those who ordered, financed, and directed the shipment, insisting that the explosives must not be returned to Hezbollah.
He also called for direct communication between the Lebanese and Israeli militaries to prevent friction and miscalculation. Aoun, for his part, stressed that the army and security forces were implementing decisions to prevent armed displays, confiscate weapons and ammunition, and combat smuggling. He urged Washington to pressure Israel to halt its attacks on Lebanon.
Washington is no longer satisfied with declarations of support for placing weapons under state control. It wants concrete security and judicial measures. Every step taken by the army is now subject to American scrutiny, while also testing how far Hezbollah is prepared to tolerate the enforcement of government decisions.
The army’s delicate balance with Hezbollah
Preserving a working relationship with Hezbollah has become one of the army leadership’s most difficult tasks. As an institution answerable to the state, the army cannot treat government decisions on weapons as optional recommendations. Yet its commanders understand the difference between restricting armed movements or confiscating a shipment and attempting to seize Hezbollah’s arsenal by force.
An informed military source tells The Cradle:
“There is a fundamental difference between confiscating a shipment in violation of the law, seizing an arms depot, or preventing armed movement, and launching a large-scale military operation targeting Hezbollah’s organizational and military structure. The first measures can be included in the state’s natural security powers, provided that they are carried out in accordance with the law and under the supervision of the competent authorities. The second option carries the possibility of an armed clash whose repercussions go beyond the relationship between the army and the party, affecting the political and sectarian balances, and perhaps the cohesion of the military establishment.”
The source adds:
“This does not mean that the army is necessarily incapable of carrying out its missions, but its ability to use force remains linked to the nature of the mission, the clarity of the political decision, and the size of the national cover available to it. The army, which is asked to impose the authority of the state, needs first of all a state that bears responsibility for its choices. Placing the burden of resolving a political and national dispute of this magnitude on the military leadership alone may turn it from a guarantor of stability to a direct party in an open internal crisis, and this is what we do not want.”
The old Arabic expression “Muawiya’s hair,” attributed to the first Umayyad caliph, holds that when one side pulls, the other must loosen its grip to prevent the thread from snapping. For the Lebanese army, preserving that fragile balance with Hezbollah means extending state authority without allowing the enforcement of government decisions to trigger an internal confrontation.
Israel is pulling at that thread too. As Lebanese and Israeli military representatives prepared for talks in Tampa, Florida, on 20–21 October, the Israeli military released footage on Tuesday that it claimed showed Hezbollah members moving weapons from a military facility in Kafra, southern Lebanon.
It alleged that the Lebanese army had reported securing the site following a request through the US-led monitoring mechanism in December 2025, yet Hezbollah continued to access it.
The Israeli statement went further, alleging that members of the Lebanese army had coordinated with Hezbollah during operations to address armed sites. Such accusations are part of a broader Israeli campaign questioning the army’s willingness to act against Hezbollah and its ability to control the south.
But the Lebanese army’s response on 20 October supplied a crucial detail missing from the Israeli account. Its units began work at the Kafra facility in December 2025 and continued until 16 March 2026, when they withdrew at the monitoring mechanism’s request because Israel threatened to bomb the site.
The army said it had explicitly informed the mechanism that the operation was unfinished and that military equipment and ammunition remained there. The facility was subsequently struck by Israel. Army command rejected the Israeli allegations as false.
Israel can thus cite the Lebanese army’s failure to complete an operation disrupted by its own threats as justification for prolonging its occupation. At the same time, it casts the army’s restraint toward Hezbollah as complicity, while any attempt to disarm the party by force risks plunging the military into an internal conflict.
The south after UNIFIL
The internal challenge coincides with a major change in the south. Under UN Security Council Resolution 2790, the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) must cease operations on 31 December 2026, with an orderly withdrawal to follow over the subsequent year.
Its departure will mean more than the loss of foreign troops deployed along the border. UNIFIL also provides monitoring, liaison channels between the Lebanese and Israeli sides, and logistical and operational assistance to the Lebanese army. During a recent visit to Beirut, UN peacekeeping chief Jean-Pierre Lacroix discussed the unresolved arrangements for the period following the mission’s departure.
On 12 October, the EU approved a three-year support mission for Lebanon’s armed forces and Internal Security Forces, covering advice, training, border management, maritime security, and related capabilities. Its operational launch, however, still requires a separate EU decision.
Training and advice, however valuable, cannot immediately replace an international presence on the ground or make up for shortages of personnel, equipment, and logistics. As UNIFIL withdraws, the Lebanese army will face demands to extend its deployment, secure the borders, restrict armed movements, and respond to Israeli violations while implementing state decisions on Hezbollah’s weapons.
The continued Israeli military presence inside Lebanon makes those responsibilities harder still. How can the army be expected to exercise full security control over territory partly occupied by Israel and repeatedly subjected to airstrikes and incursions? Without sustained assistance, clear guarantees, and an actual Israeli withdrawal, the end of UNIFIL threatens to leave the army with responsibilities far beyond its resources.
Tampa: Military contact or political opening?
The most sensitive issue is Washington’s push for direct military contact between Lebanon and Israel. At US Central Command (CENTCOM) headquarters in Tampa, Florida, Lebanese and Israeli military representatives began two days of talks on 20 October under American auspices, focusing on security arrangements and the implementation of the US-brokered framework agreement.
The talks came just days before Israel’s 27 October election, amid continuing strikes, demolitions, and military incursions in southern Lebanon, as well as renewed drone activity over Beirut and its southern suburbs. Expectations of a breakthrough remain limited, raising fears in Beirut that negotiations will allow Israel to prolong its occupation while attaching new conditions to withdrawal.
According to Lebanese reporting on the Tampa discussions, Beirut is demanding an end to Israeli attacks, full implementation of the ceasefire, Israeli withdrawal, the return of prisoners, and arrangements for verifying commitments in pilot areas on either side of the Litani River.
Israel, meanwhile, continues to question the army’s willingness and ability to disarm Hezbollah. Reports also indicate that Israeli negotiators are pressing for more direct military coordination, potentially including a joint mechanism to verify the absence of weapons in designated areas – proposals that face Lebanese objections. Washington is seeking measurable steps by the Lebanese army alongside corresponding Israeli measures.
A narrowly defined military channel can help prevent miscalculations, particularly once UNIFIL’s liaison role disappears. But the issue is who determines the limits of such contact. There is a substantial difference between resolving incidents on the ground and creating a negotiating channel that gradually encompasses political and security arrangements beyond the military’s mandate.
Lebanon still regards Israel as an enemy state. Any ambiguity over the purpose of direct contact risks provoking domestic opposition, particularly if technical discussions become a route to broader political commitments.
The army therefore needs explicit instructions from the political authorities, clearly defined objectives, and protection against being made responsible for decisions that properly belong to the government.
Washington targets the boycott law
US pressure is also reaching the laws governing Beirut’s relationship with Tel Aviv. During the same call with Aoun, Rubio raised the 1955 law boycotting Israel, according to Axios, quoting a State Department official who argued that the legislation was being used for politicized prosecutions that obstruct steps toward peace.
Rubio’s intervention followed a judicial complaint against Lebanon’s ambassador to Washington, Nada Hamadeh Moawad, over reports that she had contacted Israeli Ambassador Yechiel Leiter after his son was seriously wounded in a car-ramming attack in the occupied West Bank. The alleged contact was disputed, and the complaint was dismissed on 15 October. Nevertheless, the case became part of Washington’s wider pressure to dismantle legal restrictions on dealings with Israel.
Lebanese coverage of the dispute indicates that US officials have also raised possible changes to the boycott legislation with lawmakers. These demands sit alongside Washington’s pressure for Hezbollah’s disarmament and its objections to the handling of politically sensitive cases.
The Lebanese presidency’s account of the Rubio call, however, announced no agreement to amend the law and instead emphasized the need to end Israeli attacks.
The political obstacles remain formidable. Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri said on 21 October that any attempt to repeal the boycott law would fail in parliament. Altering legislation criminalizing dealings with Israel before an Israeli withdrawal or a peace agreement would also deprive Beirut of leverage while leaving the army exposed to further controversy over the scope of its military contacts.
The danger of an internal clash
The gravest danger is that American demands for tighter enforcement could develop into pressure for the forcible disarmament of Hezbollah. The army can conduct targeted operations against smuggling, seize weapons, and restrict armed activity. An offensive against Hezbollah’s military structure would carry consequences on an entirely different scale.
Beyond the immediate risk of armed clashes, such an operation could draw Lebanon’s political and sectarian divisions into the military itself. The Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) depends in large measure on its national character and its ability to avoid becoming a party to domestic struggles. Forcing the institution to settle the dispute with Hezbollah through arms could put that cohesion under severe strain.
Yet avoiding an internal clash cannot indefinitely suspend government decisions on weapons. Their implementation requires a political and security plan that the state itself is prepared to enforce.
The decision belongs to the state
Caught between US demands, Hezbollah’s refusal to disarm, Israel’s continued occupation, allegations against its officers, and the approaching UNIFIL withdrawal, the Lebanese army faces one of the most difficult periods in its recent history.
Its commanders cannot be expected to determine the limits of confrontation on their own. Decisions about the timing, scope, and guarantees of placing weapons under state control belong to Lebanon’s constitutional institutions.
If Washington expects results, Beirut needs the political space to carry out its commitments without igniting an internal conflict, while Israeli withdrawal and an end to attacks must form part of the process.
The red line that neither foreign pressure nor domestic political calculations should cross is the transformation of the Lebanese army from a national institution into a party to another civil conflict.
A state seeking a single army and a monopoly over arms must first reach a unified political decision and accept responsibility for carrying it out. It cannot leave the military alone to absorb the consequences of Lebanon’s internal divisions and the demands of foreign powers.
