Iran

[blindpig]

Iran and the policy of permanent destabilization
January 21, 2026 , 10:14 am .


Riots in the streets of Tehran, Iran. January 9, 2026 (Photo: Getty Images)

Amid a new wave of violent protests in Iran, Western media coverage has relied heavily on non-governmental organizations and think tanks presented as independent sources specializing in human rights.

His reports, casualty figures, and political assessments have been reproduced almost automatically by major international media outlets, shaping a dominant narrative about the internal situation in Iran and its possible outcomes.

A recent investigation by MintPress News proposes to focus on this blind spot in the debate. By tracing funding, institutional ties, and political backgrounds, the article examines the role played by certain NGOs and think tanks that have gained prominence as purported authorities on Iran, revealing their direct connection to structures within the US foreign policy apparatus, particularly the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), historically associated with regime change operations.

"Independent" NGOs and covert funding
One of the central focuses is identifying the organizations that have served as the main sources of information for the Western press during the protests in Iran. These NGOs have played a central role in producing the assessments that have defined the dominant framing of the conflict in media outlets such as CNN, The New York Times , The Washington Post , The Guardian , ABC News, and The Wall Street Journal .

Among them are Human Rights Activists in Iran (HRAI) and its media arm, the Human Rights Activists News Agency (HRANA). In recent weeks, their reports have been repeatedly cited as the almost exclusive source for disseminating casualty figures and characterizing the Iranian state's response. According to MintPress, many of the highest figures and most alarming accounts reported by the international press originate from these organizations, which are systematically presented as "independent and apolitical."

However, the investigation introduces a detail that is usually omitted from such reports. HRAI acknowledges on its own website that it received funding from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), an entity created by the United States Congress and closely linked to the country's foreign policy apparatus. In 2024 alone, the NED reportedly allocated more than $900,000 to this organization.

A similar pattern is observed in the case of the Abdorrahman Boroumand Center for Human Rights in Iran (ABCHRI), another organization frequently cited in international media coverage. Although the center does not explicitly detail the NED's financial support in its disclaimers, the foundation itself has identified it as a contributing organization and has publicly acknowledged its support.[/i]

"The work of the Abdorrahman Boroumand Center is an indispensable resource for victims to seek justice and demand accountability," said Amira Maaty, senior program director for the NED in the Middle East and North Africa.

The composition of its board of directors adds another layer to the scheme. Among its members is Francis Fukuyama, former director of the NED and editor of its Journal of Democracy, a publication that has served for decades as an intellectual platform for US liberal foreign policy.

Beyond these cases, MintPress highlights the role of the Center for Human Rights in Iran (CHRI), based in New York and Washington DC, as one of the most cited sources to describe particularly bloody episodes.

"And yet, as with the other NGOs reviewed, none of the corporate media outlets that cited the Center for Human Rights in Iran mentioned its close ties to the US national security state. The CHRI—an Iranian human rights organization based in New York and Washington, DC—was identified by the Chinese government as being directly funded by the NED."

The assertion is not far-fetched, given that Mehrangiz Kar, a member of the CHRI board of directors, was a Reagan-Fascell Fellow for Democracy at the NED. In 2002, at a star-studded gala at the Capitol, First Lady Laura Bush and future President Joe Biden presented Kar with the NED's Annual Democracy Award.

The NED as a regime change infrastructure
The NED appears as an institutional platform that channels resources, legitimacy, and political coordination to insurgent actors who are then presented as part of an "independent civil society." In the Iranian case, this infrastructure manifests itself in a multitude of simultaneous projects aimed at influencing public opinion and producing informational materials that feed international coverage.

According to the organization's own 2025 grant database, there are currently at least 18 active projects linked to Iran , whose specific recipients and modalities are not fully disclosed. What is made public are general descriptions of the objectives.

Among the funded initiatives are programs aimed at "empowering" networks of activists and exiles, "promoting independent journalism," "establishing media platforms to influence the public," "training student leaders," "fostering internet freedom," and "advancing policy analysis, debate, and collective action on democracy." Other descriptions mention facilitating debate on "models of transition from authoritarianism to democracy" and "building legal awareness" within the Iranian legal community.

MintPress emphasizes that the common denominator of these projects is the construction of a network of actors aligned around a single political narrative. Media outlets, NGOs, academics, student leaders, and figures from exile are integrated into an ecosystem that produces analyses and data compatible with Washington's strategic objectives.

This logic is not new. Since its creation in the 1980s, the NED has been criticized for functioning as a foreign policy instrument aimed at promoting regime change under the guise of democratic advancement. Regarding Iran, as with Venezuela , this pattern is being reinforced through an intensive deployment of non-state actors operating in the symbolic and media spheres.

A distorted scenario
The protests began with concrete demands related to the rising cost of living, a common concern in any society experiencing economic hardship imposed by the West. However, this initial scenario was quickly reshaped by those same external actors.

Within days of the protests beginning, the slogans and objectives began to shift towards the open demand for the overthrow of the government and, in some cases, towards the restoration of the monarchy under Reza Pahlavi, heir to the regime of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, historically supported by the United States after the CIA-organized coup against the government of Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953.

This political shift was accompanied by direct amplification from foreign state actors. Key figures in the US and Israeli security apparatus publicly expressed their support for the protesters and encouraged the escalation of the conflict.

Messages disseminated from official Mossad accounts called on Iranians to take to the streets , assuring them that they had not only verbal support but also a presence "on the ground." Similarly, statements by Donald Trump and other US officials reinforced the idea of ​​an imminent intervention under the promise of "aid" and the threat of economic and military retaliation.

"If Iran shoots and violently kills peaceful protesters, the United States will come to their rescue... We are ready to act," Trump stated.

In this context, the role of NGOs and think tanks consists of producing figures, diagnoses and interpretive frameworks that circulate as technical truths in the Western media system, contributing to legitimizing a reading of the conflict aimed at justifying a supposed transition promoted from "civil society", normalizing a strategy of political destabilization.

https://misionverdad.com/globalistan/ir ... permanente

Google Translator

*****

Israeli bullets found inside bodies of Iranian children killed in riots: Report

The Iranian supreme leader held the US and Israel directly responsible for the violence that swept the Islamic Republic

News Desk

JAN 21, 2026


(Photo credit: APTOPIX)

Forensic examinations have revealed Israeli military-grade ammunition embedded in the bodies of children killed during recent rioting in Iran, Russian news agency TASS reported on 21 January, citing Iranian security sources.

The source described the case of an eight-year-old girl in Isfahan who was fatally shot while out shopping with her family during the unrest. She was hit in the stomach, chin, and back of the head, with forensic analysis confirming the bullets were Israeli military-grade.

Another incident involved three-year-old Melina Asadi, who was killed on the evening of 7 January 2026 in Kermanshah while returning with her father from a pharmacy.

The child was shot from behind, with the source attributing the attack to armed terrorists.

The unrest began on 29 December 2025 following street protests sparked by a sharp fall in the Iranian rial.

Israeli military-grade bullets found in bodies of children killed during Iran riots
——
TASS reported on 21 January that Israeli military-grade bullets were found in the body of an 8-year-old girl killed during unrest in Iran, citing a source within Iranian security structures.… pic.twitter.com/9RkGm5B8TZ

— The Cradle (@TheCradleMedia) January 21, 2026

An unnamed Iranian official recently told Reuters that authorities had confirmed at least 5,000 deaths, including around 500 members of the security forces, revising earlier mid-January estimates that had placed the toll at roughly 2,000.


Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei directly blamed the US and Israel for the killing of “several thousand” people during the unrest, saying actors “linked to Israel and the US caused massive damages and killed several thousand.”

Israel-backed rioters are firing shotguns at police and bystanders in Charmahal Bakhtiari Province. pic.twitter.com/AOgrV5EcEv

— The Saviour (@TheSaviour) January 7, 2026

In a nationally broadcast address on 17 January, he said, “We do consider the US president a criminal,” adding that those responsible “will not go unpunished,” while stressing that Tehran would not be drawn into a wider war.

On 13 January, Iranian police announced the detention of nearly 300 people accused of property damage and attacks on police officers.

Iranian Kurdish separatist group, the Kurdistan Freedom Party (PAK), admitted to carrying out armed attacks against Iranian security forces during recent unrest, portraying the actions as support for street protests.


Speaking to AP, a PAK representative said the group provided financial backing and launched operations in several western provinces after claiming that Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) targeted demonstrators, asserting that the strikes caused “significant damage” to state forces.

Iranian Defense Minister Aziz Nasirzadeh accused the US and Israel of directly orchestrating recent violent unrest, saying Tehran holds “precise intelligence” that Washington and Tel Aviv coordinated separatist and armed networks to destabilize the country.

He said the plot relied on arms smuggling, financing, and logistics to fracture Iran under a US-Israeli “balkanization” plan.

Officials and pro-government outlets have cited death tolls ranging from the low thousands to several thousand, emphasizing the hundreds of security personnel killed and asserting that the situation was largely contained, with casualties framed as victims of external interference rather than state action.

https://thecradle.co/articles/israeli-b ... ots-report

******

Iran looks to regional geopolitics, while the West continues to exert pressure

Lorenzo Maria Pacini

January 22, 2026

Iranian regional control was not based on nuclear deterrence, as other superpowers did during the 20th century, but in the absence of that technology, it was necessarily based on other elements.

Regional control

The attacks that Iran continues to receive come as no surprise. This is nothing new, but rather the continuous and periodic modus operandi of the collective West, which attacks Islamic and revolutionary Iran because it represents something different from their model, outside their control and, above all, too powerful as a civilization. And in this era of clash between civilizations, this potential is immeasurable.

Since the 1979 revolution, Iran has had to establish regional control based on diplomacy, particularly of a religious nature, on the continuity of centuries-old relations, and on constant self-defense against external aggression. The imposed Iran-Iraq war, the attacks by Israel, the tampering by British agents, and American pressure with the systematic and timely aggression of all surrounding countries are just a few of the examples we can cite.

Iranian regional control was not based on nuclear deterrence, as other superpowers did during the 20th century, but in the absence of that technology, it was necessarily based on other elements.

One of the main pillars of Iranian deterrence in the Gulf region is its missile capability. Iran has invested significantly in the development of short- and medium-range ballistic and cruise missiles capable of striking strategic targets in the Gulf countries and beyond. These systems, which are often mobile and difficult to detect in advance, play a key deterrent role, as they increase the potential costs of military action against Tehran. Iranian doctrine considers these missiles not so much as offensive weapons, but as a means of deterrence and response in the event of aggression.

Alongside the missile dimension, asymmetric naval strategy plays a central role in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz. The latter is a mandatory passageway for a significant portion of the world’s hydrocarbon trade, and Iran’s ability to threaten its security is a deterrent of primary importance. The naval forces of the Pasdaran (Islamic Revolutionary Guards) have developed tactics based on the use of small, fast boats, naval mines, maritime drones, and anti-ship missiles, designed to counter even technologically superior naval forces. This asymmetric approach aims to make any attempt at military control of the strait by external actors extremely costly and risky.

Another key element of Iranian deterrence is its so-called “strategic depth,” built through a network of alliances and non-state actors in the region. Although the Persian Gulf is predominantly dominated by rival states, Iran has sought to project its influence through allied movements and militias, especially in the broader Middle East context. This network, often referred to as the “axis of resistance,” allows Tehran to exercise indirect deterrence, broadening the range of potential responses to aggression and increasing strategic uncertainty for its adversaries.

No less important is the technological and cyber dimension of Iranian deterrence. In recent years, Iran has demonstrated offensive and defensive cyber capabilities, used both as a means of pressure and as a means of responding to hostile operations. In a context where the energy and military infrastructures of the Gulf countries are highly digitized, the cyber threat represents an additional deterrent factor, difficult to attribute with certainty and therefore particularly effective on a strategic level.

Nevertheless, Iranian deterrence is also based on a political and symbolic dimension. The rhetoric of resistance, the emphasis on strategic autonomy, and the ability to withstand sanctions and external pressure help reinforce the image of a player willing to bear high costs in order to defend its fundamental interests. This perception plays a significant role in deterrence, as it influences the cost-benefit calculations of adversaries.

Let us now take a brief look at the individual neighboring countries.

Iraq

For Tehran, Iraq is the main hub of its national security for a variety of reasons: geographical proximity (the two states share a border of about 1,500 kilometers), the historical precedent of Iraqi military aggression against Iran, and the importance of the Shiite religious center of Najaf, which competes with the Iranian center of Qom.

This convergence of interests corresponds to a number of strategic objectives. First, Iran aims to ensure that Iraq can no longer pose a direct threat to its security. Hence its strategy of supporting an Iraqi government that is strong enough to prevent the disintegration of the state, but not so powerful as to pose a threat to Tehran.

This objective also gives rise to an interest in safeguarding Iraq’s territorial unity in order to prevent ethnic or sectarian fragmentation that could trigger destabilizing effects even beyond its borders. This approach is clearly evident in Iran’s firm opposition to any plans for the independence of Iraqi Kurdistan and, in particular, to the aspirations of the Kurdish regional government to annex Kirkuk and its oil fields.

A further objective is to prevent Iraqi territory from serving as a refuge for groups hostile to Iran—as was the case in the past with the Mojaheddin-e Khalq—or for terrorist organizations capable of striking across the border. At the same time, Tehran has sought to prevent Baghdad from falling under excessive US influence. After the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in 2003, Iran implemented a strategy aimed at containing the threat posed by the American military presence along its borders, until the withdrawal of US troops in 2011. Similar concerns have arisen with the new US deployment since 2014, officially aimed at fighting the Islamic State. However, the need to counter IS has led Tehran to temporarily accept this presence, while at the same time building a sort of “guarantee” through its support for the Popular Mobilization Units (PMU) militias.

The PMU’s contribution proved decisive in defeating the Islamic State, but their continued presence beyond the liberation of Mosul raises important questions about their future role, posing a significant challenge to the Iraqi central authority, with Iran’s influence persisting in the country.

In the medium term, Iran’s fundamental objective will remain to prevent the emergence of new threats to its security from the Iraqi front. Tehran is likely to seek to maintain a significant role in Iraqi domestic politics, including through control of the PMU, some of which are evolving into political entities, following a path similar to that of Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Lebanon

Lebanon is the only regional context in which Iran has succeeded in shaping a political-military actor that reproduces, at least in part, the original revolutionary model: Hezbollah. Founded in 1982 during the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, with the direct support of the Iranian Pasdaran, the movement has become the voice of the Lebanese Shiite community, historically marginalized compared to Christian and Sunni groups, as well as of the destabilizing consequences of the presence of Palestinian fighters and Israeli military reactions.

Over time, the initially hierarchical relationship between Tehran and Hezbollah has evolved into a more complex and interdependent one. Several factors have contributed to this evolution: Hezbollah’s ability to force Israel to withdraw from southern Lebanon in 2000, its armed resistance during the 2006 conflict, and, more recently, the experience gained in the Syrian civil war alongside Assad, which allowed the movement to acquire new operational skills and advanced weaponry, and the strong resistance against the aggression of the Zionist entity between 2023 and 2025.

From Iran’s point of view, Hezbollah is a pillar of its “forward defense” strategy, as it plays a central role in deterring Israel. In the absence of direct offensive capabilities capable of striking Tel Aviv, Tehran considers Hezbollah a fundamental strategic insurance policy and a powerful lever in Lebanese politics, which is constantly held in check by the American presence.

While remaining an ally of Tehran, Hezbollah has gradually strengthened its national legitimacy, presenting itself as a representative of Lebanese interests rather than a mere Iranian tool. Its electoral success in May 2018, achieved together with its allies—including the Free Patriotic Movement—is a clear demonstration of this. The martyrdom of Sayyed Nasrallah also demonstrated that Hezbollah enjoys great popular appeal and support from the people.

Syria

The alliance between Iran and Syria dates back to the Iran-Iraq war, when Damascus was one of the few regional players to side with Tehran against Saddam Hussein. This understanding is based on strategic convergence with regard to common enemies: the Iraqi regime, Israel, and the US presence in the Middle East.

Maintaining ties with Syria is one of the elements of cohesion in Iran’s fragmented political landscape. Despite intermittent tensions in relations with the Assad family, Tehran remains convinced that it is essential to preserve Damascus’ strategic orientation. The outbreak of the Syrian uprising and its degeneration into civil war have reinforced fears that a regime change—favored by the West or by jihadist groups—could lead to a strategic encirclement of Iran.

Within Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, an intense debate developed on how to respond to the crisis: on the one hand, there were those who argued for political reforms to defuse the uprising; on the other, there were those who believed that immediate repression was essential. With Assad’s decision to intervene militarily, Iran intervened in his support, initially with great caution. In 2012, the Supreme Leader limited the number of Iranian military advisers to 1,500. However, the progressive collapse of the Syrian army forced Tehran to intensify its commitment, involving Hezbollah, Iraqi and Afghan Shiite militias, and finally soliciting Russian intervention in 2015.

Russia’s entry profoundly changed the balance of the conflict and the region, reducing the exclusivity of the relationship between Assad and Tehran. Iran had to accept Moscow’s mediation and Turkey’s inclusion in the Astana negotiation process.

Everything changed with the fall of Hassad and the new course of Al Jolani’s Syria, under the directives of Tel Aviv and Washington, transforming Syria into an unstable protectorate and a constant danger for the entire region, regardless of political affiliation or religious belief.

Yemen

Unlike Iraq and Syria, Yemen is not a strategic priority for Iran, according to military doctrine. Traditionally part of Saudi Arabia’s sphere of influence, the country has been the scene of a rebellion—that of the Houthis—born of internal political dynamics. After a period of armed conflict that began in 2004, the Houthis participated in the peace process that began in 2012 but failed in 2014, leading to the capture of Sanaa and the fall of the Hadi government.

The military intervention of the coalition led by Saudi Arabia and the Emirates in 2015 prevented the Houthis from completely conquering the country, but crystallized the conflict into a war of attrition. In this context, Iran began to support the Houthi movement with weapons and advisers, not for territorial ambitions, but to counter Saudi influence, turning Yemen into a factor of strategic pressure on Riyadh.

It is precisely Yemen’s limited centrality in Iranian strategy that makes this dossier one of the most susceptible to a negotiated solution. Tehran is in fact participating in diplomatic initiatives together with the European E4 countries. However, a lasting peace requires a compromise between Iran and Saudi Arabia that also takes into account the political autonomy of the Houthis, a prospect that currently seems distant. In all this, the Yemenis have demonstrated to Iran their important role in the Axis of Resistance, managing not only to resist attacks by Israel and the United States, but also to inflict heavy strategic blows on the two powers. Recent developments in December 2025 and January 2026 are confirming this perspective and could also open up room for negotiation between Riyadh and Tehran.

Saudi Arabia

The competition between Iran and Saudi Arabia, the two main geopolitical poles in the Middle East, has been the main regional fault line for decades. The two countries embody profoundly divergent political, religious, and strategic models and, since the Iranian revolution of 1979, have gone through alternating phases of dialogue and strong opposition. Attempts at détente, particularly in the 1990s during the presidency of Hashemi Rafsanjani, have been progressively replaced by growing conflict.

In recent years, this rivalry has intensified in the wake of the Arab Spring and the partial disengagement of the United States inaugurated by the Obama administration. The Saudi perception of a decline in the traditional security guarantees offered by Washington—evident in the abandonment of historic allies such as Mubarak and tolerance of popular uprisings—has prompted Riyadh to adopt a more assertive and interventionist stance. Added to this is concern about the rise of political movements akin to the Muslim Brotherhood, perceived as a direct threat to the stability of the Gulf monarchies.

Against this backdrop, the numerous regional crisis theaters — from Syria to Yemen, via Lebanon and Iraq — have become arenas for indirect confrontation between Tehran and Riyadh. Many analysts have described this dynamic as a veritable “proxy war,” fought through local actors and allied militias rather than through direct confrontation. The change of administration in the United States, with the election of Donald Trump, has further strengthened the anti-Iranian front: Washington and Riyadh have realigned their positions, once again identifying Iran as the main threat to regional security and initiating a more coordinated containment strategy.

United Arab Emirates

Relations between Iran and the United Arab Emirates are also currently experiencing a period of high tension, which has been going on for 5-6 years now. Although a member of the GCC, the UAE has historically pursued an autonomous foreign policy, aligning itself with Saudi Arabia only when interests converge and maintaining a degree of independence in matters considered vital to the Emirati national interest.

In this context, the Emirates—and Dubai in particular—have long been a key channel for economic relations with Tehran. Thanks to its role as a commercial and financial hub, Dubai has allowed Iran to partially circumvent the international sanctions regime, serving as a re-export center and a platform for indirect financial transactions.

However, the consequences of the Arab Spring and the rise of a new Emirati leadership, led by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed, have led to a significant reorientation of the UAE’s foreign policy. Today, Abu Dhabi is strongly aligned with Riyadh on key regional issues: from the diplomatic isolation of Qatar to the confrontation with Iran, from the Yemeni conflict to support for anti-Assad forces in Syria.

This change has gradually reduced one of the main channels of economic interaction between Iran and the Emirates. The restrictions imposed on Iranian traders’ activities and the tightening of banking controls risk further compromising bilateral ties, accentuating Tehran’s economic isolation. In response, Iran is looking with growing interest to Oman and Qatar as possible alternatives for maintaining access, albeit limited, to international markets.

Qatar

Relations between Iran and Qatar, traditionally characterized by a pragmatic balance, have been significantly strengthened since the crisis that erupted in June 2017 between Doha and the rest of the GCC. The attempt, promoted by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, to isolate Qatar politically and economically has prompted the emirate to intensify its relations with Iran and Turkey in an attempt to overcome the blockade imposed by its neighbors.

In this context, Tehran played a crucial role by granting access to its airspace and maritime space, allowing Qatar to maintain active trade links with the rest of the world despite the restrictions. At the same time, Turkey ensured essential food supplies, compensating for the closure of the Saudi borders.

Years after the crisis began, Qatar has not only managed to avoid economic collapse, but has also consolidated its relations with Iran, paradoxically strengthening its ties with the very actor from whom the Gulf blockade demanded a clear distancing. This dynamic has helped to redefine the regional balance of power and highlight the deep divisions within the GCC.

The only flaw in the relationship emerged in June 2025, with the twelve-day war, when Qatar gave the green light for American attacks against Iran, only to be hit by the Americans themselves.

Oman

In a Middle East characterized by strong polarizations, Oman has distinguished itself for decades by its role as a mediator and its foreign policy based on neutrality and equidistance. This position has been made possible by maintaining a high degree of decision-making autonomy, which has allowed Muscat to maintain positive relations with both Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Relations between Oman and Iran, already solid during the Shah’s era, were further consolidated after the 1979 revolution, in stark contrast to the attitude taken by the other Gulf monarchies. Bilateral cooperation extends to many areas, particularly energy and the military, as demonstrated by the joint exercises in the Strait of Hormuz that began in 2014.

In recent years, however, this stance has come under pressure. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have intensified their calls for Oman to align itself with the strategy of isolating Iran. This pressure is mainly manifested on the economic front, through bureaucratic obstacles and delays in trade and cross-border flows.

The structural vulnerability of the Omani economy—heavily dependent on oil revenues and affected by high youth unemployment—makes the country particularly exposed to these dynamics. Added to this is the uncertainty surrounding the future succession to Sultan Qaboos, which could compromise internal stability. As a result, Oman’s ability to preserve its foreign policy autonomy and privileged relationship with Iran in the medium to long term appears increasingly uncertain in the face of growing pressure from the main players in the Gulf.

https://strategic-culture.su/news/2026/ ... -pressure/

******

Iran under attack
January 22, 5:02 PM



I recently gave a long interview to Abbas Juma about the situation in Iran. It was also published on Russian-language Iranian websites.

(Video in Russian at link.)

Abstract:

00:23 What was that?
06:44 Where and in what territory were all these people training?
10:43 Iran became the first country that managed to jam Starlink.
14:20 New technologies of the rioters and attack patterns.
17:18 External factors, the threat of a strike, the failure of the protests and a possible strike by the US and Israel no matter what.
21:39 An image blow to the US and the fear of not finishing what they started.
26:12 The figure of the Shah, who has no legal rights. Who is the bet on?
31:11 The presence of missile potential in Iran.
34:21 Economic aspects of pressure on Iran.
35:42 Can we expect the closure of the skies around Iran?
39:11 Creating an alternative to NATO: should we rely only on ourselves?
40:21 Nuclear or non-nuclear Iran?
43:51 Is there an alternative to nuclear weapons?

https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/10321189.html

Google Translator

[blindpig]

Morning Star’s shameful regurgitation of imperialist lies against Iran

Journalism has a responsibility to distinguish between documentation and propaganda, between verified evidence and politically motivated claims.
Steve Sweeney

Thursday 22 January 2026


The Morning Star used this photograph to accompany its article. Reinforcing the western psyops narrative, its depicts women protesters in Paris demanding ‘freedom’ for Iran and for Iranian women in particular – one of the preferred ‘leftist’ narratives for justifying support for imperialist regime-change aggression. We note that the protestors’ signs are written in English, although the protest took place in France, suggesting a staged photo aimed at American audiences.

This letter was sent by our comrade Steve Sweeney to the Morning Star in response to the publication of its article Iran protest death toll tops 2,500 of 14 January 2026.

*****

In the immediate aftermath of 7 October, Israeli hasbara went into overdrive. Claims were pushed at speed, stripped of verification, and laundered through western media as established fact. The most infamous of these – the now-discredited claim of “40 beheaded babies” – became a mantra, endlessly repeated by politicians and pundits to morally pre-authorise the destruction of Gaza. By the time doubts emerged, the damage had already been done. The emotional trigger had served its purpose.

We are now watching the same media mechanism being deployed elsewhere.

The rallying cry of those pushing regime change in Iran – “12,000 killed” – has become the new ‘40 beheaded babies’. It circulates widely in western mediIran: The Eurasian Lock
Iran’s geography has turned it into a strategic hinge – one that anchors Russia’s southern depth and gives China an escape from US maritime containment.


Abbas al-Zein

JAN 22, 2026


Photo Credit: The Cradle
In the corridors of US strategic decision-making, Iran is no longer treated as a discrete regional file. Dealing with Tehran has become inseparable from great-power competition itself. Coordination between Iran, Russia, and China has moved beyond situational alignment, coalescing into what western analysts increasingly describe as a form of “structural synergy” that undermines Washington’s ability to isolate its rivals.


This assessment overlaps with conclusions reached by the Carnegie Endowment in its report on America’s Future Threats, which identifies Iran as a “central node” in the Eurasian landmass – one that prevents Russia’s geographical isolation while securing China’s energy needs beyond the reach of US naval control.

Any serious destabilization of the Islamic Republic would not remain confined within its borders. It would translate into a dual strategic blockade targeting both China and Russia: reviving security chaos across Eurasia’s interior while striking at the financial and energy platforms that emerging powers increasingly rely on to loosen unipolar dominance.

Geography as strategic depth

For Moscow, Iran’s importance begins with geography. It offers Russia a vital geopolitical opening beyond its immediate borders. According to studies by the Valdai Club, Iran’s significance lies not in formal alliance politics but in its function as the sole land bridge connecting the Eurasian heartland to the Indian Ocean via the International North–South Transport Corridor (INSTC).

This route provides Russia with insulation from NATO’s maritime pressure in the Baltic and Mediterranean, effectively converting Iranian territory into strategic depth protecting Russia’s southern flank.


This geographic interdependence has produced a shared political interest that goes beyond tactical coordination. The stability of the Iranian state acts as a safeguard against the Caucasus and Central Asia drifting toward the kind of fragmentation that preceded the Ukraine war. Research by the Russian Council for International Affairs (RIAC) frames Iranian geography as a cornerstone of the “Greater Eurasia” concept, central to Moscow’s effort to dilute western hegemony across the continent.

For Beijing, Iran plays a comparable role within a different strategic equation. As US naval pressure tightens across the Pacific, China’s westward extension through Iran has become increasingly difficult to replace. Research by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) identifies Iran as one of the most critical geographic nodes in the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), providing Beijing with a land-based corridor into West Asia that bypasses US-controlled maritime choke points – from the Taiwan Strait to the Mediterranean approaches.

Iran’s intermediate position between the Eurasian interior and open seas has therefore imposed a durable entanglement between Tehran, Moscow, and Beijing. In this configuration, political alignment is driven less by ideology than by physiogeographic necessity.

Any attempt to destabilize the Iranian plateau would likely trigger a cascading shock across Eurasia’s interior, escalating a regional confrontation into a systemic blockade aimed at arresting the rise of rival power centers.


Buffer state and security firewall

Beyond logistics, Iran functions as a stabilizing buffer within East Eurasia’s security architecture. One research report by RAND on “Extending Russia” speaks of adversary exhaustion strategies that emphasize the use of peripheral instability to drain rival powers. From this perspective, Iran represents a critical firewall.

Instability inside Iran would mechanically undermine security coordination across Russia’s southern periphery, particularly in the Caucasus and Central Asia. RIAC assessments warn that such a breakdown would open pathways for extremist networks, transcontinental smuggling, and militant spillover – threats Moscow has repeatedly classified as existential.

For China, the concern lies in contagion. Iran’s stability limits the transmission of unrest through Central Asia’s mountain corridors, where Tehran functions as an integral security partner within the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). This role provides Beijing with a degree of security insulation, allowing it to pursue global ambitions without being drawn into attritional border conflicts.

Energy and financial sovereignty


Economically, Iran’s role extends beyond conventional trade logic. Its partnerships with Russia and China increasingly form part of an alternative financial and energy architecture designed to blunt western leverage.

From Beijing’s perspective, Iranian oil has become a form of strategic insulation. Data indicates that China purchases roughly 1.3 million barrels per day (bpd) of Iranian crude – around 13.4 percent of its seaborne oil imports – with close to 80 percent of Iran’s exports flowing eastward. Increasing settlement through non-dollar mechanisms, including the digital yuan, has further reduced vulnerability to US pressure, particularly at choke points such as the Strait of Malacca.

Reports from the Electricity Hub confirm that China imported more than 57 million tons of Iranian – or suspected Iranian – oil in 2025, often routed via intermediaries such as Malaysia. The figures underscore the diminishing effectiveness of sanctions when confronted with geoeconomic necessity.

Russia’s calculus follows a different path to the same outcome. Cooperation with Iran has emerged as one of Moscow’s most important routes around SWIFT-based isolation. Government of the Russian Federation data shows bilateral trade rising by 35 percent following the Eurasian Economic Union free trade agreement implemented in May 2025.


A central shift has been monetary. In January 2025, the Central Bank of Iran announced full connectivity between Russia’s MIR and Iran’s Shetab payment systems, creating a protected financial corridor. According to Iranian officials, Iran and Russia aim to expand bilateral trade to $10 billion over the next decade, while Iran’s exports to Russia are expected to rise to about $1.4 billion by the end of the current Iranian calendar year (March 20, 2026).

Tehran has increasingly functioned as a re-export hub for Russian technologies and goods, frustrating efforts to economically isolate Moscow.a, often without attribution, and almost never with scrutiny of its source. That source is frequently Iran International, a London-based outlet launched with Saudi funding and repeatedly accused of advancing a pro-Israeli and anti-Iranian agenda. Yet its figures are treated as neutral, authoritative and beyond challenge.

This is not accidental. Numbers matter because they shape narratives. They generate outrage, create urgency and manufacture consent, particularly when imperial power is preparing escalation, sanctions or war.

We have seen this before.

In 1990, it was the fabricated claim that Iraqi soldiers threw Kuwaiti babies from incubators – a lie later traced to a PR firm hired by the Kuwaiti government. In 2003, it was the ‘dodgy dossier’, used to sell a war on Iraq that killed over a million people and led to the rise of Isis and al-Qaeda. Each time, unverified claims were amplified uncritically. Each time, sceptics were marginalised or smeared. Each time, the correction came too late – after the bombs had fallen.

Against this backdrop, the Morning Star’s recent headline claiming that at least 2,500 protesters have been killed in Iran is deeply troubling. The article led with the figure as though it were an established fact, implicitly assigning responsibility to the Iranian state, before citing HRANA as its source – again without scrutiny.

HRANA is not a neutral observer. It is a US-based organisation that has received funding linked to the National Endowment for Democracy, an outfit established in 1983 to do what the CIA previously did covertly: influence political outcomes in target states. It is headquartered in Fairfax, Virginia – a short drive from the CIA headquarters in Langley.

Casualty figures do not circulate in a vacuum, they are political instruments. Inflated or unverified numbers act as a softener – priming public opinion for sanctions, isolation, destabilisation or worse. Today it is ‘2,500 dead’. Tomorrow it becomes 5,000. Then 12,000. Some say 20,000. The ratchet only turns one way.

The figures fit into a pre-existing script in which Iran is perpetually on the brink of collapse, its government illegitimate by definition, and western intervention – economic, political or military – is framed as humanitarian necessity.

The article also leaned on Tudeh-aligned voices for ideological cover. Tudeh was once a mass communist party with real roots inside Iran. Today, it is a marginal force, largely operating in exile, with little meaningful presence or influence on the ground. Yet it is repeatedly laundered through sympathetic outlets as an authoritative ‘left’ voice on Iran – a familiar tactic in regime-change playbooks, and one that ultimately serves US and Israeli strategic interests.

Iran’s economic hardship – the root of the original protests – did not emerge organically. It is the direct result of decades of sanctions, recently intensified by Washington’s renewed ‘maximum pressure’ campaign – explicitly designed to foment internal unrest. Even the Financial Times has reported on the alleged role of outside agencies. Yet this too was ignored.

Journalism has a responsibility to distinguish between documentation and propaganda, between verified evidence and politically motivated claims — especially when numbers are supplied by NED-linked organisations and amplified by media with a long track record of selling wars, the consequences of which are catastrophic.

https://thecommunists.org/2026/01/22/ne ... lies-iran/

*****

Iran: The Eurasian Lock

Iran’s geography has turned it into a strategic hinge – one that anchors Russia’s southern depth and gives China an escape from US maritime containment.


Abbas al-Zein

JAN 22, 2026


Photo Credit: The Cradle

In the corridors of US strategic decision-making, Iran is no longer treated as a discrete regional file. Dealing with Tehran has become inseparable from great-power competition itself. Coordination between Iran, Russia, and China has moved beyond situational alignment, coalescing into what western analysts increasingly describe as a form of “structural synergy” that undermines Washington’s ability to isolate its rivals.


This assessment overlaps with conclusions reached by the Carnegie Endowment in its report on America’s Future Threats, which identifies Iran as a “central node” in the Eurasian landmass – one that prevents Russia’s geographical isolation while securing China’s energy needs beyond the reach of US naval control.

Any serious destabilization of the Islamic Republic would not remain confined within its borders. It would translate into a dual strategic blockade targeting both China and Russia: reviving security chaos across Eurasia’s interior while striking at the financial and energy platforms that emerging powers increasingly rely on to loosen unipolar dominance.

Geography as strategic depth

For Moscow, Iran’s importance begins with geography. It offers Russia a vital geopolitical opening beyond its immediate borders. According to studies by the Valdai Club, Iran’s significance lies not in formal alliance politics but in its function as the sole land bridge connecting the Eurasian heartland to the Indian Ocean via the International North–South Transport Corridor (INSTC).

This route provides Russia with insulation from NATO’s maritime pressure in the Baltic and Mediterranean, effectively converting Iranian territory into strategic depth protecting Russia’s southern flank.


This geographic interdependence has produced a shared political interest that goes beyond tactical coordination. The stability of the Iranian state acts as a safeguard against the Caucasus and Central Asia drifting toward the kind of fragmentation that preceded the Ukraine war. Research by the Russian Council for International Affairs (RIAC) frames Iranian geography as a cornerstone of the “Greater Eurasia” concept, central to Moscow’s effort to dilute western hegemony across the continent.

For Beijing, Iran plays a comparable role within a different strategic equation. As US naval pressure tightens across the Pacific, China’s westward extension through Iran has become increasingly difficult to replace. Research by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) identifies Iran as one of the most critical geographic nodes in the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), providing Beijing with a land-based corridor into West Asia that bypasses US-controlled maritime choke points – from the Taiwan Strait to the Mediterranean approaches.

Iran’s intermediate position between the Eurasian interior and open seas has therefore imposed a durable entanglement between Tehran, Moscow, and Beijing. In this configuration, political alignment is driven less by ideology than by physiogeographic necessity.

Any attempt to destabilize the Iranian plateau would likely trigger a cascading shock across Eurasia’s interior, escalating a regional confrontation into a systemic blockade aimed at arresting the rise of rival power centers.


Buffer state and security firewall

Beyond logistics, Iran functions as a stabilizing buffer within East Eurasia’s security architecture. One research report by RAND on “Extending Russia” speaks of adversary exhaustion strategies that emphasize the use of peripheral instability to drain rival powers. From this perspective, Iran represents a critical firewall.

Instability inside Iran would mechanically undermine security coordination across Russia’s southern periphery, particularly in the Caucasus and Central Asia. RIAC assessments warn that such a breakdown would open pathways for extremist networks, transcontinental smuggling, and militant spillover – threats Moscow has repeatedly classified as existential.

For China, the concern lies in contagion. Iran’s stability limits the transmission of unrest through Central Asia’s mountain corridors, where Tehran functions as an integral security partner within the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). This role provides Beijing with a degree of security insulation, allowing it to pursue global ambitions without being drawn into attritional border conflicts.

Energy and financial sovereignty


Economically, Iran’s role extends beyond conventional trade logic. Its partnerships with Russia and China increasingly form part of an alternative financial and energy architecture designed to blunt western leverage.

From Beijing’s perspective, Iranian oil has become a form of strategic insulation. Data indicates that China purchases roughly 1.3 million barrels per day (bpd) of Iranian crude – around 13.4 percent of its seaborne oil imports – with close to 80 percent of Iran’s exports flowing eastward. Increasing settlement through non-dollar mechanisms, including the digital yuan, has further reduced vulnerability to US pressure, particularly at choke points such as the Strait of Malacca.

Reports from the Electricity Hub confirm that China imported more than 57 million tons of Iranian – or suspected Iranian – oil in 2025, often routed via intermediaries such as Malaysia. The figures underscore the diminishing effectiveness of sanctions when confronted with geoeconomic necessity.

Russia’s calculus follows a different path to the same outcome. Cooperation with Iran has emerged as one of Moscow’s most important routes around SWIFT-based isolation. Government of the Russian Federation data shows bilateral trade rising by 35 percent following the Eurasian Economic Union free trade agreement implemented in May 2025.


A central shift has been monetary. In January 2025, the Central Bank of Iran announced full connectivity between Russia’s MIR and Iran’s Shetab payment systems, creating a protected financial corridor. According to Iranian officials, Iran and Russia aim to expand bilateral trade to $10 billion over the next decade, while Iran’s exports to Russia are expected to rise to about $1.4 billion by the end of the current Iranian calendar year (March 20, 2026).

Tehran has increasingly functioned as a re-export hub for Russian technologies and goods, frustrating efforts to economically isolate Moscow.

https://thecradle.co/articles/iran-the-eurasian-lock

[blindpig]

The results of the attempted color revolution in Iran
January 23, 9:04 PM



Results of the attempted color revolution in Iran.

Destroyed and damaged:

305 ambulances and buses,
24 gas stations,
700 convenience stores,
300 private homes,
750 banks,
414 government buildings,
749 police stations,
120 Basij centers,
200 schools,
350 mosques,
15 libraries,
2 Armenian churches,
253 bus stops,
600 ATMs,
800 private cars.

Casualties:

Total deaths: 3,117,
Civilians and security forces: 2,427,
Terrorists: 690.

(c) Iranian Foreign Ministry

https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/10323692.html

Google Translator

*****

‘Completely false’: Iran denies Trump's claims of preventing execution of rioters

Trump repeated the claim this week, while renewing threats against Iran and saying a ‘massive fleet’ is heading its way

News Desk

JAN 23, 2026


(Photo credit: AFP/Getty Images)

Iran has denied US President Donald Trump’s claims that his threats of military action against the Islamic Republic resulted in the cancellation of over 800 executions.


Iranian Judge Mohammad Movahedi told the judiciary-linked Mizan agency that this number is “completely false.”

“No such number exists, nor has the judiciary made any such decision,” he went on to say.

The US president repeated his claim while on Air Force One a day earlier, and issued a new threat against Iran.

“I stopped 837 hangings … They would’ve been dead, every one of them would have been hung. This is like from a thousand years ago. This is an ancient culture. Very smart people by the way. But it’s an ancient culture. Eight-hundred and thirty-seven, mostly young men, were gonna be hung … and I said ‘If you hang those people, you’re gonna be hit harder than you’ve ever been hit,’” Trump said.

“It’ll make what we did to your nuclear look like peanuts,” he added. “An hour before this was supposed to take place, they cancelled it.”

“We have an armada; we have a massive fleet heading in that direction. Maybe we won’t have to use them, we’ll see.”

“We have a big force going towards Iran. I’d rather not see anything happen but we’re watching them very closely,” Trump threatened.

Over the past few weeks, Iran faced widespread riots after protests turned violent following the collapse of the Iranian currency, caused by years of brutal US sanctions.

Western-based rights groups claim thousands of peaceful protesters have been killed. Iran has detained hundreds of armed rioters, many of whom have been found with links to the Mossad, and are behind the killing of scores of civilians.

A former CIA director recently admitted that Mossad agents were on the ground in the protests.

Multiple reports confirmed Iran’s use of military-grade GPS jammers to shut off Starlink, which had been deployed to Iran in a US-backed effort to ‘aid’ protesters amid an internet shutdown.

As a result, Iran was able to significantly reduce riots and foreign-backed sabotage operations that included the killing of over 100 security forces and police officers. Tens of thousands of Starlink devices were seized or shut off.

“The Americans and Israelis are shocked,” former MI6 agent Alastair Crooke – previously a British diplomat as well – told The Cradle in an interview.

Trump called off his planned attack on Iran earlier this month, after vowing to hit the country “hard” and “rescue” protesters. The president claimed he changed his mind after Iran decided against executing hundreds of detained rioters.

Abd al-Bary Atwan, a Palestinian-British journalist and editor of Rai al-Youm newspaper, said Trump “was forced to call off his attack” after US-Israeli destabilization efforts failed to weaken the government.

However, reports have said a US attack on Iran is expected. The US army has moved an aircraft carrier and other key military assets towards the region in recent days.

Trump is pressing his team to draw up “decisive” options for an attack on the Islamic Republic; after canceling a planned strike earlier this month, the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported on 20 January.

As a result, the Pentagon has devised several scenarios, including attacks that aim to overthrow the Iranian government, the report said. Trump has recently made open calls for regime change in Iran.

The Islamic Republic has vowed to strike US military bases in the region if Washington attacks.

https://thecradle.co/articles/completel ... of-rioters

[blindpig]

From Cassad's telegram account:

Colonelcassad
An assessment of the current American and Israeli military capabilities deployed near Iran for a possible strike on targets within the country.

Traditionally, a significant portion of the aircraft deployed to the Middle East are tanker aircraft, designed to support long-range air strikes for dozens of US and Israeli aircraft. In total, there are approximately 20 such aircraft from the US and 13 from the Israelis.

Thirty-seven US Air Force F-15E Strike Eagle strike aircraft are deployed in close proximity to Iran, as well as approximately 10 carrier-based F-35C Lightning IIs and F/A-18E/F Super Hornets from the air group of the recently arrived aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln.

Israel possesses 48 F-35I Adir fighters, as well as 173 F-16 fighters and 66 F-15 fighters of various modifications.

Additionally, 35 F-15E strike aircraft and 54 F-35A fighters are based at airbases in the UK. These, accompanied by 16 KC-135 tankers, could also be quickly deployed to the Middle East to support the air offensive against Iran.

A separate line item is the 24 A-10C Thunderbolt II attack aircraft of the US Air Force, also deployed to the Middle East. It is highly unlikely that these aircraft will conduct strikes themselves. If they are deployed, it will likely be as drone fighters with APKWS II missiles.

The only weakness of the future operation appears to be the too small number of AWACS aircraft, even taking into account the US Navy's carrier-based E-2D Hawkeye from the arrived USS Abraham Lincoln. However, it is quite possible that these statistics simply do not account for everything, or that additional aircraft of this class will be deployed later.

Thus, at the present time, the US and Israeli forces possess sufficient aircraft to launch powerful, but relatively short-term air and missile strikes against Iran, against which it would be unable to defend itself under any circumstances.

As we have already observed, Iran's air defenses and air force proved incapable of countering a campaign of air strikes from Israel alone, directly supported by US air strikes only in the final stages of the conflict. In this case, when dozens of additional US Air Force and Navy strike aircraft, as well as strategic bombers and cruise missiles, could join the operation by the start of the operation, given the Iranian air defenses' previous losses, the prognosis for the Persians is even less encouraging.

Everything depends on how much effort and resources Donald Trump is willing to invest in strikes against Iranian territory and how long he is willing to participate. From what we know about him, this operation is unlikely to be lengthy, but we reiterate that the forces deployed in the Middle East have ample forces.

@milinfolive

https://t.me/s/boris_rozhin

Google Translator

[blindpig]

Iran rebuffs fresh provocations by the US and Europe as protests subside
The Iranian parliament rejected the European Parliament’s resolution regarding the violence during the recent protests, calling it “hostile and hypocritical” and an attempt to interfere in its domestic matters.

January 26, 2026 by Abdul Rahman


Kashmiri children held a rally in support of Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei. Photo: Tehran Times

The US and its European allies continue to issue fresh threats against Iran despite a gradual return of normalcy in the country after weeks of violent protests and tensions around military confrontation.

While returning from the G7 meeting at Davos, Switzerland, Donald Trump had claimed on Thursday that the USS Abraham Lincoln, along with several guided missile destroyers and air-defense systems was moving to the region, reiterating that the US is watching Iran very closely and will target it militarily if such a need arises, Reuters reported.

Trump has been threatening to strike Iran since the beginning of the year, accusing it of brutal repression of protests.

The protests, which began in late December over economic concerns, turned violent in January, with several reports of attacks on public and private properties and religious and military installations.

Following the spread of violence, Iran suspended the internet and telecom services in the country for weeks. It accused Israel and the US of aiding the violence and called for large-scale counter mobilizations, which were attended by millions on January 12.

The USS Abraham Lincoln was ordered to move out of the South-China Sea and head towards the Middle East following reports of large-scale protests in Iran earlier this month.

Trump, after asking the protesters to occupy public institutions claiming “help is on its way,” later decided to drop the plans of military strikes. Meanwhile, the protests gradually died down. The internet and telecom services are also returning to normal in the last few days.

Trump’s claims on Thursday, however, led to the revival of speculations of possible US strikes over the weekend.

These speculations further intensified after several international airlines suspended or rerouted their services in the region.

Three Iranian nuclear sites were bombed by the US during the Israeli aggression on the country, what is known now as the 12-day war, in June. Iran had retaliated to the US strikes targeting its military base in Qatar.

In response to Trump’s latest threats last week, several Iranian military officials expressed the readiness of the country’s armed forces to retaliate. They were quoted by local press saying that just as US aggression failed in June, it will fail again, warning of a much heavier cost for the enemy this time.

Information warfare
Meanwhile, Esmail Baghaei, official spokesperson of Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in a post on X on Sunday debunked the “fake news” spreading in the Western media about the number of deaths during protests.

He called the claims of over 30,000 Iranians being killed during the protests “hitler-like big lies,” accusing that such fake claims reflect the actual desire harbored by people and groups of large-scale death and destruction in Iran.”

After weeks of speculation, Iran’s Foundation of Martyrs and Veterans Affairs finally released official data last week of deaths and destruction in Iran during the protests. According to it, over 3,100 people were killed in the protests. Out of this over 2,400 were civilians and rest security forces.

The Iranian government claims most of these fatalities were a result of violent attacks carried out by the protesters.

European position is hostile and hypocritical
On Sunday, Iran issued a strong rebuttal to the European Parliament’s resolution on the country’s protests, calling it “hostile and hypocritical” and a “clear example of interference in the country’s internal affairs.”

On Thursday, the European Parliament passed a resolution condemning the “brutal repression” of protesters and expressing “solidarity” with them. It also demanded further sanctions on Iran and called for a ban on the Islamic Revolutionary Guards’ Corp (IRGC) as a “terrorist” organization.

Members of the Iranian parliament asserted that “the European Parliament, having failed to resolve the EU’s internal problems, now resorts to a policy of projection and interfering in other nation’s affairs to cover up its failures and evade accountability to European citizens,” PressTV quoted.

The Iranian lawmakers repeated the government’s claim that the violence during the protests was a result of direct interventions from Israel and the US and held the European parliament and the countries in the region directly responsible for “supporting, facilitating, and paving the way for terrorist acts against the Iranian people.”

The European parliament and European countries which kept silent and in fact, supported the Israeli genocide in Gaza, “cannot evade accountability to the Iranian nation and world public opinion” in this matter, claimed the statement.

https://peoplesdispatch.org/2026/01/26/ ... s-subside/
*******

Israel Backed Rioters Fail Regime Change Operation – Interview With Dr. Mohammad Marandi
January 26, 2026



Iran is in the crosshairs of both Western corporate media and the U.S. and Israeli governments. What started as a peaceful protest against rising inflation and the cost of living quickly exploded into something much more dangerous: an attempt to topple the government.

Corporate media framed this as a democratic uprising against a viciously repressive regime, who mowed down protestors in their thousands in a desperate attempt to maintain its grip on power. Dozens of outlets, from The Times of London to The New York Post, described it as a “genocide” – a word seldom used to frame Israel’s actions in Gaza.

But under the surface, a different explanation was brewing, one of an attempted foreign-orchestrated regime change attempt. Both Israeli media and former CIA director, Mike Pompeo admitted as much, the latter tweeting that Mossad agents were in the crowds in Iran, directing the demonstrations.

Joining the MintCast today from Tehran is returning guest, Seyed Mohammad Marandi. Dr. Marandi is Professor of English Literature and Orientalism, University of Tehran. Born in the United States in 1966, he moved to Iran as a teenager, joining the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and fighting in the Iran-Iraq War. He is a regular feature in media around the world, discussing politics in Iran and West Asia more generally.

Today, Marandi discussed the reality of the situation in Iran, the aftermath of the protests, and the Western sources fueling much of the violence.

One of those sources is Human Rights Activists in Iran (HRAI), an organization that claims the government has massacred 17,000 people in barely two weeks. HRAI is an NGO based in Fairfax, VA – only a stone’s throw from CIA headquarters in Langley. Worse still, it is directly funded by the CIA cutout organization, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). In 2024 alone, the NED quietly channeled over $900,000 to HRAI.

Regime change in Tehran has been a top priority for Washington ever since the Iranian Revolution of 1978-1979 that overthrew U.S.-backed dictator, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.

Pahlavi himself had been kept in place by the CIA, who engineered a coup against the democratically-elected government of Mohammad Mossadegh (1952-53). Mossadegh, a secular liberal reformer, had angered Washington by nationalizing the country’s oil industry, carrying out land reform, and refusing to crush the communist Tudeh Party.

The CIA (the NED’s parent organization), infiltrated Iranian media, paying them to run hysterical anti-Mossadegh content, carried out terror attacks inside Iran, bribed officials to turn against the president, cultivated ties with reactionary elements within the military, and paid protestors to flood the streets at anti-Mossadegh rallies.

The shah reigned for 26 bloody years between 1953 and 1979, until he was overthrown in the Islamic Revolution.

The U.S. supported Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, who almost immediately invaded Iran, leading to a bitter, eight-year long conflict that killed at least half a million people. Washington supplied Hussein with a wide range of weapons, including components for chemical weapons used on Iranians, as well as other weapons of mass destruction.

Since 1979, Iran has also been under restrictive American economic sanctions, measures that have severely hindered the country’s development. During his first term, Trump withdrew from the Iran Nuclear Deal and turned up the economic pressure. The result was a collapse in the value of the Iranian rial, mass unemployment, soaring rents and a doubling of the price of food. Ordinary people lost both their savings and their long-term security.

Throughout this, Trump has constantly threatened Iran with attack, finally following through in June, bombing a host of infrastructure projects inside the country.

Protestors today, especially those in the Iranian diaspora in the West, are calling for the restoration of the monarchy under the shah’s son, Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi. Also prominent at these rallies are dozens of Israeli flags. Pahlavi has promised Iran will become an Israeli ally if he is placed on the throne.

Watch this important interview now, and gain a unique viewpoint rarely shared in corporate media.



https://orinocotribune.com/israel-backe ... d-marandi/

******

US mulls ‘precision strikes’ on Iranian leaders amid military buildup: Report

Iranian officials are vowing that a US attack will be met with ‘lethal’ force against Washington’s bases in West Asia

News Desk

JAN 27, 2026


(Photo credit: Reuters)

Washington is mulling “precision strikes” on “high-value” Iranian officials and military leaders whom the US holds responsible for the “deaths of protesters,” a Gulf source told Middle East Eye (MEE) on 26 January.


“The strikes could come as early as this week, but that timeline could shift,” the report says, adding that talks on the matter within US President Donald Trump’s government have been “chaotic.”

A former US intelligence official told the outlet that Trump has “not given up” on regime change.

“The US has been working to replenish supplies of missile interceptors exhausted during the 12-day war,” another source, also a former US official, said, adding that “total supplies” had moved up – but that the “US is still constrained, as it provides supplies to Ukraine.”

The US has deployed an aircraft carrier, additional squadrons of fighter jets, and other assets toward the region – in massive military buildup which many have described as a prelude to an upcoming war on Iran.

The MEE report comes as the USS Abraham Lincoln has arrived in West Asia.

According to reports citing flight tracking data, Washington has reinforced the Muwaffaq Salti Air Base in Jordan with F-15 warplanes.

U.S. military reinforcements are steadily building at Muwaffaq Salti Air Base in Jordan.

At least four additional USAF C-17A strategic airlifters have recently arrived or cycled through the base, alongside the deployment of F-15 fighters squadron and A-10 ground attack aircraft.

— Egypt's Intel Observer (@EGYOSINT) January 21, 2026

THAAD missile defense systems have been moved to the region as well.


Iranian officials have warned Washington that any attack will be met with a devastating response.

“We will not allow anyone to undermine our security or cause any harm to our country,” Iranian government spokesperson Fatemeh Mohajerani said on Tuesday. “All options are on the table.”

“Iran will not be the initiator of any war, but it will not allow any threat to its national security to reach the implementation stage, even in its early stages,” Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’s (IRGC) Khatem al-Anbiya Central Headquarters said a day earlier.

“In the event of any US mistake, its bases in West Asia will be targeted,” Iranian lawmaker Esmail Kowsari said last week, adding that it would be “lethal and deterrent.”

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi recently warned that Iran is ready to strike back “with everything we have.”

Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf also said earlier this month that both US bases and Israel will be hit if an attack on Iran is launched.

Over the past few weeks, Iran faced widespread riots after economic protests turned violent following the collapse of the Iranian currency, caused by years of brutal US sanctions.

Western-based rights groups claim thousands of peaceful protesters have been killed. Iran has detained hundreds of armed rioters, many of whom have been found with links to the Mossad, and are behind the killing of scores of civilians and security officers.

Trump called off a planned attack on Iran earlier this month, after vowing to hit the country “hard” and “rescue” protesters. The president claimed he changed his mind after Iran decided against executing hundreds of detained rioters. Iran has denied this.

Yet Trump has escalated his threats again, and reports say he has ordered his team to draw up several military options, which include attempting to topple the government.

Trump said last week that he was sending an “armada” toward Iran.

US officials made public threats against Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s life. Resistance leaders across the region, including Hezbollah chief Naim Qassem, have warned that threats against Khamenei will “ignite the whole region.”

https://thecradle.co/articles/us-mulls- ... dup-report

[blindpig]

‘No Two-Hour War’: Iran Vows Immediate Retaliation to Any US or Israeli Aggression
January 30, 2026


A billboard displayed in Tehran's Palestine Square warns Israeli and US troops, January 4, 2026. Photo: PressTV.

Iran’s Army has issued a stark warning that any new act of aggression against Iran will be met with an immediate and decisive response, stressing that the experience of the June war has fundamentally reshaped Iran’s military posture and rules of engagement.

Speaking on the televised program “To the Horizon of Palestine,” Army spokesman Brigadier General Mohammad Akraminia said Iran’s Armed Forces are now operating under clear instructions that leave no room for delay if the enemy repeats a “miscalculation.”

“If the enemy commits another foolish move and once again falls into miscalculation, we will respond instantly and in real time,” Akraminia said.

“We learned in the 12-day war that hesitation and giving the enemy time is absolutely unacceptable. The response must be immediate, and this has been formally communicated as a directive to the Armed Forces.”

The 12-day war in June involved direct confrontation with the Israeli regime and US involvement. According to the army spokesman, the central failure of Washington and Tel Aviv in that war was a fundamental misreading of Iran’s capabilities, cohesion, and national will.

He said the enemy’s strategic design was based on the assumption that Iran was weak in the aftermath of Operation Al-Aqsa Storm and that a rapid, lightning-style military strike could trigger chaos, internal unrest, and ultimately the collapse and fragmentation of the Islamic Republic.

“This was the core American miscalculation,” Akraminia said. “They believed that with a swift military operation they could create disorder, push the system into crisis, and move toward regime overthrow and even the disintegration of Iran. But the world witnessed something completely different.”

Operation Al-Aqsa Storm was a sudden, large-scale, and coordinated operation carried out by the Palestinian resistance inside Israeli settlements in the southern occupied territories on October 7, 2023, which shattered Israeli security assumptions.

According to Akraminia, Iran responded immediately to the Israeli military assault in June, neutralizing the enemy’s objectives and transforming what was meant to be a shock operation into a strategic failure.

“Not only did chaos and unrest fail to materialize, but national unity and social cohesion grew stronger than before,” he said. “The Americans received their answer in this war.”

Akraminia devoted a significant portion of his remarks to the United States under President Donald Trump, describing Washington’s approach as unpredictable and rooted in outdated coercive doctrines.

“When it comes to Trump’s America, it is not possible to make precise predictions,” he said. “We are dealing with a narcissistic and delusional individual who constantly changes his positions.”


Army spokesman Brigadier General Mohammad Akraminia

The army spokesman said Trump sought Iran’s submission during the 12-day war but quickly moved to halt the aggression after encountering Iran’s deterrent power.

“Trump wanted Iran to surrender, but after several days he worked to stop the war,” Akraminia said. “In this war, the Armed Forces demonstrated their deterrent capability, and we forced the Zionist regime into a ceasefire.”

He warned against any new illusion in Washington that a limited or symbolic strike could be launched and quickly concluded.

“This is not a scenario where the US president orders an operation and two hours later tweets that it’s over,” he said. “That kind of thinking is pure fantasy. Such an attack would ignite a fire that would engulf the entire West Asia region.”

Addressing the possibility of a future US or Israeli attack, Akraminia said Iran has already finalized operational plans and issued the necessary orders.

“For a potential enemy attack, the required plans have been prepared and directives have been issued,” he said. “For different enemy scenarios, we will have appropriate and proportionate responses.”

He emphasized that even the smallest strike against Iran would not go unanswered.

“They may attack us militarily, but they are again suffering from miscalculation,” he said. “If we are hit even slightly, we will respond, and that response may not be desirable for the United States.”

Akraminia made clear that the geographical scope of any future conflict would not be limited.

“The scope of war will certainly extend across the entire region,” he said. “From the Zionist regime to countries that host American military bases, all will be within range of our missiles and drones.”

In one of his most explicit warnings, the army spokesman said US military bases across the region are fully within Iran’s strike envelope.

“We can target American bases with semi-heavy weapons, drones, and missiles,” he said, adding that US aircraft carriers and naval assets are not immune.

“Warships are important tools in modern warfare, but it is not the case that all American military power is concentrated in these fleets,” Akraminia said. “These aircraft carriers are vulnerable to the missile and hypersonic missile capabilities of the Islamic Republic of Iran.”

Akraminia said the 12-day war significantly increased Iran’s military readiness across all four branches of the army.

“After the 12-day war, we are at a much higher level of preparedness,” he said. “This war provided us with valuable experience, and we are using those lessons.”

He noted that damaged air defense systems were rapidly repaired or replaced and that new systems have been introduced to further strengthen Iran’s defensive network. He also pointed to new measures taken in the air force, navy, ground forces, and air defense units.

“We were not completely surprised in the war,” he said. “Our intelligence assessment was that Israel would attack, though we did not expect a terrorist-style attack on such a scale.”

The army spokesman highlighted the role of the Leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, describing his actions during the war as decisive and inspiring.

“The Leader played his command role excellently during the 12-day war through the immediate appointment of commanders and direct messaging to senior military leaders,” Akraminia said.

“Beyond the Armed Forces, he also exercised broad leadership and management, shaping the narrative of the war with a powerful and epic message.”

He also emphasized the morale and spiritual strength of Iran’s military personnel.

“One aspect that has been discussed less is the spirit, motivation, and will among our personnel,” he said. “This motivation has been strengthened. Our colleagues in the Army and the IRGC stood against the Zionist regime until their last breath during the 12-day war.”

Akraminia said that if war is imposed again, Iranian forces are ready to avenge the martyrs of the June war.

“The Army of the Islamic Republic of Iran is a people’s army, formed from the heart of the nation,” he said. “Its duty is to defend the people and the country.”

Akraminia stressed that strengthening deterrence is not a choice but a necessity in today’s world.

“One of the key lessons of the 12-day war is that we must enhance our deterrence and preserve national cohesion and self-confidence,” he said.

“We must also stand firm in other domains of warfare, including cognitive and psychological warfare, where the enemy seeks to strike us.”

He added that when diplomacy reaches its limits, the responsibility shifts to soldiers and, increasingly, to those engaged in “soft war.”

“In international relations, when the diplomat’s work ends, the soldier’s work begins,” Akraminia said. “Alongside diplomats and soldiers, soft-war officers also play a decisive role.”

https://orinocotribune.com/no-two-hour- ... ggression/

******

How a US/Israeli Strike on Iran Could Ignite a Wider Conflict
Posted on January 31, 2026 by Yves Smith

Yves here. As we have often noted, Paul Roger’s articles are a mixed bag. He often raises good issues but then is a prisoner of conventional wisdom. Here he focuses on a question that many alternative media commentators have yet to address, which is whether the US and Israel launching an attack that Iran has made clear it will treat as a war will spiral into regional upheaval.

Most analysts have been preoccupied with the Trump “Will he or won’t he?” and the immediate issue of whether the presumed US plan, of delivering a hard, fast blow, could effect regime change. Experts ranging from Larry Johnson to retired UK Royal Navy Commodore Steve Jermy have described in detail the difficulty the US would have in sustaining operations against Iran.

In particular, this article underplays the possibility that Iran would close the Strait of Hormuz. Not only has Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps commander Mohammad Akbarzadeh recently pointed out that Iran has “complete control” of the Strait, but to drive the point home, it is conducting live-fire drills there. The US has growled in response. As CENTCOM posted on Twitter:

TAMPA, Fla. – Yesterday, Iran announced that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) is conducting a two-day live-fire naval exercise in the Strait of Hormuz scheduled to begin on Sunday.

U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) urges the IRGC to conduct the announced naval exercise in a manner that is safe, professional and avoids unnecessary risk to freedom of navigation for international maritime traffic. The Strait of Hormuz is an international sea passage and an essential trade corridor that supports regional economic prosperity. On any given day, roughly 100 of the world’s merchant vessels transit the narrow strait.

U.S. forces acknowledge Iran’s right to operate professionally in international airspace and waters. Any unsafe and unprofessional behavior near U.S. forces, regional partners or commercial vessels increases risks of collision, escalation, and destabilization.
CENTCOM will ensure the safety of U.S. personnel, ships, and aircraft operating in the Middle East. We will not tolerate unsafe IRGC actions including overflight of U.S. military vessels engaged in flight operations, low-altitude or armed overflight of U.S. military assets when intentions are unclear, highspeed boat approaches on a collision course with U.S. military vessels, or weapons trained at U.S. forces.

The U.S. military has the most highly trained and lethal force in the world and will continue to operate with the highest levels of professionalism and adhere to international norms. Iran’s IRGC must do the same.
Want to publish your own Article?

4:59 AM · Jan 31, 2026

It is over my pay grade to know whether these drills will lead insurers to jack up their rates for carriage in and out of the Gulf.
·

By Paul Rogers, Emeritus Professor of Peace Studies in the Department of Peace Studies and International Relations at Bradford University, and an Honorary Fellow at the Joint Service Command and Staff College. He is openDemocracy’s international security correspondent. He is on Twitter at: @ProfPRogers. Originally published at openDemocracy

In his way back from Davos last weekend, Donald Trump warned the Iranian leadership of a naval force heading for the Middle East with an implied threat of military action. Since then, an aircraft carrier strike group led by the USS Abraham Lincoln has arrived in the Indian Ocean bordering the Arabian Sea and within the US Central Command’s area of operations.

Trump’s previous promise of US intervention in Iran if anti-government protesters were killed appears to have had little impact on the Tehran regime. Nearly 6,000 people have died and 41,800 detained, according to human rights groups, although new evidence suggests the death toll could be as high as 30,000 amid a determined cover-up by the state.

Even so, Trump’s current naval build-up seems less concerned with the mass killing of protestors than a US-led military operation to change the Tehran regime.

The US already has some 30,000 military personnel in the Middle East, with a carrier strike group now there as well. But, as I noted in my column last week, the Pentagon would prefer to have overwhelming power in the region for any operation against Iran, and a second carrier strike group headed by the USS George H W Bush, the world’s largest warship, is headed to the region.

A key issue is whether a joint US/Israeli operation is being considered, and that now seems likely. It would certainly fit in with the Netanyahu government’s vision for Israel’s future.

Israeli foreign minister Gideon Sa’ar suggests this vision goes a lot wider than Iran. Speaking during an official visit to Kazakhstan this week, Sa’ar said: “Proxy terror states in the Middle East – Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the Houthis in Yemen – must be dismantled. Without doing so, there will be no regional stability, and this is our objective.”

If a US/Israeli attack on Iran was on the cards, what would it look like and what might be the impact? Some possible answers can be found in Iran: Consequences of a War, a detailed analysis of a possible attack by the United States that I wrote for the Oxford Research Group 20 years ago.

That analysis assumed that the main target would be Iran’s nuclear ambitions, rather than regime change, and focused on a unilateral US attack with little direct Israeli involvement, rather than a joint operation. Yet it raised several issues that remain pertinent today.

The first is that both Israel and the US would put a premium on avoiding casualties among their own military. For Binyamin Netanyahu, deaths among Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) personnel are to be avoided like the plague, and for any IDF soldiers to be taken hostage in Iran would be disastrous.

Trump, too, would avoid the domestic opprobrium at all costs, which means that “collateral damage” from US air strikes will be tolerated rather than putting US troops on the ground. Heavy Iranian casualties would be acceptable to both Netanyahu and Trump, and the 2006 Oxford Research Group report forecast thousands of Iranian deaths. After all, the Israelis have killed 73,000 Palestinians in Gaza, with thousands more missing, and the US led two wars in Iraq and Syria that killed more than twice as many.

As to the attack itself, it now seems that early aims would include disabling Iranian air defences, killing the religious leadership in Tehran and the leadership of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (the police and the security forces responsible for killing protestors). If that was considered successful by the Israelis and Americans, then a short pause might follow to allow anti-regime elements the space to force a change of government.

Given their perceived successes in Venezuela, Gaza, the occupied West Bank and southern Lebanon, the US and Israeli leaderships do not lack confidence bordering on hubris.

They may get what they want, but if significant elements of the religious and security leaderships survive, then the next phase of the war would be days of intense attacks from Israel and the US, directed primarily at the IRGC and other military and paramilitary elements of the Iranian state.

If the theocratic regime survives and domestic mass public opposition to it fails to show itself, even after the thousands of deaths, then the IRGC and others could then begin to look to the future.

They might even threaten to close the Strait of Hormuz, a significant shipping channel between Iran and the UAE, which Iran has reportedly already warned it will conduct live-fire naval exercises in next week. Closing it altogether would incite a global increase in oil prices and take us back to the disastrously stagflation-ridden days of the mid-1970s. Meanwhile, the war would continue.

If that sounds unlikely, then remember two quite separate factors. The first is two failed wars, in Afghanistan from 2001 and Iraq from 2003. Both appeared at first to be easily won but then took disastrous turns, with overoptimism verging on hubris playing a role.

The second is the big unknown when we look at how the IRGC and the Iranian military might react. It is easy to assume that Iran’s security establishments, already crippled by the overwhelming attacks by Israeli and US forces, will be in no position to offer much resistance, but that doesn’t factor in Iran’s development and large-scale production of cheap short-range armed drones over the past decade.

These drones have already been used to chilling effect in Ukraine by Russia, are easily hidden and their manufacture can be readily dispersed to numerous small factories. While few have the range to cause damage in Israel, many are well within range of plenty of US military forces, including its largest air base in the region, in Qatar, and the headquarters of the US Navy’s Fifth Fleet in Bahrain.

If there is one thing the Trump government cannot afford is American casualties. In a “normal” White House, we might hope that sensible strategists would think things through and would successfully advise caution this time around. In Trump’s White House, we are dealing with a singularly abnormal and unpredictable president who is losing support at home and badly needs a foreign diversion.

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2026/01 ... flict.html

*******

Iran unveils underwater missile tunnels, says Strait of Hormuz 'will not be safe' if US attacks

Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi fired back at Trump’s new threats and said Iran’s forces have their 'fingers on the trigger'

News Desk

JAN 29, 2026


(Photo credit: WANA/Reuters)

Tehran has unveiled a network of “underwater missile tunnels” and has warned that the Strait of Hormuz will “not be safe” if the Islamic Republic is attacked by the US, Iranian state television reported.

This is reportedly an Iranian underwater bunker, located deep beneath seabed in Persian Gulf where thousands of anti-ship missiles are reportedly being deployed. pic.twitter.com/kO8sydsApD

— Peoples Chronicles (@PChroniclesNG) January 27, 2026

Footage aired on Iranian state television showed Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Navy commander Alireza Tangsiri inside the submarine missile facilities, displaying rows of cruise missiles reportedly capable of striking targets over 1,000 kilometers (621 miles) away with smart guidance systems.


“Our capabilities are constantly developing,” Tangsiri said, adding that Iranian forces were ready to deal with any threat “at any level and in any geography.”

Earlier this week, the political deputy of the IRGC Navy, Mohammed Akbarzadeh, warned that Tehran could disrupt international shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.

Iran refrained from imposing a blockade on the strait during the 12-day US-Israeli war on the Islamic Republic in June, but has repeatedly warned it could be an option in any upcoming attack on the country.

Akbarzadeh said Iran receives real-time intelligence “from the sky, the surface and under the water of the Strait.”

Approximately 37 percent of global oil traffic passes through the Strait of Hormuz on a daily basis.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi is due in Turkiye on Friday for talks to prevent a US attack and subsequent regional escalation.

Tehran has warned Gulf states and Ankara that while it does not want war, it will target US bases across the region if it is attacked.

Washington’s aircraft carrier, the USS Abraham Lincoln, has arrived in West Asia with several accompanying warships. Washington has also deployed additional fighter jet squadrons to the region.


Trump said earlier this week that a “beautiful armada” is headed toward Iran, calling on the Islamic Republic to capitulate to US terms and come to the negotiating table. Washington demands that Tehran destroy its enriched uranium, limit its missile program, and halt support for resistance groups in the region.

“Our brave Armed Forces are prepared – with their fingers on the trigger – to immediately and powerfully respond to ANY aggression against our beloved land, air, and sea. The valuable lessons learned from the 12-Day War have enabled us to respond even more strongly, rapidly, and profoundly,” Araghchi stated on Wednesday.

Our brave Armed Forces are prepared—with their fingers on the trigger—to immediately and powerfully respond to ANY aggression against our beloved land, air, and sea.

The valuable lessons learned from the 12-Day War have enabled us to respond even more strongly, rapidly, and… pic.twitter.com/kEuj0dmBaK

— Seyed Abbas Araghchi (@araghchi) January 28, 2026

Iran’s UN mission also said this week that Tehran is prepared to respond “like never before” if the country comes under attack.

https://thecradle.co/articles/iran-unve ... us-attacks

EU formally designates IRGC terror group as European states fall into line

Previously reluctant EU members, including France, Spain, and Italy, have now come on board with the designation

News Desk

JAN 29, 2026


(Photo credit: Reuters)

The EU has formally designated Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a “terrorist organization,” a move announced by EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas after a meeting of EU foreign ministers, the European Council announced on 29 January.


Although major EU members, such as France, had previously resisted the designation, French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot publicly confirmed Paris’s reversal, stating on social media that France would support adding the IRGC to the EU list of terrorist organizations.

Iran : le Conseil des Affaires étrangères de l'Union européenne vient d'adopter des sanctions contre des membres du gouvernement, du parquet, de la police et du corps des gardiens de la révolution, et contre des entités responsables de la censure d'internet. Ces 21 individus et… pic.twitter.com/GjbgLPmyy6

— Jean-Noël Barrot (@jnbarrot) January 29, 2026
The designation was paired with a new sanctions package, including travel bans and asset freezes targeting Iranian ministers, judicial officials, police chiefs, and senior IRGC commanders.

EU officials said the measures were imposed over the deaths of anti-government protesters and what they described as Iran’s “internal repression.”


"Any regime that kills thousands of its own people is working toward its own demise,” Kallas said on Thursday, adding that the IRGC would now be treated “on the same footing with Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Daesh.”

A French diplomatic source told Al-Monitor that the terror listing was not legally required to continue existing sanctions, but was intended to send a “strong message” to Tehran.

The new EU sanctions come as Washington continues to escalate war threats against the Islamic Republic.

US President Donald Trump has warned that “time is running out” for Iran to accept US diktats, and boasted about a “beautiful armada” being deployed near the country's coast.

Middle East Eye (MEE) reported on Monday that Trump was considering precision attacks on “high-value” Iranian officials, as US military assets, including the USS Abraham Lincoln, were deployed to the Arabian Sea.

Meanwhile, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz declared that Iran had “lost legitimacy” and said the government could fall “in a matter of weeks,” adding that “a regime that can only hold onto power through sheer violence and terror … has no legitimacy to govern the country.”


Spain also abandoned its long-standing reluctance regarding the IRGC blacklisting, falling in line with Brussels, with Foreign Minister Jose Manuel Albares confirming Madrid’s “unequivocal support” after years of resistance.

Iran responded sharply, with the General Staff of the Armed Forces condemning the EU decision as “illogical, irresponsible and spiteful,” saying it was carried out “in unconditional obedience to the hegemonic and inhumane policies of the United States and the Zionist regime.”

https://thecradle.co/articles/eu-formal ... -into-line

Iran classifies European armies as 'terror organizations' in response to IRGC blacklisting

EU lawmakers are using the Mossad-backed riots in Iran as pretext to impose new sanctions on Islamic Republic leaders

News Desk

JAN 30, 2026


(Photo credit: Tasnim)

The secretary of the Iranian Supreme National Security Council condemned on 30 January the EU's decision to classify Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a “terrorist organization,” saying that the armies of the European countries participating in the decision should be viewed as terrorist organizations.


“The European Union certainly knows that … the armies of countries that have participated in the European Union's recent resolution against the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps are considered terrorist entities,” Ali Larijani wrote in a post on X.

اتحادیه اروپا قطعا می‌داند مطابق مصوبه مجلس شورای اسلامی، ارتش کشورهایی که در مصوبه اخیر اتحادیه اروپا علیه سپاه پاسداران مشارکت داشته‌اند، تروریستی محسوب می‌شوند. لذا عواقب آن متوجه کشورهای اروپایی است که به چنین اقدامی دست زدند.

— Ali Larijani | علی لاریجانی (@alilarijani_ir) January 30, 2026
“Therefore, the consequences of that shall be borne by the European countries that undertook such an action,” he added.

Amid US President Donald Trump's threats to launch a renewed aggression against Iran, the EU foreign ministers agreed on Thursday to classify the IRGC as a “terrorist organization,” calling on EU member states to implement the designation immediately.


This move was previously opposed by major EU members, such as France, Spain, and Brussels; however, they have now adopted the decision.

Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi criticized the action, saying Europe is “making another major strategic mistake” and that “the EU's current posture is deeply damaging to its own interests.”

The EU also imposed new sanctions on six entities and 15 individuals in Iran, including Interior Minister Eskandar Momeni, Prosecutor General Mohammad Movahedi Azad, and Iman Afshari, a presiding judge.

The decision came in response to what European lawmakers claimed was a “brutal crackdown led by the Iranian regime against a popular uprising.”

In late December, protests erupted in Iran in response to a collapse in the country's currency.

Amid the protests, Israel's Mossad organized rioters and saboteurs to attack protesters, bystanders, children, Iranian security forces, government buildings, and mosques, leaving thousands dead or wounded.

US and Europeans leaders have not acknowledged the covert Mossad role, despite admissions from the intelligence agency and Israeli ministers published in Israeli media. Instead, they blamed the violence on Iranian security forces, using it as a pretext for regime change.

Israeli minister says Mossad agents operating inside Iran
——
Israel’s Heritage Minister Amichai Eliyahu has said that Israeli agents are operating inside Iran amid protests sparked by the collapse of the rial and a deepening economic crisis. Speaking to Israel’s Army Radio,… pic.twitter.com/JZJ2vEGutT

— The Cradle (@TheCradleMedia) January 10, 2026
The decision of the EU foreign ministers comes after the European Parliament adopted a resolution on 19 January declaring the IRGC, with all its military, security, and economic branches, as a terrorist entity that threatens international peace and security.


The resolution also called on member states to impose a comprehensive asset freeze on the IRGC, ban its leaders from traveling abroad, and prosecute those allegedly responsible for suppressing protests in European courts.

European Parliament Speaker Roberta Metsola announced a ban on Iranian diplomats and representatives of the Islamic Republic from entering the parliament building, stating that she will not give them a platform in Europe to “legitimize their brutality.”

Fears of renewed aggression against Iran remain high.

Washington's aircraft carrier, the USS Abraham Lincoln, arrived in West Asia with several accompanying warships earlier this week. The US military has also deployed additional fighter jet squadrons to the region.

Trump boasted earlier this week about a “beautiful armada” being deployed near Iran's coast, calling on the Islamic Republic to capitulate to US terms and come to the negotiating table as “time is running out.”

Washington demands that Tehran destroy its enriched uranium, limit its missile program, and halt support for resistance groups in the region.

Araghchi responded on Wednesday by saying, “Our brave Armed Forces are prepared – with their fingers on the trigger – to immediately and powerfully respond to ANY aggression against our beloved land, air, and sea.”

https://thecradle.co/articles/iran-clas ... acklisting

******

West’s hypocrisy over Iran and Gaza proves a regime-change operation in Tehran

January 30, 2026

Far from expressing any condemnation against the Israeli regime, the U.S. and the EU (with minor exceptions) have maintained an odious silence.

The United States and the European Union are vehemently condemning Iran over alleged repression, while the West says nothing about the Israeli genocide in Gaza. The contradiction, of course, exposes the West’s rank hypocrisy. It also confirms that Iran is the target of a Western regime-change operation.

U.S. President Donald Trump this week repeated his threat to launch a blitzkrieg on Iran, bragging that an armada led by the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier was in place to strike. “Don’t make me do it,” warned Trump with thug-like menace.

Meanwhile, the European Union declared Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps a “foreign terrorist” organization. Given that the IRGC is a central component of Iran’s national security forces, the EU’s blacklisting is effectively designating the Iranian state as a terrorist entity. The EU’s provocation is paving the way for American aggression and all-out war, which will have devastating consequences, not least of all for Europe.

Washington and Europe are ostensibly basing their hostility towards Tehran on dubious claims that the Iranian authorities have committed systematic atrocities in repressing peaceful protesters in Iran demanding political change.

Trump has urged Iranians to keep protesting and vowed that “help is on the way.”

The European Union’s foreign affairs chief, Kaja Kallas, hailed the blacklisting of the IRGC, saying: “Repression cannot go unanswered… clear atrocities mean there must be a clear response from Europe.”

France’s Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot asserted: “We cannot have any impunity for the [alleged] crimes that have been committed.”

The Dutch top diplomat, David van Weel, added: “I think it’s important that we send the signal that the bloodshed that we’ve seen, the bestiality that has been used against protesters, cannot be tolerated.”

This all sounds noble and chivalrous of Western governments. But it is a contemptuous charade, belying disingenuousness and duplicity.

For more than two years, the Israeli regime has waged a blatant genocide in Gaza. The death toll is estimated at over 71,000, with most of the victims being civilians, women, and children. The real death toll is probably well over 100,000 from bodies buried under rubble from Israeli bombardment that are not accounted for.

Far from expressing any condemnation against the Israeli regime, the United States and the European Union (with minor exceptions) have maintained an odious silence that has afforded political cover for the genocide. The Western states are complicit as a result of their shameful silence. More damning, however, is that the United States and European states, including France, Germany, and Britain, have supplied warplanes, missiles, drones, electronics, and other weaponry to fuel the slaughter.

Trump boasts about his so-called Board of Peace for Gaza and a supposed ceasefire that was claimed to have started in October. Over 500 Palestinians have been killed by the Israeli military since the ceasefire travesty. Thousands of Palestinians are starving or freezing to death in windswept and flooded tents still deprived of humanitarian aid. The genocide continues under the grotesque guise of “peace”.

Trump is an “Israel First” U.S. president more than any of his predecessors, who all consistently gave the Zionist regime a license to kill and occupy. Trump’s complicity is remarkable and suggests his late pedophile friend Jeffrey Epstein furnished Israeli intelligence with lots of blackmail material on the 47th president. So, his silence over genocide is explicable.

What about the Europeans, though? Maybe there is blackmail going on, too, to buy their complicity. Nevertheless, the hypocrisy is astounding.

Why aren’t Kallas, Barrot, and the other EU foreign ministers denouncing impunity and repression by the Israeli regime? They selectively apply their morals and faux humanitarian concerns to Iran.

The two scenarios are, in any case, incomparable. One is genocide, the other is civil unrest, which the evidence shows involves foreign orchestration.

Protests began in Tehran on December 28, sparked by legitimate economic grievances. The country of over 90 million has been strangled for decades by illegal Western economic sanctions. Tellingly, the relatively small demonstrations in Tehran’s bazaars at the end of December were rapidly escalated into full-blown violent attacks in several cities. The disturbances appear to have subsided, and there have been huge counter-demonstrations involving millions of people taking to the streets to denounce the violence of what seems to be almost certainly Western-orchestrated gangs.

The Iranian authorities claim that the total deaths after four weeks of violence are about 3,100. Western media reports and governments have cited much larger figures of 6,000 and up to 17,000 deaths. The Western figures are supplied by U.S. or European-based groups, such as the Iranian Human Rights Activists in Iran (HRAI). These groups are funded by the CIA’s cut-out organization, the National Endowment for Democracy.

Israeli news media have even admitted in reports that the street violence was being directed by foreign agencies. Former CIA chief Mike Pompeo also let it slip that Mossad operatives were behind the disturbances.

The methodical type of violence and damage sustained also indicates a coup attempt. Hundreds of mosques, schools, buses, government buildings, banks, and medical facilities were attacked and destroyed by gun-wielding gangs and arsonists.

Many of the casualties were inflicted on security forces and civilian bystanders in an orgy of violence that indicates a trained cadre of agitators and terrorists. Victims were beheaded and mutilated.

The Western media have conspicuously conflated the deaths and injuries as all attributed to the Iranian security forces, who allegedly used “lethal force to repress peaceful protesters.”

This is the standard operating procedure of Western regime change: to escalate deadly civil strife to destabilize the targeted state. The Western media then reliably row in with a massive propaganda assault to valorize the orchestrated violence and to demonize the authorities.

As Iranian Professor Mohammad Marandi points out, the West’s modus operandi is to demonize foreign countries to justify regime change, and if needs be, to justify all-out military aggression.

In 1953, the same method was used by the Americans and British to overthrow the elected government of Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh. Mossadegh’s “crime” was that he nationalized the oil industry, depriving Britain of its leech-like control over Iranian natural wealth, which saw most of the population living in poverty and squalor, as vast Persian oil profits flowed into London. For the coup to succeed, millions of dollars were funneled by the CIA into Iran to whip up street gangs, and the Western media on both sides of the Atlantic dutifully painted Mossadegh as illegitimate. He was overthrown, and the Western puppet, the Shah, was installed, presiding over a brutal CIA and MI6-backed regime for 26 years until the Islamic Revolution kicked him out in 1979. Amazingly, from the point of view of chutzpah consistency, more than seven decades later, the Shah’s son, Reza Pahlavi, living in pampered exile in the U.S., is being advocated by the West to take over if the Islamic Republic collapses. Plus ca change!

The same regime-change formula has been repeated over and over in as many as 100 other countries since the Americans and British launched their post-Second World War debut covert operation in Iran in 1953, as Finian Cunningham’s new book Killing Democracy surveys. Crucially, the Western news media play an absolutely vital role in assisting this systematic criminality, as they are doing currently in Iran, and before that in Venezuela.

Only four weeks ago, Washington’s military aggression against Venezuela and the kidnapping of its president, Nicolás Maduro, by U.S. commandos was preceded by a full-court media campaign of demonization, absurdly labelling him a narcoterrorist.

Trump’s aggression towards Venezuela and now Iran is an outrageous violation of the UN Charter and international law. It marks a return to predatory imperialism. And the servile European states kowtow to this all-out predatory criminality with bogus concern about human rights.

We know their concerns are a complete sham and morally bankrupt because if there were any genuine principles, then they would not be so abject in their silence over the Israeli regime’s genocide in Gaza.

This is why Trump has been so emboldened to treat the Europeans with contempt over Greenland and other issues. If you act like a doormat, then expect to be walked on.

https://strategic-culture.su/news/2026/ ... in-tehran/

[blindpig]

WHO HAS THE REAL POWER IN TRUMP’S WAR AGAINST KHAMENEI



By John Helmer, Moscow @bears_with

Realism in politics is M +V+ B = P.

That’s to say: Money plus Votes plus Bullets equal Power. The equation is simple arithmetic – everyone can count.

But almost everyone can count on missing one or more of the variables — usually all three of them — so power is very unequally distributed in most countries, most times, most lives. It is suffered much more than it is enjoyed: –M + –V + –B = –P. Minus P is powerlessness. That’s the state of being a victim, vassal, slave.

This P power is not the kind you draw from a rally (podcast) when a Billy Graham-type tells you he will fill you full of the P of conviction on condition you believe in him and pay him a cash subscription. You can trust him to give you your money’s worth because, he says, he is a veteran of the CIA or US Army (officer not rank), or a Chicago professor, or a Pulitzer Prize winner from New York, or a high-rating ex-employee of Fox News. In the US, these Billy Graham-types make fortunes selling Minus P as PH – Payoff in Heaven.

In politics, might not only makes right; it also makes righteousness. What can happen, therefore, as two adversaries at war with each other test when PH ≥ P— that’s when their righteousness in Heaven is greater than their power on Earth. This is the war between Supreme Leader Donald Trump and Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, between the US and Iran.

According to Trump in a tweet of June 15, 2025, “we know exactly where the so-called ‘Supreme Leader’ is hiding. He is an easy target, but is safe there – We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now.” Twelve days later, on June 27, 2025, Trump claimed: “I knew EXACTLY where he [Khamenei] was sheltered, and would not let Israel, or the U.S. Armed Forces, by far the Greatest and Most Powerful in the World, terminate his life. I SAVED HIM FROM A VERY UGLY AND IGNOMINIOUS DEATH, and he does not have to say, ‘THANK YOU, PRESIDENT TRUMP!’”

Khamenei tweeted in reply: “The US President threatens us. With his absurd rhetoric, he demands that the Iranian people surrender to him. They should make threats against those who are afraid of being threatened. The Iranian nation isn’t frightened by such threats.” “Trump should know”, Khamenei said this month, after the failure of the internal riots, “that world tyrants such as Pharaoh, Nimrod, Reza Shah and Mohammad Reza were brought down at the peak of their arrogance. He too will be brought down”. “The US had made extensive preparations to orchestrate this sedition. This sedition was a prelude to even bigger schemes. The Iranian nation defeated the US.”

There is an arithmetic of force and firepower ratios on each side – the number of US missiles that can be fired before the ships must sail away for reloads; the number of Iranian drones and missiles required to overwhelm US defences or deter approaching aircraft; the survivability of the launching platforms; the number of casualties in a 2-day war, a 7-day war, a protracted war. This is the arithmetic of the B, bullets.

Then there is the arithmetic of the V, votes at the US midterm elections, and the M, money inflation at gas stations across the US. Trump is counting on his B+ adding to his V and keeping his M from rising sharply. Khamenei is counting on neutralizing Trump’s B to zero and his V and M to minus by closing the Strait of Hormuz and surviving US strikes for long enough to project and protract the war into the US itself.

Election Day in the US falls on November 3; the summer driving season starts on Memorial Day, May 25. Khamenei’s calculation is to protract the P equation for less than sixteen weeks – or convince the money, vote and bullet counters in Washington in advance that this is what he can do. Not even the Billy Graham-type PH zealots in the White House are confident he can be destroyed before then.

With Lieutenant General (retd) P R Shankar, view or listen to the new Gunners Shot podcast for the political realism needed for now.


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgU9YtBXKHs

The podcast was recorded on Saturday morning, India time, and released in the evening.

The first part focuses on the US war against Iran, and the role Russia is playing. The second part focuses on the new Free Trade Agreement (FTA) which India signed with the European Union in Delhi on January 27.

Here is the Indian Government’s factsheet itemizing the terms:


And the European Union’s version: https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/eu-tr ... enefits_en



In the EU’s published estimates, the biggest European export gainers in the Indian market will be wine, whisky, beer, olive oil, and sausages.

“I’ve looked at some of the details of the deal so far”, responded Jamieson Greer, the US Special Trade Representative (USTR): “I think India comes out on top on this, frankly. They get more market access into Europe.” Greer is a US Cabinet member and reports directly to Trump. By contrast, Scott Bessent, the US Treasury Secretary, was critical: “They [EU] should do what’s best for themselves, but I will tell you, I found, I find the Europeans very disappointing…The Europeans were unwilling to join us, and it turns out, because they wanted to do this trade deal. So every time you hear a European talk about the importance of the Ukrainian people, remember that they put trade ahead of the Ukrainian people.”


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSOR6A3pWGw


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQqlI40GfKY

https://johnhelmer.net/who-has-the-real ... -khamenei/

******

Iran War? A Look at Boundary Conditions Says Trump Will TACO With Intent to Strike Later; Israel Terrorism Set to Continue
Posted on February 2, 2026 by Yves Smith

In my past life as a consultant, one of the things I would do regularly was eliminate certain legs of analysis because a stringent look at limiting factors, aka boundary conditions, said they were likely to be irrelevant.

It seemed useful to work through that sort of exercise now. Readers can, indeed should, contest certain assumptions which could change the boundary conditions and therefore the conclusions. But please provide evidence if you disagree with the takes on where the boundaries lie!

Our view is that despite Trump having postured so much about Iran needing capitulate to the US or face a promised overwhelming attack as to make it hard to back down, he will find a way to do just that. He is running into too much opposition, aka, reality. Trump likes big shows or noise and force producing fast, easy wins that he can puff up into being more consequential than they are. Our guess is that he will use a pretend revival of JCPOA-type negotiations to temporize, as in he will insist he has his finger on the trigger as he moves naval assets out of the theater. Trump and even more so the hawks will still keep planning for a big later attack. The continued low odds of success even with some sort of better-worked-out scheme means Trump is unlikely to hazard that before the midterms.1 The wild card would be Iran being (again) lulled into complacency. After the negotiation duplicity right before the 12 Day War and the just-failed, admitted regime change operation,2 that seems unlikely.

Trump now looks to be at an impasse. His team has sent demands to Iran that come from Netanyahu and are maximalist: give up any nuclear enrichment, even for peaceful uses such as medical and give up long and even intermediate range missiles, which comes close to making themselves defenseless. Per Aljaazera, the US demands are:

Iran must not build nuclear weapons, and it must abandon even a civilian nuclear programme.
Iran must not enrich uranium at all – not even to very low levels that would be useless for military purposes.
Iran must hand over any enriched uranium it already has.
Iran must curb the number and range of its ballistic missiles.
Iran must end its support and links with armed resistance groups across the region.

Alexander Mercoursis depicted this requirements as reminiscent of the July 23, 1914 ultimatum by Austria-Hungarian empire to Serbia, as in clearly designed to be rejected, which it was.

Consider:

Iran has greatly hardened its posture. Before, as we indicated, like Russia before the start of the Special Military Operation, it was conflict-averse, and therefore preferred to try to find negotiated solutions, on which the West repeatedly cheated. Russia concluded that the continued provocations, perhaps most of all President Zelensky asking for nuclear weapons at the mid-February Security Conference and no one rejecting the idea then or afterwards, as the final straw. The latest regime change effort has similarly led Iran to see the conflict as existential. The Supreme Leader has warned that a US attack would trigger a regional war. Iran has now vowed that any attack on Iran will be met with a ferocious response, including strikes on Israel and US bases in the region and closure of the Strait of Hormuz.

The US and Israel do not have and will not in any realistic time frame have adequate air defenses. Larry Wilkerson said he would have depicted Israel as having the best air defenses in the world prior to the 12 Day War and was shocked to see how badly they performed. The US used up 1/4 of its THADD missiles during that conflict. And Iran allegedly has hypersonic missiles, against which the West now has no effective protection.3

Despite all the noise about the overwhelming US force in theater, the naval assets can at most engage in a few days, as in less than a week, of intense fire. See Retired Royal Navy Commodore Steve Jermy for details:



The US’ ability to launch air strikes from elsewhere in the region will be constrained. In the 12 Day War, Israel fired into Iran nearly entirely from outside its airspace. Readers can correct me, but the only time hostile planes came into Iran was in the pre-negotiated incursion in connection with the “obliteration” strikes on nuclear sites. Saudi Arabia and the UAE are refusing to let the US use its airspace for an attack on Iran. From what I can tell, Turkiye has not said it will deny US access (the Incirlik airbase is essential) but is visibly very uncomfortable with its position.

Erdoğan is hosting Iran’s foreign minister in a desperate bid to revive talks and stall what may be an inevitable confrontation.

The stakes are regional. If the Islamic Republic collapses, power dynamics shift. Oil access is being floated as leverage, but Tehran’s refusal to… pic.twitter.com/5zLCfJ41Nd

— Tousi TV (@TousiTVOfficial) January 31, 2026


Turkiye has in the past told the US “no,” such as in 2024. It is possible that Turkiye might try being half-pregnant, such as allowing the US to conduct surveillance only.

A longer take by Patricia Marins from last week:

The American naval force is still insufficient for a direct frontal attack on Iran. At best, this would be an attack carried out only by the US and Israel-if Israel even decides to get involved.

No Gulf country is going to join in, and the reason is simple: nobody wants to see missiles raining down on those gleaming skyscrapers in Dubai, for example. I’m not exaggerating, but is necessary just two ballistic missiles hit Dubai, and the Sheikh Mo will cry and ask to stop.

There will be no Qatar, no UAE, no other state within range of Iranian missiles. Another key issue is that these states are far more concerned about the closure of the Strait of Hormuz and the impact on their exports.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: if Iran closes the strait in a combat scenario, it won’t be for just one, two, or three days. It will be prolonged and will brutally drive up oil prices…..

Iran has a paper-thin air force, but naval warfare is very much in its interest, because modern naval warfare is built around stealth subs, UAVs, UUVs, USVs, and long-range anti-ship missiles, all areas in which Iran has specialized in recent years. This is a much better scenario for Iran than the one in June 2025.

Iran will have no difficulty mapping and acquiring maritime targets. It is one of only six countries that possess operational HALE drones: the United States, Israel, the United Kingdom, China, North Korea, and Iran. Russia and India are still working on prototypes.

Iran has at least 100–200 HALE drones, as shahed 147/149 either armed or SAR/ISR purposes. They don’t match American resolution levels, but they are more than capable for naval target acquisition from high altitudes.

Confirming Marins’ assessment, from John Kirakou on his Friday DeProgrammed show, staring at 8:30:

John Kirakou: I’ve just in the last three or four weeks, I’ve developed some friendships in in three Middle Eastern royal families thanks to podcasts. But anyway, I’ve I’ve been in like close touch with these with these princes and and they’re wellplaced princes. They’re not just, you know, playboy princes living in Beverly Hills and driving Lamborghinis. These are serious people.

And I learned yesterday that the Saudis, the Jordanians, the Egyptians, and the Emiratis all went to the president by phone and said, “Please don’t attack Iran.” The Egyptians went so far as to say that it would lead almost immediately to a region-wide war, which is the last thing that anybody wants.

Ted Rall [crosstalking]:Yeah, I agree with that with that analysis.

John Kirakou: I think so, too. More importantly….

Ted Rall : And the proxies will be triggered.

John Kirakou: Oh, yeah. The Israelis went to the president yesterday and said, “Don’t attack Iran.” Not out of the goodness of their hearts that they’ve had some kind of change of uh change of position, but because they have not been able to replace all of the Iron Dome missiles that they used in the last go-round with Iran.

It is blindingly obvious that closing the Strait of Hormuz is easily within Iran’s capabilities. The live-fire exercises that started yesterday were to drive that point home to morons in the peanut gallery and put Mr. Market on edge. Trump has made it abundantly clear that he is very much fixed on trying to keep oil prices low. and Mr. Market is one of the few things that will put him in reverse gear fast.

The 12 Day War showed the hyper-belligerent Israel is remarkably intolerant of civilian casualties and damage to infrastructure. In addition, as much as Israel very much wants to destroy Iran as a competing power, unlike Iran, it does not regard this fight as existential. By contrast, as Alastair Crooke has stressed, Shia can take remarkable pain. Martyrdom is a deeply-held cultural value. Iran lost one million in its protracted war with Iraq. He has told long-form the story of Shia responses to being told by the Caliphate that they could no longer worships at their mosques. They persisted, losing fingers, then toes, then hands, then feet.

Not as often discussed is that the US is also loss-intolerant. In a fine talk with Danny Haiphong, former Army Ranger Greg Stoker pointed out that the US deployment does not resemble any sort of normal approach (he didn’t use the word “shambolic” but his “I don’t think they have a concept of a plan” was pretty close). He also noted that Secretary Rubio admitted in Senate hearings that the US has 30,000 to 40,000 potential targets in theater in the form of vulnerable armed forces. If the US were preparing for the risk of a regional war, it would be moving troops not immediately needed for combat operations out of harm’s way.



China is now openly supporting Iran militarily. From Defense News in China Sends Type 055 and Type 052D Stealth Destroyers Toward Iranian Waters For Joint Drills with Iran and Russia (emphasis theirs):

China has deployed some of its most advanced naval surface combatants toward the Middle East as part of preparations for upcoming joint naval exercises with Iran and Russia, a move that officials and analysts describe as a direct response to recent U.S. naval exercises in the same region.

An article yesterday in the Wall Street Journal effectively suggests that the US is trying to grope its way to an off ramp, by focusing on the parlous state of air defenses as a way to buy time. From Before Any Strike on Iran, U.S. Needs to Bolster Air Defenses in Mideast:

Trump has yet to say whether and how he might use force. But American airstrikes on Iran aren’t imminent, U.S. officials say, because the Pentagon is moving in additional air defenses to better protect Israel, Arab allies and American forces in the event of a retaliation by Iran and a potential prolonged conflict.

The U.S. military could conduct limited airstrikes on Iran if the president were to order an attack today, U.S. officials say. But the kind of decisive attack that Trump has asked the military to prepare would likely prompt a proportional response from Iran, requiring the U.S. to have robust air defenses in place to protect Israel as well as American troops….

Other military preparations are continuing apace. On Thursday, six F-35s from the Vermont National Guard were seen landing in the Azores, moved from the Caribbean region to a position that is closer to the Middle East. Vermont National Guard F-35s took part in January’s operation to capture former Venezuela leader Nicolás Maduro. Some Navy EA-18G Growler electronic-attack aircraft recently left Puerto Rico and arrived in Spain.

The Thaad deployment is a particularly strong sign that the U.S. is preparing for a potential conflict, since the U.S. has only seven operational batteries, and the units have been stretched thin over the past year.

The US is over-extended. It does not have enough air defense missiles. It does not have the navy to contain Venezuela, Cuba and Iran on a long-term basis. Trump on some level understands this, hence his fondness for intense, intended to be overwhelming blows.

The most likely course is for some sort of sham negotiations to allow the US to climb down for now and for Trump to depict the mere fact of talks as a win and a proof of US domination. But don’t expect the US to relent. But as Greg Stoker pointed out, the Israeli minister of defense was in Washington last week to hand over the strike packages. Israel has not given up on Project Iran. The hawks most assuredly have not.

But it may turn out that the window for Israel and the US to subdue Iran has passed, permanently. The US is not what it once was, militarily, while Iran has survived the US attacks and is getting more help from Russia and even China. Despite determined efforts by Zionist billionaires, the US public is turning ever-more against supporting Israel in funding costs alone, let alone actual expenditure of lives. As we have long said, this was a generational problem for Israel, since younger Jews in the US don’t identify much with Israel. Greg Stoker, who is in deep red Texas and warned loudly and clearly that he does not likely citing personal anecdata, nevertheless pointed out that he’s seen a pronounced shift against Trump. Among other things, Texans understand that the Venezuela crude is of little value to the US oil industry and will mainly be shipped to the Middle East. So he sees even generally foreign-policy-indifferent conservatives turning against Trump’s warmongering.

Israel can be expected to do the obvious, which is to continue to engage in what is too politely called asymmetric warfare or more accurately called terrorism, both to try to destabilize Iran and to preserve credibility among the warmongers in the Beltway. How far that gets in the next few months will be an indicator of how much Iran has been able to ferret out and destroy Mossad networks in Iran after its 12 Day War decapitation attacks and its recent protest escalations.

Trump is admittedly becoming more and more erratic every day. He might wind up concluding he has too much manhood at stake to back down now or any time very soon with Iran. But as you can see, he has manu many reasons to try to find a way to retreat, even if he tells himself it is only temporary.

____

1 The only scenario I could see otherwise is as part of a “cancel the elections” scheme, as in attack say in October, with false flag terrorism blamed on Iran in the US, to justify the declaration of martial law or the functional equivalent under another name and set of authorities.

2 It was breathtakingly stupid and arrogant for Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to crow about having trashed the Iranian currency. Recall that was what set off comparatively small, peaceful protests that the US and Israel briefly stoked into larger and much more violent ones. The US taking credit will facilitate Iran setting up mechanisms with allies who do not want a war (which now might even include the Saudis on a stealth basis) to defend the currency. It also tells local businessmen that the currency plunge was due not fundamentals but a raid, which even absent external support might blunt the effectiveness of any second attempt. The rial is so thinly traded that it would not have taken much US intervention to produce a rout….which means defending it ought not be hugely costly either.

3That does not mean they cannot ever be intercepted, but the odds are so low that it would amount to a lucky accident.

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2026/02 ... tinue.html

*****

Trump TACOs on Iran Through Negotiations

The weekend has passed without a U.S. attack on Iran.

Trump would have probably liked to strike if there had been a decent chance of a short, successful war. But there was and is none. Iran would retaliate sharply for any attack and set the region on fire.

A early sharp strike would have been Trump’s best chance of success. The longer he is deterred from a strike the smaller the likelihood that any attack will occur at all.

Trump now needs to find a way to chicken out from his grandiose threats to Iran. He has sent out feelers for negotiations:

The Trump administration has told Iran through multiple channels that it’s open to meeting to negotiate a deal, a senior U.S. official tells Axios.
…
Turkey, Egypt and Qatar are working to organize a meeting between White House envoy Steve Witkoff and senior Iranian officials in Ankara later this week, two regional sources tell Axios.

Yves Smith concludes that:

Trump Will TACO With Intent to Strike Later

The most likely course is for some sort of sham negotiations to allow the US to climb down for now and for Trump to depict the mere fact of talks as a win and a proof of US domination. But don’t expect the US to relent. As Greg Stoker pointed out, the Israeli minister of defense was in Washington last week to hand over the strike packages. Israel has not given up on Project Iran. The hawks most assuredly have not.
…
Israel can be expected to do the obvious, which is to continue to engage in what is too politely called asymmetric warfare or more accurately called terrorism, both to try to destabilize Iran and to preserve credibility among the warmongers in the Beltway. How far that gets in the next few months will be an indicator of how much Iran has been able to ferret out and destroy Mossad networks in Iran after its 12 Day War decapitation attacks and its recent protest escalations.

Trump is admittedly becoming more and more erratic every day. He might wind up concluding he has too much manhood at stake to back down now or any time very soon with Iran. But as you can see, he has many many reasons to try to find a way to retreat, even if he tells himself it is only temporary.

Just after Yves had published her piece we learned that Iran has agreed to negotiations:

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has ordered the start of nuclear talks with the United States, local media said Monday, after US leader Donald Trump said he was hopeful of a deal to avert military action against the Islamic republic.
…
“President Pezeshkian has ordered the opening of talks with the United States,” the news agency Fars reported on Monday, citing an unnamed government source.

“Iran and the United States will hold talks on the nuclear file,” Fars said, without specifying a date. The report was also carried by the government newspaper Iran and the reformist daily Shargh.

The talks will likely be held in Turkey:

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi was in Turkey last week and held further calls with his Egyptian, Saudi and Turkish counterparts, he said on Telegram.

“President Trump said no nuclear weapons, and we fully agree. We fully agree with that. That could be a very good deal,” Araghchi told CNN on Sunday.

“Of course, in return, we expect sanctions lifting. So, that deal is possible. Let’s do not talk about impossible things.”

The likely outcome: Trump will have to lift some sanctions and, in exchange, will get some limited nuclear agreement with Iran. I assume that it will be softer on Iran than the JCPOA agreement which had been signed under Obama only to be trashed later by Trump.

The other demands on Iran which the Israelis had made through Trump: – no enrichment, a curb on the number and range of its ballistic missiles, an end of support for militia in the region – will not be part of the negotiations.

Those points are not of interest for Trump. He wants and needs an agreement – any agreement – that can be sold to the public has his personal success. The details will matter less to him than the fact that an agreement was made.

Israel will not like this. It wants Iran to be destroyed as a potential regional leader. Israel itself is too weak to defeat Iran. It may well try false flag strikes or terrorism to get the U.S. to finally do what it wants.

But the U.S. is no longer the all powerful force in the Arab region that it had been 30 years ago. It is lacking the means to defend its ships and bases against attacks by ballistic missiles and drones. This while Iran has systematically build up such weapons and forces.

Iran has also gained allies. Russian and Chinese help had allowed it to disable the Starlink network that was used to control recent rioters in its streets.

China is openly publishing high resolution satellite pictures of U.S. forces in Iran’s region:

A new set of foreign satellite images obtained by Global Times from MizarVision shows that as of January 25, the number of KC-135 aerial refueling aircraft parked on the apron at Al Udeid Air Base had increased significantly.

In addition, another satellite image taken on January 25 shows new equipment deployments around Al Udeid Air Base. After analysis, technical personnel from the MizarVision company assessed that the site is likely a newly installed Patriot air defense system at the base.

We can reasonably assume that Iran has full access to such Chinese and Russian satellite images and the intelligence analyses derived from them.

New naval maneuvers are also planned:

The commander of the regular Iranian navy (Nedaja) Rear Admiral Shahram Irani has announced that Iran will once again host Chinese and Russian naval vessels in Exercise Maritime Security Belt 2026, to be held in the northern Indian Ocean in late February. There have been no confirmatory announcements as yet from the Chinese and Russians, but the Iranians will be anxious to secure their participation again in this annual exercise, needing the reassurance of having allies alongside at a time of high tension.

The Chinese participants can be expected to be drawn from the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN)’s Djibouti-based 48th Flotilla, made up of the Type 052DL guided-missile destroyer Tangshan (D122), the Type 054A guided-missile frigate Daqing (F576) and the Type 903A replenishment ship Taihu (K889).

The Russian contingent is likely to consist of the Russian Udaloy Class frigate RFS Marshal Shaposhnikov (F543), still in the region having participated in the DIMDEX 2026 defense exhibition held January 19-20 in Port Hamad, Qatar.

Neither Russia nor China will fight a war for Iran. But they will do their best to supply it with all it needs while it continues to bind U.S. forces in the Middle East.

While the chance of a war on Iran has now been diminished it has not vanished at all. U.S. forces are still in the Middle East and ready to strike on short notice.

In the U.S. Trump is under pressure. His ratings are sinking. The brutal enforcement of immigration laws continues to erode his support. Over the weekend the Republicans lost a state Senate seat to Democrats in a formerly deep red district:

While Republicans including Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick had been sounding alarms about the North Texas race being too close for comfort in recent weeks, the 31-point-swing leftward was a surprise across the board. The loss is a “wake-up call for Republicans across Texas,” Patrick wrote on social media after the face. “Our voters cannot take anything for granted.”

It is a bad sign for Republicans hoping to maintain a Senate majority and an already-slim majority in the House, said Jason Villalba, a former GOP state lawmaker who now leads the Texas Hispanic Policy Foundation, a research group.

“Whatever inroads the GOP was making recently among Latinos in Texas has begun to really revert back to what it was originally,” he said, pointing to Saturday’s shifts in Texas precincts with large Hispanic populations. “That will have implications around Texas and around the country.”

Trump needs a victory. A war on Iran is unlikely to bring one. A new agreement that can be claimed to curb Iran’s non- existent nuclear weapons can be sold as one. For now Trump seems to have decided to try that route.

Posted by b on February 2, 2026 at 15:12 UTC | Permalink

https://www.moonofalabama.org/2026/02/t ... tions.html

[blindpig]

Iran, China, and Russia To Hold Joint Naval Exercise
February 2, 2026


This file photo shows naval forces of Iran, Russia and China holding large-scale joint drills in the northern part of the Indian Ocean and the Sea of Oman on December 27-30, 2019. Photo: PressTV/File photo.

Iran, Russia, and China are set to conduct a joint naval exercise in the northern Indian Ocean in late February, amid heightened tensions between Tehran and Washington.

The drill, named the “Maritime Security Belt” exercise, will involve units from the Iranian Navy, the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC) Navy, and naval forces from China and Russia.

According to officials, the exercise aims to enhance maritime security and strengthen cooperation among the participating countries.

First launched in 2019 by the Iranian Navy, the Maritime Security Belt exercise has been conducted seven times, highlighting ongoing military coordination between Tehran, Beijing, and Moscow in regional and international waters.

Previous editions of the drill featured operations such as search and rescue missions, maritime security maneuvers, and coordination exercises.

The upcoming drill comes amid a sharp rise in threatening rhetoric from Washington and a massive US military buildup near and off the coast of Iran.

US President Donald Trump said the deployment was aimed at pressuring Tehran into negotiations, warning that failure to reach a deal would trigger a military strike “far worse” than the US attack on Iranian nuclear facilities in June 2025.

Iran has repeatedly rejected threats and coercion, insisting that diplomacy cannot succeed under pressure or intimidation. It has said it is ready for talks if they are fair and based on mutual respect, while warning that any military attack by the US or its allies against Iranian interests would be met with a swift and decisive response.

A US naval strike group has been in Middle Eastern waters since Monday, and Trump has warned it is “ready, willing and able” to hit Iran if necessary.

https://orinocotribune.com/iran-china-a ... -exercise/

*****

Chinese oil firms turn to Iran to replace Venezuelan crude

China and India have to regularly shift their oil purchases due to US sanctions on major crude exporters

News Desk

FEB 2, 2026


(Photo credit: REUTERS/Dominique Patton/File Photo)

China's teapot refiners are buying discounted Iranian crude to replace the loss of supplies from Venezuela following Washington's violent takeover of the South American nation's oil, Reuters reported on 2 February.


“The drawdown of Iranian oil held in storage is making up for the drop in Venezuelan supply to the world's largest crude importer,” the news agency wrote, citing two people with knowledge of the matter.

Venezuelan oil shipments to China have fallen drastically since US President Donald Trump imposed a blockade on Venezuelan oil tankers attempting to leave the country in December.

On 3 January, US forces bombed the Venezuelan capital, abducted Venezuelan President Nicholas Maduro, and took control of the country's oil.

Washington announced it was placing Venezuela's oil revenues in accounts in Qatar under White House control.

Trump has allowed global trading firms Vitol and Trafigura to sell up to 50 million barrels of Venezuelan oil. However, Beijing-owned firm PetroChina has halted its oil purchases from Caracas amid the uncertainty.

Beijing's independent refiners have responded by stepping up purchases of Iranian heavy crude stored in bonded storage tanks in China and on ships at steep discounts, the sources told Reuters.

Additional Chinese purchases of Iranian Heavy and Pars crude grades are expected in February and March, one of the two sources added.


The refiners can purchase Iranian Heavy crude at discounts of about $12 per barrel, as Iran is faced with few willing buyers due to US sanctions.

Russian Urals trade at a discount of $11 to $12 per barrel, also due to US sanctions.

With Washington's permission, Vitol is offering Chinese buyers discounts of roughly $5 per barrel for Venezuelan crude.

China's imports of Venezuelan crude averaged 394,000 barrels per day (bpd), around four percent of Beijing's total seaborne crude imports, before the US takeover.

On Saturday, Trump said India will begin buying Venezuelan oil, helping to replace the loss of Russian supplies amid US tariff threats.

“We've already made that deal, the concept of the deal,” Trump told reporters while traveling aboard Air Force One.

Last year, after Trump imposed a 25 percent tariff on countries buying Venezuelan oil, New Delhi stopped buying oil from Caracas.

India and China have been forced to shift their purchases of oil in recent years due to aggressive sanctions on Russia, Venezuela, and Iran.


New Delhi previously purchased large amounts of Iranian oil but halted the purchases in 2019 due to US sanctions over Tehran's nuclear program.

Indian refiners first responded by purchasing US oil, but then struck a deal to buy Russian crude at steep discounts after the US imposed sanctions on Moscow following its invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

However, in August, Trump imposed an additional 25 percent tariff on Indian goods to punish New Delhi for the purchases, accusing India of funding the Russian “war machine” in Ukraine.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in January that the additional 25 percent tariff on Indian goods could be removed, given what he called a sharp reduction in Indian imports of Russian oil.

In addition to saying that India would buy more Venezuelan crude, Trump suggested on Saturday that China could make a deal with the US to resume purchases from the South American nation as well.

“China is welcome to come in and would make a great deal on oil,” Trump said, without providing any details.

https://thecradle.co/articles/chinese-o ... elan-crude

[blindpig]

Iranian regime-change troops play their part on the streets of London

CIA/MI6/Mossad-backed monarchist stooges appear on cue to stage their demonstrations for the cameras.
Proletarian writers

Sunday 1 February 2026


We note that the endlessly recycled pro-zionist and anti-Iranian talking points, until recently taken at face value by the vast majority of British citizens and challenged only by a handful of committed anti-imperialists, are finally starting to wear thin. Today, Iranian and Yemeni flags are appearing more often at even the most respectable of pro-Palestine demonstrations, as many people are now coming to realise that one cannot be meaningfully pro-Palestine without defending Iran from imperialist attack.

With a large, mostly arch-reactionary Iranian diaspora living in London, it was inevitable that the effects of repeated CIA/Mossad-sponsored ‘colour revolution’ attempts in Tehran would be reflected in the British capital, too. This fascistic and reactionary rabble that has emerged onto the streets of London ‘in solidarity with Iranian freedom seekers’, focuses its ire on two main targets.

Regime-change psyop troops on the streets of London
Naturally, the primary target has been the Iranian embassy in Kensington. The embassy itself generally remains shuttered to the public, with visa issues and similar queries being handled by a consulate half a mile down the road.

The embassy is supposedly under armed police guard, but this ‘security presence’ did not stop protesters recently from climbing onto the building, tearing down the Iranian national flag, and replacing it with the monarchist flag favoured by west-backed emigres.

Ironically, the police guard reportedly came under physical attack from the monarchist crowd, who seem to have forgotten which country is supporting their cause – or who are helpfully creating a theatre of ‘not enough support for regime change by the British state’. Whatever the reason, there were a number of arrests – including of the person who climbed the embassy.

Furthering the narrative that the British state is somehow in league against the protest movement (as opposed to being a supporter of a colour revolution in Iran), a number of mainstream news outlets chose to cover this story in a way that threw the police under the bus and led to a wave of hypocritical concern about ‘police brutality’ from people who are not generally known for their concern for the rights of protesters in Britain.

The other favoured target for the anti-Iran rabble has been the Islamic Centre of England – a large shiite mosque and Iranian cultural centre located in the London district of Maida Vale, an area heavily populated by anti-Tehran Iranian emigrants. Although it has no formal relationship with the Iranian government, the centre is run by muslims who follow the religious teachings of Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei, making it a regular target for regime-change thugs.

The mosque was attacked at the time of the 2022 ‘Woman, life, freedom’ riots, and was again targeted in January of this year, just as the imperialist regime-change terror operation was in full flow on Iranian streets. In both cases, the centre was targeted in broad daylight whilst terrified civilian worshippers were in the building.

These demonstrations are used as part of the imperialist propaganda narrative to push the idea that the mass of Iranian people are desperately trying to bring down the repressive Tehran government and dismantle the Islamic Republic, and that the west’s interests in this effort are purely humanitarian and altruistic. The reality is that these opposition groups are numerically and politically insignificant, and are isolated both from the masses in Iran and from the imperialist-zionist terrorists who left a trail of death and destruction across the country.

Promoting islamophobia in Britain
It is notable (and mainly unreported) that whilst the supposedly ‘freedom-loving’ monarchists pose officially as being ‘anti-theocracy’, their slogans and chants routinely degenerate into EDL-style islamophobic slurs and abuse, often culminating in actual violence against muslim worshippers and mosques.

Naturally, such events are ignored by the BBC and most mainstream media, although they have been briefly covered by GB News, which naturally went to some lengths to do apologia for the attackers – for example by showing video footage of monarchists trying to block the entrance to the mosque and stating in the voiceover that “it does not appear that the protesters entered the building”.

One does not need to wonder how different this coverage would have been had supporters of Palestine gathered outside an Israel-affiliated synagogue and threatened jewish worshippers in such a manner.

It is worth noting that this same mosque, not long after the 2022 attack, was subjected to an attempt by the Charity Commission to dismiss its board of trustees and impose its own ‘interim’ manager.

The government’s justification for the draconian step was that the mosque, more than two years earlier, had held a memorial for the slain Iranian general and anti-imperialist hero Qassem Soleimani – hardly an outrageous or unreasonable thing for an Iranian cultural centre to do, given that General Soleimani and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) were not formally blacklisted or proscribed in this country at the time (although calls are now growing amongst the British politicians and media pundits to reverse that situation and follow in the footsteps of the increasingly draconian EU).

Turning the tables on the anti-Iran narrative
Following the latest attack on Saturday 10 January, the mosque was successful in mobilising a large counter-demonstration of its own, challenging the monarchists’ domination of the street.

A couple of hundred pro-Iran demonstrators held a rally in front of the centre on Sunday 11th, many waving huge Iranian flags and some holding pictures of Ayatollah Khamenei – a level of open defiance to the monarchists and the imperialist propaganda narrative that would have been unthinkable back in 2022.

Apparently unable to face such opposition, the expected crowd of monarchists failed to materialise, reflecting the inherent cowardice of all such fascists.

Occasionally, monarchists would emerge from shops and cars to briefly shout abuse before running away. In some cases, the provocation was more brazen – this author observed one car pulling up directly in front of the demonstration and unfurling a monarchist flag from the window.

Unfortunately, the boundless enthusiasm of the pro-Iran demonstrators in these situations led some of them to make some reckless decisions, and a number were arrested following physical fights between demonstrators and monarchist provocateurs, ultimately providing police with a convenient excuse to kettle the entire demonstration towards the end of the evening (as well as providing GB News with more ammunition for anti-Iranian propaganda that the channel did not fail to exploit).

Nevertheless, the sight of so many demonstrators on a British street openly chanting in support of Ayatollah Khamenei and the Islamic Republic is emblematic of a wider shift that is taking place amongst western publics as a result of the genocide in Gaza. Endlessly recycled pro-zionist and anti-Iranian talking points, until recently taken at face value by the vast majority of citizens and challenged only by a handful of committed anti-imperialists, are finally starting to wear thin.

Even at ‘mainstream’ pro-Palestine protests organised by the ‘respectable’ bureaucrats of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) and the trade unions, the sight of Iranian and Yemeni flags fluttering is becoming more common, as more and more people realise that Iran and (the liberated north of) Yemen are the only remaining countries in the region whose governments are truly devoted to fighting zionist and imperialist domination, and which are thus steadfast in their support of the oppressed Palestinian people.

We can expect the lackey media outlets of imperialism and zionism to respond to this by raising their shrill cries about hijab laws and ‘human rights’ to fever pitch. It is our job as revolutionaries to cut through these cries and speak the truth that many ordinary people are now coming to realise:

You cannot be meaningfully pro-Palestine without defending the Islamic Republic of Iran from imperialist attacks.[/i]

https://thecommunists.org/2026/02/01/ne ... n-streets/

*******

“The US Navy Faces a Major Challenge in Sustaining Combat Operations off the Coast of Iran”

"If Iran decides to fire 300 drones in a swarm attack on the carrier strike force, and each destroyer fires at least two air defense missiles at those drones, that would require 600 air defense missiles. And there is the problem… If each destroyer is carrying a load of Tomahawks, then they are only carrying a maximum of 100 interceptors. Not only will the destroyers not have enough interceptors to fend-off the attacking Iranian drones, they will deplete their missile stock.

The only way to reload these cells is that each destroyer must sail to a port equipped with cranes that are capable of reloading the VLS cells.The closest port — I am assuming that the port in Bahrain is not available because Iran will have closed the Strait of Hormuz — is in Diego Garcia, which is 3 to 4 days away if each USN ship is traveling at 25 knots.”

“In short, if Iran fires hundreds of missiles and drones at the US carrier task force the the US will not be able to sustain combat operations for more than a couple of days.”

The US Navy is in no way equipped to fight a long war against even Iran, let alone China. Their weaponry was never designed to meet the sheer rate and scale of munitions usage of modern industrialized warfare. The ships would rapidly become defenceless even against drones and supersonic missiles, let alone hypersonic missiles.



https://substack.com/@rogerboyd/note/c- ... ail-digest

If the United States attempts to blockade Iran, then Iran can blockade the Straits of Hormuz very easily. The biggest losers from what will be oil prices going skyward:

Europe, which is heavily dependent upon GCC oil and gas

India, which relies heavily on GCC oil and gas

The GCC states unable to export their oil and gas

The US consumer, with oil prices going through the roof

The US has very little electrified public transport

China has a massive strategic oil reserve that it can utilize, and Russia can increase its oil exports to China. Iran can also export oil via the new railway that opened that connects it to China.

China also has its own domestic oil production (4 mbpd) plus an oil pipeline from Central Asia. It is not dependent on the GCC for gas supplies, and Russia can supply more via LNG if needed. China also has a fully electrified train, subway and tram infrastructure, with also many buses and taxis electrified, and many millions of electric personal vehicles. A response to such a blockade would be an acceleration of the move to personal EVs.

Russia would of course be laughing all the way to the bank. Iran is an industrialized country that can supply much of its own needs, unlike the GCC states. Both Russia and China will also want to help it survive given its crucial position in Central Asia.

There is also the risk that Iran decides to take the initiative and destroy Israel for good, rather than succumb to a lengthy embargo and destabilization.

That the Trump administration is even contemplating such things is shows a level of desperation and delusion, as well as Zionist influence.

https://substack.com/@rogerboyd/note/c- ... ail-digest

******

Iran and US agree to fresh round of nuclear talks in Oman

The two countries carried out five rounds of talks last year over Iran’s nuclear program and lifting of US sanctions. The talks were discontinued after the US joined Israel in launching airstrikes inside Iran in June.

February 05, 2026 by Abdul Rahman


Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi says that Iran-US talks on the nuclear issue are scheduled for Friday in Muscat, Oman. Photo: IRNA

Another round of Iran-US talks will begin on Friday, January 6, in Muscat, Oman, confirmed Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi on Thursday, amidst widespread speculations about possible US military strikes.

The indirect talks will mediated by Oman. The US delegation will be led by the White House special envoy for the Middle East, Steve Witkoff. The Iranian delegation will be led by Araghchi.

This will be the first formal talks between the two countries over Iran’s nuclear program since talks were abruptly halted after the fifth round last year. Following which, in June, the US joined the Israeli attacks against Iran and bombed three of its nuclear sites.

The new round of talks are being held amidst a large deployment of US troops to the region and repeated threats issued by US President Donald Trump of a possible military strike.

Even on Wednesday, Trump repeated his threats, claiming Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei should be “very worried” about possible attacks from the US.

Iran has made it clear that any attack, however limited, would invite the full-scale response of its armed forces and that all US assets in the region, including its warships and Israel itself, would be targeted.

It was speculated in the media that the talks may include Iran’s missile program and its regional policies as well as its nuclear program, as has been demanded by the Trump administration for a long time.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio insisted on the line on Wednesday, claiming talks with Iran must include Iran’s ballistic missile program and its regional policies as well.

However, Iran has outrightly denied any possibility of including its missile program or regional policies, claiming the talks on Friday would only be focused on its nuclear program and finding ways for lifting illegal sanctions imposed by the US.

So far the Trump administration has insisted Iran completely end its nuclear program. Iran has agreed to limitations but refuses to outrightly give up its nuclear enrichment program, claiming it is for peaceful purposes and within its rights under the international nuclear regime or the NPT.

No regional or European participation
It was previously speculated that talks would be held in Istanbul with the participation of several other regional countries. However, Iran has made it clear that the talks are largely going to be a bilateral affair with Oman playing the role of the mediator as it did last year.

On Thursday, Araghchi also denied any role for Germany or any other European player in the talks.

This came after German Chancellor Friedrich Merz expressed his country’s desire to participate in the talks in a post on X. He claimed this may “increase pressure on Iran” and help bring its nuclear program to a “swift end”.

“Last September in New York, at Merz’s insistence, the E3 [the UK, France, and Germany] put an end to their nuclear negotiations by pursuing the return of the UN sanctions on Iran. Now, Merz is begging to be allowed back into the same negotiations,” Araghchi noted.

He claimed Iran does not trust the German government at the moment and cited German support for the Israeli genocide in Gaza and Merz welcoming Israeli attacks on Iran last June, which killed over a thousand Iranians.

Araghchi also quoted Merz’s statement last month about the Iranian government’s imminent collapse during the protests, calling them examples of Merz’s “political naivety and distasteful character.”

The E3 was part of the original nuclear deal signed in 2015 between Iran and five permanent members of the UN, plus Germany.

Though they had initially opposed Trump’s unilateral withdrawal from the deal in 2018 and attempted to get the deal back on track, they later joined the US and imposed their own sanctions on Iran, echoing American allegations of its violations of the provisions of the now defunct Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

The E3 played a crucial role in the imposition of snapback international sanctions on Iran in the UN last September over its alleged violations of the JCPOA, or the nuclear deal.

https://peoplesdispatch.org/2026/02/05/ ... s-in-oman/

******



The US Keeps Openly Admitting It Deliberately Caused The Iran Protests

Speaking before the Senate Banking Committee on Thursday, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent explicitly stated that the US deliberately caused a financial crisis in Iran with the goal of fomenting civil unrest in the country.

Caitlin Johnstone
February 6, 2026

Speaking before the Senate Banking Committee on Thursday, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent explicitly stated that the US deliberately caused a financial crisis in Iran with the goal of fomenting civil unrest in the country.

Asked by Senator Katie Britt what more the US can be doing to place pressure on the Ayatollah and Iran, Bessent explained that the Treasury Department has implemented a “strategy” designed to undermine the Iranian currency which crashed the economy and sparked the violent protests we’ve seen throughout the country.

“One thing we could do at Treasury, and what we have done, is created a dollar shortage in the country,” Bessent said. “At a speech at the Economic Club in March I outlined the strategy. It came to a swift and I would say grand culmination in December when one of the largest banks in Iran went under. There was a run on the bank, the central bank had to print money, the Iranian currency went into free fall, inflation exploded, and hence we have seen the Iranian people out on the street.”


This is not the first time Bessent has made these admissions. Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos last month, the treasury secretary said the following:

“President Trump ordered Treasury and our OFAC division, Office of Foreign Asset Control, to put maximum pressure on Iran. And it’s worked, because in December, their economy collapsed. We saw a major bank go under; the central bank has started to print money. There is dollar shortage. They are not able to get imports, and this is why the people took to the street. So, this is economic statecraft, no shots fired, and things are moving in a very positive way here.”

Following these remarks, Jeffrey Sachs and Sybil Farres wrote the following for Common Dreams:

“What Secretary Bessent describes is of course not ‘economic statecraft’ in a traditional sense. It is war conducted by economic means, all designed to produce an economic crisis and social unrest leading to a fall of the government. This is proudly hailed as ‘economic statecraft.’

“The human suffering caused by outright war and crushing economic sanctions is not so different as one might think. Economic collapse produces shortages of food, medicine, and fuel, while also destroying savings, pensions, wages, and public services. Deliberate economic collapse drives people into poverty, malnutrition, and premature death, just as outright war does.”


Bessent laid out these plans in advance at the Economic Club of New York back in March of last year, saying the following:

“Last month, the White House announced its maximum pressure campaign on Iran designed to collapse its already buckling economy. The Iranian economy is in disarray; 35% official inflation, has a currency that has depreciated 60% in the last 12 months, and an ongoing energy crisis. I know a few things about currency devaluations, and if I were an Iranian, I would get all of my money out of the Rial now.

“This precarious state exists before our Maximum Pressure campaign, designed to collapse Iranian oil exports from the current 1.5–1.6, million barrels per day, back to the trickle they were when President Trump left office.

“Iran has developed a complex shadow network of financial facilitators and black-market oil shippers via a ghost fleet to sell oil, petrochemical and other commodities to finance its exports and generate hard currency.

“As such, we have elevated a sanctions campaign against this export infrastructure, targeting all stages of Iran’s oil supply chain. We have coupled this with vigorous government engagement and private sector outreach.

“We will close off Iran’s access to the international financial system by targeting regional parties that facilitate the transfer of its revenues. Treasury is prepared to engage in frank discussions with these countries. We are going to shut down Iran’s oil sector and drone manufacturing capabilities.

“We have predetermined benchmarks and timelines. Making Iran Broke Again will mark the beginning of our updated sanctions policy. Watch this space.”

The US has been orchestrating plans to foment unrest in Iran by causing economic strife for years. In 2019 Trump’s previous secretary of state Mike Pompeo openly acknowledged that the goal of Washington’s economic warfare against Iran was to make the population so miserable that they “change the government”, cheerfully citing the “economic distress” the nation had been placed under by US sanctions.

As unrest tore through Iran last mont, Trump egged protesters on and encouraged them to escalate, saying “To all Iranian patriots, keep protesting, take over your institutions, if possible, and save the name of the killers and the abusers that are abusing you,” adding, “all I say to them is help is on its way.”

Deliberately trying to ignite a civil war in a country by immiserating its population so severely that they start attacking their own government out of sheer desperation is one of the most evil things you can possibly imagine. But under the western empire it’s just another day. They’re doing it in Iran, and they’ve also aggressively ramped up efforts to to do it in Cuba, where the government has just announced it will be rationing oil as the US moves to strangle the island nation into regime change.

A lot of attention is going into the Epstein files right now, and understandably so. But it’s worth noting that nothing in them is as depraved and abusive as what our rulers are doing right out in the open.

https://caitlinjohnstone.com.au/2026/02 ... -protests/

[blindpig]

IRAN, RUSSIA, UAE, AND INDIA FOR GULF REGION PEACE TRUMPING US SCHEME FOR PEACE BY WAR — THE TEHRAN TIMES INTERVIEW



By John Helmer, Moscow, with Sahar Dadjoo, Teheran @bears_with

As tensions persist between Iran and the United States amid intensified military signaling and renewed talk of negotiations, critical questions remain about Washington’s real strategy and the risk of a broader regional conflict. In this context, Tehran Times spoke with John Helmer, a veteran journalist and geopolitical analyst based in Moscow, to examine the shifting balance of power and the prospects for de-escalation.

Published today here.

Q: In his February 1 statement, Ayatollah Khamenei warned that any US military action would expand into a regional war. How does this reflect the interconnected military and political dynamics of today’s Middle East?

You understand—and I hope your audience understands—that I am a Russia correspondent. I have spent 30 years in Russia, so I am speaking from a Russian point of view. I think it is valuable for your audience to understand that perspective.

I understood the February 1 statement as expressing something obvious, but with implications that are less obvious. It is very clear that Iran’s security is being threatened from the region.

The US negotiator, Steven Witkoff, has been shuttling from Miami—where he was on Saturday speaking with the Russian business representative Kirill Dmitriev—to Israel, and then to Abu Dhabi for discussions on the military terms of a settlement to the Ukraine war with Russian negotiators. These include an admiral in charge of Russian military intelligence and a general.



On February 3 Witkoff met in Israel with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Gen Eyal Zamir, IDF chief, and David Barnea, head of Mossad.

To the extent that I understand Ayatollah Khamenei’s statement, he is saying that Iran is facing the prospect of war from Israel, from the United States, and from those Arab states that host military bases from which attacks on Iran have been launched in the past and could be launched again. The regional dimension is that Iran is being threatened simultaneously and in coordination by Israel, the United States, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE, to name a few.

That is the first point. Therefore, Ayatollah Khamenei is saying that if Iran faces such a coordinated attack from these territories and states, its defensive response must be directed against each of them. That makes it a regional war.

The consequence is an interesting one. Is Ayatollah Khamenei saying that Iran wishes to negotiate with all of its enemies at the table at the same time? In other words, why Witkoff alone? Why not an Israeli representative, given that Witkoff appears to be shuttling between Israel and negotiations with Iran? Why not a Saudi representative? Why not an Emirati representative, or any other state—including Iraq—on whose territory an attack on Iran could be launched or threatened?

If this is a regional war, then all regional representatives should attend and be part of the negotiating process.

This position is not new at all. Ayatollah Khamenei is restating what has long been the Russian position, as articulated years ago by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov: that the only viable form of security for the Persian Gulf states must be comprehensive. It cannot be partial. It must involve all states pledging mutual security with one another—without exception.

Q: President Trump says Iran is open to nuclear talks, yet the US is also increasing its naval presence in the region. How do you interpret this mix of diplomacy and military pressure? What does it tell us about Washington’s real strategy?

That is a complicated question. Let me answer it this way.

In the first place, President Trump aims for all strategy to be about winning, not losing. Winning, from Trump’s point of view, has been a combination of force, coercion, and extortion—both in the trade arena through tariffs, penalty tariffs, and secondary tariffs against states such as China and India.

So the idea of a mix of diplomacy and pressure does not quite describe it accurately. All of Trump’s moves are a form of pressure. There is no real credibility to the diplomacy. Diplomacy, in this case, is the talking at the table, but the gun at the table is economic warfare and sanctions warfare.

This is not a combination of diplomacy and military pressure. It is a single combination of different types of pressure—extortion. It is negotiating at the point of a gun. President Trump’s view is that he must win.

Q: Iran’s top security official, Ali Larijani, has described a structured negotiation framework emerging with the US, while Tehran insists talks cannot occur under coercive threats. In your view, what minimum conditions are needed for these talks to become serious and productive?

I have followed Mr. Larijani’s references to this closely. He was in Moscow late last week, as you and your audience know, and he laid out at the table the Iranian war plan—that is, the Iranian defence plan. The discussions with President Putin and other Russian military intelligence officials, as well as Russian military and civilian officials, remain top secret.

What is a “structured negotiation”? The surprising thing to me is that Steven Witkoff is the US negotiator whom either Mr. Araqchi or Mr. Larijani appears to consider an acceptable counterparty.

From the Iranian point of view—historically, and based on Witkoff’s behaviour as a so-called negotiator prior to the launching of the war last June—Witkoff is not a negotiator. He is a deception agent. The Iranian side has not publicly stated that Witkoff represents a deception operation, but that is what everyone understands him to be. The question, therefore, is why he is still considered an acceptable counterparty.

Let me give you an example from the Russian point of view. Russia has been fighting a war against the United States primarily on the Ukrainian battlefield since February 2022. What has been Witkoff’s role in the negotiations?

Take his role at the table in Abu Dhabi last week. According to the Russian side, he was present alongside Jared Kushner—Trump’s son-in-law—and another individual named Joshua Gruenbaum, a New York real estate lawyer who has joined negotiations involving Israel, Gaza, and discussions on ending the genocide there. From the Russian perspective, these individuals are negotiating only economic cooperation.

Yes, in the past, Witkoff has been to the Kremlin, met with President Putin, and discussed various frameworks for negotiations on ending the Ukraine war. But he was not at the table in Abu Dhabi to discuss military issues.

To the extent that Iran faces the United States Navy, Army, and Air Force, a structured negotiation should include a US military representative. In the Russian negotiations in Abu Dhabi, the US military representative was General Alexus Grynkewich, a senior-ranking officer. Grynkewich is the commander of US European Command and the Supreme Allied Commander Europe, and the senior operational officer responsible for the battlefield in Ukraine.

THE US MILITARY MEMBERS OF DELEGATION IN THE ABU DHABI TALKS, FEBRUARY 5

Source: https://x.com/US_EUCOM/status/201942233 ... 68/photo/1
1ST left: Brigadier General Michael Adamski, director J2 intelligence, US Army European Command
1st right: General Alexus Grynkewich, European Command chief and Supreme Allied Commander, Europe


Left, Adamski: https://www.gomo.army.mil/public/Biogra ... lj-adamski Right, Grynkewich: https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Biographies ... rynkewich/

Iran should ask itself: who is the senior US general in charge of operations against Iran? That individual should be at the table.

President Trump has referred to what he calls a “beautiful armada.” Leaving aside the adjective, it is an armada. Who negotiates the terms of defence or attack with an armada? Military officers do. Witkoff is not military. He is not an acceptable negotiator for the Russian side when it comes to ending killing on the battlefield.

President Trump may say otherwise, but Iran has its own experience with Witkoff.

Consequently, I am surprised that the Iranian side continues to consider that within the structured negotiation framework Mr. Larijani refers to, Witkoff is the sole counterparty.

I pose this as a rhetorical question. On the Ukrainian battlefield, a military settlement requires senior military officers on both sides. Admiral Kostyukov and Generals Zorin and Fomin are the senior Russian military officers. Generals Grynkewich and Adamski were on the US side, along with Daniel Driscoll, the US Secretary of the Army, who had a junior military career but now heads the US Army.

These are the structured military negotiators required for resolving a military problem—hopefully through negotiation. Iran has a military problem. Witkoff represents a deception operation. He is not part of a structured negotiation; he is part of a structured deception.

Q: In his CNN interview, Abbas Araghchi stressed that Iran is open to a fair and equitable deal, but that trust must be rebuilt due to past U.S. actions. How do U.S. military pressure and rhetoric affect the prospects for rebuilding that trust?

It is really a rhetorical question. Past U.S. actions have included— and you do not need a correspondent from Moscow to explain this — combined Israeli-U.S. attacks on Iran, including cross-border attacks and what amounted to a war.

There was the U.S. bombing attack on Iranian nuclear installations, which was pre-arranged in advance, as was the Iranian retaliation, since no air defence was put up against U.S. bombers.

What followed was that this particular war failed. It failed to decapitate the Iranian military leadership, failed to cause chaos within the civilian leadership, and failed to destroy Iran’s defensive capabilities. That was a failure. It was a defeat, followed by a ceasefire. We do not need to get into the history of it; you understand that history better than I do.

From where I am sitting, what followed was another method of attacking Iran — an attempt to achieve internal regime change. That, too, has been defeated, including through street rioting and similar efforts. You are in a better position than I am to describe that.

Consequently, we arrive at what I would call the third stage. The third stage is what the U.S. — and President Trump — has called a “beautiful armada.” It is intended to demonstrate massive military force in order to intimidate Iran into some form of surrender and acceptance of U.S. terms.

Now, this is not quite in your question, but on current indications, I would say that Trump is retreating from those terms. We can come back to that later.

From an Iranian point of view, a fair and equitable deal is one that allows Trump to retreat while declaring victory, because he will have to accept that each attempt to destroy the Iranian system — whether from inside or outside the country — has failed.

So, a fair and equitable deal, as described by Mr. Araghchi, your foreign minister, must be fair and equitable to Iran in very specific ways.

First, are the United States and its regional allies committing to a forward policy of non-intervention in Iranian affairs?

Second, is the United States committing to a system of mutual security — Iran versus Israel, Israel versus Iran, and so on?

Mutual security, as proposed by the Russian side, raises the question of whether the U.S. is prepared to agree to such a framework. Until now, nobody has seriously considered that the Lavrov plan for mutual assured security in the region — involving all players — should actually involve all players.

Why, to return to my first point, does the United States insist that it alone will represent every player, confronting Iran man-to-man at the point of a gun, with fleets at sea, air bases, and other military assets deployed throughout the Persian Gulf?

“Fair and equitable” normally means mutual and reciprocal security. That is what it means in the war Russia is fighting in Europe. That is what fair and equitable means on the Ukrainian battlefield. I should think it ought to mean the same on any battlefield.

Equitable means mutual and reciprocal.


Left: Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Aragchi arriving in Muscat, Oman, on February 5 for negotiations with the US delegation scheduled for February 6. https://x.com/sputnik_ar/status/2019545729300349209

Q: Let us discuss Russia’s role in the current tensions. You have previously referred to a “formula” you use to explain great-power behavior. To what extent can — or will — Russia act as a de-escalation broker between the U.S. and Iran, given its own interest in avoiding a wider regional conflict?

There are two parts to that question.

First, there is the formula itself, which your audience can read on my website, Dances with Bears (johnhelmer.net). It is a simple formula intended to make clear what is really at stake. The formula is:

M + V + B = P

Money plus Votes plus Bullets equals Power.

Let us apply this formula to the Trump administration — or more accurately, the Trump regime.

Money:

What does money tell us about what Trump will do toward Iran right now? Look at oil prices. When billions of dollars are invested every day in forward oil prices, markets are effectively betting on whether the Strait of Hormuz will remain open or close. Everyone in the markets understands this.

If the United States opens fire, the Iranian response will be regional. One key element of Iran’s regional defence would be closing the Strait of Hormuz. That would halt eastward oil flows from Arab states as well as Iran, triggering a massive price shock.

And yet, oil markets are currently pushing crude prices downward — by roughly five percent just over this past weekend. That tells us something very important: the money says Trump will withdraw. Trump will not attack.


Source: https://oilprice.com/oil-price-charts/ Note the uptick in the oil price chart line which began late on Thursday afternoon, two days after this broadcast.

Votes:

Now let us look at votes — both domestic American voters and their attitude toward an attack on Iran. That attitude is extremely hostile. President Trump is losing support across key constituencies, and overall voter disapproval is rising.

None of Trump’s so-called peace initiatives are considered credible by American voters. Polling clearly shows his support collapsing. At the same time, Trump has just announced the withdrawal of federal forces from Democrat-voting cities such as Los Angeles, Portland, and Minneapolis.

This followed incidents in which Trump’s militarized Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) forces were involved in killings. Trump announced his retreat in a tweet — and it should be read exactly as that: a retreat.

He said:

“Under no circumstances are we going to participate in various poorly run Democrat cities with regard to their protests and or riots unless they ask us for help. We will, however, guard — and very powerfully so — any and all federal buildings.”

That is Trump running away. It reflects a broader retreat by Trump and his internal security adviser Stephen Miller. It shows how sensitive they are to votes.

I once worked in the White House under the Carter administration, and all presidential staffs understand something fundamental: electoral pressure begins long before Election Day.

The summer driving season starts in late May — about 16 weeks away. From that point, Americans must buy gasoline to travel. Trump cannot risk a major oil-price or gasoline-price spike during that period. If he does, he loses votes.

Bullets:

That brings us to bullets — military force.

Yes, the U.S. Navy has Tomahawk missiles and other weapons aboard its armada. They can be fired. But military firepower has limits. Once missiles are launched — whether offensively against Iran or defensively against Iranian drones and missiles — ships must withdraw to reload. Logistics matter.



Iran understands this very well. Having fought wars since the 1980s, Iran knows that if it survives the first wave, the second wave, and the third wave — and protracts the conflict through sustained defence — Iran wins.

Why? Because if the Strait of Hormuz is closed, and if the U.S. cannot achieve its objectives within two to seven days, but Iran sustains its defence for 16 weeks, American drivers heading into summer will face massive gasoline price increases.

Combine that with exhausted military capability and the return of U.S. casualties, and you get the kind of political crisis that destroys presidencies.

That is exactly what happened to Lyndon B. Johnson. He resigned on March 31, 1968, under the combined pressure of inflation and rising casualties from Vietnam. That date is not very far away on today’s calendar.

So when you apply the formula — Money, Votes, Bullets — it becomes clear that these elements cannot produce Power for the Trump regime in the current situation.

If Iran protracts the conflict and generates inflation and casualties, Trump faces the same political forces that ended Johnson’s presidency. All presidents are subject to this dynamic. Trump is no exception.

You can already see the consequences. Trump has withdrawn federal forces from Minneapolis and other cities. He has alienated Black voters, Hispanic voters, Asian voters, and white working-class voters. All are increasingly hostile to him.

He cannot risk an inflation-casualty combination. And time is already working against him.

He knows it, and the people behind him in the White House—figures such as Stephen Miller—are especially failing to deliver what they define as an offensive enforcement doctrine. This includes domestic enforcement as well as offensive attacks against Venezuela, Cuba, Iran, and the Palestinians in Gaza, among others. That doctrine certainly polarizes the American electorate, but not to the extent that Trump and his successors—such as J.D. Vance, the vice president—are counting on for their future political power.

In my formulation, M plus V plus B does not equal P—media plus violence plus bullying –does not translate into power for Trump in this particular equation. That is how I read the situation, and that is how I invite our listeners, and you, to understand how the United States is thinking now.

This brings us back to your question about mediation—Qatar, Turkey, Russia—and what roles they can play. I hope it is clear that if you agree this reflects how Trump is behaving, not merely how he speaks, and if you agree that a structured negotiation must involve those who are most threatening, then that means U.S. generals, Israeli officials—whom Witkoff is receiving instructions from this week before he travels to Abu Dhabi — the Saudis and the Emiratis first and foremost, but also the Qataris.

If a structured negotiation involves all parties because all are threatened by one, then what we see now is retreat everywhere. That is not something Iranians should feel safe or secure about, let alone confident. No. But this is how I see the strategic situation. And if this is the strategic reality, then we must ask what role Qatar, Turkey, Russia, or the Emiratis can realistically play as mediators.

Q: Looking ahead, what developments should regional and global observers watch most closely in the coming weeks? What do you think will be the key factor determining whether tensions escalate or stabilize?

How can I answer this? In the press—and in the constant speculation that generates headlines, pays journalists’ salaries, or provides material for propaganda—we can identify several key dimensions.

First, Trump has now withdrawn from two major demands, something Witkoff has acknowledged in the past. If you don’t mind, I will refer directly to my notes and read exactly what Trump said.

On Saturday, Trump was at the front of an airplane, flying to Miami for a wedding, when reporters asked him for an update on Iran. This staged question-and-answer format has effectively become the way the U.S. government communicates with the world.

Asked about his current thinking on Iran, Trump said: “We do have very big, powerful ships heading in that direction, as you know, but I hope they can negotiate something that’s acceptable.”

He then added: “We could make a negotiated deal that would be satisfactory, with no nuclear weapons. They should do that. I don’t know that they will, but they are talking to us—seriously talking to us now.”

What he is saying is difficult to interpret because Trump does not speak in a normal cognitive sequence. His thinking lacks the competence of most of his predecessors—I am not even referring here to Biden’s early dementia.

What matters is this: Trump said in a deal the U.S. demand is zero nuclear enrichment. That had been a core demand previously, and Iran rejected it. The reasons are obvious and well documented in your newspaper.

Second, Israel in particular has pushed that no long-range missiles would be acceptable. He no longer says that the United States demands that Iran have no missile program—one that threatens Israel and U.S. bases. Trump appears to have dropped that demand as well, for obvious reasons: Iran has never agreed to it and has made that clear.

So on Saturday—whether at the front or the back of an airplane—Trump was clearly briefed by his advisers to say that no nuclear weapons is the acceptable term, one that would avoid war from what he calls America’s “beautiful armada.” This represents a major retreat. He repeated essentially the same message again on Sunday.

What does this mean? It means Trump is in retreat. He has dropped two key terms insisted upon by Israel.

Now, when Witkoff goes to Israel this week, he is bound to be asked: “Your boss has just dropped two of the fundamental terms we insist on. Are you dropping them as well?” If that is Israel’s position, then it would be better for the Israelis to come to the table directly rather than using Witkoff as a messenger boy.

How many messages can one messenger boy carry? Historically, intermediaries who delivered false messages paid a heavy price. The lesson was clear: do not send a messenger with a false message.

So the questions are these: Has the United States dropped the missile demand and the zero-enrichment demand? If so, has Israel dropped them as well? And what about the Saudis and the Emiratis—what is their position?

As I have said repeatedly, a structured negotiation cannot occur with an individual like Witkoff alone. At best, he could be part of a delegation that includes senior American, Israeli, Saudi, and Emirati generals. But who holds the real power in such a negotiation? Obviously, the generals do.

Witkoff is a money man. That was his role before joining the White House, and it remains his role in dealings with Russia. So what kind of mediator is he?

Before we ask what kind of mediation Qatar, Turkey, or Russia can provide, we should ask what kind of mediation Witkoff represents when Trump himself is in retreat. And if Trump is retreating, will his allies allow it? Do the Israelis agree?

I would be very surprised to hear Prime Minister Netanyahu say that Israel is dropping its demand that Iran dismantle its long-range missile program or accept zero nuclear enrichment.

Since you asked about Russia’s position, let me address that briefly. Over the past few hours, President Vladimir Putin, through his spokesman Dmitry Peskov, has said that Russia is willing to take enriched uranium back from Iran as a way of safeguarding Iran’s civilian nuclear program, provided Iran agrees not to develop nuclear weapons.

In effect, Russia is saying: we will guarantee denuclearization of weapons development in Iran for the future. That is the Russian position.

Now this is deeply ironic. The battlefield in Ukraine is filled with Europeans, NATO forces, and Asian allies, all supporting the United States in its effort to defeat Russia. How could it possibly be that Russia’s adversaries—those fighting Russia across Europe, not only in Ukraine—would accept a Russian guarantee for Iranian security?

That is a rhetorical question, and it demands skepticism. Why would the United States, after reportedly launching a missile attack near President Putin’s personal residence just days ago, accept his offer to safeguard enriched uranium so it cannot be diverted into weapons?

I am a simple individual. I cannot understand why enemies attempting to attack Russia would now accept such an undertaking from President Putin in order to avoid attacking Iran.

What I believe is happening is a series of manoeuvres designed to allow Trump to declare victory, withdraw his ships, and then redirect U.S. aggression toward countries less able to defend themselves—such as Venezuela and Cuba.

https://johnhelmer.net/iran-russia-uae- ... more-93361

******

U.S.-Iran Talks Up To A ‘Good Start’

The first round of new talks between Iran and the United States in Muscat, Oman, has ended with satisfying results.

U.S. President Donald Trump very much needs the talks to chicken out from his threats to again attack Iran. Any attack on Iran would be retaliated for with missile which would cause massive damage to U.S. and Israeli assets.

There had been a little drama about the location, configuration and content of the meeting.

The U.S. at first insisted on talks in Turkey. It wanted the foreign ministers of other Middle Eastern countries to take part in them. It demanded to negotiate about nuclear issues, ballistic missiles, Iranian support for local militia and about the recognizance of Israel by Iran.

On Wednesday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the talks needed to include ballistic missiles, Iran’s aligned militias and its treatment of its own people “in order for talks to actually lead to something meaningful.”

Iran rejected all of the conditions Rubio tried to make.

It wanted to limit the talks to the nuclear issue and sanctions relief. It did not like Turkey, which is neither neutral nor a friend of Iran, as the host of the talks and preferred Oman as it traditionally following a neutral foreign policy. Iran also rejected the participation of other Middle Eastern countries as these would likely be under U.S. pressure to gang up against Iran.

Some Middle East countries, interested in preventing another war in their region, intervened with President Trump:

Fearing that talks about Iran’s missiles and regional proxies could cause an immediate impasse, other countries in the region have been pushing for the session to focus on Iran’s nuclear program, two Middle Eastern diplomats said.

They urged to accept Iran’s conditions and the U.S. conceded to them.

The talks held today were indirect. Oman’s Foreign Minister Badr Al Busaidi shuffled between the rooms to convey each parties position.


Badr Albusaidi – بدر البوسعيدي @badralbusaidi – 14:15 UTC · Feb 6, 2026

Very serious talks mediating between Iran and the US in Muscat today.
It was useful to clarify both Iranian and American thinking and identify areas for possible progress. We aim to reconvene in due course, with the results to be considered carefully in Tehran and Washington.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi informed the Iranian press about the results:

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi says the new round of indirect nuclear talks with the United States in the Omani capital Muscat was a “good start” and can be continued.

“The decision on how to proceed with the negotiations will be made after consultations with the capitals,” he told IRIB following the conclusion of the Omani-mediated talks on Friday.
…
During some six hours of talks, several indirect meetings and rounds of consultations were held and Omani Foreign Minister Sayyid Badr Al Busaidi played an “active” role in hosting and conveying the messages and viewpoints of both sides, said Araghchi.

“During these talks, [which took place] after a long period of interruption, Iran’s positions and concerns were fully conveyed and our interests, the rights of the Iranian people, and all matters that needed to be stated were conveyed in a very positive atmosphere, and the views of the other side were also heard,” he explained.

Other Iranian media report that Araghchi during the talks insisted on continued enrichment in Iran and that neither side budged on their previously stated positions.

After consultations with the capitals a new round is likely to take place in a week or so.

For some intriguing (or stupid) reason the U.S. delegation, led by Steve Witkoff and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, included Admiral Brad Cooper, the commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East. The Iranian delegation was purely civilian and certainly not impressed by some uniformed man sitting in a room away from theirs.

I have yet to see ‘leaks’ or rumors from the U.S. side of the negotiations.

There are many people around the White House, i.e. Marco Rubio, and in Israel who do want the talks to fail. They will do their best to portrait the Iranian position as unreasonable and to press for and immediate end of the negotiations.

But Trump needs a way out. Any new conflagration in Middle East could easily turn into a months long disaster with significant U.S. casualties. The political aftermath of such a fight would likely ruin his presidency.

Posted by b on February 6, 2026 at 15:59 UTC | Permalink

https://www.moonofalabama.org/2026/02/u ... start.html

*****.

Trump has 'no clear goals' for Iran as nuclear talks resume: Report

A former official on Iran policy says that it is unclear whether Washington has enough defenses to successfully repel a forceful Iranian retaliation

News Desk

FEB 6, 2026


(Photo credit: Reuters)
US President Donald Trump and his administration have no “clear guidance” on what Washington hopes to accomplish in any potential attack against Iran, sources told NBC News on 6 February.


“Trump has left open the possibility of pursuing regime change in Iran,” the report says, but adds that the president “has not yet settled on precisely what his objectives for any possible military action would be.”

“There is no clear road map or consensus within the administration over what role the US would play after any such operation,” the US officials said.

They added that “he has made it clear that he wants military action to be quick and decisive should he decide to pursue strikes.”

Yet new reports in western media have said that the US – despite repeatedly threatening Iran, hinting at regime change, and threatening the life of the country’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei – has not been able to devise a plan decisive enough to prevent a massive regional escalation.

“The US military could conduct limited airstrikes on Iran if the president were to order an attack today. But the kind of decisive attack that Trump has asked the military to prepare would likely prompt a proportional response from Iran, requiring the US to have robust air defenses in place to protect Israel as well as American troops,” the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported at the start of this month.

As a result, the US military is being forced to muster up as many additional air defenses as possible.


Suzanne Maloney, a former State Department official on Iran policy, said the extent to which Washington has enough defenses to successfully repel Iranian retaliatory strikes remains a “key question.”

The report says a large-scale attack will prompt Iran to use as much firepower as it possibly can, something Iranian officials have publicly hinted at recently.

WSJ adds that Iran’s regional allies could get involved, including Ansarallah in Yemen and the factions in Iraq. Lebanon’s Hezbollah has also warned that an attack on Iran would ignite the region, while signaling that it does not rule out getting involved.

“Gulf states are also readying their own air defenses. Saudi Arabia has purchased seven THAAD batteries, a few of which have been delivered,” a Gulf official told the outlet.

WSJ also reiterates what was reported last year about both the US and Israel burning through interceptors during the 12-day war on Iran in June.

Jason Armagost, the deputy commander of Air Force Global Strike Command, told reporters recently that Iran has likely learned lessons from the last war.

“They will understand things differently and they will change … So I would say we have to be prepared for them to be different,” he said.


The NBC report coincided with negotiations between Tehran and Washington in Oman.

The last time Tehran negotiated with Washington, it was attacked by Israel in the middle of the talks.

Trump had pretended to be in favor of diplomacy for months prior to the attack, while secretly plotting the 12-day war with Israel.

The talks coincide with a massive US military buildup across the region, and follow numerous threats against Iran made publicly by Trump. Iran has vowed to confront any attack by striking back at Israel and US bases across West Asia.

Washington has been demanding that Iran give up its nuclear program, missile program, and support for resistance groups in West Asia.

These are all terms Tehran has refused to consider during negotiations, almost leading to the cancellation of the Omani-hosted talks, according to reports on 5 February.

Turkiye, Qatar, and Egypt have presented Tehran and Washington with a framework for negotiations – including a commitment from Iran to significantly reduce uranium enrichment, vow not to use ballistic missiles, and halt support for resistance groups, sources told Al Jazeera on Thursday.

https://thecradle.co/articles/trump-has ... ume-report

Iran–US talks end with no deal, new sanctions against Tehran

Iran’s foreign minister said ‘mistrust’ poses a ‘serious challenge’ to the talks, given Israel launched a US-backed war on the Islamic Republic during negotiations last year

News Desk

FEB 6, 2026


(Photo credit: WANA/Handout via Reuters)

Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on 6 February that Omani-mediated negotiations between Tehran and Washington were held in a “good atmosphere,” despite no agreement being reached and the imposition of new sanctions on Tehran.


The minister confirmed that a second meeting has been agreed upon despite significant “mistrust” that threatens the talks.

“We had long and intensive talks. Several meetings were held indirectly today,” Araghchi said after the negotiations concluded on Friday.

“Several rounds of meetings were held. After this period, our opinions and concerns were conveyed to each other.”

“Also, our rights and interests were discussed in a very good atmosphere,” he added, confirming the talks were scheduled to continue.

However, he warned that “distrust is a serious challenge to the negotiations.”

“We must overcome this distrust. A good discussion was held today and it was decided to continue. In my opinion, it was a good start and it depends on the other side and the decision-making in Iran,” Araghchi went on to tell reporters.

Additionally, he stressed that the talks were focused “solely” on the nuclear issue. “The prerequisite for any dialogue is to refrain from threats and pressure. We have clearly raised this point today as well, and we expect it to be observed so that the dialogue can continue,” he added.

Oman’s Foreign Minister Badr Hamad Al-Busaidi said talks were “very serious” and “clarified” the thinking of each side.


Washington has yet to publicly comment on the talks. Instead, it announced after the meetings a series of new sanctions targeting the Iranian oil industry. The sanctions hit two entities and 15 individuals.

The negotiations almost fell apart over Iran’s insistence on discussing only the nuclear issue.

Axios reported earlier this week that the US agreed to meet the Iranians only “out of respect” for its Arab allies who had lobbied to save the talks from cancellation.

Washington wants Tehran to give up nuclear enrichment, restrict its missile program, and abandon support for its allies in the region, including Hezbollah, the Iraqi resistance, and Yemen’s Ansarallah. Israel is pushing the US to stick to these demands.

Araghchi recently said including missiles and resistance groups in a deal was “impossible.”

Turkiye, Qatar, and Egypt have presented Tehran and Washington with a framework for negotiations, including a commitment from the Islamic Republic to significantly reduce uranium enrichment, a vow not to use ballistic missiles, and a halt in support for resistance groups, sources told Al Jazeera on Thursday.


Iran has signaled a willingness to potentially limit enrichment in previous negotiations, as it agreed to in the 2015 deal, which Trump scrapped during his first term.

Yet the Islamic Republic refuses to give up support for its allies and says its missile program – a major part of the country’s defense – is non-negotiable.

US President Donald Trump has publicly issued numerous threats against Iran since Mossad-backed anti-government riots erupted in early January, killing thousands, including civilians and security forces.

In his newest threat, he said Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei “should be very worried.”

The USS Abraham Lincoln has recently arrived in West Asia with several accompanying warships. Washington has also deployed additional fighter jet squadrons to the region.

Khamenei has warned of a “regional war” if Iran is attacked. Officials have vowed that Tehran will strike Israel and US military bases across the region if Washington decides to bomb.

https://thecradle.co/articles/iran-us-t ... nst-tehran