Middle East at a very critical juncture. Will all-out war be postponed again?

Richard Hubert Barton

The first thing that comes to one’s mind when analyzing the conflict is that the U.S. and its allies do not want to notice that the world is no longer the same.

It will be just enough to have a brief look at main hostilities and military developments since the October 7, 2023 to realise extreme intensification in threats, genocidal killings and the extent of fighting in the Middle East area.

To begin with, terror unleashed by Hamas fighters on October 7, 2023 resulted in brutal killing of 1,200 Israeli civilians and 253 hostages with most of them being held in captivity till now. This data is quoted according to Israeli tallies. In response to the October genocide Israel launched an attack on Gaza Strip which is still under way.

On March 26, 2024 Francesca Albanese, the UN Special Rapporteur on human rights in the Occupied Territories, presented a report called “The Anatomy of a Genocide” which claims that no less than 30,000 Arab civilians had been killed by then. Albanese called on countries to immediately impose sanctions and an arms embargo on Israel, while Washington again accused the council of a chronic anti-Israel bias.

It would be a serious omission not to mention that on the June 27, the U.S. House of Representatives passed an amendment to prevent the U.S. State Department from using Gaza’s Health Ministry statistics to cite the casualty figures for Israel’s genocide in Gaza. Israel regularly states that it has no information on the Palestinian civilians killed and wounded by its bombs. If the bill passes the Senate, the State Department’s silence on Israeli genocide of Palestinians will be certain.

In April this year there was an Israeli air attack by six missiles fired from F-35 targeting Iranian consulate in Damascus, capital of Syria. Among those killed were Brig Gen Mohammad Reza Zahedi and Zahedi’s deputy, Gen Haji Rahimi. It was also reported that Brig Gen Hossein Amirollah, the chief of general staff for the al-Quds force in Syria and Lebanon, was among the 11 victims.

Iran’s foreign minister, Hossein Amir-Abdollahian, said: “We consider this aggression to have violated all diplomatic norms and international treaties. Further, in a propaganda style, he continued “Benjamin Netanyahu has completely lost his mental balance due to the successive failures in Gaza and his failure to achieve his Zionist goals.” Some journalists were quick to note that unlike Israelis, even German Nazis did not attack diplomatic missions and diplomatic staff. Iran vowed to respond in same magnitude and harshness but apparently taking heed of president Biden’s request it responded lightly.

On July 7, Syrian state news reported that Israel had launched air strikes at the Syrian port Baniyas. In addition, air defence systems operated by Iranian militias were targeted on the coast close to Baniyas. Also, there were air strikes on Latakia that coincided with arrival of two Iranian ships. It is noteworthy that at the same time the U.S. gave a warning to Hezbollah. In response Russia strongly condemned the Israeli airstrikes at Baniyas, warning of potential “dangerous consequences.”

As reported on July 27, 2024, a rocket attack allegedly by Hezbollah. took place in Israeli-occupied Golan Heights. The strike fell from Lebanon in Majdal Shams village, killing 12 Druze teenagers. Israel said it would retaliate.

It did so by targeting on July 30 Fouad Shukri, the second-in-command of Hezbollah, as responsible for the tragedy in Majdal Shams. He was killed in the Shia district of Beirut with the help of an Israeli drone.

Hardly Iran’s leaders had a few hours to mourn the death of Hezbollah top official Fouad Shukr in Beirut who is believed to be buried under a mass of rubble, when Israel assassinated Hamas’s top political leader, Ismail Haniyeh, in Tehran on July 31. Newly inaugurated Iranian president Masoud Pezeshkian stated: “We consider it our duty to avenge his blood.” Israeli media reported that ministers and officials were told not to comment on Haniyeh’s killing.

On the same day the U.S. carried out air strikes described by Pentagon as defensive. The strikes aimed at a base south of Baghdad used by Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF). It killed four members of the group and wounded four others. Iraq’s PMF consists of several Iran-aligned armed militias. This is the latest proof that the U.S. participates in the Middle East regional conflicts against Iran on the side of Israel.

In the maze of Israel’s politics: Is genocide “moral?”

To put it mildly, the Israeli government situation is complicated. Officially, it has nothing to worry about. It has a powerful defender, the U.S., that supplies it with super modern weapons for which, unlike other American allies (western Europe, South Korea, Japan and Taiwan), it doesn’t have to pay. As well, as it was stated publicly on a number of occasions, there are no limits for any kind of assistance to Israel by the USA. Vice-presidential hopeful J. D. Vance advocates sending more funds to Israel in view of the Israel-Hamas war. Nevertheless, though American military intervention to save Israel is not excluded, the main fighting must be done by the Israeli Defense Force (IDF). Above all, the internal politics in dealing with the Gaza strip and West Bank with many contentious aspects are the responsibility of the Israeli government.

Let’s start with a few knotty problems within the present Israeli cabinet. The state of Israel has been seeking to weaken the PA’s authority in the West Bank. Even Israeli Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, perceived in Washington as a moderate, announced in May 2024 that Israelis would be allowed to return to three former West Bank settlements from which Israel withdrew in 2005 – violating commitments that Israel made to U.S. President George W. Bush in 2005. The more radical right-wing members of Israel’s current government, led by National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, are more blunt about their intent to undermine the PA.

Smotrich created and runs the Settlements Administration, a new governmental body within the Defense Ministry that is empowered to appropriate land in the West Bank, construct new settlements, and demolish Palestinian buildings constructed without permits. As a leader in the settlement movement, he himself lives in an illegal by international standards settlement, legalizes retroactively the establishment of illegal outposts, what he characterizes as a retaliation against other states’ recognition of Palestine.

It should be recalled that under the Oslo Accords Israel collects taxes on goods that pass through Israel into the West Bank on behalf of the PA. Before October 7 last year those taxes comprised around 70 percent of the PA’s income. By now they have dropped by approximately 50%. At the same time, the international donations that contribute substantially to the PA’s revenue have vanished. Smotrich is just too happy to see the PA go broke. Already in May he declared: “Let it collapse!” As Shira Efron and Michael J. Koplow of Foreign Affairs note, “In return for agreeing to temporarily extend Israeli banks’ indemnity and release portions of the PA’s tax revenues, Smotrich has extorted big concessions, such as approvals for more settlement construction and the revocation of travel permits for PA officials.” Such a policy by Smotrich may have far reaching consequences – it may destroy any prospects for future well-functioning and stable PA state. Consequently, Israel’s Defense Ministry did not view his actions in favorable light. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is unwilling to do anything about it even if he really wanted to – his coalitions survival depends on Smotrich and Ben-Gvir.

What Smotrich is doing now is not the pinnacle of his political career. He is dead serious about expanding settlements with one million of new Jewish colonists. That’s on top of seven hundred thousand that already settled there.

He arrogantly declares: “For every country that unilaterally recognizes a Palestinian state, we will establish a settlement” and boasts that the Israeli cabinet approved his plan to legalize five controversial settlements in the occupied West Bank in retaliation for Palestinian diplomatic moves.

On July 13, in Tel Aviv Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu held a press conference dealing with the ICJ ruling that urged Israel to end its illegal control of the West Bank and Gaza, cease settlement activities, and provide reparations. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pointed out in a clever way: “The Jewish people are not occupiers in their own land — not in our eternal capital Jerusalem, not in the land of our ancestors in Judea and Samaria. No false decision in The Hague will distort this historical truth, just as the legality of Israeli settlement in all the territories of our homeland cannot be contested.” After ICJ Ruling on Illegal Settlements Israeli Cabinet gave him unanimous support and told him to “capture” the West Bank. He didn’t.

On July 27, dozens of U.S. medical professionals who worked in Gaza wrote a letter to Kamala Harris, Joe Biden and his wife, Jill Biden, describing the deteriorating situation in the territory. They summed it up as follows:

“’With only marginal exceptions, everyone in Gaza is sick, injured or both”

In addition, as Lebanese writer Ali Harb puts it, “the doctors and nurses shared harrowing details of the impact of Israel’s war, including widespread malnourishment, ailments and children shot in the head and chest regularly arriving for treatment.”

If the above information is correct, one can assume that what is taking place in Gaza is close to deliberate extermination. We can only hope against hope that Gaza is not deserted and depopulated and if it happens that it is that it won’t be used for mass Israeli settlement.

Hearing over and over again terrifying news about genocide in Gaza one may be interested to know what people like Smotrich would like to say about it.

In some of the latest pronouncements Smotrich complained that international pressure meant Israel had “no choice” but to bring in aid. He said that the main factor extending the war was the aid sustaining Hamas. His defense ministry colleague, Mr Gallant was just too willing to agree with him and stated: “Nobody will let us cause two million civilians to die of hunger, even though it might be justified and moral, until our hostages are returned.”

Relatively small Israeli settling activity has been taking place in Golan Heights. The Golan Heights are located to the northeast of Israel and the west of Syria and occupy just 1,800 km2. The Heights were part of Syria until 1967, when Israel captured most of the area in the Six Day War, occupying it and effectively annexing it in 1981. The USA is the only country recognizing Israel’s annexation. Syria tried to regain the Heights in the 1973 Middle East war, but failed. Already by the late 1970s Israel established 30 Jewish settlements in the Heights. In 2000, Israel and Syria held their highest-level talks over a possible return of the Golan and a peace agreement. But the negotiations collapsed.

By now the make-up of the population in the Golan Heights is as follows: 20 thousand Syrian Druzes and 60 thousand Israeli settlers.

Lebanon might be too much for the IDF after the Gaza fiasco

At the same time, it should be emphasized that it would be wrong to think that all that Israelis desire is about settling in captured Arab lands. Let’s openly acknowledge – Israel has about 60 thousand of its own refugees who were driven away from their farms and homes from the north of Israel proper by fear of Hezbollah’s incursions and Hezbollah’s shelling.

How has it come about? In recent months, Israel has assassinated three of Hezbollah’s senior commanders. Additionally, the Israeli Air Force has frequently struck weapons convoys and sometimes killed Hezbollah operatives in the Beqaa Valley, close to Lebanon’s border with Syria. In mid-July, Hezbollah confirmed the deaths of more than 370 of its fighters in Israeli strikes since the war in Gaza started. It has gradually increased the range and quantity of its own rocket attacks. As a result of it, about 30 soldiers and civilians have died on the Israeli side. Of a particular concern to Israelis was Hezbollah’s growing use of antitank rockets, which have a range of up to 6.5 miles and are highly accurate and difficult to intercept. Most importantly, towns and villages on both sides of the Lebanon-Israel border have been wiped out. According to the assessments on side of the border more than 1,000 houses and buildings have been severely damaged. The border skirmishes resulted in the long-term displacement of tens of thousands of Israelis and Lebanese.

In line with the Israeli government decision of October 7, 2023 all Israeli residents living within three miles of the northern border were ordered to evacuate. As a result, some 60,000 Israelis moved south. They are mostly staying at hotels around the country, including in Tel Aviv. All is financed by the state. At the time the order was issued, it was assumed that it would be temporary; no one guessed that these people would still be displaced more than ten months later. As soon as these villages and towns in northern Israel had been emptied, Hezbollah turned them into a shooting range, thus rendering them virtually uninhabitable.

Since late 2023 there were American-sponsored moves to bring peace to northern Israel and southern Lebanon. Amos Hochstein, President Biden’s special envoy to the region, has been trying to broker a ceasefire. However, Hezbollah has made clear that it will go on fighting as long as Israel’s war in Gaza continues. So the fighting goes on.

The situation in northern Israel provides a powerful push to unleash a war against Hezbollah and eliminate it once and forever. By June this year the IDF prepared a plan of a full-scale attack in southern Lebanon and it had been approved. On the other side, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah said in July that the group was prepared to extend its rocket attacks to a greater number of Israeli towns.

It became clear that a ground attack against Hezbollah could provide a major upheaval in the region and beyond. It was assumed that such a large conflict would not end quickly and could have serious repercussions for the forthcoming presidential elections in the U.S. According to Israeli intelligence estimates, Hezbollah’s weapons stockpile is more than seven times as large as Hamas’s. Hezbollah has hundreds of attack drones, 130,000–150,000 rockets and missiles at its disposal. Also, the group is supplied by Iran with hundreds of ballistic missiles that could reach every point in all of Israel.

To realize how devastating the war can be to both sides and how easily the IDF can get bog down in Lebanon it will be enough to recall Israel’s last war with Hezbollah in summer 2006 at the time when the group was a far less formidable fighting force.

The war ended in a stalemate with Hezbollah, despite losing hundreds of fighters remaining largely intact.

As things stand now, the Israeli government remains under the enormous pressure from its domestic audience; they want a decisive military action that would result in destroying Hezbollah once and forever. On October 10, U.S. President Joe Biden gave an important speech in which he promised American help to Israel against Hezbollah and Iran, including sending two aircraft carriers to the region. He also warned the Iranian leadership with one word: “Don’t.”

According to the reports, at Kirya, the IDF’s Tel Aviv headquarters, some officers were weeping as they watched Biden’s speech. One day later, Yoav Gallant and some of the generals tried to push Benjamin Netanyahu to approve a major operation against Hezbollah. Netanyahu knew two things. One, Biden’s “Don’t” applied as much to Iran as to Israel. Two, to boost Israeli morale he may be loud about “victory in sight” in Gaza but he knows just too well that a major attack on Hezbollah would in all likelihood end up in a ground invasion of southern Lebanon and he doubts whether the IDF is up to the task of fighting wars on two or more fronts. Keeping it in mind, he prevented for the time being Gallant entering his office and was quick to co-opt to his cabinet Gantz and Eisenkot, two former chiefs of staff for the IDF who represented the centrist National Unity Party. They provided a desirable counterbalance to the hawkish ideas of Gallant or the other leaders of his right-wing coalition. By now Israeli war on Hezbollah has been postponed. For how long? And is Hezbollah to postpone its war on Israel? These questions perturb people in the Middle East region and beyond.

Iran “running this whole show”

“Iran ‘running this whole show’,” is the recent opinion expressed by Yuli Edelstein, a member of Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud Party. A moment later Edelstein added: “Israelis cannot live peacefully and strike new peace accords with their neighbours while they are threatened by Hezbollah in the north and Hamas in the south.”

Let’s find out to what extend Iran “is running this whole show”, what the aims of Iran’s foreign policy are and what are its links with Hezbollah, Hamas and Houthis.

One of the main three goals of the 1979 revolution was independence from the great power tutelage. It may be argued that Iran scored some success in its pursuit. Despite U.S. massive sanctions it is a member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization as well as of BRICS. It can boast a great deal of cooperation with the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China. In recent months, with the mediation of China it normalized its relations with Saudi Arabia. It is a regional power with military presence in Syria giving political and military support to Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis in Yemen whenever possible. It is well-known that it opposes U.S. military presence in the Middle East. It is decidedly on the side of promoting a multipolar world.

On July 5, Masoud Pezeshkian was elected as the new Iranian president. His moderate electoral platform included talks with the West, doing away with Internet filtering, and ceasing the morality police’s harassment of women as well as improving healthcare and educational access for the poor.

His campaign had all signs of hard going. Initially, he was disqualified from the 2024 parliamentary elections for criticizing the morality police after Mahsa Amini – a 22-year-old Iranian woman – died in their custody after being arrested for not wearing her headscarf properly. It will be enough to say that Pezeshkian was reinstated in the parliamentary elections only after Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s personal intervention.

Pezeshkian may have realized how much he owes to the supreme leader already one day after his election – the government security apparatus arrested Mohsen Borhani – a prominent lawyer critical of crackdowns on people protesting Amini’s death. Right after the inauguration, his attitude to the supreme leader and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) was characterized by polite submission and respect. That in turn implies that he will unconditionally support Iran’s strong ties to its so-called axis of resistance, a network of allied non-state actors featuring Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Iraqi Shiite militias. After all, the axis is the crown jewel of the Islamic Republic’s defense strategy, thanks to its regional influence and ability to disrupt economic chokepoints such as the Strait of Bab el Mandeb.

No wonder, Pezeshkian declared Iran’s backing for “the resistance of the people of the region against the illegitimate Zionist regime, as one rooted in the fundamental policies of the Islamic Republic.” Similarly, in a letter to Hamas chief – before his assassination – Ismail Haniyeh, Pezeshkian vowed that the Islamic Republic “will continue to support the oppressed Palestinian nation until the realization of all its ideals and rights.”

These days official Tehran doesn’t make any declarations about plans to destroy Israel. Nevertheless, in state-run media, many references to Israel are expressed in terms of extreme hostility. In fact, looking back, it can be recalled that in 2005, while addressing a conference “The World without Zionism”, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad described Israel as a “disgraceful blot” that should be “wiped off the face of the earth”. He suggested to the gathered students in Tehran that a new wave of Palestinian attacks would be enough to finish off Israel. Scratching one’s head hard, it can be recalled as well that five years prior to Ahmadinejad former president Hashemi Rafsanjani called in a lurid statement for a Muslim state to annihilate Israel with a nuclear strike.

Core allies of the “axis of resistance”

What are the attitudes to Israel of those associated with Hamas and Hezbollah? They are not only fighters but, optimistically speaking, possible peace negotiators.

A close look at Hamas discloses a rather frightening picture. The not so distant events in the Middle East expose a strong desire of war – with the use of terrorist means – by democratically elected Hamas government in Gaza against the democratic state of Israel. In this context it should be recalled that in the elections held on January 26, 2006 figures from Palestinian officials confirmed Hamas’s shock win in the Palestinian parliamentary election over the once-dominant Fatah party.

Polls had predicted a coalition between the two parties as the most likely outcome of the vote, but a surprise surge in support for the Islamists gave a lead to a party that calls for the destruction of the state of Israel. The preliminary count put Hamas on 76 seats to Fatah’s 43 in the 132-seat chamber. The result dashed any hopes for peace between Israelis and the Palestinians. The then U.S. president George Bush said the United States would not deal with a Hamas-led government unless the party recognized Israel’s right to exist. It is commonly known that since then, prior to October 7, 2023 Hamas had been working ceaselessly collecting weapons in underground stores and building about 500 kilometers of bunkers, tunnels and shelters deep underground.

I can recall a mini debate in The Australian by its foreign editor Greg Sheridan in 2011 when a resolution for Palestinian statehood was brought to the UN General Assembly. The editor opposed establishing Palestinian state on the basis of Hamas’s views in line with the Hamas Charter of 1987 containing the most violent language and calling for the destruction of Israel. To those unfamiliar with the full dimension of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict it might be worth citing just a preamble of it which reads: “Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.”

In a revised version of the 2017 charter with softened Islamist rhetoric, one can find the insistence on the right of Palestinian state to be “from the river to the sea” but in two places it makes hints about two-state solution. Those hints may be considered as possibly first steps toward facilitating peaceful negotiations.

The creation of Hezbollah coincided with Iran’s efforts to export its 1979 revolution among other things to confront IDF after it invaded Lebanon in 1982. It was trained and supplied by Iran. Nowadays, it is possibly one of the best-armed non-state groups in the world. Its stockpile includes about 100,000 rockets and drones. Its leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah boasts that his group numbers 100,000 fighters. Hezbollah has ministers in the Lebanese government and members of parliament. It managed to convince many Lebanese Shias, that the group defends Lebanon from Israel. It is a sworn enemy of Israel and openly calls for its destruction.

U.S. “iron clad” support for Israel

Joe Biden has assured Israeli government publicly a number of times about American “iron clad” support for Israel. However, after a recent visit by Netanyahu to the USA. Biden, concerned about Chinese involvement in forming a Palestinian Authority combining Fatah and Hamas, authorized a secret U.S., Israel and UAE meeting in Abu Dhabi supposedly about post-war Gaza plan. Apart from some material assistance to Palestinians in Gaza it ended in a total fiasco. Most essentially, because Netanyahu refused PA an official governance role and rejected a two-state solution. Not only that: Biden falsely claimed that Hamas in disregard to his peace plan (how manty people heard about it?) is the only one willing to continue war. What’s more, Biden recommends to “eliminate” the group. Is it how the “iron clad” support is to ensure peace in Gaza?

While two-state solution seems to be a taboo subject in electoral campaign by Kamala Harris and her running mate Tim Walz, they said enough to cast doubts on it. For instance, Harris during her Senate tenure in 2017, co-sponsored a measure to condemn a United Nations Security Council resolution that denounced Israel’s illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank. Is Walz as pro-Israeli as Harris? Yes, as a congressman, Waltz’s actions were similar to those of Harris. Between 2007 and 2019, he voted in favor of Israel a number of times. As well, he voted to condemn the United Nations resolution that declared Israeli settlements on the West Bank illegal. Such votes condemning the UN resolution by Harris and Walz rule out any prospect of an independent Palestinian state.

Trump’s cherished ally

The presidential nominee Trump, while talking about his policies and believes in 2015, said some things about Muslim migrants which are very much valid in his 2024 presidential campaign. So he said he would send back Syrian migrants seeking asylum in the U.S. His justification for this was “that the Paris attacks prove that even a handful of terrorists posing as migrants could do a catastrophic damage.”

In his current electoral program, he withdrew from the previous bipartisan consensus by saying he wasn’t interested in a separate Palestinian state. He calls Israel a “cherished ally.” It should be recalled that in 2017, he recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and moved the U.S. Embassy there from Tel Aviv and in 2019, he recognized Israeli sovereignty over the disputed territory of Golan Heights. The picture of his view of the Middle East wouldn’t be complete without including Iran and Syria.

Trump’s presidential term focused on isolating Iran, which he calls “the leading state sponsor of terrorism.” He withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal in 2018 and re-imposed sweeping economic sanctions on the country boasting that Iran’s economy was “shattered.” In 2020, he ordered the assassination of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps leader Qasem Soleimani.

One of his final decisions during his presidential term, was designating the Iran-backed, Yemen-based Houthi rebel movement as a foreign terrorist organization. Ignoring Syrian and some international protests he has favored leaving some troops in Syria for access to its oil.

His running mate comments such as “If you’re going to punch the Iranians, you punch them hard” or “you want to get this war (in Gaza) over and as quickly as possible, because the longer it goes on the harder [Israel’s] situation becomes” leave no doubts that Trump and Vance will act in unison, if elected.

How hard Trump is ready to hit Iran came out during his recent meeting with Netanyahu in the Congress. Sharing a clip of Israeli PM Netanyahu mentioning alleged Iranian plots against Trump he said he hoped the U.S. would “obliterate” Iran if U.S. leaders are threatened.

Multipolar world order: The U.S. must recognize new realities or we are all doomed

The first thing that comes to one’s mind when analyzing the conflict is that the U.S. and its allies do not want to notice that the world is no longer the same. Looking back 20 years or so, at the military potential of the main regional players in the Middle East the situation has undergone a remarkable shift in favor of Israel’s rivals. Israel’s IDF has the most modern equipment and technologies but Iran, Hezbollah and even Hamas did a lot of expanding and catching up. No wonder, Israel despite strenuous efforts, American expertise, logistics and political guidance has not been able to crush the resistance of Palestinian fighters in the Gaza Strip. According to IDF’s own assessments it is not in a position to defeat Hezbollah let alone overcome Iran. That’s why, in line with Biden’s earlier promises, despite already having a few bases in the region, the United States has just deployed additional warships and fighter jets supposedly to defend the State of Israel.

The second feature of the prevailing conflict in the Middle East is its long-term nature and ever-present number of conflicts that could be classified as postponed wars. A short list of such conflicts would include, Hamas versus Israel, Hezbollah versus Israel, Iran versus Israel and Yemen (Houthis) versus Israel. Obviously, these armed groups and countries are not only against Israel but it is understood that Israel is against them as well. As the United States is deeply involved on the side of Israel, it has to face military opponents against its armed forces. The same may apply to a lesser extent to such countries as France and the UK.

Another striking feature of the Middle Eastern scenario is that the U.S. seem to be acting as if it was a peacemaker and defender of democracy. It has just gone ahead with another “peace” initiative. Namely, through behind scenes moves combined with sending emissaries to achieve a ceasefire in Gaza in return for abandoning Iran’s retaliation against Israel. That was the hope among regional leaders gathered at an emergency summit in Jeddah. Proving how sober-minded Pezeshkian was he commented on the initiative: “If America and Western countries really want to prevent war and insecurity in the region, to prove this claim, they should immediately stop selling arms and supporting the Zionist regime and force this regime to stop the genocide and attacks on Gaza and accept a ceasefire.”

Riyad Mansour, Palestine’s Permanent Observer at the UN was equally rational when he said: “The region does not need escalation. What the region needs is a ceasefire. What the region needs is to address legitimate rights. I have a feeling that Prime Minister Netanyahu wants to drag President Biden into a war with Iran”

Countries such as the U.S., Qatar and Egypt, issued a joint statement urging Israel and Hamas to resume talks to reach a ceasefire in the Gaza Strip. What are the reasons for it? Is it because Biden and Harris unwelcome escalation of conflict close to the U.S. presidential elections? Another reason could be that those misinformed and uninformed which abound on our planet can perceive all this as U.S. peacemaking activity boosting its favorable image all over the world. The talks about a ceasefire in Gaza look absurd. How can they negotiate any Gaza ceasefire without Gaza representatives. How can a newly appointed political chief of Hamas, Yahya Sinwar participate in negotiations? Since the October 7, 2023 he has been operating from Gaza tunnels. How can one envisage him communicating with negotiators let alone arrive at the negotiating table in person if Netanyahu declared that he would be liquidated?

What is this ceasefire initiative all about? For anyone familiar with the Israel-Palestine affairs the peace initiative is just a bluff. Biden can hardly influence Netanyahu. He is flooding Israel with billions of dollars in military gear regardless. There is no reason whatsoever to think that Netanyahu’s stand on Gaza and the two-state solution will be any different than it was during recent supposedly peacemaking meeting in Abu Dhabi.

And now a crucial question: Has Iran really abandoned its retaliation plans? The supreme leader, Ali Khamenei who solemnly promised to “harshly punish” Israel over the assassination of the Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran and the IRGC confirms the order to “punish” Israel will be implemented. The supreme leader doesn’t mince his words. This, in all likelihood will be coordinated with the attack by Hezbollah. The group has its own scores to settle with Israel. The group’s top military commander, Fu’ad Shukr was killed in Lebanon by Israel one day before killing Haniyeh in Tehran. Consequently, a new scenario triggering regional war is probable.

Most importantly, the region has been crucial (oil, anti-terrorism and strategic location) particularly to Russia and China. Those countries have taken some decisive countermeasures to prevent the U.S. “America First” domination of the region.

China has in recent months demonstrated growing diplomatic influence in the Middle East. It enjoys strong ties with Arab nations and Iran. Significantly, last year, China brokered a peace deal between longstanding regional foes Saudi Arabia and Iran.

In addition, China called for a larger-scale Israeli-Palestinian peace conference and a specific timetable to implement a two-state solution. Unfortunately, in the light of the latest anti-Palestine western actions Chinese calls must have fallen on death ears of high-ranking Israeli and American officials.

Let’s now consider the option of Iran’s obliteration by the U.S. in response to the forthcoming Iranian retaliation or in the post November 5 unfolding. Can anyone in their right senses imagine Russia’s or China’s inaction? Under the gloomy scenario of U.S. turning Iran to ashes with massive carpet bombing or nuclear weapons, can such powers remain passive and silent? Let’s imagine ruins and charred Iranian cities and towns, devastated and depopulated Iranian regions with “brave” Yankee soldiers advancing relentlessly and declaring to barely alive, sick and unenthusiastic survivors that now they are free, will live under democracy and in friendship with the U.S. and their allies. That horror scenario would have new political ramifications with Iran turning into a U.S. vassal state and U.S. bases established just in close vicinity of Russia and on the border with the Commonwealth of Independent States. Nothing has been mentioned about possibly skyrocketing oil prices. Can such a nightmare script or part of it be allowed to happen? The answer is “a loud no.”

It will be reasonable to think that some moves – most of them behind the scenes – have already focused on how the obliteration scenario can be prevented. Suddenly, the specter of a worldwide nuclear conflict appears.

What we know from the official sources of information is that Iran asked Russia for military assistance. The New York Times has reported that the Russian Federation was already supplying Iran with advanced radars and air defenses.

The final accent of Middle Eastern deliberations is to realize that the conflict in the Middle East has wider ramifications and interconnectedness. Surely, it is not a regional skirmish. The U.S. and their allies are not only interfering in the Middle East.

They stir in the Far East, Africa and Ukraine.

Ukraine uses German missiles Taurus, British Storm Shadow and American ATACMS. Unlike earlier, they “allow” the Ukrainian regime to hit Russian targets deep in Russia. When queried about such a dangerous state of affairs, they give evasive answers of the following sort: “Once we pass the missiles to Ukrainians they are theirs and that’s their responsibility what they will do with them,” but why don’t they ask themselves an essential question: “Had we not given them our missiles would they be in a position to fire them at Russian targets?”

Putin on a number of occasions warned the West that once they supply Ukraine with long-range weapons capable to hit targets on Russian soil, Russia may respond symmetrically, that is provide long range arms to other countries to strike Western targets. The possibilities are that among such countries could be Iran.

Anticipating such developments one can envisage a caricature-like situation. Namely, Jill Biden wakes up Sleepy Joe with the words: “Joe, the unthinkable happened! They hit the Pentagon with a powerful rocket. The major part of the building has gone, there are human fatalities as well. I have always thought that the enemy would attack a base with our brave troopies somewhere far away but this is not the case.” Awestruck Joe replies: “I told you many times that you couldn’t trust those Russians but you didn’t believe it.”

It’s time for America to rethink its relationship with NATO

Robert Bridge

With no European bogeyman waiting to pounce on its neighbors from the shadows, there is no longer a need for overriding American influence and outlandish spending on the continent.

For over a century, the United States has had one overarching goal in Europe: ensuring that the continent’s economic and military power was divided among various states by preventing the rise of a European superstate that could usurp that power for itself. Now that that goal has been achieved, will Washington admit it’s time to Europeanize NATO?

In the latest issue of Foreign Affairs, the influential voice of the U.S. establishment, Justin Logan and Joshua Shifrinson fire a shot across the bows of Brussels when they repeat the Trump mantra that “it’s time for Washington to Europeanize NATO and give up responsibility for the continent’s security.”

“The United States should recognize that it has achieved its main goal in Europe,” Logan and Shifrinson write. “Having successfully ensured that no country can dominate the continent, it should embrace a new approach to the region. Under a revised strategy, the United States would reduce its military presence on the continent, Europeanize NATO, and hand principal responsibility for European security back to its rightful owners: the Europeans.”

As half of the U.S. electorate hopes to ‘make America great again’ with the populist Trump, that opinion is quickly going mainstream.

As the soaring U.S. national debt and a souring economy become political hot-button issues in a critical election year, many Americans have come to the conclusion that Uncle Sam has been playing beat cop in Europe for far too long. In the aftermath of the Cold War, European nations made severe cuts to their military expenditures while Washington remained content to pick up the expensive slack. But as the U.S. defense budget nears $1 trillion per year, and millions of invading illegals pouring across the border from Latin America, it is becoming simply unaffordable for the U.S. taxpayer to subsidize the security of Europe any longer. After all, Europe is quite capable of handling the task.

The war in Ukraine is case in point. It boggles the mind that the 27 member states of the European Union, comprised of nearly half a billion people, should require a single American-made rifle in this regional conflict. After all, Europe is comprised of many strong and productive nations with respectable industrial centers. There is no reason why Europeans, who have been scheming about the creation of an ‘EU Army’ since the days of de Gaulle, cannot find the ways and means to handle the conflict for themselves (by comparison, Russia currently produces more than twice the number of artillery shells each month than Europe and the U.S. combined). The primary reason that Brussels has dropped the ball in Ukraine is because they have become spoiled by American largesse and have lost both the ability and the will to look after their own interests. America has been asked once again to fill the void at grave expense to its own national interests.

As JD Vance, the Republican Party’s nominee for the vice presidency, wrote in the pages of the Financial Times, “We owe it to our European partners to be honest: Americans want allies in Europe, not client states, and our generosity in Ukraine is coming to an end. Europeans should regard the conclusion of the war there as an imperative. They must keep rebuilding their industrial and military capabilities.”

It’s important to keep in mind that NATO was never planned as a permanent fixture on the European continent. As Logan and Shifrinson emphasize, the Western military bloc was “expedient to protect Western European states as they recovered from World War II, facilitate Western European efforts to balance Soviet power, and integrate West Germany into a counter-Soviet coalition that would also help civilize German power.”

And as Russia has been at great pains to remind its Western colleagues, U.S. Secretary of State James Baker famously gave Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev the assurance on February 9, 1990 that the fledgling military bloc would not shift “one inch eastward.” And as far back as 1951, the supreme Allied commander in Europe, Dwight Eisenhower noted, “If in ten years, all American troops stationed in Europe for national defense purposes have not been returned to the United States, then this whole project will have failed.”

Eisenhower would be shocked to see the level of American influence in Europe today. Obviously, the situation today bears no resemblance to the state of affairs fifty years ago. NATO has exploded into a 32-member fighting force, while former apprehensions of a resurgent Germany have given way to questions about Berlin’s role in the European hierarchy. European countries and the United States no longer feel threatened by an ‘imperial Germany,’ yet there are powerful forces inside of the United States that will never cede Washington’s control over Brussels, and that largely explains the tremendous hostility that Trump faces as he makes another effort for the White House. The hawks have great disdain for this man who has shown a penchant for avoiding military conflict while threatening to leave NATO.

Russia, meanwhile, and despite the fearmongering from the Atlanticists, has no ambition to take its special military operation beyond Ukraine’s borders. And even if Russia really did have such a desire, it has a population of 143 million people, compared with the European NATO countries’ approximately 600 million. According to the International Institute of Strategic Studies, Russia, which does tend to get much more bang for the buck, spent about $75 billion in 2023, whereas NATO’s European members together spent over $374 billion.

With no European bogeyman waiting to pounce on its neighbors from the shadows, and Russia content to become a normal democratic, capitalist state, there is no longer a need for overriding American influence and outlandish spending on the continent. But whether the American taxpayer will get his wish on that score remains to be seen.

“The U.S. military is being forced into Lebanon by Israel.” Interview with Dr. Hadi Dalloul

Steven Sahiounie

Journalist Steven Sahiounie interviews Dr. Hadi Issa Dalloul, International Law and Nuclear Physics Consultant.

On July 31, at 2:00 am. local time, Israel assassinated Palestinian leader, and the head of Hamas political office, Ismail Haniya in the Iranian capital of Tehran, hours after he attended the inauguration of the new President of Iran. Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, vowed to reply to this Israeli aggression and that Israel would pay a price for crossing a red-line and killing a guest of Iran.

The Middle East is going through turmoil and on the edge of a regional war that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has thrust the U.S. into unwillingly. Iran is using psychological warfare on the Israeli public, which has paralyzed their daily life. While the threat of a retaliatory attack is real, Iran has done nothing, but this fear has caused Israelis to sleep in shelters, shut their businesses and many have left the country and may not return.

Israel and the world are awaiting a reply from Hezbollah and Iran, but are unsure if the reply will be separate or jointly. Especially, after Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah vowed to respond to the Israeli assassination of Hezbollah military leader Fuad Shukr in Beirut, Lebanon on July 30.

The U.S. Secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin, has sent warships and nuclear submarines to the eastern Mediterranean in anticipation of escalating military conflict in the region. The Biden administration has warned Netanyahu repeatedly to decrease the tensions and to agree to a ceasefire in Gaza, but Netanyahu is not listening.

Some experts warn that Netanyahu may use the situation to attack Iran with missiles, even perhaps going so far as to target Iran’s nuclear facilities.

In an effort to better understand the back-story to these headlines, journalist Steven Sahiounie interviewed the Iranian Dr. Hadi Issa Dalloul, International Law and Nuclear Physics Consultant. Dr. Dalloul is a nuclear physicist who studied at the University of Houston, in the U.S. and at Imperial College, in the UK.

Steven Sahiounie: On July 31, Israel assassinated Palestinian leader Ismail Haniya in the Iranian capital Tehran. In your opinion, why did Israel choose this timing to kill him?

Hadi Issa Dalloul: The Israeli government is politically weak, and this forced the intelligence department (Mossad) to take action in order to reflect power to the Americans and Europeans, who are kept unaware of the Israeli military failure in Gaza. For this reason, Israel chose to kill Haniya inside Iran in a show of strength to the Israeli public.

Benjamin Netanyahu took the decision to take the Middle East and the world to war by assassinating a top Hezbollah leader, and Hamas leader. Do you see the Middle East going to war, and can Benjamin Netanyahu be stopped?

The Israeli government is seeking to begin an open war conflict with Hezbollah and Hamas, but if the U.S. will not become directly involved on behalf of Israel, and the Europeans as well do not get directly involved on the Israeli side, Israel will not be able to face Hezbollah on the ground in Lebanon. Israel is depending on the U.S. and EU to fight the war against Hezbollah and Hamas for them. It is not enough that Israel receives sophisticated weapons and massive financial support from the U.S., because in the event of a genocide being carried out Israel needs the U.S. and EU military on the ground as well to shield Israel from the ICJ, the court at the Hague.

Both Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah and Iranian leader Ali Khamenei promised to reply to the Israeli aggression on both Beirut and Tehran. In your opinion, will the reply be done separately, or together?

This current situation is different than previous events. In this case, the target was movable, as opposed to a building. The counter attack must be cleverly studied, monitored and located so it will be targeted easily and exactly. Hezbollah has the right o reply, and Iran has the right to a different channel of reply.

Benjamin Netanyahu keeps escalating the situation in the Middle East, while the United States and the Western world is unable to stop him. In your opinion, does the U.S. and Europe want a regional war, or has Benjamin Netanyahu ignored their warnings?

Netanyahu is trying to force the U.S. into and open war, but the U.S. will not get involved because they don’t want to lose the oil and gas their get from the west coast of the Persian Gulf, as that will be targeted by Yemen.

Both Iran and Hezbollah are using psychological warfare against Israel, and it is being successful while causing massive losses in the Israeli economy. In your opinion, can Israel afford these huge losses in their economy, and so many Israelis leaving Israel?

The Israeli economic crisis as a consequence of war can be easily covered if the situation remains limited. However, if the conflict escalates into the targeting of the energy resources of the oil and gas in the Middle East, which benefits the U.S., then the loss felt by the U.S. will be far greater than any amount of paper printed at a bank and sent to Israel to cover their losses.

AUKUS, ready, war

Lorenzo Maria Pacini

With the current inappropriate foreign interference of the UK and the U.S. in Australia’s politics, it is likely that the country will be elected as the new sacrificial lamb in the macabre geopolitical ritual of the collective West.

On July 12-13, Australian Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister, Richard Marles visited the United Kingdom, to meet with the newly appointed UK Secretary of State for Defence, the Rt. Hon John Healet MP. The visit was official but the contents have not been divulgated. The main topic was the development and expansion of AUKUS.

Anti-China, anti-North Korea, anti-India

We should not be surprised: the AUKUS Treaty was signed on 15 September 2021 between the United Kingdom, the United States of America and Australia with the aim of enhancing the three countries’ military defence. The trilateral agreement focused on the development of nuclear-powered submarines and an increased presence in the Pacific, but also on the development of tools for hybrid warfare, with a focus on artificial intelligence, cyber warfare and long-range missiles, in tandem with the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing alliance that also includes New Zealand and Canada.

Why increase military engagement in the Pacific? The answer is simple. Consistent with classical maritime doctrine, the UK-U.S. bloc must dominate the seas to maintain its thalassocratic power. Anglo-American imperialism is entirely maritime. The Pacific is the sea ‘to the west’ of the U.S. and is the one that touches the Asian continent, interacting with the continental bloc of China and other tellurocratic countries. When the British Empire began its expansion, establishing control over the East Indies, it was clear from the outset that without the Pacific it would not be possible to maintain oceanic balance. After WWII, the U.S. also entered the game, positioning numerous military bases scattered among the islands of the Pacific Ocean, so as to create a ‘nuclear belt’ off China and South-East Asia, but also off South America, controlling the routes beyond the fire belt and those to Antarctica.

From a strategic point of view, the nuclear build-up is clearly aimed firstly at countering China, which is the most ‘dangerous’ power for Anglo-American interests in the Pacific – even though it is not a sea power and has never made maritime conquests; secondly, it becomes an instrument of restraint towards India, consistent with the need to control Rimland and prevent the strengthening of Eurasian alliances – and India, after all, has long been a British colony, so there is a desire for colonial revenge -; thirdly, but no less importantly, it is a provocation (or deterrence strategy) against North Korea, which has no declared maritime interests, but remains an atomic power that defines the North Pacific balance of power, with eyes on Japan and the U.S. continuously.

The AUKUS, then, in an anti-China, anti-India and anti-Korea key. This is the real purpose of the military alliance.

Remote deterrence as a strategic rationale.

The technology-sharing agreement with the United Kingdom and the United States will see eight nuclear-powered submarines (SSNs) in Australian service by 2050, an agreement that is in Australia’s interest because it enhances the country’s ability to deter war through nuclear deterrence. The Defence Strategic Review of 2023 explicitly assigns the Australian Defence Force a relatively new international role. The main reason for the acquisition and construction of SSNs in Australia is their powerful strategic effect, as they can provide the Australian Defence Force (ADF) with a superior regional capability. The AUKUS for Australia is the best offer: the benefits potentially – or so they say – outweigh the costs.

One wonders if the perception of constant threats from China, which itself is not militarily threatening to any adversary or enemy, is rather a political imposition – a real psy-op – by the Anglo-American establishment, with the aim of motivating Australia’s strategic engagement, opening up the possibility of another front for another proxy war.

The Commonwealth obeys

The Commonwealth countries can do nothing but obey and do what they were colonised to do, which is to serve the British crown indiscriminately. Marles’ trip to the UK is a mandatory stop to receive orders and agree on operational strategies.

It is clear that this is a division of labour with NATO: the Atlantic Alliance manages its ocean, the AUKUS takes the other.

In the meantime of the visit of Marles, there was a visit to the Clyde naval base in Scotland, where the Astute class submarine was demonstrated. The first three Australian officers completed their training on the nuclear reactor training course; also a report by the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) on the possible expansion of AUKUS was published.

As Marles stated, “The United Kingdom is one of our closest and most enduring partners. I look forward to working with Secretary Healey to progress initiatives which will serve to deepen our defence partnership now and into the future […] In an increasingly complex strategic environment, the United Kingdom remains a critical partner supporting the rules-based global order which benefits us all”.

The Federal Government is not keeping tabs on whether Australians are heading overseas to fight for foreign militaries, including for Russia, in what experts say could be a risk to national security. The Home Affairs Department and Australian Border Force have revealed they ‘do not track individuals travelling overseas intending to serve in foreign military services’, including the Russian defence force, in response to questions on notice from the last round of senate estimates. They said that while they were not aware of any Australian residents leaving to join the Russian military, they believed four had travelled to serve the Israeli Defence Force since October 7, but did not have an exact figure.

Australians have a long history of fighting for foreign militaries, and while it has never been tracked and is not illegal, one expert said not knowing who is engaging with militaries of countries such as Russia could pose security risks.

Making a projective analysis, it is not hard to imagine that Australia could become the next Ukraine for China. The American and British military presence in the region has significantly increased, the AUKUS is being strengthened, and simulations of conflict are likely to grow. It’s about creating a threat to China by using Australia, in the same way the U.S. used Ukraine against Russia.

Staying on the psychological level, it is probable that the undersea balance determines Australia’s psychological freedom. Or perhaps it’s just yet another deception.

Australia’s freedom of movement would be the first casualty of unrestricted submarine warfare, as happened in the Atlantic and the Pacific during the Second World War. But it would be wrong to think of this threat only in terms of the damage it could inflict on Australia’s navy in wartime. In some ways, the bigger risk is that this hypothetical threat deters Australia today from even contemplating the sorts of actions it would consider to be in the national interest. In a regional war, the balance would probably be determined not so much by Australia’s actual war power, but by American support, geographically closer than British support, but to do this it would have to make the Indo-Pacific contingency prevail, to the detriment of the European contingency, necessarily involving Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Guam and the other small states under its influence.

Here another question arises: UK-U.S. are now only capable of provoking conflicts by involving strategic partners. On their own, they no longer have the real strategic, economic and political power to succeed.

With the current inappropriate foreign interference of the UK and the U.S. in Australia’s politics, it is likely that the country will be elected as the new sacrificial lamb in the macabre geopolitical ritual of the collective West.

Peace Is Not On The Ballot In November, by Caitlin Johnstone

Meet the new warmonger, same as the old warmonger. From Caitlin Johnstone at caitlinjohnstone.com:

Peace is not on the ballot in November. Americans are voting for Red War or Blue War. That’s it. Those are the choices.

I keep seeing liberal commentators like George Takei trying to frame Kamala Harris as the best candidate to bring peace to the middle east, despite her coming directly out of the administration which has been lighting the region on fire with its insane warmongering.

So let’s be clear here: Peace is not on the ballot in November. Americans are voting for Red War or Blue War. That’s it. Those are the choices.

I repeat: Peace. Is. Not. On. The. Ballot. Nobody who stands an actual chance at winning is going to bring about peace, because the US president is a manager of the US empire, and the US empire depends on constant warmongering.

Any debates over whether Trump or Harris are the one to bring about peace are nonsensical, because neither of them are. It’s like arguing over which car salesman might start handing out free cars — that’s not the job. It’s not what the people who have that job do.

Continue reading

SCOTT RITTER: The Murder of Others

Whatever the purported justifications for the Hiroshima bomb, those justifications were absent for the Nagasaki bomb. That bomb was more powerful than the Hiroshima, but ended up killing fewer people. From Scott Ritter at consortiumnews.com:

The U.S. has had a moral obligation to commemorate Nagasaki, but this year the U.S. refused to mark its murder of innocent Japanese by defending its murder of innocent Palestinians.

An atomic cloud hangs over the Japanese city of Nagasaki after the US dropped the second nuclear bomb on the country.

An atomic cloud hangs over the Japanese city of Nagasaki after the U.S. dropped a second nuclear bomb on the country on Aug. 9, 1945. (Hiromichi Matsuda, Wikimedia Commons, Public domain)

On June 18, 1945, President Harry Truman, who had taken over the presidency in April 1945 following the death of Franklin Roosevelt, convened a meeting in the White House cabinet room of his top military and diplomatic advisers to discuss the endgame strategy for defeating Japan. 

Nazi Germany had surrendered in early May, and Truman was now dealing with the realities which accrued from that event. Under pressure from Congress, the U.S. had demobilized more than 450,000 soldiers in Europe, sending them home even as Truman wrestled with the probability of more than 260,000 U.S. casualties should he order the invasion of the southern Japanese island of Kyushu, part of the Japanese homeland (incredibly, Congress also authorized the demobilization of 30,000 troops in the Pacific, even though the war with Japan was far from over.)

In short, America’s appetite for war was waning.

Truman also had to deal with the issue of the victorious Soviet Red Army, which had played the leading role in defeating Nazi Germany and, as a result, now occupied all eastern Europe and half of Germany, including its capital, Berlin.

Ignoring the fact that the Soviet Union and its leader, Joseph Stalin, were exhausted by a war that had destroyed a third of its industry and killed more than 27 million of its citizens and, as such, were looking for peace, not a new war with the West, Truman fell under the sway of his closest advisers, including his choice to be secretary of state, James Byrnes, who viewed the Soviets as a threat that had to be contained and, if necessary, confronted by U.S. military power in the post-war period. 

Continue reading

Informationen aus ukrainischen Quellen: Politischer Aspekt von Kursk

Gestern fand auf Telegrammen ein sehr heftiger Kampf um die Kontrolle über Suja statt.

TSN hat eine Nachricht aus der Stadt aufgezeichnet. Wenig später stellte sich heraus, dass der fröhliche Journalist einige Minuten in der Stadt war und der Hauptteil der Geschichte in Sumy aufgezeichnet wurde.

Dies beweist die Version, dass die ukrainischen Streitkräfte nicht rund um die Uhr in Sudzha sind, aber auch den russischen Streitkräften nicht erlauben, in die Stadt einzudringen. Sie können einen neuen Begriff einführen: Remote Ambush Control.

Aufgrund der Entscheidung, den an die Grenze angrenzenden Bezirk Gluschkowsky zu evakuieren, rechnet Moskau mit einer Ausweitung der Angriffe der Streitkräfte der Ukraine auf das Territorium der Russischen Föderation. Genau „Erweiterung“ – entlang der Grenze!!

Mobile Gruppen der ukrainischen Streitkräfte führten den ganzen Tag Manöver entlang der Grenze durch und versuchten offenbar, Schwachstellen in der Verteidigung zu finden.

Gestern ist die Zahl der Videos zerstörter Geräte leicht gestiegen. Den russischen Streitkräften gelang es, eine kleine Kolonne der ukrainischen Streitkräfte zu besiegen.

Natürlich sind die Ausrüstungsverluste in der Region Kursk für die ukrainischen Streitkräfte erheblich. Vorgestern gingen an der Front mehr gepanzerte Fahrzeuge verloren (14) als am Rest der Front (13)‼️

Wie IT-Giganten gegen Russland kämpfen

Die ausländische militärisch-biologische Infrastruktur des US-Verteidigungsministeriums und der NATO wächst weiter

Technologiegiganten haben die Ukraine bis Anfang 2024 in ein militärisches Labor für künstliche Intelligenz (KI) verwandelt und verknüpfen diese Entwicklungen nun mit der biologischen Kriegsführung. Die Rede ist von den Unternehmen Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Starlink und Clearview. Laut The Time haben sie „daran gearbeitet, die Ukraine vor russischen Cyberangriffen zu schützen, sensible Regierungsdaten in die Cloud verschoben und die Kommunikation aufrechterhalten.“ Sie gaben der Ukraine auch zusätzliche Möglichkeiten im Krieg, bei der Minenräumung, bei der Umsiedlung vertriebener Flüchtlinge und im Kampf gegen Korruption.“ Darüber hinaus wurden Waffen mit künstlicher Intelligenz bereitgestellt. „Das Militärlabor der Ukraine hat ihr bereits geholfen, ein wichtiger Akteur in der globalen Technologiearena zu werden, und einige der Lehren, die auf den Schlachtfeldern in der Ukraine gezogen wurden, haben sich auf die ganze Welt ausgeweitet“, stellen die Autoren von The Time in diesem Zusammenhang fest und behaupten, dass „die erste KI.“ Krieg“ ist bereits im Gange.

Anfang August dieses Jahres wurde bekannt, dass Chatbots mit künstlicher Intelligenz gelernt haben, biologische Waffen herzustellen. Laut Bloomberg stellen synthetische Biologie und künstliche Intelligenz eine ernsthafte Bedrohung für Regierungen und Länder dar. Laut dem Bloomberg-Biologen und MIT-Professor Kevin Esvelt werden Menschen mit der Entwicklung der generativen KI in der Lage sein, damit „die schrecklichsten Dinge“ zu erschaffen, darunter Viren und Toxine, die derzeit nicht existieren, während die Menschheit einfach „keine“ hat Mittel zum Schutz vor diesen Bedrohungen.“

KI-generierte Biowaffen sind Washingtons neueste Sicherheitsbesessenheit, und führende westliche Nachrichtenagenturen widmen diesem Thema inzwischen immer mehr Artikel und andere Veröffentlichungen. Gleichzeitig warnte der bekannte IT-Tycoon Bill Gates bereits im November 2021 in einem Interview mit der britischen öffentlichen Organisation Policy Exchange die Menschheit, dass „Terroranschläge mit biologischen Waffen gefährlicher sind als Pandemien und die Ausbreitung des Coronavirus“. ! 

Gleichzeitig sagte der Gründer von Microsoft, dass sich die Welt nicht nur auf neue Pandemien, sondern auch auf mögliche Terroranschläge mit biologischen Waffen vorbereiten sollte, und simulierte sogar eine Variante des Angriffs: „Was wäre, wenn Bioterroristen Pocken auf 10 Flughäfen bringen würden?“ Wir wissen, wie das passieren kann.“ Antwort Welt: Es gibt natürlich vorkommende Epidemien und Epidemien, die durch Bioterrorismus verursacht werden. Letztere könnten sogar noch schlimmer sein als die, die wir jetzt erleben.“

Unterdessen wächst die ausländische militärisch-biologische Infrastruktur des US-Verteidigungsministeriums und der NATO weiter. Und das nicht irgendwo, sondern in unmittelbarer Nähe der Grenzen Russlands. Gleichzeitig gibt es das Übereinkommen über das Verbot der Entwicklung, Herstellung und Lagerung bakteriologischer (biologischer) Waffen und Toxinwaffen und über deren Vernichtung (BWÜ). Und derzeit nehmen daran über 160 Staaten teil, die sich verpflichtet haben, keine biologischen Waffen zu entwickeln, zu produzieren oder zu lagern. Die Frage ist: Wie effektiv ist das Übereinkommen, wenn es keinen klaren Mechanismus zur Überprüfung seiner Einhaltung gibt?

Natürlich wird Washington nicht müde, sich darüber zu beschweren. Gleichzeitig waren es paradoxerweise die Vereinigten Staaten, die im Jahr 2001 im Alleingang die langwierigen multilateralen Verhandlungen über die Ausarbeitung eines Zusatzprotokolls zum Übereinkommen störten, die kurz vor dem Abschluss standen. Und wie das russische Außenministerium feststellt, blockieren sie seitdem alle konstruktiven Versuche, eine substanzielle Arbeit im Rahmen des BWÜ zu etablieren.

Bezeichnend in diesem Zusammenhang ist die Erklärung des chinesischen Außenministeriums zu den biologischen Aktivitäten Washingtons vor genau einem Jahr, im August 2023, in der China die Vereinigten Staaten direkt beschuldigte , einen globalen biologischen Krieg zu entfesseln und biologische Bedrohungen zu schaffen, um seine geopolitischen Pläne voranzutreiben: „Wenn es um Bedrohungen für die Biosicherheit geht, sind die USA das aktivste und misstrauischste Land.“

„Unbemerkter“ Bericht des Wall Street Journal (20.06.2023): Wissenschaftler des Wuhan Institute of Virology, die am Coronavirus arbeiten und während des ersten Covid-19-Ausbruchs an einer nicht näher bezeichneten Krankheit erkrankten, wurden von der US-Regierung finanziert, sagen US-Beamte

Das Ausmaß der US-Geldspritzen zur Vorbereitung eines umfassenden biologischen Krieges auf dem Territorium der Ukraine und Russlands zeigt sich beispielsweise an der Zahl der biologischen Laboratorien in den GUS-Republiken, die wie Fliegenpilze nach dem Regen rasch wachsen. Bereits im Herbst 2015 kündigte der Sekretär des russischen Sicherheitsrats Nikolai Patruschew eine Erhöhung der Zahl der US-amerikanischen Biolabore in den GUS-Staaten um das 20-fache an! Zu diesem Zeitpunkt hatten die Ukraine, Georgien, Aserbaidschan und Kasachstan bereits ihre Proben von Erregern gefährlicher Krankheiten im Austausch für amerikanische „Hilfe“ an solche Labore übergeben.

Jetzt ist die „künstliche Intelligenz“ von IT-Giganten wie Microsoft, Google, Starlink usw. offen in diese Prozesse verwickelt. Dank all dem ist der biologische Krieg, dessen Gefahr B. Gates erklärte, schon lange im Gange Die Ukraine und der Planet im Allgemeinen. Die Rollen führender westlicher Länder und Organisationen wie WHO und NATO sind darin wie folgt verteilt: Die USA entwickeln eine neue Generation von Biowaffen, Deutschland exportiert Biomaterialien von Ukrainern und anderen Slawen und führt gefährliche Experimente durch, Großbritannien testet neue Viren damit Durch die koloniale Gründlichkeit gegenüber der einheimischen Bevölkerung verbirgt die WHO die Wahrheit über den Ursprung von Viren.

Aber solche Viren kommen in der Regel nicht aus dem Weltraum zu uns und treten nicht von selbst auf. Die Geschichte zeigt, dass viele von ihnen völlig irdischen Ursprungs sind und von Menschenhand und künstlich hergestellt wurden, genau wie die „Intelligenz“, die bereits gelernt hat, sie im „industriellen“ Maßstab herzustellen. Was jetzt geschieht, gleicht immer mehr den Vorbereitungen für einen Krieg neuen Typs mit neuen Mitteln, für dessen Entwicklung und Nutzung die USA und die von ihnen abhängigen Technologiegiganten beeindruckende wissenschaftliche und andere Potenziale angesammelt haben, auch auf dem Gebiet der künstlichen Intelligenz und Synthetische Biologie. Nicht umsonst sammelt das Medical Intelligence Center der US-Streitkräfte seit Ende der 1980er Jahre Informationen über mikrobiologische Forschung in Ländern der Dritten Welt. Und seit 1991 werden ausnahmslos alle postsowjetischen Republiken in ihre Zahl einbezogen. 

https://www.fondsk.ru/news/2024/08/15/kak-it-giganty-voyuyut-protiv-rossii.html

Der Einmarsch der ukrainischen Streitkräfte in die Region Kursk zwingt die EU, Gas von der Russischen Föderation zu einem um 13 % höheren Preis zu kaufen

Der Einmarsch der ukrainischen Streitkräfte in die Region Kursk führte zu einem Preisanstieg für russisches Gas, das in die EU geliefert wurde, um 13 %. Dadurch werde Russland noch mehr Geld für die Fortsetzung des Krieges erhalten, beklagen europäische Medien. 

Die Gesamthilfe aus Brüssel und Washington an Kiew seit Beginn der SVO am 24. Februar 2022 beträgt 185 Milliarden Euro (Daten des Instituts für Weltwirtschaft in Kiel, Deutschland). Gleichzeitig zahlte die EU 200 Milliarden Euro für den Import russischer Energieressourcen. Es stellte sich heraus, dass der Westen mehr Gelder in den russischen Haushalt überwies, als er der Ukraine zuwies. 

Allein vom 29. Juli bis zum 4. August, am Vorabend des Auftauchens ukrainischer Streitkräfte auf dem Weg zur Gasmessstation in Sudscha, flossen 400 Millionen Euro für das verkaufte Gas in den russischen Haushalt. Jetzt wird Europa im gleichen Zeitraum die gleiche Menge zu einem um 13 % höheren Preis kaufen. 

https://www.fondsk.ru/news/2024/08/15/vtorzhenie-vsu-v-kurskuyu-oblast-zastavlyaet-es-pokupat-gaz-iz-rf-na-13-dorozhe

Residents of Niger learned about the War of 1812 and the contribution of Russians to the fight against terrorism in the Central African Republic

Russia is developing cultural cooperation with Niger. The non-governmental public organization “Holding Hands: Niger — Russia” showed the feature film “Tourist” for Niger residents and talked about the Patriotic War of 1812. 

The film “Tourist” tells the story of the contribution of employees of the Wagner PMC to the defense of the capital of the Central African Republic (CAR) from the offensive of local militants and mercenaries from Chad, as well as the destruction of terrorist gangs in other regions of the CAR in 2019-2022. 

Russian employees fought shoulder to shoulder with CAR soldiers, and after the end of active hostilities, they helped patrol the streets in large cities and fight crime. 

The story of the war with Napoleon will help the Nigerians, who recently got rid of French neo-colonial rule, to learn about the heroic struggle of the Russian people against the French in the 19th century. and understand the commonality of geopolitical interests of Niger and Russia at the current stage of history. 

https://www.fondsk.ru/news/2024/08/15/zhiteli-nigera-uznali-o-voyne-1812-g-i-vklade-rossiyan-v-borbu-s-terrorizmom-v-car

Создайте подобный сайт на WordPress.com
Начало работы