The High Cost of Reactive Strategy

The High Cost of Reactive Strategy

    Sunday, March 15, 2026   No comments

Oil, Sanctions, and the Global Economy

In the complex arena of geopolitical economics, few tools are as potent as oil sanctions, and few markets are as sensitive as global energy. A recent policy shift involving the temporary suspension of sanctions on Russian oil has sparked intense debate among economists and strategists. The decision, framed as a necessary move to stabilize soaring energy prices following heightened tensions in the Middle East, reveals a deeper tension between short-term economic relief and long-term strategic coherence. While the immediate goal is to lower costs for consumers, the underlying logic risks creating perverse incentives that could prolong instability and undermine the very mechanisms designed to enforce global norms.

The Mechanics of the Crisis

To understand the gravity of this decision, one must first understand the leverage points involved. Oil is the lifeblood of the modern industrial economy. When supply is disrupted—whether by conflict in the Strait of Hormuz or production cuts—prices spike. These spikes ripple outward, increasing the cost of transportation, manufacturing, and food production, ultimately fueling inflation that hurts households worldwide.

Sanctions are traditionally used as a non-military tool to pressure nations into changing behavior. There are most effective when they are done by consensus and in accordance to international norms. By cutting a country like Russia off from the global oil market, the anti-Russia block aims to deprive it of the revenue needed to fund conflict. However, this tool is a double-edged sword. Restricting supply from a major producer inevitably tightens the global market, driving prices up.

The recent announcement to pause these sanctions was justified by the need to flood the market with additional supply to counteract price hikes caused by regional conflict involving Iran. The stated intention is temporary: once the crisis abates and prices stabilize, the sanctions will return. On the surface, this appears to be a pragmatic humanitarian adjustment. Yet, when examined through the lens of game theory and strategic incentives, the move exposes a significant vulnerability in reactive policymaking.

The Strategic Flaw: A Lesson in Incentives

The core criticism of this policy is not about the desire for affordable oil, but about the signal it sends to adversarial actors. By linking the relief of sanctions on one front (Russia) to the resolution of a conflict on another (Iran), the policy inadvertently creates a profitable alliance between disparate actors who benefit from continued instability.

This dynamic can be understood through a simple analogy. Imagine a neighborhood where a child, let's call him R, is banned from selling lemonade because his friend, I, is sharing profits with him. The ban is meant to punish I. However, I responds by blocking other kids from selling lemonade too, creating a shortage that drives prices sky-high. Seeing the high prices, R's father lifts the ban on R, saying he can sell again until I stops blocking the others.

In this scenario, what is R's best move? Rational self-interest dictates that R should encourage I to keep blocking the competition. As long as the shortage persists, the price of lemonade remains high. R can sell less volume but make more profit, sharing the excess with I. The punishment intended for I has been neutralized, and both parties are now financially incentivized to maintain the crisis rather than resolve it.

Translating this to the global stage, the temporary easing of sanctions on Russian oil removes the pressure on Moscow to seek peace or de-escalate. Instead, it allows Russia to continue generating revenue while global prices remain elevated due to the unrelated conflict with Iran. If the promise to "reinstate sanctions later" lacks credibility or enforceability, the leverage is lost entirely. The market perceives the pause not as a temporary fix, but as a weakening of resolve, encouraging other nations to test the limits of economic coercion.

Implications for the World Economy

The economic implications of this strategic misalignment are profound. First, it introduces volatility into energy markets. Investors and industries thrive on predictability. When sanctions policy becomes reactive—shifting based on the latest headline rather than a cohesive long-term plan—it creates uncertainty. This uncertainty can lead to hoarding, speculative trading, and further price swings, negating the intended stabilizing effect of the policy.

Second, it risks entrenching inflation. If the structural incentives keep oil supplies artificially constrained by geopolitical maneuvering rather than genuine scarcity, the baseline cost of energy remains high. This "conflict premium" becomes embedded in the global economy, slowing growth and reducing the standard of living for consumers worldwide.

Third, and perhaps most dangerously, it erodes the efficacy of sanctions as a diplomatic tool. Sanctions rely on the threat of economic pain to change behavior. If that pain can be easily alleviated by shifting geopolitical winds, the threat loses its teeth. Future attempts to use economic pressure to halt aggression may be ignored by adversaries who anticipate similar waivers will be granted when prices rise.

The Need for Strategic Coherence

The situation underscores a fundamental principle of statecraft: tactics must serve strategy, not replace it. Lowering oil prices is a worthy goal, but not if it comes at the cost of empowering aggressors or dismantling the frameworks designed to maintain international security. A more robust approach would involve stopping aggression: any and all acts attacking sovereign nations outside the framework of International Law.

Using the most powerful hammer, armed forces, to hit every nail that appears, without a plan for the structural damage left behind, risks leaving a trail of destruction that will be costly to repair. The global economy requires leadership that anticipates second-order effects—understanding that a decision made to solve today's price spike could tomorrow's conflict longer and more expensive.

In the end, the lesson is clear. In an interconnected world, economic decisions are never isolated. They send signals, create incentives, and shape the behavior of nations. When those signals are mixed, and the incentives reward instability, the entire global system pays the price. True stability comes not from reactive pauses, but from a consistent, strategic vision that aligns economic tools with long-term peace and security.

Media review: Asymmetric Resistance and the Limits of American Power in the War on Iran

Media review: Asymmetric Resistance and the Limits of American Power in the War on Iran

    Saturday, March 14, 2026   No comments

The Driver and the Machine

You can have the fastest car in the world, but if you are an average or poor driver, you won't be able to win the race. This analogy captures the strategic dilemma facing the Trump administration in its war on Iran, but it also reveals a deeper truth about the nature of modern conflict. There is no dispute that the U.S. military is the most powerful in the world—indeed, as the agency with the largest budget outside entitlement programs, it is the most armed, lethal, and destructive machine in human history. Yet, military capability alone does not guarantee strategic success. A military is only as effective as the political leadership that sets its goals, strategy, and timeline. Outcomes are determined not by raw power, but by the wisdom, foresight, and skill of those who wield it.

However, to view this conflict solely through the lens of American "victory" or "defeat" is to adopt a biased framework that ignores the agency, resilience, and strategic logic of the defender. In asymmetric warfare, the definition of victory is not symmetrical. For the aggressor, victory often means total domination, regime change, or the complete neutralization of a threat. For the defender, particularly a nation facing an existential threat from a superpower, victory is defined simply by survival. If the Iranian state remains standing, its institutions functioning, and its core sovereignty intact despite the onslaught of the world's most powerful military, then from Tehran's perspective, the aggression has already failed. This essay reviews media stories to examine the gap between tactical success and strategic failure, arguing that the inability of the United States to achieve its maximalist objectives speaks less to American weakness and more to the enduring power of resistance against overwhelming force.

The Aggressor's Dilemma: Seven Pillars of Strategic Stalemate

Analysts from CNN, Al Jazeera, and The Independent have identified at least seven interlocking reasons why the United States has not achieved a decisive victory, despite inflicting significant physical damage. These factors highlight the limits of kinetic power when divorced from political reality.

1. The Strait of Hormuz: The Weaponization of Geography

Iran's closure of the Strait of Hormuz transformed a military confrontation into a global economic crisis. While the U.S. Navy possesses unmatched firepower, reopening the Strait by force presents extraordinary risks. More importantly, Iran’s ability to hold the world’s energy supply hostage demonstrates that a regional power can leverage geography to offset conventional military inferiority. Even if the U.S. forcibly reopens the channel, the requirement for a permanent, resource-intensive naval presence signifies a strategic drain, not a victory.

2. The Resilience of the Iranian State

The assassination of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei was intended to catalyze regime collapse. Instead, the swift appointment of Mojtaba Khamenei as successor signaled institutional continuity. Far from sparking the popular uprising Trump anticipated, the attacks appear to have reinforced the regime's narrative of external aggression. From Tehran’s viewpoint, the survival of the leadership structure amidst decapitation strikes is a testament to the depth of the state’s roots and a defeat for the U.S. objective of regime change.

3. Divergent Timelines and Alliance Friction

While Trump seeks a swift, politically marketable conclusion, Israel views security as a perpetual struggle. This misalignment complicates the U.S. exit strategy. Iran, conversely, operates on a timeline of generations. By absorbing the initial shock and prolonging the conflict, Tehran exploits the short-term political cycles of Western democracies, betting that American public patience will erode before Iranian resolve does.

4. The Unresolved Nuclear Question

Despite claims that U.S. strikes have "obliterated" Iran's nuclear program, international reports suggest Tehran retains stocks of highly enriched uranium. The inability to physically locate and destroy every gram of fissile material—a task requiring high-risk ground operations—means the core nonproliferation objective remains unfulfilled. The latent capacity to reconstitute the program remains a powerful deterrent and a symbol of technological resilience.

5. The Absence of Internal Collapse

Trump’s rhetoric framed the war as a liberation effort, expecting Iranians to rise up. No such uprising materialized. Instead, the security apparatus maintained control. This disconnect undermines the moral narrative of the intervention. For Iran, the lack of internal fracture despite massive external pressure validates the state’s claim to represent a significant portion of national sentiment, or at least its ability to enforce unity in the face of foreign invasion.

6. Regional Escalation as a Force Multiplier

The conflict has spilled beyond Iran’s borders, with Hezbollah, Iraqi militias, and Houthi forces intensifying operations. This "Axis of Resistance" strategy effectively expands the battlefield, stretching U.S. resources thin across multiple fronts. For Iran, activating these proxies transforms a bilateral conflict into a regional war of attrition, a domain where the superpower’s technological edge is diluted by the sheer complexity of the theater.

7. Domestic and Economic Blowback

Rising fuel prices and economic uncertainty have begun to erode U.S. public support. Unlike the post-9/11 rally effect, the war on Iran has generated immediate domestic pain. Iran’s strategy of targeting global energy markets directly impacts the American voter, turning the war’s cost into a political liability for the aggressor.

The Defender’s Perspective: Victory Through Survival and Resistance

To understand the full scope of this conflict, one must shift the perspective from Washington to Tehran. In the annals of military history, from Vietnam to Afghanistan, a consistent pattern emerges: when a superpower fails to achieve its rapid, decisive objectives against a determined regional actor, the defender claims a strategic victory.

For Iran, the metrics of success are fundamentally different. They do not need to invade the United States, sink its carrier groups, or bomb Washington D.C. to "win." Their objective is negative: to prevent the positive objectives of the aggressor.

• Did the U.S. topple the government? No.
• Did the U.S. permanently disarm Iran? No.
• Did the U.S. force unconditional surrender? No.

By these measures, Iran has succeeded. The mere fact that the Islamic Republic continues to function, issue commands, and project power through its proxies after weeks of intense bombardment by the world's sole superpower is, in itself, a profound statement of resilience. As noted by The Independent, the war has exposed the limits of air power; bombs can destroy buildings, but they cannot easily destroy a political will forged in decades of isolation and perceived existential threat.

The Moral and Political Dimension

From the Iranian perspective, this war validates the doctrine of "resistance" (muqawama). The narrative that a smaller nation can stand toe-to-toe with the "Great Satan" and survive serves as a powerful ideological tool, not just domestically, but across the Global South. It challenges the notion of American invincibility. When the Wall Street Journal reports that U.S. bases in Saudi Arabia have been struck and tankers seized, it highlights that Iran retains the capacity to inflict pain, raising the cost of aggression to unacceptable levels.

Furthermore, the failure of the U.
S. to spark an internal revolution suggests that the American understanding of Iranian society was flawed. By underestimating the cohesion of the Iranian state—even among those who may disagree with the government—the U.S. played into the hands of hardliners who could point to the bombing raids as proof that the West seeks destruction, not democracy. In this light, every day the regime survives is a propaganda victory that offsets the physical damage inflicted by U.S. ordnance.

The Economic Counter-Strike

Iran’s decision to close the Strait of Hormuz and potentially trade oil in Yuan rather than dollars is not just a tactical move; it is a strategic challenge to the global order dominated by the U.S.. By threatening the global economy, Iran demonstrates that in an interconnected world, a regional power holds leverage that can paralyze a superpower. The resulting spike in gas prices in the U.S. serves as a tangible reminder to the American public that the war is not a distant video game, but a reality with immediate consequences. This economic resistance acts as a check on unlimited military escalation.

The Strategic Paradox: Truth vs. Narrative

The central paradox of this conflict is the divergence between the narrative of victory and the reality of stalemate. President Trump’s declaration—"We won, in the first hour"—stands in stark contrast to the unfolding reality of a widening war, rising costs, and an unyielding adversary (CNN).

This dissonance highlights a critical lesson: Truth has a way of offsetting oppressive and lies-driven actions. No amount of rhetorical flourish can permanently mask the facts on the ground:

• The truth is that the Strait remains closed.
• The truth is that Iranian missiles are still flying.
• The truth is that the regime has not fallen.
• The truth is that the American public is feeling the pinch at the pump.

When an aggressor relies on a narrative of easy victory that contradicts the lived experience of soldiers, civilians, and markets, the credibility of the leadership erodes. The "fog of war" eventually lifts, revealing that the "fastest car" has been driven into a ditch by a driver who refused to read the map.

For Iran, the "truth" of their survival is their strongest weapon. It proves that military superiority is not absolute. It demonstrates that a nation with fewer resources, if unified by a cause of national defense and equipped with asymmetric strategies, can blunt the spear of empire. This does not mean Iran is without suffering; the humanitarian cost, warned of by the WHO, is tragic and severe (Al Jazeera). But in the cold calculus of strategic objectives, the survival of the state against such odds redefines the balance of power in the Middle East.

The Endurance of the Defended

The war on Iran underscores a fundamental principle of statecraft that the Trump administration appears to have overlooked: the most powerful military in history cannot compensate for unclear objectives, unrealistic expectations, or the underestimation of an opponent’s will to resist.

Viewing the conflict fairly requires acknowledging that while the U.S. may claim tactical successes in destroying specific targets, it faces a strategic failure in achieving its overarching goals. Conversely, Iran, despite suffering immense physical damage and humanitarian hardship, has achieved a form of victory through endurance. By refusing to collapse, by keeping its command structure intact, and by leveraging its geographic and asymmetric advantages to impose heavy costs on the aggressor, Iran has demonstrated that resistance is a viable strategy against superior firepower.

Ultimately, the outcome of this war will not be decided by the tonnage of bombs dropped, but by the political staying power of the participants. If the United States withdraws without having achieved regime change or permanent disarmament, history will likely record this not as an American victory, but as another chapter in the long saga of imperial overreach meeting the unyielding wall of national resistance. In the race between the fast car and the skilled, determined driver who knows the terrain, the latter often finds a way to block the road. The truth of that resilience is the ultimate counterweight to the illusion of dominance.

Media Review: Geopolitics, Technology, and the US-Iran Tension

Media Review: Geopolitics, Technology, and the US-Iran Tension

    Monday, February 23, 2026   No comments

In recent weeks, heightened rhetoric around Iran's nuclear program has dominated headlines. US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff stated on Fox News that Iran could be "a week away from having industrial-grade bomb-making material." However, credible reporting provides crucial context: following joint US-Israeli strikes in June 2025 that destroyed Iran's centrifuges and nuclear infrastructure, US and Israeli intelligence assessments currently place Iran "at least two years away from being able to produce a nuclear weapon." This discrepancy between political messaging and intelligence assessments raises an important question: what truly drives the current escalation?

While non-proliferation remains a stated priority, a growing body of analysis suggests that US strategic concerns extend beyond the nuclear file to encompass the deepening alignment between Iran, China, and Russia—a convergence that could reshape regional power dynamics and challenge Western technological and diplomatic influence.

The foundation for this alignment was formalized in the 2021 China-Iran 25-Year Comprehensive Strategic Partnership Agreement. Recent reporting confirms the agreement is actively being implemented, with Iranian officials stating it is "progressing" and serving as a "cornerstone" of bilateral ties. While some analyses note implementation challenges, the strategic intent is clear: deepen economic, energy, and security cooperation.

China's Belt and Road Initiative positions Iran as a critical energy supplier and transit corridor. Beijing has repeatedly warned that military escalation against Iran would "destabilize the region and threaten its Belt and Road investments and energy security." This is not merely diplomatic posturing; it reflects tangible economic stakes.

Several reports describe China assisting Iran in reducing dependence on Western-controlled technology—a move with significant security implications:

• Satellite Navigation: Iran has publicly explored adopting China's BeiDou satellite navigation system as an alternative to US-controlled GPS. Iranian officials cited GPS disruptions during the 2025 conflict as a key motivator. While some niche outlets claim Iran has "fully replaced" GPS with BeiDou, broader reporting indicates this is an ongoing transition aimed at enhancing "digital sovereignty" and military resilience.
• Cybersecurity Cooperation: According to analysis from Modern Diplomacy, China has encouraged Tehran to strengthen digital infrastructure by adopting encrypted Chinese systems to counter intelligence penetration. While Modern Diplomacy is an independent analysis platform rather than a wire service, its reporting aligns with documented patterns of Sino-Iranian security cooperation noted by the Institute for the Study of War.
• Air Defense Capabilities: Multiple reports indicate Iran has deployed China's YLC-8B long-range anti-stealth radar. While these outlets are not mainstream wire services, the technical plausibility of such a transfer is consistent with the deepening military-technical cooperation between the two countries. Independent verification from major defense publications would strengthen this claim.

The convergence of Iranian, Chinese, and Russian interests presents a strategic challenge for Washington. As noted in analysis from the Critical Threats Project, "Iran likely seeks Chinese support to strengthen its domestic security and repressive capabilities." From Beijing's perspective, supporting Iran serves multiple objectives: securing energy flows, advancing BRI infrastructure, and creating a counterweight to US influence in a strategically vital region.

Some analysts argue that US pressure on Iran is partly motivated by a desire to prevent this trilateral alignment from solidifying further. A report in The Jerusalem Post contextualized Witkoff's nuclear comments within broader US efforts to establish "very hard red lines" regarding Iran's enrichment capabilities. However, the same reporting acknowledges ongoing diplomatic channels, with US-Iran talks scheduled to resume in Geneva.

China's position is unambiguous: it "categorically rejects" military threats against Iran and emphasizes diplomatic solutions. Beijing has warned that "military adventurism" in the Middle East would destabilize global energy markets—a direct reference to its own economic interests. This stance positions China as a potential mediator while simultaneously strengthening its partnership with Tehran.

Attributing US policy toward Iran solely to a desire to disrupt China-Russia ties would be an oversimplification. Legitimate non-proliferation concerns, regional security dynamics involving Israel and Gulf states, and domestic political factors all play significant roles. However, dismissing the geopolitical dimension would also be inaccurate.

The evidence supports several verified conclusions:

• Public claims about Iran's immediate nuclear breakout capability conflict with current intelligence assessments.
• The China-Iran strategic partnership is actively being implemented, with cooperation expanding in technology and security domains.
• Iran is actively seeking to reduce technological dependencies on Western systems, with China positioned as a key alternative partner.
• China views regional stability as essential to its economic interests and has explicitly opposed military escalation against Iran.

Relations with Russia

After inking the agreement with China, Iran signed a similar strategic agreement with Russia that was finalized and ratified last year. The terms of that agreement are also being implemented now. It has been reported recently that Iran signs secret $589 million missile deal with Russia. According to the Financial Times, Iran has signed a secret $589 million arms deal with Russia to obtain thousands of advanced shoulder-fired missiles.

The agreement, reportedly signed in Moscow in December, obligates Russia to supply 500 man-portable "Verba" launch units and 2,500 "9M336" missiles over three years, the FT said, citing leaked Russian documents and sources familiar with the deal.

Deliveries are planned in three tranches from 2027 to 2029, according to the FT. The negotiations took place between Russian state arms exporter Rosoboronexport and the Moscow representative of Iran's Ministry of Defense and Armed Forces Logistics, the FT reported. Tehran officially requested the systems last July, as indicated in a contract seen by the FT.

The current tensions around Iran cannot be reduced to a single motive. While the nuclear file remains central, the broader context of great-power competition adds layers of complexity. China's efforts to support Iran's technological sovereignty and security capabilities are documented, though the precise scope of some transfers requires verification from primary defense sources.

A fact-based approach acknowledges that US policy likely seeks to address multiple objectives simultaneously: preventing nuclear proliferation, maintaining regional alliances, and managing strategic competition with China and Russia. Similarly, China's engagement with Iran serves its own strategic interests in energy security, infrastructure development, and multipolar diplomacy.

As negotiations continue in Geneva, the path forward will require distinguishing between verified capabilities and political rhetoric, and recognizing that in an interconnected world, regional conflicts inevitably resonate across global power structures. Sustainable solutions will depend on addressing legitimate security concerns on all sides while preventing escalation that could destabilize the broader international order.

Scientists Report Compact Weapon Prototype Capable of Disrupting Low-Orbit Satellites

Scientists Report Compact Weapon Prototype Capable of Disrupting Low-Orbit Satellites

    Friday, February 06, 2026   No comments

New research published in a Chinese scientific journal describes engineering advances in high-power microwave technology—raising questions about the future vulnerability of satellite constellations like Starlink

Researchers at China's Northwest Institute of Nuclear Technology have developed what they describe as the world's first compact driver for a high-power microwave (HPM) weapon system capable of delivering 20 gigawatts of power for up to 60 seconds—a dramatic leap in duration compared to existing systems.

The device, designated TPG1000Cs, measures just four meters long and weighs five tonnes—compact enough to potentially be mounted on trucks, warships, aircraft, or even satellites, according to a paper published December 30 in High Power Laser and Particle Beams, a Chinese peer-reviewed scientific journal. The research team, led by Wang Gang from the Key Laboratory on Science and Technology on High Power Microwave at the Northwest Institute of Nuclear Technology (NINT) in Xi'an, Shaanxi province, reported the system has already accumulated more than 200,000 operational pulses during testing.

The researchers achieved this performance through several design breakthroughs. They replaced high-strength steel components with aluminum alloy, reducing the system's weight by approximately one-third. Insulating plates were etched with wavy grooves to lengthen the electrical surface path and prevent discharges—a principle analogous to how winding mountain roads prevent vehicles from taking dangerous shortcuts. Perhaps most significantly, the team redesigned energy storage components from traditional long, straight tubes into a dual-U-shaped structure that allows energy to "bounce back and forth," achieving equivalent performance in half the physical space.

These innovations reportedly enable the TPG1000Cs to deliver up to 3,000 high-energy pulses in a single session—far exceeding the capabilities of comparable systems. For context, Russia's Sinus-7 driver, according to available reports, can operate for approximately one second while delivering roughly 100 pulses per burst and weighs around 10 tonnes.

The development arrives amid growing strategic concerns about satellite constellations in low Earth orbit (LEO). Chinese military researchers have repeatedly warned that systems like SpaceX's Starlink pose national security challenges due to their potential military applications—including battlefield communications, precision navigation, and intelligence gathering.

Experts cited in the South China Morning Post report estimate that ground-based microwave weapons with outputs exceeding 1 gigawatt could severely disrupt or potentially damage Starlink satellites operating in LEO. This vulnerability is heightened by SpaceX's recent decision to lower Starlink satellites' orbital altitude to reduce collision risks—a move that inadvertently brings them closer to potential ground-based directed-energy threats.

HPM weapons operate by emitting focused electromagnetic energy that can penetrate electronic systems through antennas or other apertures—a phenomenon known as "front-door" coupling—potentially frying circuitry or causing temporary disruption without physical destruction.

Critical context often missing from sensationalized coverage: the TPG1000Cs remains a research prototype documented in a scientific journal, not a confirmed operational weapons system deployed by the People's Liberation Army. Publication in an academic venue suggests this represents an engineering milestone in component development rather than a battlefield-ready capability.

Furthermore, successfully disrupting satellites in controlled laboratory conditions differs substantially from reliably engaging fast-moving targets hundreds of kilometers away through Earth's atmosphere—a challenge involving precise targeting, power projection over distance, and overcoming atmospheric attenuation of microwave energy.

China's interest in counterspace capabilities reflects broader global trends. The United States, Russia, and other spacefaring nations have long researched directed-energy weapons for both defensive and offensive applications. What makes China's reported progress notable is the claimed combination of high power output, extended duration, and compact form factor—attributes that could theoretically enable more flexible deployment options if the technology matures.

Beijing has expressed particular concern about Starlink's integration with Western military operations, including its documented use by Ukrainian forces during the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Chinese defense analysts have published papers exploring various "Starlink killer" concepts, including lasers and electronic warfare systems, as potential asymmetric responses to proliferated satellite constellations.

While the TPG1000Cs represents a significant engineering achievement on paper, numerous hurdles remain before such technology could transition from laboratory prototype to operational weapon system. These include power generation requirements, thermal management during sustained firing, precise targeting systems for orbital objects traveling at approximately 27,000 kilometers per hour, and the political consequences of demonstrating anti-satellite capabilities that could trigger debris-generating conflicts in space.

As satellite constellations become increasingly vital to both civilian infrastructure and military operations worldwide, developments in counterspace technology will continue to shape strategic calculations—and underscore the fragility of our orbital commons. For now, the TPG1000Cs stands as a reminder that the next battlefield may extend far above our atmosphere, where invisible beams of energy could determine the outcome of future conflicts.

Media Review: U.S. Multitrack Foreign Interventions Push Superpower to the Brink

Media Review: U.S. Multitrack Foreign Interventions Push Superpower to the Brink

    Sunday, January 18, 2026   No comments

In a world already teetering on the edge of geopolitical realignment, the United States—under President Donald J. Trump’s second administration—has launched an unprecedented wave of coercive foreign interventions that may be testing the very limits of superpower endurance. From Arctic ambitions to Middle Eastern brinkmanship and African strategic contests, Washington’s simultaneous pressure campaigns across multiple continents are triggering a global counter-reaction with historic implications.

The Greenland Gambit: Tariffs as Geopolitical Leverage

At the heart of this escalation lies a surreal yet strategically serious episode: the U.S. demand for the “complete and total purchase of Greenland.” In a January 2026 Truth Social post, President Trump declared that national security—and even “World Peace”—depends on American control of the Danish autonomous territory. Citing the need to integrate Greenland into the so-called “Golden Dome” missile defense system, Trump announced sweeping tariffs on eight European nations—Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the UK, the Netherlands, and Finland—starting at 10% in February and rising to 25% by June unless a deal is struck.

The move stunned allies and adversaries alike. French President Emmanuel Macron responded swiftly, declaring on X (formerly Twitter): “No intimidation or threat will influence us—neither in Ukraine, nor in Greenland, nor anywhere else.” He emphasized that European participation in Danish-led Arctic exercises was a matter of continental security, not provocation. The EU has signaled a unified response, warning that tariff coercion over sovereign territory sets a dangerous precedent.

Greenland, though small in population, sits at the nexus of Arctic resource competition and emerging military corridors. But Trump’s framing—equating tariff policy with planetary survival—reveals a broader strategy: using economic instruments not just as leverage, but as weapons of submission.

A Global List of Targets: From Caracas to Pretoria

This approach extends far beyond the Arctic. In a brazen operation reminiscent of Cold War-era coups, the U.S. executed a “made-for-TV” abduction of Venezuela’s president and his wife from their bedroom—an act designed less for regime change alone than for psychological deterrence. The message was clear: defiance invites humiliation.

The list of targeted nations now reads like a who’s who of global resistance: Cuba, Mexico, Colombia, Iran, Nigeria, South Africa—even close partners like Denmark. Each faces a tailored mix of sanctions, tariffs, military posturing, or covert pressure. Yet unlike past eras of unipolar dominance, today’s targets are not isolated. Many are turning to Beijing and Moscow for support, accelerating a multipolar realignment.

Nowhere is this more evident than in South Africa. Following BRICS+ naval exercises involving Russia, China, and Iran off its coast, Washington issued sharp condemnations, calling Pretoria’s actions a threat to U.S. national security. But rather than cowing South Africa, the rebuke galvanized deeper strategic cooperation among non-Western powers.

The Iranian Flashpoint: When Deterrence Worked

Perhaps the most dramatic test came in early January 2026. After the U.S. ordered all citizens to evacuate Iran—a classic prelude to military action—and positioned the USS Gerald R. Ford carrier strike group in the Persian Gulf, war seemed imminent. Trump declared “all options are open” and slapped 25% tariffs on any nation trading with Tehran, aiming for total economic isolation.

But Iran did not buckle. Millions of its citizens took to the streets in a show of nationalist resolve. More critically, Russia and China intervened—not with rhetoric, but with credible threats. According to intelligence sources, Russian President Vladimir Putin delivered a stark ultimatum: if the U.S. launched a full-scale war, Moscow would supply Iran with advanced anti-ship missiles capable of sinking an American aircraft carrier. Simultaneously, China drew its own red line, opposing any use of force.

The result? A stunning reversal. Within 48 hours, internal dissent within the U.S. national security apparatus—led by Vice President JD Vance and senior generals—forced a retreat. The Abraham Lincoln carrier, originally en route to the South China Sea, was diverted to the Gulf, exposing critical gaps in U.S. global force projection. Trump’s “72-hour countdown” evaporated into a two-week diplomatic window.

This episode marked a turning point: the first time in decades that coordinated great-power deterrence successfully checked American military adventurism.

The Starlink Shadow War: Electronic Frontiers

Even in the realm of information warfare, the U.S. finds itself outmaneuvered. Unconfirmed reports suggest Iran is now deploying Russia’s “Tobol” electronic warfare system—a satellite-jamming platform proven in Ukraine—to neutralize Starlink terminals used by rioters. If verified, this would represent a major leap in asymmetric capabilities, turning Elon Musk’s commercial satellite network into a vulnerability rather than an asset.

Should mobile variants of Tobol reach battlefields like Ukraine or the South China Sea, the U.S. and its allies could face sudden communication blackouts during critical operations. The irony is palpable: a technology hailed as a tool of democratic resistance may become a vector for detection and destruction.

Regime Change Redux—and Its Limits

Despite these setbacks, the Trump administration continues to openly advocate for regime change in Iran. “It’s time to look for new leadership,” Trump declared, calling Iran “the worst place to live” and blaming Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei for internal unrest. Yet such rhetoric rings hollow when the U.S. lacks the capacity to enforce it—militarily, economically, or diplomatically.

The core problem is overextension. Attempting to simultaneously coerce Europe over Greenland, destabilize Latin America, contain China in the Pacific, confront Russia in Eurasia, and overthrow regimes in the Middle East is a strategy no single power—even a superpower—can sustain indefinitely. The world is no longer unipolar; it is contested, interconnected, and increasingly resistant to unilateral diktats.

A New Era of Multipolar Deterrence

What we are witnessing is not merely a series of crises, but the birth pangs of a new international order. The U.S. remains powerful, but its ability to dictate outcomes is waning. Russia and China, once reactive, are now proactive—coordinating military drills, sharing advanced technologies, and offering alternative security architectures to nations weary of American pressure.

As French President Macron implied, sovereignty is no longer a privilege granted by Washington—it is a right asserted by nations, often in concert. The lesson of January 2026 is clear: in a multipolar world, even the strongest empire can overreach. And when it does, the world pushes back—not with declarations, but with fleets, tariffs, and the quiet calculus of mutual deterrence. The 20th century ended with American triumphalism. The 21st may be defined by its limits.

GCC is on the line: How Bahrain Emerged as a New Front in the Growing Saudi-Emirati Rift

GCC is on the line: How Bahrain Emerged as a New Front in the Growing Saudi-Emirati Rift

    Saturday, January 10, 2026   No comments

Media review: An exclusive report from Darkbox (France)

Confidential sources revealed to Darkbox that Saudi forces, specifically the Peninsula Shield Force, withdrew from Bahrain following a sharp political and security dispute between Saudi Arabia and the Bahraini government.

According to these sources, the withdrawal was neither routine nor planned, but rather a consequence of escalating tensions between Riyadh and Abu Dhabi, with Manama finding itself caught in the middle.

The sources describe this move as highly unusual, given the long-standing Saudi military presence in Bahrain and the Kingdom's traditional role as a key guarantor of Bahrain's security. They say the decision to withdraw the forces came after a breakdown in coordination and trust, resulting from what Saudi officials perceived as Bahrain's alignment with Emirati positions that conflicted with Saudi interests.

China’s Rising Role in the Middle East: Mediator, Partner, and Power Broker

China’s Rising Role in the Middle East: Mediator, Partner, and Power Broker

    Monday, December 15, 2025   No comments

In a region long dominated by U.S. influence and rife with geopolitical rivalries, China is steadily emerging as a pivotal diplomatic actor in the Middle East. The most striking evidence of this shift came in early 2023, when Beijing brokered a historic rapprochement between longtime adversaries Saudi Arabia and Iran—a move that not only stunned global observers but also signaled a new phase of Chinese engagement in West Asia. Now, more than two years later, the momentum of that breakthrough continues, with China deepening its strategic partnerships and expanding its footprint across the region.

The agreement between Riyadh and Tehran, facilitated by Chinese mediation and signed in Beijing in March 2023, marked a turning point in Middle Eastern geopolitics. For decades, the Sunni-Shia divide and proxy conflicts had fueled instability from Yemen to Syria, with Washington often taking sides or struggling to contain the fallout. China, by contrast, offered a neutral platform that prioritized dialogue over confrontation.

Recent developments confirm that this truce is not merely symbolic. On December 15, 2025, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi concluded high-level talks in Riyadh, where he affirmed China’s commitment to being Saudi Arabia’s “most trustworthy and dependable partner.” Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MbS) echoed this sentiment, pledging to deepen cooperation in energy, artificial intelligence, and emerging technologies—sectors central to Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030 economic transformation.

Crucially, both Saudi Arabia and Iran have continued to engage in direct dialogue since the Beijing-brokered deal, with trilateral meetings involving Chinese officials now becoming routine. A recent gathering of deputy foreign ministers from China, Iran, and Saudi Arabia in Tehran reaffirmed the three nations’ commitment to advancing bilateral relations between Riyadh and Tehran “in all fields” and hailed the “continuous progress” in their reconciliation.

China’s influence is not just diplomatic—it is increasingly economic and technological. As the world’s largest oil importer, China has long maintained strong energy ties with Gulf states. But Beijing is now moving beyond buyer-seller dynamics to become a strategic partner in Saudi Arabia’s national development goals.

During his Riyadh visit, Wang Yi emphasized expanding cooperation in “new energy,” AI, and high-tech industries—areas where China holds competitive advantages. Riyadh, for its part, expressed support for concluding a long-pending free trade agreement between China and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), which would integrate the Chinese economy more deeply into the region’s commercial architecture.

Simultaneously, China’s stance on core regional issues—particularly the Palestinian question—resonates with Arab publics and governments alike. Both China and Saudi Arabia reiterated their support for a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital, aligning with the Arab Peace Initiative and UN resolutions. This positions Beijing as a more sympathetic voice than Western powers, whose policies are often viewed as unbalanced.

Unlike traditional great powers, China has avoided military entanglements in the Middle East, focusing instead on economic statecraft, infrastructure investment (under the Belt and Road Initiative), and “non-interference” in domestic affairs—a principle that appeals to sovereign-minded regimes in both Riyadh and Tehran.

Beijing’s approach also carries symbolic weight. Saudi Arabia’s reaffirmation of the one-China principle—recognizing Taiwan as part of China—during Wang’s visit underscores the mutual political support that underpins this new partnership. In return, China champions Saudi leadership in regional security and backs its diplomatic outreach to Iran.

This mutual reinforcement extends to multilateral forums. Riyadh has voiced strong support for China’s plan to host the second China–Arab States Summit and the second China–GCC Summit in 2026—events that will likely showcase Beijing’s expanding role as a convener and agenda-setter in West Asia.

China’s growing clout does not come without complications. The U.S. remains the dominant security provider in the Gulf, and Washington views Beijing’s advances with growing concern. Moreover, while the Saudi-Iran détente has reduced tensions, underlying ideological and strategic differences persist, and flare-ups in places like Yemen or Lebanon could still test the durability of the rapprochement.

Nonetheless, China’s success in facilitating dialogue between bitter rivals—and sustaining that dialogue through consistent engagement—has earned it a unique form of soft power in the region. By offering an alternative to Western-dominated security frameworks and promoting economic development without political strings, Beijing is reshaping the Middle East’s diplomatic landscape.

As Foreign Minister Wang Yi’s recent visit demonstrates, China is no longer just a passive observer in West Asia. It is an active mediator, a trusted partner, and an increasingly indispensable player in the quest for regional stability. In doing so, it has not only advanced its own strategic interests but also redefined what great-power diplomacy looks like in the 21st century.

Media Review: Human Rights, Selective Outrage, and the Politics of Condemnation

Media Review: Human Rights, Selective Outrage, and the Politics of Condemnation

    Monday, May 26, 2025   No comments

In the realm of global politics, the language of morality is often wielded not as a principle, but as a weapon—selectively applied, conveniently ignored. Nowhere is this hypocrisy more glaring than in the recent reactions of Western leaders to the wars in Ukraine and Gaza. When Russia retaliated against a Ukrainian drone assault by launching strikes that killed 12 people, leaders like U.S. President Donald Trump were quick to label Vladimir Putin as “absolutely crazy” and a “killer.” Yet, just days later, Israel launched a brutal airstrike on a school in Gaza sheltering displaced families, killing at least 54 Palestinians—mostly children—and silence or cautious equivocation followed. In fact, these same leaders continue to fund, arm, and diplomatically shield Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a man already indicted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for war crimes. This double standard reveals a painful truth: in the eyes of Western powers, not all human lives are equal, and not all victims are mourned.

The facts are indisputable. According to reports from Al Jazeera, the BBC, and eyewitness accounts, Israeli airstrikes targeted the Fahmi al-Jargawi school in Gaza City, killing dozens, many of whom were burnt beyond recognition. These were not militants or combatants; they were civilians—babies and children asleep in makeshift shelters after fleeing other bombardments. Just days earlier, another Israeli strike obliterated the home of Palestinian doctor Alaa Al-Najjar, killing all nine of her children. She was saving other lives in a hospital while her own were buried in rubble. The loss was not just personal—it was emblematic of a systemic campaign of destruction. As the Arabic-language article poignantly described, “this is not a story of one family, it is the recurring scene of Gaza.”

Meanwhile, when Russia responded to a coordinated assault involving 96 drones launched by Ukraine toward Moscow, killing 12 civilians in a retaliatory strike, the condemnation from Western capitals was swift and categorical. Putin was called irrational, genocidal, and in Trump’s words, “absolutely CRAZY.” While no act of violence against civilians can be morally justified, the disparity in the global reaction is stark. What makes the death of 12 Ukrainians worthy of universal outrage and sanctions, while the burning of 36 Palestinian children in their sleep barely moves the needle of Western conscience?

The answer lies not in law or logic, but in power and politics. Israel is a key ally of the United States and other Western nations. It receives billions in annual military aid, enjoys diplomatic protection at the United Nations, and is portrayed as a bastion of democracy in a volatile region. Russia, by contrast, is a geopolitical rival. Condemning its actions aligns with the strategic and ideological interests of the West. But in elevating political allegiance over human dignity, Western leaders have exposed the hollowness of their professed values.

The roots of this selective empathy is found in supremacism. As Israeli journalist Gideon Levy notes, the Israeli public is conditioned to view Palestinians not as humans, but as threats—mere shadows on a moral map that excludes them. This dehumanization enables the normalization of mass death, the obliteration of entire neighborhoods, and the bombing of hospitals and schools. Western complicity compounds this tragedy by offering political and military support without meaningful accountability. When the victims are viewed as less than human, their deaths demand no justice.

The implications are devastating—not just for Gaza, but for the moral credibility of the West itself. If the universal declaration of human rights only applies to those within a favored political camp, then it is not universal at all. If war crimes are condemned in Moscow but ignored in Tel Aviv, then the West is not defending international law—it is manipulating it. And if leaders like Netanyahu are embraced while others are vilified for similar or lesser acts, then the claim to moral leadership rings hollow.

In Gaza, as one article lamented, people no longer wait for justice from the world. “We write, we witness, we record,” it says, “so that if we die today, history will know who killed us—and why no one trembled.” It is a chilling testament to the abandonment of an entire people, not just by their occupiers, but by the global community that claims to uphold their rights.

Justice cannot be selective. Empathy cannot be conditional. If Western leaders are to retain even a shred of moral authority, they must confront their own hypocrisy. The lives of Palestinian children matter as much as those in Kyiv. War crimes are war crimes, whether committed by an adversary or an ally. And silence, when the bombs fall on schools and hospitals, is not neutrality—it is complicity.

Media Review: Syrian opposition received Ukrainian support to undermine Russia and its allies

Media Review: Syrian opposition received Ukrainian support to undermine Russia and its allies

    Wednesday, December 11, 2024   No comments

The Washington Post reported that “the Syrian opposition that seized power in Damascus last weekend received drones and other support from Ukrainian intelligence agents who sought to undermine Russia and its Syrian allies,” according to sources familiar with Ukrainian military activities abroad.

The sources told the newspaper that “Ukrainian intelligence sent about 20 experienced drone operators and about 150 drones to the rebel headquarters in Idlib, Syria, four to five weeks ago to assist Hayat Tahrir al-Sham.”

Western intelligence sources believe, according to the newspaper, that Kiev’s assistance played only a modest role in the ouster of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, but it was notable as part of a broader Ukrainian effort to covertly strike Russian operations in the Middle East, Africa and inside Russia itself.

“Ukraine’s covert aid program in Syria was an open secret, though senior Biden administration officials have repeatedly said they were unaware of it,” she added. “The motivation behind it is clear: Facing a Russian onslaught inside their country, Ukrainian intelligence looked for other fronts where it could bloody Russia’s nose and undermine its clients.”

  

Russian official: Washington and its allies may face the use of our weapons by third parties

Russian official: Washington and its allies may face the use of our weapons by third parties

    Thursday, June 06, 2024   No comments

Russia appears to be changing its military posture in reaction to Western countries allowing Ukraine to use NATO weapons to strike inside Russia. Russia is now open to supplying other countries with Russian weapons the same way US, France, and the UK are supplying Ukraine with their weapons that are used to kill Russians; according to Russian officials. This is a significant development that could impact events in conflict zones, including the wars in Syria and Gaza.

Deputy Chairman of the Russian Security Council Dmitry Medvedev confirmed on Thursday that the United States and its allies may face the direct use of Russian weapons by third parties.

Medvedev said in posts on the "X" platform and his telegram channel that these people or regions were intentionally left unnamed, but they could be all those who consider the United States and its partners their enemy, regardless of their political outlook and international recognition.

He added that "their enemy is the United States, which means they are our friends."

This statement comes after Russian President Vladimir Putin announced on Wednesday that Russia may consider supplying areas of the world with its long-range weapons, in order to launch sensitive strikes against countries that supply Ukraine with weapons.

The US State Department confirmed, in late May, that US President Joe Biden had given the green light to launch Ukrainian strikes using weapons supplied by the United States inside Russian territory, near the city of Kharkiv.

A US State Department spokesman told the Russian Sputnik Agency that "Biden recently tasked his team with ensuring that Ukraine is able to use weapons provided by the United States for counterattack purposes in the Kharkiv region so that Kiev can respond to Russian forces."

The US spokesman claimed that Washington's policy of not allowing long-range strikes using ATACMS missiles inside Russia has not changed.

As for Germany, it backtracked on a position it had previously announced, and granted Ukraine permission to use the weapons it had supplied to it, in order to strike targets inside Russia.

In the same context, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg called for Ukraine to be allowed to use Western weapons to strike targets inside Russia.

Stoltenberg said that it is time for member states to "reconsider the restrictions that hinder Kyiv's ability to defend itself."

In response, Italian Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini called on Stoltenberg to resign.

Russia has previously sent a memorandum to NATO countries due to the supply of weapons to Ukraine, and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov indicated that any shipment containing weapons to Ukraine "will become a legitimate target for Russia."

Lavrov stated that the United States and NATO are directly involved in the conflict in Ukraine, "not only through the supply of weapons, but also through training in the territories of Britain, Germany, Italy and other countries."

Israeli media: Israeli politicians should thank Jordan; Jordan summons Iran's ambassador to protest

Israeli media: Israeli politicians should thank Jordan; Jordan summons Iran's ambassador to protest

    Monday, April 15, 2024   No comments

Some Israeli media outlets want Jordan to be thanked for standing with Israel during Iran's retaliatory strike for the attack on its diplomatic facilities in Syria. These recent developments are forcing many regional and global actors to make tough decisions and the effects of those decisions may not be felt or known immediately, testifying to the power of these events as transformative ones. 

"While Netanyahu shows nothing but ingratitude towards Biden, the Iranian attack produced the most significant show of support in the history of Israeli-U.S. relations. It also proves the importance of a regional alliance of moderates, including the Palestinians." said the daily Haaretz.

Meanwhile, on Sunday, the Jordanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs summoned the Iranian ambassador in Amman and asked his country to stop “questioning” Jordan’s positions on the Palestinian issue after the Kingdom announced the interception of “flying objects” during the Iranian attack on Israel.

Foreign Minister Ayman Al-Safadi said, “Today (Sunday) the ministry summoned the Iranian ambassador and sent him a clear message that these insults to Jordan must stop, and this questioning of Jordan’s positions must stop.”

He added, "Unfortunately, there were offensive statements (against Jordan) by the Iranian media, including the Iranian official news agency."

Al-Safadi explained that "Iran's problem is with Israel and not with Jordan, and neither Iran nor anyone else can outbid what Jordan is doing, what it offers, and what it has provided historically for Palestine."

He stressed that "if this danger was coming from Israel, Jordan would take the same action it did, and this is a position we confirm clearly and frankly, and we will not allow anyone to endanger the security of Jordan and the Jordanians."

Jordan confirmed on Sunday that it had intercepted "flying objects" that violated its airspace on Saturday night, coinciding with the missile and drone attack launched by Iran on Israel.

Video clips showed the interception of objects in the Kingdom's airspace during the night, at a time when the remains of at least one missile fell in the Marj Al-Hamam area in the Jordanian capital. Users of social media platforms in the Kingdom also shared video clips showing the wreckage of another missile in the Al-Hasa area in the Tafila Governorate in the south of the Kingdom.

Iran launched more than 300 drones and missiles at Israel on Saturday night, in the first attack launched by Iran directly from its territory on Israel, and not through groups loyal to it. It came in response to a missile attack that targeted the consular section of the Iranian embassy in Damascus at the beginning of this April.

Related, French President Emmanuel Macron revealed on Monday that his country used its base in Jordan to intercept Iranian air targets during the attack on Israel, at the request of the Jordanian authorities.

The French President said, in a television interview, that his country's forces stationed in Jordan intercepted Iranian drones and missiles that were heading to Israeli sites, explaining that the French planes were launched from a French base that has been on Jordanian territory for years.

Yesterday, Sunday, the Jordanian government announced that it was “dealing with some flying objects” that entered the country’s airspace, in reference to the drones and missiles that Iran launched against “Israel.”

Israeli media described the Jordanian move as “historic cooperation,” adding that “for the first time, military cooperation between the two parties is taking place publicly.”

Iranian official: Jordan opening its airspace to Israel against Iran is a strategic mistake

Mehr News Agency quoted the Deputy Chairman of the National Security and Foreign Policy Commission of the Iranian Shura Council, Shahriar Heydari, as saying, “The Jordanian government’s opening of its country’s airspace to the Zionists to confront Iranian attacks is a strategic mistake.”

Haidari added, "At least Jordan could have remained silent or even supported Iran's legitimate defense against the Zionist entity."

These statements come after the Jordanian Foreign Ministry announced - last Sunday - that it had summoned the Iranian ambassador to Amman, and asked his country to stop “questioning” Jordan’s positions on the Palestinian issue after the Kingdom announced the interception of “flying objects” during the Iranian attack on Israel.

Foreign Minister Ayman Al-Safadi said at the time, “Unfortunately, there were offensive statements (against Jordan) by the Iranian media, including the Iranian official news agency.”

He added, "Iran's problem is with Israel, not with Jordan. Neither Iran nor anyone else can outbid what Jordan is doing, what it is offering, and what it has provided historically for Palestine."

He stressed that "if this danger was coming from Israel, Jordan would take the same action it did, and this is a position we confirm clearly and frankly, and we will not allow anyone to endanger the security of Jordan and the Jordanians."

 The decision by the rulers of Jordan to be involved in this conflict may further increase division among Jordanians, many of whom either sympathize with Palestinians or are Palestinians themselves, as the kingdom is home to one of the largest displaced Palestinian communities in the world.

Iran Summons Russian Envoy Over Statement on Disputed Gulf Islands

Iran Summons Russian Envoy Over Statement on Disputed Gulf Islands

    Sunday, December 24, 2023   No comments

Those familair with Iranian culture would say that Iran's leaders do not do "ta`aruf" when it comes to their sovereignty. That is, “no kidding allowed” on the matter. In a move similar to its reaction to China putting its name on an Arab-Chinese joint statement when the Chinese president visit the Gulf region, Iran foreign ministry summoned the Russian diplomat to protest a similar event that took place in Morocco earlier this month. 

Iran has summoned the Russian chargé d'affaires to Tehran in protest at a recent statement issued by Russia and several Arab countries on Iran’s three Persian Gulf islands of Abu Musa, the Greater Tunb, and the Lesser Tunb.

The Russian diplomat was summoned by the assistant to the Iranian Foreign Ministry's director general for the Persian Gulf affairs on Saturday.

The development came after the final statement of the 6th Arab-Russian Cooperation Forum, which was held in Morocco on December 20, reiterated the United Arab Emirates' baseless claims about the three Iranian islands.

Iran has summoned Russia's envoy to protest a recent statement by Moscow and Arab countries calling for talks over three islands controlled by Tehran but claimed by the United Arab Emirates.

The summoning of Moscow's charge d'affaires came days after Iran's key ally Russia signed a joint declaration with Arab countries which "supported peaceful solutions and initiatives" to resolve the dispute over the islands.

Iran's foreign ministry said on Saturday it summoned Moscow's charge d'affaires in Tehran, in the absence of its ambassador, to submit a "note of protest" on the contents of the joint statement.

"The Islamic Republic of Iran considers any claim from any side in this regard as rejected and unacceptable," Iran's foreign ministry said in a statement.

Iran's top diplomat Hossein Amir-Abdollahian also called the islands "an integral part of Iran's territorial integrity" in a phone call with his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov on Friday.

"Tehran will not compromise with any side on the issue of respect for territorial integrity and sovereignty," he added.

Iran in July summoned the Russian ambassador to protest a similar joint statement signed by Moscow and Arab countries on the islands.

Located in the Gulf, the three strategic islands of Greater Tunb, Lesser Tunb and Abu Musa are located near the Strait of Hormuz, through which a fifth of world oil output passes.

  

US Diplomats warn Biden: We are losing support of Arabs for a generation

US Diplomats warn Biden: We are losing support of Arabs for a generation

    Friday, November 10, 2023   No comments

In a sign that even if Israel were to win this battle in Gaza, the US will end up losing the war for minds and hearts in the world for generations to come. This possibility is now being expressed by US diplomats from around the world, especially the fragile Arab world.

The US embassy in Oman sent a diplomatic cable to the White House this week warning that President Joe Biden's unwavering support for the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in Gaza “is losing us Arab publics for a generation.”

“We are losing badly on the messaging battlespace,” the cable drafted by the second-highest US official in Muscat reads, according to CNN. It adds that US support for Israel’s actions is seen “as material and moral culpability in what [Arabs] consider to be possible war crimes.”

The cable was sent to the White House’s National Security Council, the CIA, and the FBI.

Anger has been growing across the Arab world against the US for its role in arming, financing, and protecting Israel since the start of the war in Gaza last month. US embassies across the region have become targets for angry protesters, while US bases in Iraq and Syria have been bombed dozens of times over the past three weeks.

This week, US ambassador to Lebanon Dorothy Shea was forced to cancel a scheduled visit to Dar al-Fatwa to meet with the Grand Mufti of the Republic, Sheikh Abdul Latif Derian, due to widespread anger at her presence.

Similarly, US State Secretary Antony Blinken faced a cold welcome during his visit to multiple nations in West Asia earlier this month, as diplomats urged the senior US official on the need to stop the genocide unfolding in Gaza.

In Washington, the situation is reportedly just as critical, with State Department staffers harshly criticizing the White House's stance in a recent dissent memo.

[The gap between the US private and public messaging] contributes to regional public perceptions that the United States is a biased and dishonest actor, which at best does not advance, and at worst harms, US interests worldwide,” the memo, leaked to POLITICO, reads.

“We must publicly criticize Israel’s violations of international norms such as failure to limit offensive operations to legitimate military targets,” it adds. “When Israel supports settler violence and illegal land seizures or employs excessive use of force against Palestinians, we must communicate publicly that this goes against our American values so that Israel does not act with impunity.”

The internal strife comes as Biden faces a significant dip in popularity ahead of next year's elections, as recent opinion polls show he is trailing behind former president Donald Trump in five of the six most crucial battleground states.

Furthermore, tens of thousands of protesters have continuously taken to the streets of multiple cities in the US over the past month to demand that the president call for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza.