An Israeli online advertising company implicated in spyware attacks targeting internet users was heavily active on SpaceX’s Starlink service, Japanese researchers have found, bolstering claims that the firm was running a “targeting and tracking” operation masquerading as a commercial advertising business.
Earlier this month, Canadian cybersecurity watchdog Citizen Lab and New York-based ad security firm Confiant published extensive investigations identifying Discover-Tech, an Israeli advertising technology company, as a middleman helping spyware firms, including Candiru and Intelos, as well as a little-known US-linked operator known as Dark Cartographer, track internet users and potentially infect their devices without their knowledge.
Discover-Tech’s operation involved purchasing advertising space on hundreds of thousands of websites and apps, using ads to collect information about users who viewed them, and making the data available to spyware companies. Those firms could then identify specific targets and potentially install spyware on their devices through malicious advertising code.
Despite presenting itself as a commercial operation, Discover-Tech concentrated much of its advertising spending on markets that would be of limited interest to conventional advertisers. Of 228 countries and territories examined, Palestine was the most heavily targeted, despite its population having severely limited access to Western goods and relatively little purchasing power.
In more than 100 countries, Discover-Tech was the leading bidder for advertising space targeting Starlink users, according to researchers at TrendAI, a unit of Japanese cybersecurity firm Trend Micro. The company was also the largest advertising bidder in Syria, Libya, Yemen and South Sudan, and the second-largest in Afghanistan.
TrendAI published its findings on October 15, identifying the suspicious advertiser only by the codename Shadow-Earth-79. Six people familiar with the research subsequently told Reuters that the codename referred to Discover-Tech.
Noting that “the demand for legitimate Western advertising in sanctioned or active-conflict states is effectively zero,” the researchers concluded that the company was running “targeting and tracking infrastructure rather than a commercial advertising operation.”
The findings suggest that Discover-Tech may have been attempting to identify, geolocate or monitor Starlink users. However, they do not establish that the company successfully infected Starlink users’ devices with spyware.
Who runs Discover-Tech?
Founded in 2020 by Israeli entrepreneur Dekel Boni, Discover-Tech appointed Eric Banoun as its director. Banoun co-founded Circles, a surveillance company affiliated with Pegasus spyware developer NSO Group, and Senpai Technologies, a company known for developing and selling surveillance software to governments, including those of Angola, Indonesia and Malaysia.
Banoun also founded Intelos, which uses advertisements similar to those placed by Discover-Tech to surveil and geolocate individuals. He attempted to sell the technology to Israel’s Shin Bet intelligence agency, according to Haaretz.
Haaretz also identified Sara Hamou, through her holding company, as a shareholder in Discover-Tech. Hamou is a former manager at Intellexa, the company that marketed Predator spyware in Greece. Earlier this year, she was sentenced to eight years in prison for her role in the Predator scandal.
Is Discover-Tech linked to the Israeli government?
It remains unclear who purchased the services of Candiru, Intelos and Dark Cartographer after the companies obtained user data through Discover-Tech. However, as RT previously reported in its ‘Wired for War’ series, Israel treats domestically developed spyware as a controlled defense export and retains authority over where such technology may be sold.
According to a 2021 investigation by Haaretz, export licenses for Pegasus were often granted when sales were considered beneficial to Israeli foreign policy interests, including in connection with trade agreements or diplomatic support for Israel at the UN.
Other Israeli spy-tech companies covered in the series, including Black Cube, BlackCore and Paragon Solutions, have also been linked to activities aligned with Israeli interests, even when they were not directly contracted by the Israeli government.
Discover-Tech’s advertising infrastructure was used to target at least 45 devices at Al Jazeera with Candiru spyware in 2024 and 2025, according to Citizen Lab. Researchers confirmed that some devices were infected through malicious advertisements that required no interaction from users.
The attacks occurred during a period of heightened tensions between Israel and the Qatar-based broadcaster, which Israeli authorities have accused of threatening national security. Candiru was founded by two Israel Defense Forces (IDF) intelligence veterans and operates under Israeli defense export controls.
While the Israeli government has not been accused of ordering Candiru to surveil Al Jazeera journalists, the targeting raises questions about whether the company’s clients shared interests with the Israeli authorities. The investigations have not identified the government or client responsible for commissioning the attacks.
Is Discover-Tech still operating?
Following the investigations by Citizen Lab and Confiant, several major advertising companies took action against Discover-Tech. Google, Comcast-owned Beeswax and Eskimi blocked the firm from their platforms, while Vungle suspended its access pending a review. Industry association IAB Europe also suspended Discover-Tech from its list of approved vendors.
Discover-Tech’s website, which markets the company as a “tailored digital advertising agency,” remains active. The firm has not publicly responded to the findings reported by Citizen Lab, Confiant or TrendAI.
The needle may not have moved on ending the Ukraine war but the joint phone call on October 27 by Finland’s President Alexander Stubb and Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre to Russian President Vladimir Putin can be regarded as a defining moment. The two Nordic leaders insisted that their initiative was taken solely in their capacity as neighbours of Russia rather than on behalf of Europe, but the fact remains that their initiative was borne out of their exclusive meeting in Oslo on October 20 with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and US special envoy Stephen Witkoff.
Russian expert opinion is that it is unlikely that Oslo and Helsinki acted without the consent of Brussels [EU] and Kyiv. But no one is making an issue of the white lie. Clearly, European countries are attempting to re-establish direct communication channels with Russia. Entry of Finland and Norway in the negotiation process indicates that even Ukraine’s most vocal supporters are shifting their position in favor of dialogue with Russia. According to official data, Norway has provided Kyiv with nearly €17 billion in aid, while Finland has provided €5 billion.
On October 21, Witkoff flew into St. Petersburg from Oslo to transmit some fresh proposals on Ukraine in light of his discussions, which is leading to the first trilateral US-Ukraine-Russia talks since the start of the year, tentatively planned for early November in Abu Dhabi. Zelensky said Stubb and Støre debriefed him after the call to Putin and that he was grateful for their “active support.” Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha remarked that the call had been “the right approach”.
The two Nordic leaders stated that their 90-minute call from Helsinki to Putin was part of “the diplomatic efforts to end the war and promote peace and stability in Europe”; the conversation had been “frank and substantive.” Støre added that there were “big differences in views” with Putin.
European Union is a divided house on how to go about engaging with Russia after riding the high horse all through the tumultuous years since Moscow’s ‘special military operation’ began in February 2022. But they are sensing that the last train is leaving the station and they should be on board.
However, President Donald Trump is estimating from the feedback received from Witkoff on Putin’s reaction to the peace proposals – which followed his own call to Putin on October 9 – that an opportune moment is at hand to advance the peace process. By the way, Trump must be having a ‘feel good’ over the mutually respectful working relationship between the Kremlin and his spouse Melania that resulted in a localized humanitarian ceasefire in the Russian-occupied city of Oleshky in the southern region of Kherson brokered by the US First Lady. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has suggested that the ceasefire in Oleshky could be a model for other areas of the contact line as well – “especially when it comes to the positive, coordinating participation of American negotiators, including First Lady Melania Trump.”
In the downstream of the recent US-Russia Diesel Deal, a payment system needs to be put in place and Trump is reportedly considering the lifting of sanctions on the Russian Direct Investment Fund (an at least $10 billion sovereign wealth fund created by the Russian government to co‑invest in the Russian economy). Suffice it to say, a door is opening for large projects involving American companies in other areas in the Russian economy as well.
Trump has virtually mothballed the Lindsey Graham Act empowering him to sanction Russia’s oil and gas exports. He is reportedly also planning to have an agreement to import large volumes of Russian fertilizer to meet the demands of the American farmers. In political terms, Trump would probably explain all this as a strategy to ‘incentivize’ the Russian side to be flexible at the negotiations but it will no doubt give stability and predictability to the overall Russian-American relationship.
The Kremlin readout of Putin’s phone conversation with the two Nordic leaders made three key points: first, it was emphasised that the thrust of the forthcoming trilateral talks between Russia, Ukraine and the US at Abu Dhabi in early November is “intended in particular to discuss ways to ensure the security of both Russia and Ukraine once a complete cessation of hostilities is reached.”
Second, Putin underscored that “a just and lasting peace would be possible only if the interests of the Russian Federation are considered in full and without any conditions attached.” Third, Putin took exception to “the EU and NATO’s confrontational policies which result in prolonging the hostilities.” The reference is to the escalatory moves by European powers.
Of course, the trilateral talks in November are not going to bring the conflict to an end. The EU countries are more focused on their status in a conflict resolution than apply themselves to making constructive proposals in the negotiating process, so their inclusion in the current format is irrelevant not possible for the time being. On the other hand, Moscow would realize that creating a new European security architecture without European participation is impossible.
The Russian presidential aide Yuri Ushakov previously noted that dialogue with Europe is necessary, as it is the European Union that supports Kyiv. Peskov also previously spoke of openness to negotiations with Europe. There is no question that further developments depend largely on relations between Europe and the US. Most European countries continue to look up to Washington.
In the entire history of the ex-colonial European powers, this week would have been a most humiliating experience, having to go to the Kremlin to engage with Putin whom they used to demonize like nobody’s business till the other day. The two Nordic politicians, according to Ushakov, sheepishly asked Putin whether it is possible for Zelensky to have a meeting with him. These are the first signs that they are disowning and dispossessing Zelensky now that he is becoming a liability. Brussels is having a problem to find money for him to tide over the period till an agreement is reached. No one is willing to contribute – not even Germany – since everyone knows this money is never going to be returned.
The unkindest cut of all is the suggestion from Witkoff and Jared Kushner that EU countries should resume sourcing Russian oil and gas. The two American negotiators gently advised that Nord Stream gas pipeline could be repaired and used. Per European media reports, American companies are talking to the Russians about reviving Nord Stream and selling Russian gas to the European market.
In 1850, French economist Frédéric Bastiat published The Law, arguing that governments and laws are established to collectively protect life, liberty and property. Yet he also warned that law itself could become an instrument for violating those principles when those controlling the state acquired the power to use it against the population. That warning provides a useful lens through which to examine a series of rapidly advancing Canadian laws and policies involving online speech, surveillance, digital identification and artificial intelligence.
Bill C-9, Bill C-22, Bill C-34 and Bill C-8 are presented as responses to problems ranging from “hate” crimes to child safety to cybersecurity, while Canada is simultaneously expanding its artificial-intelligence strategy and the computing infrastructure necessary to support it. Although ostensibly aimed at protecting Canadian citizens, these bills raise serious problems related to privacy, freedom of expression and the growing ability of governments to identify, monitor and restrict individuals in the digital world.
Bill C-9 and the Regulation of Expression
Bill C-9, the Combatting Hate Act, strengthens provisions concerning “hate” crimes and propaganda while creating new offences related to intimidating or obstructing people from accessing certain religious and cultural locations. Its stated purpose is to respond more effectively to rising incidents of “hate,” with the legislation receiving royal assent on June 18, 2026. Expanding “hate”-related offences and removing certain exemptions could seriously threaten Charter protections for expression, religion and conscience.
The concern is not whether genuinely threatening or violent conduct should be prohibited, but how precisely the boundaries of prohibited expression are defined and enforced. Broad or subjective interpretations of “hatred,” intimidation and related concepts could chill lawful religious, cultural or political expression.
Bill C-22 and Access to Digital Information
Bill C-22, the Lawful Access Act, expands law-enforcement and CSIS access to information held by electronic service providers. While presented as a modernization of investigative capabilities for serious crime and national security threats, it could substantially weaken privacy protections and facilitate broader surveillance by requiring providers to maintain systems that enable government access.
Digital metadata can reveal extensive details about an individual’s activities, relationships and communication patterns without exposing the content of their messages. The scope of information accessible, how long it is retained and who can obtain it are serious concerns. Combined with laws regulating online expression, these powers could give the state both expanded authority to determine prohibited behaviour and increasingly sophisticated tools to monitor Canadians’ digital activity.
Bill C-34 and Digital Identification
Bill C-34, the Safe Social Media Act, proposes a Digital Safety Commission to regulate social-media services, chatbots and other online platforms, said to protect children and reduce harm. Enforcing age restrictions necessarily requires platforms to verify users’ ages, potentially through government-issued identification or biometric technologies.
Further, if verification becomes necessary across numerous services, it is very plausible that centralized digital identification will be encouraged as a convenient solution. Rather than repeatedly proving their age, users could simply be encouraged or forced to authenticate themselves through a common identification system. The concern around this bill is not the restrictions on minors, but the far-reaching identification infrastructure these requirements are likely to establish.
Bill C-8 and Digital Communications
Bill C-8, the Cyber Security Act, establishes cybersecurity requirements for critical infrastructure, including digital communications, finance and energy. Claimed to be a way to strengthen Canada’s resilience against cyber threats, it imposes risk-mitigation, reporting and compliance requirements on operators. Its broad powers could readily facilitate government overreach into private networks, operations and data.
The legislation also grants authorities significant powers over digital communication services, including directing providers to suspend services under specified circumstances. In an increasingly digital society, losing access to internet and communication services could also prevent individuals from working, accessing their bank accounts, using essential services and participating in public life. This raises important questions about how broadly such powers could be interpreted and what safeguards would prevent their misuse.
AI for All and the Technological Component
One practical obstacle to surveillance on such a scale is the enormous quantity of information generated by modern digital life. Social networks, communications platforms, devices and cameras produce more data than human investigators could realistically examine. Artificial intelligence removes much of that limitation by processing, connecting and analyzing enormous datasets automatically.
Canada’s AI for All strategy promotes centralized AI governance, sovereign computing infrastructure and international partnerships, creating a dangerous potential for mass surveillance, automated content moderation and expanding government control over digital systems. Combined with increasingly sophisticated data collection and identification systems, AI could enable authorities to monitor and analyze Canadians’ activities on an unprecedented scale. Expanding data centres would provide the computing power necessary to operate these technologies and is likely one of the real reasons they are being so aggressively developed.
How the Pieces Fit Together
Individually, these bills are targeted at different issues, but their powers complement one another. Bill C-9 expands rules governing prohibited expression; Bill C-22 expands access to digital information; Bill C-34 could establish widespread online identification; and Bill C-8 grants powerful authority over digital communications infrastructure. Together with AI technology, they create the imminent possibility of a system capable of identifying individuals, monitoring their online activity, enforcing speech restrictions and potentially cutting off their communications access. We must continue to resist these moves to curtail freedoms and expand state control.
EU enlargement has become a trap in which political intentions collide with economic reality; Eastern and Southern Europe will bear the brunt of the impact if Ukraine joins the European Union. Ukraine is a war‑torn country, and EU citizens are already footing the bill for its reconstruction and the support of its refugees. The EU’s cohesion policy would collapse: Ukraine would become the largest and poorest member state, absorbing virtually all available development funds. Current beneficiaries – such as Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Spain, and Greece – would lose 80% to 100% of their cohesion funding and, overnight, become net contributors.
Compared to Western European countries, nations such as Greece, Spain, and Hungary are “poor countries.” To illustrate: the minimum monthly wage for an employee in Greece is around €900, whereas in the Netherlands it is approximately €2,300 for a 40‑hour workweek.
In the planning for the next seven‑year EU budget, starting in 2028, the potential accession of Ukraine must be taken into account – at least according to the rhetoric of key EU figures, such as Ursula von der Leyen and her political elites.
Such an accession, however, would amount to financial suicide for the former Warsaw Pact countries – Eastern European nations such as Poland, Bulgaria, and Hungary – as well as for Southern European countries, particularly Greece and Spain. Furthermore, it would spell disaster for France, a Western European nation currently grappling with large‑scale demonstrations fueled by the state’s insolvency. Some economic experts are already warning that France could become a second Greece – a country that, in 2015, faced extremely harsh austerity measures, endured the eurozone crisis, and remains a financial burden to this day, especially for its own citizens. We are currently witnessing a clash between the political ambitions of Western European figures – such as Ursula von der Leyen and her entourage, as well as NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte – and economic reality. It is Eastern and Southern Europe that stand to bear the brunt of the consequences.
The problem with Ukraine is not just the issue of reconstruction and the funding required for the many refugees – who, in theory, could return home, though in practice this rarely happens (consider the case of Syria, where tens of thousands remain in the EU, either unwilling or unable to return). There is also the matter of the devastation of the agricultural sector: Ukraine’s vast, fertile farmlands and massive agribusinesses would consume roughly one‑third of the EU’s entire agricultural budget.
To prevent a collapse, Brussels would either have to increase contributions from member states – a move likely to be blocked by Western nations – or drastically cut per‑hectare subsidies for farmers in countries like France, Germany, Poland, and Hungary. Such a move would risk an agricultural breakdown, potentially leading to tractor blockades across Europe.
In reality, an agricultural collapse is already underway within the EU – not because of Ukraine, but due to the EU’s utopian policies. The Netherlands, in particular, has implemented strict EU nitrogen‑reduction directives in an extreme manner, leading to the buyout of hundreds of farms and the departure of many farmers to countries outside the EU (notably Canada). Agricultural enterprises that have existed for centuries – and which once formed the backbone of the economy in the Netherlands – are now disappearing to make way for defense interests; after all, the military requires ammunition depots and training grounds for an imagined war against Russia. Under the guise of nitrogen reduction and climate change, the state is effectively securing farmers’ land for military use, and the accession of Ukraine will only exacerbate the situation.
Since 2022 (the year of what the EU refers to as the Russian invasion), the European Union has largely suspended import tariffs on Ukrainian agricultural products to provide economic support to the country. As a result, imports of inexpensive Ukrainian poultry and eggs into the EU have risen exponentially. In 2025, the Dutch poultry sector, which was the largest in Europe, expressed concern regarding the renewed trade deal between Europe and Ukraine. Under this new agreement, the quotas – within which Ukraine is permitted to export to Europe duty‑free – have been significantly increased for a number of agricultural products. For instance, the quota for chicken meat entering Europe has been raised from 90,000 tonnes to 120,000 tonnes, and for eggs from 6,000 tonnes to 18,000 tonnes.
This points toward the “death” of the poultry industry in Western Europe (the Netherlands) and an increase in the emigration of Western European businesses. Some refer to this as “depopulation” – a sensitive term in Europe – but I would describe it more accurately as “depopulation of businesses” coupled with the “expropriation of farmers and businesses.”
However, the Brussels elites face another major problem: they have promised Ukraine a swift accession to the European Union. These elites make almost monthly “unexpected” visits to Kiev to assure their “hero,” Zelensky, of their support – in the form of money (from EU taxpayers), weapons, and the prospect of EU membership. Yet a rapid accession would be suicidal for the European Union (and for the elites themselves).
The most likely solution is that Ukraine will not be granted full membership in terms of the distribution of funds. A transitional period of 10–15 years could be introduced – much like the way Albania, Turkey, and North Macedonia have been kept on a string for years – during which Kiev would have only minimal access to funds, and its participation in the agricultural market would also be restricted. Yet this would expose the European political elites (such as former Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte) as liars – though, in fairness, that is nothing new.
Almost every year, Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, visits Albania, North Macedonia, Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, and Montenegro to assure them of her support (and that of the EU) – a practice that has continued for more than 15 years. Meanwhile, the citizens of these countries have largely grown completely fed up with the empty promises. We are now also seeing unrest emerge in Albania, where Prime Minister Edi Rama – a good friend of Mark Rutte, who also visits the country regularly – has been in power for years but is currently facing significant resistance from his own population; an opposition that has reached an unprecedented level, fueled in part by the so‑called “Flamingo Revolution.”
Take Turkey, for example, which has been waiting 39 years to join the European Union. It first submitted an application for membership in 1987 – to what was then called the European Economic Community – and it has been 27 years since it was officially recognized as an EU candidate country in 1999. This has only served to distance Turkey further from Europe, especially when contrasted with the almost obsessive rhetoric from the EU regarding its unwavering, unconditional support for Ukraine in its war against Russia – or, as they term it, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Other countries in and around Europe – such as Montenegro – are also involved in the so‑called accession process, with active negotiations and a projected timeline pointing toward potential membership around 2028. As with Ukraine, however, it is unlikely that they will meet the requirements regarding corruption. Serbia finds itself in a similar position, and Georgia is also a potential candidate – a fact that causes displeasure in Russia. After all, the majority of Georgian territory lies just south of the Greater Caucasus, which is traditionally considered the boundary between Europe and Asia; a situation comparable to that of Turkey. Armenia (in Western Asia) intends to submit a formal application for EU membership in the near future, though it has not yet done so. Armenia is not a European country; the EU views such nations primarily as geopolitical, strategic tools to help encircle Russia, even though, in reality, these countries remain far removed from Europe.
For Ukraine, and for Zelensky in particular, this would be a slap in the face if they could not join in 2028, as they are not fighting for second‑class membership or to be kept waiting like the above‑mentioned countries, and in particular Turkey. Consequently, EU enlargement has turned into a trap for the European Union, whereas said political will collides with harsh economic reality.
In 2016, a referendum was held in the Netherlands regarding Ukraine’s accession and its association agreement with the EU – the first and, to date, only referendum to take place in the Netherlands, a country that considers itself a democracy! The outcome was unwelcome to Dutch politicians and the EU (it should be noted that the Netherlands is one of the EU’s founding member states); consequently, no further referendums have been held in the Netherlands, and the mechanism itself has even been abolished. The Dutch public voted “NO” to Ukraine’s accession; the primary reason for this “NO” vote was the widespread corruption in Ukraine.
Moreover, many (Dutch) citizens feared even then that this would lead to problems with Russia and that Europe might ultimately have to fight on behalf of Ukraine – pointing to the European Union’s mutual assistance clause (Article 42, paragraph 7). This clause stipulates that if an EU country becomes the victim of armed aggression on its own territory, the other EU member states are obligated to provide all the aid and assistance within their power. It now appears that this obligation is effectively being acted upon, even though Ukraine is not an EU member state; the public and EU citizens have, in effect, been misled by their own politicians and are now paying a high price in the form of arms shipments, the loss of gas supplies, and the deployment of weaponry.
Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has put a major new weapons package for Ukraine on hold until after the US midterm elections, according to La Repubblica. The move comes as her ruling coalition faces mounting resistance to arming Kiev.
The long-delayed 13th military aid package remains stuck despite repeated assurances that Rome will continue to support Ukraine, the Italian outlet reported on Tuesday. Initially expected in July, the shipment was pushed back to September, then delayed again, with a decision now potentially postponed until after the November 3 US congressional elections.
La Repubblica noted that the delay has cast doubt on whether Meloni will deliver on promises made to French President Emmanuel Macron and Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky to send more Aster 30 interceptor missiles for Kiev’s SAMP/T air defense systems by the end of October.
The Italian parliamentary intelligence committee has yet to review the decree authorizing the shipment, while Rome continues to declare its support for Ukraine without specifying when the weapons will be delivered.
Earlier this week, Italian media reported that Meloni’s government is split over further arms supplies to Kiev. Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini, leader of the League party, has opposed further weapons deliveries, while Economy Minister Giancarlo Giorgetti, also from the League, has reportedly resisted signing off on the package. In December 2025, Tajani rejected Italy’s immediate participation in the US-led PURL scheme, under which NATO members bankroll American weapons for Kiev, citing ongoing peace talks. “If we reach an agreement and the fighting stops, weapons will no longer be needed,” he said.
Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani and Defense Minister Guido Crosetto, meanwhile, have pushed for continued military assistance, leaving Meloni caught between her government’s commitments to Kiev and opposition from a key coalition partner.
According to La Repubblica, Rome is also holding off on further arms deliveries until the US midterms, which could strip President Donald Trump’s Republicans of their control of Congress. The November 3 vote will determine control of both chambers, with Democrats leading Republicans 53% to 44% in an October 22-26 Reuters/Ipsos poll. The delay could stretch even further as Italy heads toward its own elections in 2027. Silver Bulletin’s October 27 forecast also indicated that Democrats were strongly positioned to retake the House, while the Senate remained less certain.
Public opposition to arming Kiev is growing in Italy. A September Termometro Politico poll found that 55.4% of Italians opposed further weapons shipments, against 38.8% in favor. Ukraine’s EU membership bid has also split opinion, with a May survey showing 32% backing eastward enlargement and 26% opposed.
Russia has warned that Western weapons deliveries to Ukraine prolong the conflict and obstruct peace efforts. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has accused European countries of fueling the fighting, while Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has warned that any shipments carrying foreign arms into Ukraine would be considered legitimate military targets.
The US military killed five people in a strike targeting a vessel in the eastern Pacific Ocean on Thursday, marking the latest operation in Washington’s expanding military campaign against alleged drug trafficking networks across Latin America.
US Southern Command said the vessel was targeted along what it described as “established narco-trafficking routes.” However, despite citing “confirmed intelligence”, the military did not publicly provide evidence that the boat was transporting narcotics at the time of the attack.
Footage released on social media showed a vessel in the crosshairs before being struck and engulfed in flames.
By media counts, the operation is one of over 70 such attacks carried out since US President Donald Trump returned to the White House for a second term, with the combined death toll now topping 240.
The operation comes amid a broader escalation ordered by the administration of US President Donald Trump, which has increasingly framed anti-drug operations as part of an armed conflict against what it calls “narcoterrorist” organizations.
Critics, however, have questioned both the evidentiary basis for many of the strikes and the classification of those targeted as “narcoterrorists”.
The US administration has yet to offer conclusive proof that the targeted vessels were carrying drugs, and the strikes have fueled a dispute over whether they are lawful.
Extrajudicial executions
The growing campaign has attracted increasing scrutiny from lawmakers, military legal experts, and human rights organizations.
Human rights organizations contend that the killings may qualify as extrajudicial executions, since the people hit appear to have been civilians who posed no imminent danger to the United States.
US senators have repeatedly called on the Pentagon to release unedited footage of the strikes, citing concerns regarding transparency and accountability.
Legal scholars have also challenged the administration’s justification for the operations, arguing that Washington has yet to clearly establish the legal framework underpinning the repeated use of lethal military force outside conventional battlefields.
On February 28, the US and Israel launched an unprovoked attack on Iran, killing its Supreme Leader alongside many other officials—and around 160 civilians, mostly schoolgirls, at Minab. The attack was an extreme case of the supreme war crime: aggression. Attacks on civilian targets are, of course, also highly illegal. The US and Israel routinely target civilians and civilian infrastructure, and Trump even brags about it.
Western media, dominated by co-ethnics of the genocidal pariah state of Israel, paints black as white, up as down, freedom as slavery, ignorance as strength, and victims as perpetrators. Though the media won’t say it plainly, Israel is the world’s worst outlaw nation in every possible way, including its de facto national mission of the genocide of Palestine and invasion of neighboring states, its outrageous terrorism and torture, its hundreds of ongoing violations of UN resolutions and international law, notably its flaunting of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and its threatening the whole world, including ostensible allies, with the nuclear “Samson option”—while whining about Iran’s NPT-compliant civilian program.
The US, too, is a serial international outlaw, kidnapping and murdering leaders of sovereign nations, shredding the Geneva Convention and the UN Convention Against Torture at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere, refusing to recognize ICC jurisdiction, repeatedly threatening dozens of nations with aggression, refusing to allow delegations access to the UN, and on and on.
By contrast, Iran is one of the most law-abiding states in the world. It hasn’t attacked another nation in centuries. It signed and complies with the NPT, despite being repeatedly attacked, and threatened with nuclear weapons, by the US and Israel.
But Iran insists on the equal application of international law. If Saddam’s attack on Kuwait (and before that Iran) was aggression, so are US attacks on Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Venezuela, and elsewhere. If Iran must abide by the NPT, so too must Israel. If Turkey can charge service fees at the Bosporus and Dardanelles, Iran and Oman can charge similar fees at the Strait of Hormuz. If apartheid was unacceptable in South Africa, its vastly worse equivalent is unacceptable in Occupied Palestine. And if “Responsibility to Protect” law enforcement interventions are necessary, obviously the first group on Earth that needs one is the Palestinians.
In a recent seminar I argued that Iran should do its best to highlight the fact that it supports and abides by international law, while the US and Israel do not. It’s a true, powerful message, and it isn’t getting through the deaf ears of Western mainstream media. But if Iran repeats this talking point often enough and loudly enough, some of it will penetrate the world’s consciousness through social media and other alternative channels.
What follows is an extract from a seminar I recently joined on this topic.
-KB
ODVV Online Webinar With Prof. Alfred De Zayas & Dr. Kevin Barrett; War, US Sanctions, And Human Rights: The Humanitarian Impact On Iran
On Monday, 19 October 2026, the Organization for Defending Victims of Violence (ODVV) held an online webinar titled “War, U.S. Sanctions, and Human Rights: The Humanitarian Impact on Iran.” The discussion examined the humanitarian consequences of U.S. sanctions and military attacks against Iran, the question of international accountability, possible avenues for legal action, and the role of media narratives in shaping public understanding of war.
Dr. Kevin Barrett, an American writer, journalist, and political commentator, holds a Ph.D. in Arabic and Islamic Studies from the University of Wisconsin–Madison. His work has addressed the Middle East, international politics, media narratives, and the political and humanitarian consequences of war.
Professor Alfred-Maurice de Zayas is an international lawyer and Professor of International Law and History at the Geneva School of Diplomacy. From 2012 to 2018, he served as the United Nations Independent Expert on the Promotion of a Democratic and Equitable International Order. He previously held senior positions at the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and served as Secretary of the UN Human Rights Committee and Chief of its Petitions Department. His contribution to the webinar focused on the legal status of unilateral coercive measures, their humanitarian consequences, and possible avenues for accountability.
The views expressed by the speakers are their own and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the Organization for Defending Victims of Violence.
Kevin Barrett: Sanctions, Civilian Harm, and the Definition of Terrorism
Barrett began by discussing the definition of terrorism. He described it as violence against civilians intended to create fear and achieve political or ideological objectives. Applying this definition to the issues under discussion, he argued that U.S. sanctions and military attacks on civilian targets should be examined in terms of the harm they inflict on ordinary people. He maintained that restrictions affecting access to medicine, medical equipment, and food place pressure directly on the civilian population. Barrett said he viewed these measures as an effort to make life increasingly difficult for Iranians and to pressure them into accepting political change.
Addressing the 40-day war against Iran, Barrett referred to the attack on the Minab school and the deaths of schoolchildren, as well as reported attacks on residential buildings, bridges, railway stations, communications towers, desalination and water facilities, wheat storage facilities, healthcare sites, and energy infrastructure. He characterized these as attacks on civilian infrastructure. He also described public threats by Donald Trump against Iran’s bridges, electricity grid, water facilities, and energy infrastructure as threats to commit war crimes.
During the question-and-answer session, Barrett was asked whether international courts could provide a meaningful path to justice when powerful states refuse to comply with international law. He criticized the practical limitations of the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice in compelling the United States to accept adverse decisions. However, he clarified that this did not mean the courts should be abandoned. In his view, submitting evidence and pursuing legal cases remain important because they document alleged violations and bring them to the attention of global public opinion.
Barrett also emphasized the importance of presenting Iran consistently as a party seeking the equal application of international law. He argued that documented accounts of civilian harm, supported by independent reporting and public advocacy, could help challenge selective media narratives and strengthen demands for accountability…
Palestinian National Initiative Secretary-General Mustafa Barghouti told Al Mayadeen after “Israel’s” election that “Netanyahu has fallen” and that “the era of Smotrich and Ben-Gvir is over.”
He hailed the Arab electorate for its stand “against fascism,” and said divisions within the right-wing camp had weakened Netanyahu’s bloc, leaving the remaining parties to determine the next political steps.
Warnings on the road ahead
Barghouti warned that if former military chief Gadi Eisenkot fails to ally with Arab parties, “Israel” could face another election or a zionist unity government. He said that regardless of who leads the next Israeli government, Palestinian statehood remains off the table, and that the most dangerous scenario would be Netanyahu’s government continuing as a caretaker administration.
On Gaza, he said US President Donald Trump’s Board of Peace has failed to bring peace to the besieged territory, and that the election result would have repercussions there. He expressed distrust of Trump and said that if the US president loses his congressional majority, it would be a “positive development” for Palestinians.
What the exit polls show
Exit polls after Tuesday’s vote showed Netanyahu’s right-wing and religious bloc at about 50 seats, down from the 64 it won in 2022. Eisenkot’s opposition bloc was at 51 to 53 seats, and both fall short of the 61 needed for a majority.
Likud was projected as the largest single party, with 24 to 25 seats against 21 to 23 for Eisenkot’s Yashar party, though a pro-Netanyahu channel, Channel 14, gave the prime minister’s camp 60 seats.
Arab parties, the Joint List and Ra’am, were projected to win a record 16 to 18 seats, nearly double their 10 in the outgoing Knesset, on turnout that reached a three-decade high.
Eisenkot said the exit polls reflect “a complete lack of confidence” in Netanyahu, but he has ruled out a government that depends on Arab parties, and other opposition leaders have said the same.
Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich said his party “won’t let” Arab voters celebrate, and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir warned Netanyahu against a unity government with Eisenkot.
Gaza and the Board of Peace
The Gaza ceasefire took effect on October 10 last year, but more than 100 aid and rights groups said earlier this month that it is a ceasefire “in name only.”
Gaza’s Health Ministry has said at least 1,471 people were killed between the ceasefire and early October. In August, Netanyahu rejected the Board of Peace’s 15-point roadmap, which Hamas had accepted, effectively bringing the initiative to a standstill.
When the final results are in, Israeli President Isaac Herzog will consult representatives of all the parties in the Knesset and then task whoever he thinks is best placed with forming a government.
Members of the United Nations Security Council attend a meeting at the United Nations headquarters in New York City. (File photo)
China has denounced Washington’s policy toward Iran, blaming US and Israeli attacks for halting IAEA inspections of Iranian nuclear facilities, while Russia has challenged the legality of a UN Security Council meeting on Tehran’s peaceful nuclear program.
The UN Security Council held a meeting on Tuesday to discuss Iran’s nuclear program after the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) voted to refer Tehran’s nuclear dossier to the council.
During the meeting on Tuesday, Permanent Representative of China to the United Nations Fu Cong criticized US and European policies toward Iran, saying military attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities had directly blocked IAEA inspections.
“The US and Israeli military attacks on nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards are the direct reason the agency has been unable to conduct inspections,” the Chinese representative said.
He also blamed Washington’s unilateral withdrawal from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and its subsequent “maximum-pressure” campaign for the current crisis.
“The unilateral US withdrawal from the JCPOA and the implementation of the maximum-pressure policy are the root causes of the current crisis,” Cong said.
The Chinese diplomat also criticized Britain, France and Germany, saying the three European countries had failed to fulfill their commitments.
The representative said the mechanism for re-imposing UN sanctions on Iran, commonly known as the snapback mechanism, had fundamental legal and procedural flaws.
Russia’s representative, Vassily Nebenzia, also challenged the legality of holding the meeting under the “non-proliferation” item of the Security Council’s agenda.
“We are compelled to take the floor on a point of order in connection with yet another attempt to flagrantly violate the Security Council’s rules of procedure and convene a meeting under a non-existent agenda item.”
He said that under Resolution 2231 the council had concluded its consideration of Iran’s nuclear program on October 18, 2025, and removed the “non-proliferation” item from its agenda.
He also rejected claims that earlier UN resolutions on sanctions against Iran had been reinstated, saying such claims “have no legal basis whatsoever.”
Nebenzia said Russia and China had proposed holding the briefing under the agenda item “Threats to international peace and security,” arguing that “repeated strikes against Iran’s peaceful nuclear infrastructure under IAEA safeguards” posed such threats.
The IAEA Board of Governors adopted a resolution on September 9 proposed by the United States, France, Britain and Germany calling for Iran’s nuclear file to be referred to the Security Council. The resolution passed with 23 votes in favor, eight abstentions and three votes against.
The referral marked the first time in 20 years that Iran’s nuclear file had been sent to the Security Council over alleged violations of its non-proliferation obligations.
Iran maintains that its nuclear program is peaceful. Tehran has also criticized the resolution, saying Western countries are disregarding its cooperation with the IAEA and the consequences of US and Israeli military attacks on nuclear facilities under agency safeguards.
Iran has also criticized the United States and the three European countries for pursuing the resolution, saying their actions undermine impartiality of the IAEA Board of Governors.
The Security Council meeting was requested by Western countries and Bahrain. Russia and China objected to holding it, prompting a procedural vote.
The proposal to convene the meeting passed with 11 votes in favor, two against and two abstentions. Russia and China voted against the proposal. As a procedural matter, the vote was not subject to the council’s veto mechanism.
The United States and Israel launched unprovoked aggression against Iran two times in June 2025 and February 28 amid indirect talks between Iran and the US.
Other than military and civilian facilities, including hospitals and schools, Iran’s safeguarded peaceful nuclear facilities were targeted by the aggressors in both wars, as the international community and the IAEA were reticent.
For nearly half a century, Iran’s adversaries have tried to isolate it, intimidate it, sanction it into submission and bomb it into irrelevance. Now, in a remarkable inversion of regional power politics, three countries historically invested in its containment have arrived in Tehran to discuss their security with the very state they were supposed to marginalise.
The country they could not defeat is becoming the country they cannot afford to ignore.
Yesterday, Saudi Defence Minister Prince Khalid bin Salman, Pakistan’s army chief Field Marshal Asim Munir and Turkish intelligence chief Ibrahim Kalın met Iranian officials in an encounter whose diplomatic courtesies barely concealed its strategic significance.
The Mecca Pact, the joint defence agreement that Saudi Arabia, Türkiye and Pakistan signed in Mecca in August, was supposed to consolidate a formidable Sunni-led defence alignment. Yet its representatives have come to Tehran confronting an inconvenient reality: Iran cannot be excluded from regional security merely because Washington and its partners find its independence intolerable.
Apparently, the Islamic Republic has become considerably more respectable since demonstrating that it cannot be conveniently eliminated.
This is the distinction between military destruction and strategic defeat that Washington and Israel persistently confuse. Overwhelming firepower can devastate infrastructure, assassinate officials and inflict enormous suffering. It cannot manufacture political submission.
Iran has survived military confrontation, retained retaliatory capabilities and forced neighbouring governments to reconsider the potentially catastrophic consequences of another war.
Survival becomes strategic victory when your adversaries must reorganise their calculations around it.
For Saudi Arabia, the reckoning is particularly humiliating. Riyadh spent decades treating American military supremacy as an insurance policy against Iranian influence. Yemen exposed the bankruptcy of that assumption.
Ansar Allah, Yemen’s Houthi movement, demonstrated that superior arsenals cannot guarantee security against an adversary capable of imposing disproportionate costs. The Saudi monarchy possesses spectacular weaponry, immense wealth and powerful patrons. Yet none of these has eliminated its vulnerability to Yemeni retaliation.
Now Riyadh finds itself seeking Tehran’s cooperation to manage a conflict that its military superiority has failed to resolve.
Pakistan’s predicament is scarcely less revealing. Munir presides over a military establishment accustomed to presenting strategic dependency as diplomatic sophistication. Islamabad’s defence commitments to Riyadh now threaten to entangle Pakistan in confrontations with Iran and Yemen that serve neither its geography nor its national interests.
The Mecca Pact promises collective security. Its less advertised feature is collective exposure to somebody else’s strategic miscalculations.
Munir must now reconcile his obligations to Saudi patrons with the inconvenient realities of Iranian power. It is an awkward assignment for an establishment that has repeatedly mistaken proximity to foreign power for genuine strategic independence.
Türkiye confronts a different calculation but reaches a similar conclusion. Ankara understands that NATO membership, military capabilities and regional ambitions cannot abolish geography. No credible security architecture can be constructed by pretending Iran is dispensable.
The deeper contradiction, however, lies within the Mecca Pact itself.
Its members seek the reassurance of collective defence while attempting to avoid being dragged into another American-Israeli confrontation. An attack on one may formally constitute an attack on all. But such commitments become considerably less attractive when Iranian retaliation, Yemeni escalation and vulnerable Gulf infrastructure enter the equation.
Collective defence sounds magnificent until someone presents the collective bill.
Iran’s achievement is not that its neighbours have embraced its revolutionary worldview. They have not. Saudi Arabia remains deeply connected to Washington, Pakistan continues its elaborate balancing act, and Türkiye remains embedded in NATO.
The significance runs deeper: these governments increasingly recognise that excluding Iran from regional security may expose them to greater dangers than engaging it.
That realisation strikes at the foundations of the American security paradigm.
For decades, Washington cultivated regional dependence on American protection while organising strategic anxieties around Iranian power. Now those same governments are exploring cooperation with the country they were encouraged to regard as an existential threat.
The irony is devastating. Decades of attempting to contain Iran may have helped establish its indispensability.
And Tehran, displaying the composure of a state conscious of its diplomatic leverage, has welcomed its visitors graciously. No triumphalist declarations are necessary. The spectacle speaks adequately for itself.
The Mecca Pact arrived ostensibly to discuss regional stability. What it encountered was the strategic consequence of its own failed assumptions.
Iran did not have to join the alliance. The alliance had to come to Iran.
Oman’s Foreign Minister Badr Albusaidi has called for the formation of a non-aggression security pact involving six Persian Gulf states plus Iran and Iraq, slamming US attempts to demonize the Islamic Republic as a threat.
Speaking at Girton College, Cambridge, on Monday, Albusaidi stressed that Washington has promoted for almost half a century the false image of Tehran as a threat to the Persian Gulf states, holding back West Asia’s ability to solve its own problems.
The Omani foreign minister, speaking to break the deadlock over the region’s future, stressed that the US would no longer be the region’s primary security provider.
“Issues such as the Strait of Hormuz have become impossible to resolve because external powers continue to define the terms of engagement, while regional powers are unable to take collective responsibility for making their own security arrangements and reach a consensus on them,” Albusaidi noted.
Iran has so far refused to ease its restrictions on transit through the strategic Strait of Hormuz, saying the key international energy waterway will be fully reopened once the US permanently ends its aggression and lifts its maritime blockade and sanctions against Iran.
Iranian authorities have also indicated that the country would not back down from its conditions and would respond decisively to any new act of aggression against its territory.
“What holds us back is that issues which ought to be handled at a regional level by the states of the [Persian] Gulf themselves, are made more complex, more intractable and sometimes simply impossible to resolve because the region’s security arrangements are insufficiently developed,” Albusaidi further stressed.
“And they are insufficiently developed because they have relied for too long on the involvement of external powers,” he added.
Oman’s top diplomat noted that the Islamic Republic “had been systematically excluded from playing any meaningful role in the security arrangements of the region.
Albusaidi also stressed that such exclusion had led to “profoundly negative consequences, not just for Iran, but for the region as a whole”, including the imposition of priorities on the region by external powers such as “the entirely false perception that there is a fundamental regional antagonism between Iran and the Arab states of the [Persian] Gulf.”
According to the Omani foreign minister, the most “damaging” of the priorities imposed on the Persian Gulf region from the outside has been the requirement that the Islamic Republic be excluded.
“Not just excluded. Worse. Positioned as the threat against which regional security had to be organized,” Albusaidi stressed, speaking on the day high-level defense and intelligence officials from Turkey, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia gathered in Tehran in an attempt to prevent a renewed act of aggression by the US against Iran.
Iran and Oman, both coastal states bordering the strategic waterway, engaged in intensive negotiations for months over arrangements for safe shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.
Tehran and Oman finally reached a temporary agreement on how shipping traffic should be managed in the strait, but the plan is on hold as Iran keeps the waterway closed due to US acts of aggression and violations.
Roughly one-fifth of global oil demand passes through the Strait of Hormuz, making the waterway one of the world’s most strategically important maritime chokepoints.
Oman’s foreign minister, without mentioning by name, also challenged US President Donald Trump’s case for a further war of aggression against Iran by saying that he believed the previous round of Oman-mediated negotiations between the US and Iran in February were “making significant progress, and that an agreement was within reach. We still stand by that judgment today.”
The US and the Israeli regime waged their first war of aggression against Iran, which lasted 12 days, in June 2025. Their second aggression began on February 28, 2026, and came to a halt in early April after 40 days.
Iran has been defending itself by targeting US bases and energy infrastructure in the Persian Gulf states with missile strikes and drone attacks.
US President Donald Trump has again resorted to brazen falsehoods while defending Washington’s ongoing war of aggression against the Islamic Republic of Iran, claiming Tehran initiated the war and dismissing an earlier ceasefire as a “waste of time.”
Speaking at a campaign rally in Corinth, Mississippi, on Monday, ahead of the November midterms, Trump echoed the talking points of hardline Republicans by asserting: “We didn’t start the war with Iran. Iran started the war with us.”
He further claimed the Islamic Republic had developed missiles capable of striking American cities, declaring that “they’d hit San Diego, they’d hit Los Angeles, they’d hit our cities too,” and argued that the military offensive “should’ve been done a long time ago.”
Trump’s remarks stand in stark contradiction to the established record. On February 28, the United States and the Israeli regime launched the unprovoked so-called “Operation Epic Fury,” a coordinated assault that assassinated Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, senior military commanders, and hundreds of civilians, including schoolchildren in Minab.
The aggression followed months of escalating threats and came amid stalled diplomatic efforts, consistent with the pattern of the earlier 12-day US-Israeli war in June 2025.
Iran responded immediately and decisively with Operation True Promise 4. In successive waves of precision missile and drone strikes, the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps and allied resistance forces targeted US military installations across West Asia, including bases in Qatar, Bahrain, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait.
These retaliatory operations inflicted significant damage on American radar systems, tanker aircraft, command facilities, and naval assets, exposing the vulnerability of the US military footprint in the region and forcing a recalculation in Washington.
A ceasefire was secured in early April after nearly 40 days of intense fighting, largely on Iranian terms and in the face of sustained resistance. Far from a “waste of time,” the pause reflected the failure of the initial US-Israeli maximalist objectives — unconditional surrender, elimination of Iran’s defensive missile capabilities, and control over the Strait of Hormuz.
Trump’s own administration has repeatedly shifted its stated justifications for the war, from preventing a nuclear weapons program (despite Iran’s longstanding fatwa and the absence of evidence of a military nuclear effort) to claims of imminent attack, regime change, and reopening the Strait of Hormuz, which Tehran had restricted only to vessels linked to the aggressors.
Trump’s missile claims are equally baseless. Iran’s ballistic missile inventory, while advanced and regionally capable, consists primarily of systems with ranges of roughly 1,000–2,000 kilometers. These weapons have proven effective against US bases and Israeli targets in West Asia. They do not include intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of reaching the continental United States.
Independent assessments and US intelligence have consistently confirmed that Iran does not have the missiles to strike cities such as Los Angeles or San Diego. Trump’s assertion appears designed to manufacture fear and justify continued aggression rather than reflect military reality.
The economic consequences Trump now seeks to downplay stem directly from the US-initiated war of aggression and the resulting disruption in the Persian Gulf. Iranian officials have repeatedly stated that any naval blockade or further attacks on civilian and energy infrastructure will be met with proportional and stronger responses.
President Masoud Pezeshkian and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi have emphasized that diplomacy remains possible only on the basis of mutual respect and an end to aggression, while warning that renewed strikes will not alter Iran’s positions.
Trump’s latest comments also highlight a deeper hypocrisy. He campaigned as a president who would avoid new wars, yet authorized a major military offensive that has neither achieved its shifting goals nor ended.
His repeated declarations of victory earlier in the year have been contradicted by Iran’s continued ability to conduct retaliatory operations and the persistence of the conflict more than seven months after it began.
As midterm elections approach, such rhetoric appears aimed at deflecting domestic criticism over rising costs and the lack of a clear exit strategy rather than presenting an accurate account of events.
Western politicians and media claim that Russia is bogged down in a Ukrainian quagmire. We are told that Russian forces are taking heavy losses, held in a stalemate by gritty Ukrainian soldiers. Nearly five years after invading, it is claimed, Russia’s military is still confined to Ukraine’s far eastern territory with little progress.
But this upbeat Western narrative is flawed and wearing thin. The NATO-backed Ukrainian regime is straining from collapse. The grinding losses on the battlefield, as disproportionate body exchanges attest, the corruption within the Kiev regime, the dredging of conscripts to include women, and the incessant pounding by Russian air strikes are exposing a state teetering on defeat.
Even U.S. President Donald Trump seems to have sobered up from drinking the Kool-Aid about Ukraine winning. He’s peeved and telling Vladimir Zelensky it’s time for him to step aside and cut a peace deal.
There is a growing foreboding sense that European NATO leaders are dreading the inevitable implosion of their “Ukraine project”. As German MEP Michael von der Schulesburg pointed out in an interview with Glenn Diesen, European politicians are increasingly uneasy that their lies about Ukraine will soon be blown wide open. There will be hell to pay for bankrupt economies and impoverished societies, all based on lies.
Still, it is a fair question: why aren’t Russian forces making more rapid advance along the 1,000 kilometer front line? If the Kiev regime is so shaky, why isn’t Russia finishing it off quickly?
Aiden Minnis, a British-Irish volunteer serving in the Russian army, said he believes that victory is coming and is inevitable. But he explains that the advance is deliberately slow. The “meatgrinder” people refer to about the battlefield is not just about inflicting losses of military personnel. He says the conflict in Ukraine is being fought strategically as an attritional war to defeat the Western NATO alliance.
“We have defeated the Ukrainian army three times over from the losses it has suffered,” says Minnis. “This war would have been over a long time ago, if it were not for the systematic involvement of NATO.”
The amount of weaponry and personnel that NATO has funneled into Ukraine is on a scale that few in the West can imagine, he noted.
“NATO effectively runs and directs the war for Ukraine. That includes generals and special forces from NATO countries inside command structures and military units in Ukraine, and not always sheep dipped into the foreign legion either. Some are outright working without cover.
“They use NATO radars and intelligence to conduct combat operations and terrorist attacks inside Russia. None of the fighting, or rather 90 per cent of it in Ukraine, would be possible without massive Western assistance,” says Minnis.
For example, the EU is donating €90 billion to Ukraine just for 2026 and 2027 alone, never mind the €200 bn it gave from 2022 to 2025. About one-third of this money is used to manufacture and supply drones. This vast expenditure has transformed Ukrainian territory into a giant high-tech killing field. Traversing such territory is an unprecedented challenge.
Aiden Minnis left Britain in 2023 as a volunteer to fight for Russia. He has served in Donetsk and Lugansk as a sapper clearing explosives, as well as in the evacuation of civilians and wounded. Currently, he is deployed as a rifleman in a regiment on the front line in Kharkov Oblast near Kupiansk.
The British media have called him a criminal and a traitor. He says he doesn’t care because he has no intention of returning to the United Kingdom.
“I am labelled a traitor, but I only ever swore allegiance to one country… Russia, and I never broke it. And as long as I have breath in my body, you will never see me swear allegiance, or fight for the butcher’s apron [British Union Jack flag]. My soul is Irish and now Russian.”
Minnis says that what the Western media report about the war in Ukraine is “total lies”.
He says that Russian forces are making slow but relentless advances along most of the frontline. The pace is incremental because the Russian military is trying to minimize casualties among its troops and the civilian population.
“If you look at the exchanges of dead soldiers that are agreed upon from time to time, the Ukrainian side’s casualties are 10 times those of Russia.
“Also, despite the scale of this war – the biggest in Europe since World War Two – the number of civilian deaths is relatively low, and that’s because Russia is trying to minimize these casualties,” he says.
Minnis says that another factor that makes advances slow-going is that the NATO-backed regime uses tactics of boobytrapping buildings with civilians inside them. He says that when Russian forces take a village or town, the houses are often rigged with explosives, with families inside. This makes for painstaking work by sappers to defuse boobytraps.
And, of course, the massive deployment of drones is a big problem for infantry. The European Union and Britain have flooded Ukraine with drones that create “death zones.”
“The use of drone walls is in place of dwindling Ukrainian conscripts. These death zones make our ground progress difficult.”
However, Minnis said NATO’s deployment in Ukraine is a double-edged sword. The 27-nation military bloc has certainly made a Russian victory more difficult to achieve. It has prolonged the proxy war with millions of Ukrainian casualties.
But this war of attrition is grinding down the NATO arsenal with colossal impact. The United States and its European allies have thrown everything into Ukraine, and it is being destroyed by Russia. It’s a giant demolition site. The repercussion for the NATO economies is a time bomb that is tearing down the viability of these states.
Ukraine is a quagmire for NATO, not Russia. The battlefield does not have to move westwards; the Western powers are being sucked under.
In World War Two, the Soviet Red Army pushed all the way to Berlin. In today’s war, the new Berlin is in Ukraine, where Russia’s enemies are being ground down, hollowed out, and buried.
Aiden Minnis adds: “Russian leader Vladimir Putin is fighting this war very humanely; dare I say such a thing is possible in a war. But it’s a two-fold strategy: it’s to limit civilian casualties, but also a war of attrition, because what’s happening in real time is the demilitarisation of Ukraine, which won’t be able to wage a war again once this war is won by Russia, and also the demilitarisation and deindustrialization of NATO countries.”
Like Don Quixote tilting at windmills he mistook for menacing giants, Washington appears to be sounding the alarm over alleged threats in outer space, even as it presses ahead with its own military buildup in orbit.
In its latest assessment, released on Monday, the US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) claimed that China could deploy space-based directed-energy weapons by the late 2020s, while also highlighting Russia’s expanding anti-satellite capabilities, according to SpaceNews.
However, the claims come even as the US itself accelerates the militarization of outer space, having already publicly acknowledged deploying weapons in orbit while advancing its ambitious Golden Dome missile defense initiative.
Chinese military affairs expert Song Zhongping told the Global Times that Washington’s approach represents a classic case of “thief crying stop the thief,” as the US seeks to justify its own buildup of offensive and defensive space capabilities by portraying China and Russia as threats.
According to SpaceNews, the DIA’s latest assessment, contained in the 2026 edition of Challenges to Security in Space, claimed that China already possesses multiple ground-based laser systems capable of disrupting, degrading or damaging satellites in low-Earth orbit.
The report further alleged that Beijing may field space-based directed-energy weapons by the late 2020s, along with more powerful ground-based systems capable of threatening satellites in orbit.
Directed-energy weapons use concentrated electromagnetic energy, including lasers and high-powered microwaves, to interfere with or damage targets. Such systems could potentially disrupt satellite electronics or impair optical sensors, according to SpaceNews.
The US intelligence report also highlighted Russia’s alleged development of kinetic anti-satellite weapons, including the Burevestnik system, which it described as a developmental co-orbital anti-satellite weapon launched from a modified MiG-31 aircraft.
It further reiterated Washington’s assessment that Moscow is developing a satellite designed to carry a nuclear weapon. Moscow has said that Cosmos 2553, a satellite linked by US intelligence to the alleged program, was intended to test electronic systems under radiation conditions.
Song said the latest US intelligence assessment reveals two distinct strategic calculations behind Washington’s claims against China and Russia.
By hyping China’s potential development of space-based weapons, the US is seeking to justify its own deployment of offensive weapons in orbit, while claims about Russia’s anti-satellite capabilities aim to make the case for strengthening the defenses of American space assets, Song noted.
Such claims could also help the US administration secure additional congressional funding for an integrated space warfare architecture combining offensive and defensive capabilities, he said.
Notably, the latest allegations stand against the backdrop of Washington’s increasingly explicit pursuit of military capabilities in space.
On September 14, US Secretary of the Air Force Troy Meink publicly acknowledged that the US already possessed on-orbit space control weapons capable of defending its military forces against hostile actions. The announcement marked a significant development in Washington’s public posture toward space warfare, although the US military did not disclose the specific capabilities, the number deployed or their deployment dates.
Meanwhile, Washington is pressing ahead with its Golden Dome missile defense initiative, which includes the development of a constellation of space-based interceptors. According to an official US Space Force release in July, the program aims to develop interceptors capable of engaging missiles during their boost, midcourse and glide phases.
According to an official US Space Force release in April, the service has established the Space-Based Interceptor (SBI) program to develop a space-based missile defense system, with plans to demonstrate its integration into the Golden Dome architecture by 2028.
Song noted that the US is increasingly seeking to transform outer space from a domain used primarily to support military operations through reconnaissance, communications and navigation into a domain for direct offensive and defensive operations.
He said Washington’s pursuit of space-based weapons, including capabilities envisioned under the Golden Dome initiative, reflects its broader ambition to maintain military superiority by integrating advanced technologies and extending military operations into space.
China, meanwhile, has repeatedly called for efforts to prevent an arms race in outer space and opposed attempts to turn it into a battlefield.
In its latest position paper titled China’s Position on Strengthening Outer Space Governance, released on October 23, the Chinese Foreign Ministry warned: “The risk of an arms race in outer space and the trend of turning outer space into a new theater of conflict have become the gravest threat and challenge to space security.”
The document further stated: “States should oppose offensive military policies in outer space and take all possible measures to prevent an arms race in outer space.”
Song warned that Washington’s push to integrate artificial intelligence into military systems and expand offensive and defensive capabilities into space could transform outer space from a domain supporting military operations into a battlefield, threatening other countries’ space assets and potentially accelerating an arms race and increasing the risk of conflicts triggered by miscalculation, he said.
The EU faces a growing budget squeeze after borrowing hundreds of billions for pandemic recovery and Ukraine. Rising repayment costs threaten future spending and rushed payouts raise fraud risks, its chief auditor has warned. Brussels is nevertheless seeking billions more for Kiev.
Speaking to Rapporteur, Tony Murphy, president of the European Court of Auditors, described the budget situation as a “pressure cooker,” with EU debt potentially reaching €1 trillion (1.12 trillion) by the end of 2027. The bloc’s debt stood at €739 billion (825 billion) in 2025, up from €601 billion ($671 billion) a year earlier.
“You have to pay it back at some time. It’s not free money,” Murphy said. He emphasized that “it’s real money that has to be paid back.”
However, concerns have repeatedly been raised about the EU getting back any of the billions it has spent on Ukraine, including its recent €90 billion ($100 billion) loan, which Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico recently slammed as “gifts” that Ukraine will “never pay back.”
Kiev is required to repay the loan only after receiving Russian reparations – something Moscow has vehemently ruled out. Ukraine’s own former Prime Minister Nikolay Azarov has also acknowledged that such scenarios are “just fairy tales” and that Brussels will never get its money back, which is being actively embezzled by Kiev.
The EU, however, must still repay the money it borrowed. According to Murphy, servicing pandemic debt alone would consume 8% of the bloc’s proposed 2028–2034 budget and governments have yet to agree on new revenue to cover the repayments, leaving Brussels with less money for other priorities.
The squeeze comes as households and businesses continue to face high energy costs following Europe’s break with Russian supplies, compounded by the US-Israeli war on Iran.
Murphy also warned about how quickly money is being spent. He called the requirement to process €90 billion in remaining pandemic recovery payments by December “crazy,” describing the impending payouts as a “tsunami.”
Pressure to meet deadlines could also encourage weaker checks and more abuse, he said, as European prosecutors are already investigating hundreds of suspected fraud cases involving recovery funds.
Despite the crisis, Brussels is again looking for more money for Kiev after Vladimir Zelensky requested another €70 billion ($78 billion) for 2027, beyond existing commitments. European Council President Antonio Costa said Friday that the EU expects to cover roughly two-thirds, with a decision potentially coming in November.
Israeli regime’s airspace – the airspace over the occupied territories – is widely regarded as among the most heavily defended in the world.
Yet the scale of its protection cannot be explained by Israeli military technology alone. Russia, China and even the United States do not benefit from an equivalent network of allied support dedicated to intercepting threats before they reach their territory.
Israel’s own defenses are indeed formidable. Arrow 3 is designed to intercept ballistic missiles outside the atmosphere, while Arrow 2 targets ballistic missile threats within it. David’s Sling is built to counter medium-range threats, and Iron Dome intercepts rockets and other short-range projectiles.
These systems are backed by fighter jets and an extensive radar network, creating multiple layers of protection against incoming attacks.
But Israel’s air defense shield extends well beyond its own arsenal. From October 2023 through Iran’s retaliatory missile and drone operations in 2024, 2025 and 2026, a group of allied states has played an active role in protecting the regime.
They have provided interceptors, radar capabilities, fighter aircraft, military bases and personnel, helping the Tel Aviv regime detect, track and counter incoming threats.
What emerges is not simply a domestic air-defense network, but a wider umbrella sustained by the resources and involvement of powerful allies – from the US to Europe to Arab countries.
This ironclad commitment of regional and extra-regional countries to Israel’s protection has come at a considerable cost.
The price goes well beyond dollars and shekels. It includes depleted weapons stockpiles that could take years to replenish, damaged radars and military bases, soldiers killed or wounded, and governments facing domestic political backlash for a costly partnership that much of their own public fiercely opposes and protests against.
The burden, however, is not shared equally. The United States has shouldered the largest financial and military inventory costs. The Persian Gulf monarchies and Jordan have faced intense operational demands and direct security risks. European states have incurred more limited but still significant costs, particularly in munitions and the political fallout from a war that has driven up energy prices and compounded the cost-of-living pressures facing their populations.
The Israeli bill
The Israeli regime’s direct costs are the easiest to track because they fall on its own treasury. In April 2024, after Iran launched a large number of drones and missiles at the occupied territories, Brig. Gen. Reem Aminoach, an economic adviser to a former Israeli military chief of staff, estimated in an interview with Ynet that defending against the attack that night had cost 4-5 billion shekels, or roughly $1.1–$1.35 billion at the exchange rate at the time.
Haaretz later put the total cost of defending against the same retaliatory attack at around $1.5 billion. That was just one night. Many more retaliatory strikes have hit the occupied territories since then.
The cost structure follows a clear logic. Iran uses inexpensive drones and mass-produced missiles, while Israel relies on some of the world’s most expensive interceptors to defend against them.
This disparity lies at the heart of the war’s financial burden. Israel’s broader budget picture adds another dimension. Sustained, high-intensity defensive operations have forced the regime to spend far more than it did previously.
With a net budget of about 60 billion shekels in 2023, the Israeli military could not sustain repeated nights of interceptions without substantial increases in funding and continued US support.
Israel has been able to sustain this costly imbalance largely because of extensive financial backing from American taxpayers. Much of its interceptor production is funded or co-developed through US programs, and the Arrow missile defense system is produced with American participation.
US Congress has also repeatedly approved emergency supplemental funding for Israeli missile defense. These ties mean that Israel’s financial burden and America’s are deeply interconnected and difficult to separate, which explains the public anger in the US.
The American inventory crisis
No country has spent more on Israel’s defense than the United States, and no factor is more consequential than the state of its interceptor stockpiles. Washington may be willing to spend the tens of billions of dollars required to protect their genocidal ally, but willingness alone cannot resolve the US military’s primary challenge: replenishing its dwindling missile interceptors.
The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), an American think tank, has published some of the most widely cited public estimates of US missile interceptor inventories.
Its analysis, updated following the 40-day war against Iran, found that American Patriot and THAAD inventories had declined dramatically.
According to CSIS estimates, the US inventory of Patriot interceptors fell from approximately 2,330 before the war began on February 27, 2026, to between 759 and 827 by July 27, 2026, marking a decline of roughly two-thirds.
The THAAD inventory also dropped sharply, falling from an estimated 452 interceptors before the war to between 239 and 257 by July 27, representing a decline of approximately 43 to 47 percent.
Estimates of remaining American Interceptor inventory (Source: CSIS)
Many military experts believe CSIS’s estimates are overly optimistic. Some, for instance, argue that the United States may have fired as many as 290 of its roughly 360 THAAD interceptors during the early phase of the war. That would amount to more than 80 percent of its pre-war stockpile.
Whatever the exact figures, Washington’s decision to prioritize Israel’s defense has left the US military dangerously underprepared and more vulnerable to another round of war if it breaks out.
The cost of replenishing stockpiles
The US Army’s FY2027 figures put the unit cost of a PAC-3 MSE interceptor at roughly $5 million and that of a THAAD interceptor at nearly $12 million.
Based on these figures, replacing the Patriot and THAAD interceptors expended would cost an estimated $10 billion. The Congressional Budget Office has offered a higher estimate, putting the cost of replacing the depleted interceptors at approximately $13.1 billion.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi in recent remarks noted that the US spent about $11 billion on missile defense for Israel over three years. In a post on X, quoting a tweet of a former Obama administration official, he said US forces had fired 609 interceptors in defense of the Israeli regime between October 2023 and June 2026, including SM-2, SM-3, SM-6, Patriot, and THAAD missiles.
The naval picture
The US Navy’s missile interceptor inventories are also under severe strain. The SM-3 and SM-6 are among the principal naval weapons used to counter ballistic missiles and other high-speed threats.
Public estimates vary widely, with some reports placing combined naval inventories in the low hundreds. A figure of 150–200 for the two interceptor types combined is plausible as a rough order of magnitude, but no precise public count is available.
The broader concern is that naval interceptors are expensive and slow to manufacture, while the Navy must preserve sufficient stocks to address other potential threats, including those posed by China and Russia. Every interceptor expended in the defense of Israel is therefore one fewer available for other contingencies until it can be replaced.
Not all US and allied defenses against Iran relied on ground-based or naval interceptors. Fighter jets also engaged Iranian drones using air-to-air missiles, including the AIM-9X and AIM-120. The AIM-9X reportedly costs several hundred thousand dollars per missile, while the AIM-120 AMRAAM costs more than $1 million.
Using such expensive weapons to destroy drones that cost only thousands of dollars compounds the economic imbalance, even when the immediate tactical objective is achieved.
The trade-off
By the final phase of the 40-day imposed war, following the initial ceasefire, it had become clear that US commanders were holding back dedicated SM-3 and THAAD interceptors rather than expending them to protect American bases in Jordan and elsewhere.
Footage of nighttime defensive missile launches appeared to show almost exclusively Patriot interceptors, with only one exception. The implication was stark: stocks had dwindled to the point where US commanders could no longer afford to use these missiles freely.
The apparent logic was to preserve the remaining interceptors for a larger war, prioritizing the future defense of Israel over the immediate protection of American service members.
That decision carried its own cost. Aircraft on the ground were hit, and US personnel were killed in some of the retaliatory attacks. This matters because it illustrates the full price of managing depleted stockpiles. A shortage of interceptors weakened the US military’s defensive capacity across multiple theaters, leaving American personnel exposed to attacks that more robust defenses might have helped repel – all in the effort to protect the Israeli regime.
Cost, however, is only part of the problem. Production capacity is the more consequential constraint in a prolonged campaign.
Patriot and THAAD interceptors are manufactured in limited quantities, and expanding output takes time.
CSIS estimates that restoring Patriot and THAAD inventories to their pre-war levels will take at least three years. Interceptors ordered in fiscal year 2027 are not expected to arrive until 2029, leaving a prolonged gap between expenditure and replenishment.
The China and Asia-Pacific dimension
The most serious long-term cost to the United States may emerge far from the West Asia region. As US interceptor stocks are depleted in the region, the Pacific is left more exposed.
The Indo-Pacific is where Washington faces its most formidable strategic competitor. Taiwan’s defense depends in part on US air and missile defenses, while Pentagon war plans for a potential war with China assume that American forces can withstand and respond to large-scale missile attacks.
If SM-3, SM-6, and Patriot inventories fall to a fraction of their previous levels, the margin for absorbing such an attack narrows considerably. A few hundred interceptors would be insufficient to sustain even several days of high-intensity combat in East Asia.
The extent to which US military capabilities in the South China Sea and across East Asia have been weakened cannot yet be quantified.
Nevertheless, the underlying concern is widely recognized among defense analysts: a shortage of interceptors in one theater affects the military’s ability to respond in every theater, and the Pacific is particularly difficult to reinforce quickly.
Persian Gulf states and early-warning network
The Persian Gulf monarchies and Jordan contributed to Israel’s defense in a different but equally consequential way.
Their role was not primarily to supply interceptors, but to provide sensors, airspace access, military bases, and the political authorization needed to put these assets to use.
Missile defense depends on early warning. A THAAD battery cannot intercept a missile it has not detected, and detection depends on radars capable of identifying and tracking threats at sufficient range and speed. The AN/TPY-2 radar used by THAAD is a large, transportable system. The US Missile Defense Agency’s 2025 budget puts the cost of each unit at approximately half a billion dollars.
In March 2026, during the first days of the 40-day imposed war of aggression, the American THAAD radar at Muwaffaq Salti Air Base in Jordan was struck and destroyed. Imagery showed craters around the site, suggesting that multiple strikes may have been involved.
Buildings housing similar radar systems were also hit at two locations in the United Arab Emirates. Another THAAD radar, at Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia, was destroyed as well.
Iran also targeted and struck the AN/FPS-132 early-warning radar in Qatar, which was used to track Iranian missile launches.
Taken together, these incidents point to a broader pattern of Iranian retaliatory attacks on US-aligned early-warning radars and THAAD sites across the region.
This interpretation is consistent with the available satellite imagery, which indicates that the campaign extended beyond individual military installations to the sensor network underpinning regional missile defense that has been at the service of the US and the Israeli regime.
Such radars are expensive and exceptionally difficult to replace. Their value lies not only in the hardware itself, but also in their integration with interceptor batteries and the data links connecting them to other sensors.
Destroying a single radar can compromise an entire interceptor network’s ability to detect and track threats approaching from a particular direction. Replacing these systems can take months or even years, and rebuilding them does not necessarily restore the coverage they previously provided.
Radar losses therefore carry a strategic cost as well as a financial one. Once a radar is destroyed, the states that depend on it must decide whether to rebuild it at an exposed location, relocate it, or accept a gap in their defensive coverage.
By providing Israel and the United States with tracking data on Iranian projectiles, Arab monarchies exposed themselves to Iranian retaliation and risked becoming direct targets in a war they had helped shape.
These losses also raised questions about Saudi Arabia’s vulnerability as the wider regional confrontation extended to other fronts.
Yemen is a prominent example. Damage to radar and air defense assets across the Persian Gulf may have further complicated Saudi Arabia’s position in its prolonged war against Yemen.
Although the Ansarullah-led Yemeni military possesses independent capabilities, and Saudi Arabia’s difficulties in Yemen stem from numerous military, political, and strategic factors, the decision to contribute to Israel’s defense added another layer of risk for the Persian Gulf monarchies.
Their involvement exposed critical military infrastructure to retaliation and potentially weakened their ability to respond to threats beyond the immediate confrontation with Iran.
Jordan’s exposed position
Jordan’s case is perhaps the most striking because of its small military and fragile economy. The country hosts US occupation forces, including a THAAD battery at Muwaffaq Salti Air Base, and lies along the flight paths of missiles and drones traveling between Iran and the Israeli-occupied territories.
During Iran’s 2024 retaliatory strikes, Jordan’s air force was reported to have intercepted many of Iranian drones and missiles crossing its airspace. The Jordanian government defended these actions as necessary to protect its territory and citizens – a lame justification.
For a country with limited military resources, however, the cost was significant: every interceptor fired and every fighter jet scrambled placed additional demands on an already constrained defense budget.
The political cost was even greater. Jordan has a large population of Palestinian origin, and public opinion is strongly sympathetic to Palestinians in Gaza and the occupied West Bank as well as the Axis of Resistance.
Jordan’s decision to intercept Iranian projectiles launched in retaliation for Israeli strikes proved controversial domestically, with Jordanians slamming their government for helping protect the Israeli regime.
Jordan made this choice despite facing its own concerns about Israel’s regional ambitions. Members of Israel’s ruling regime have openly advocated annexing the occupied West Bank, while some have promoted proposals that would displace Palestinians into Jordan.
This context makes Amman’s involvement in regional missile defense particularly sensitive. The country faces the dual risk of Iranian retaliation against US military assets on its soil and growing domestic anger over its role in protecting Israel.
Jordan’s economic vulnerabilities compound these pressures. Public debt, energy costs, and the burden of hosting refugees already strain its finances. Against this backdrop, even a relatively modest additional military expenditure can have significant consequences.
Jordan’s experience illustrates how participation in regional missile defense can impose not only military and financial costs, but also serious domestic political risks.
Royal Jordanian Air Force F-16s were used numerous times to intercept drones launched at Israel
Europe’s price
European states paid in a different currency. Most did not expend large numbers of interceptors against Iranian drones, but their involvement carried costs across three main areas: munitions, military operations, and the economic shock of the war imposed on Iran.
France deployed air assets to the region to intercept drones and missiles over the Eastern Mediterranean and the Levant. Some reports suggested that French stocks of air-to-air missiles, including the MICA, came under strain.
Such shortages would be significant, given France’s other military commitments. Its air force and weapons inventories are already stretched across support for Ukraine, operations in the Sahel, and the maintenance of its own strategic deterrent. Each additional deployment reduces the resources available for other missions.
Britain used its bases in Cyprus, including RAF Akrotiri, as well as its military presence in the Persian Gulf, to support operations against Iran. Reports indicated that RAF aircraft intercepted drones and missiles. The British armed forces are considerably smaller than they were at the height of the country’s military power, and sustained operations of this kind consume substantial flying hours, spare parts, and personnel capacity.
Europe’s greatest burden, however, has been economic and political. Closure of the Strait of Hormuz and the collapse of Persian Gulf energy exports drove up oil, gas, and diesel prices.
Europe’s dependence on imported energy meant that the shock quickly fed into household bills, transport costs, and food prices. Many European governments were already grappling with public dissatisfaction over the cost of living before the 40-day war. The war intensified those pressures as is evident now with protests raging across European countries.
European governments that committed military resources to Israel’s defense and offensive operations now face a difficult question: will their own citizens view that commitment as a principled security measure or as complicity in policies that have contributed to worsening economic conditions?
There is no straightforward answer, but the issue has become part of Europe’s domestic political debate. The costs of defending Israel have reached far beyond the battlefield, affecting budgets, energy security, and public confidence in government policy.
Defending the indefensible
The costs of protecting Israel have been substantial, although they have fallen unevenly across the countries involved.
The United States has spent billions of dollars and depleted significant portions of its advanced interceptor stockpiles, with replenishment expected to take years. The Persian Gulf states and Jordan have suffered damage to radar and air defense assets while assuming additional security risks.
European countries have borne the costs of munitions and military operations, alongside an energy shock that has intensified public anger over the cost of living.
Yet the financial figures tell only part of the story. The more fundamental question is whether the policies driving these expenditures serve the interests of the governments and populations bearing the costs.
The costs are real and continue to mount: public expenditure, depleted interceptor stockpiles, damaged radars and military bases, and the heightened risk of retaliation against countries drawn into a war beyond their borders. Meanwhile, rising fuel, food, and housing costs have placed additional pressure on ordinary households, deepening public frustration with government decisions.
Israel’s regional military campaign has drawn its partners further into a confrontation whose consequences extend well beyond the immediate battlefield. For these governments, the challenge is no longer simply how to sustain their support for Israel, but how to justify its mounting costs to their own populations.
The question is how much more they are willing to spend, how much additional risk they are prepared to accept, and how long their citizens will continue to support a policy whose burdens are becoming increasingly difficult to ignore.
South Korea is rebelling against U.S. dominance. It is witnessing a formidable opposition movement against the United States’ historic control over the Asian country’s military forces.
There is also growing pressure on the South Korean government to refuse demands by U.S. President Donald Trump for Korean troops to deploy in the Persian Gulf.
A major driver of this surging opposition movement is the widely held concern that Washington is maneuvering South Korea to fight a war with China.
Political analyst KJ Noh explains that the Korean people perceive the United States as positioning their country as a proxy to fight an eventual war with China, in a similar way to how Ukraine is being used as a front line to provoke Russia.
“The U.S. empire is making South Korea into the next Ukraine,” says KJ Noh. “It is weaponizing South Korea.”
This is analogous to how Ukraine was groomed and weaponized since 2014 to serve as a proxy for the U.S. and NATO to confront Russia.
He points out that China has always been the main target for American imperial planners seeking to extend U.S. hegemony. Pentagon Generals have openly spoken about going to war with China since 2025. Several strategic documents cite the imperative of confronting China for the U.S. to pursue its ambitions of global dominance.
Recently, the American commander in South Korea, General Xavier Brunson, referred to the country as “a dagger pointed at China” and “an unsinkable U.S. aircraft carrier.” Such brazen comments have sparked even broader opposition.
KJ Noh contends that U.S. strategists assumed defeating Russia and Iran would be relatively easy, paving the way for the main target: China. However, the protracted war in Ukraine and Trump’s debacle in the Persian Gulf have delayed the war plan against China.
Nevertheless, Korean people understand that when the U.S. empire gets around to attacking China, their country will be deployed as Uncle Sam’s proxy.
Historically, for the past 76 years, Washington has exerted full control over the South Korean military. This was enabled by the U.S. using fascist collaborators from the Second World War to control South Korea – a legacy that persists among the deep state in South Korea.
KJ Noh surveys a history of genocidal violence perpetrated by the U.S. empire in South Korea to wipe out political opposition movements. The scale of mass murder and mass graves is shocking and hardly known in the West.
Despite the brutal oppression over many decades, there is still a defiant consciousness among Koreans who refuse to be vassals of the U.S.
Koreans do not want to do Uncle Sam’s dirty work any longer, and they do not want their country to be dragooned into a proxy war against their Asian neighbor, China, with which much of the Korean economy has beneficial relations.
This is why Koreans are demanding that the United States finally hand over Operational Control of the country’s military. President Lee Jae-myung reflects the popular will by calling on Washington to comply. It is also why the Korean people and government are refusing Trump’s peevish calls for deployment in the Persian Gulf. Given the history of loyal Korean service in U.S. wars, this latest defiance is a watershed in relations.
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei says a meeting in Tehran with senior officials from Turkey, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia could lay the groundwork for a regional security framework based on the interests and decisions of countries in the region.
Speaking at a weekly press conference on Monday, Baghaei said Tehran would host Saudi Arabia’s defense minister, Pakistan’s army chief and Turkey’s intelligence chief as part of an initiative to discuss regional security.
He stated that the initiative was proposed during Pakistani Army Chief Asim Munir’s visit to Tehran and was welcomed by the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Responding to a question from IRNA about the purpose and format of the gathering, Baghaei said the participation of senior officials from the three countries reflected efforts to explore mechanisms for regional security.
“From our perspective, the fact that regional countries are seeking to establish, or at least consider, regional security mechanisms based on their own interests and concerns is a welcome development,” he said.
“This meeting could serve as a prelude to further steps toward shaping endogenous security, an issue we have insisted on for decades. We have consistently emphasized that regional security can only be ensured by relying on the will and security considerations of the countries of the region,” Baghaei added.
He noted that developments over the past two years, particularly the past eight months, had demonstrated the importance of cooperation among regional countries.
“Recent events have shown that sustainable and reliable security in our region can only be achieved through building trust and cooperation among regional countries,” the spokesman said.
Baghaei said the visiting officials would hold discussions with the Iranian president and the secretary of the Supreme National Security Council.
As this is the first meeting of its kind, he said, a range of issues would be on the agenda, with regional security challenges expected to feature prominently.
“Such a meeting cannot be held without taking into account the consequences of the United States’ military aggression against Iran for the security of the entire region,” Baghaei said, describing the issue as another important subject that should be considered within the framework of regional security discussions.
Deputy Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) Ali Bagheri Kani said the three senior officials are scheduled to meet with SNSC Secretary Major General Mohsen Rezaei and participate in a joint session on Monday.
Regional countries must strengthen capabilities to counter Israel
Responding to reports of disagreements between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the Israeli army chief over a possible attack on Iran, Baghaei said such differences would have no impact on Iran’s defensive preparedness.
“Despite possible differences in tactics, this group is united in its aggression and expansionism,” he said, adding that the regime’s actions across the region showed it was pursuing a common course aimed at undermining regional security.
He stressed that regional countries must enhance their capabilities to confront the Israeli regime’s threats and destabilizing actions.
Iran unconcerned about who rules in Israeli regime
Commenting on the upcoming Knesset elections in the occupied territories, Baghaei dismissed the process as a genuine democratic election, describing it instead as competition among rival groups seeking to commit greater crimes.
“For us, it makes no difference who ultimately takes the helm of the Zionist regime,” he said, noting that its record had brought nothing to the region but violence and bloodshed.
Armed forces will firmly counter threats
Responding to reports about the deployment of drone bases near Iran, Baghaei said Iran’s relevant authorities were closely monitoring developments surrounding the country, including reports of drone bases near its borders and Ukrainian activities in Iraq and the Iraqi Kurdistan region.
“Those responsible for monitoring these developments are following the situation carefully and will act whenever necessary to defend the country and repel hostile actions and threats,” he said.
He emphasized that Iran’s armed forces had firmly defended the country whenever threats or hostile activities targeted its territory and would continue to do so.
Europe part of the problem
Baghaei expressed doubt that European countries had genuinely changed their approach toward Iran, pointing out that their renewed emphasis on diplomacy could amount to a political gesture.
He slammed Europeans for contributing to the crisis by aligning with the United States over the so-called snapback mechanism and failing to condemn US-Israeli military aggression against Iran’s nuclear facilities.
Baghaei said Tehran hoped the three European countries would assess regional developments more realistically and adopt an independent and constructive approach toward West Asian affairs.
Brazilian people resisted unfair pressure
Commenting on Brazil’s presidential election and the defeat of the right-wing camp aligned with US President Donald Trump, Baghaei said the outcome demonstrated the Brazilian people’s determination to make independent political choices.
“The people of Brazil showed that they would not submit to misleading narratives and unjustified pressure, and that they would choose what they consider to be in their country’s best interests,” he said.
Login
