Netanyahu sta dicendo a Trump che ora deve portare a termine l’opera di distruzione dell’Iran

Segue nostro Telegram.

Il «Grande Progetto» volto a «mantenere [la civiltà occidentale] al vertice del mondo» (come ha affermato il Segretario di Stato statunitense Marco Rubio) richiede che gli strumenti per garantire l’obbedienza siano di due tipi: La creazione di un fervore rivoluzionario distruttivo dal basso (oggi definito «cambio di regime»); e, in secondo luogo, l’uso di ciò che Theodore Herzl, in una famosa frase, definì «il terribile potere del denaro di esercitare una pressione irresistibile sulla politica internazionale», al fine di cooptare gli strati dominanti in una rete di potere che promuovesse il «progetto» del Grande Disegno.Questo è ciò che stiamo osservando nella guerra di Trump contro l’Iran.

L’attacco israelo-americano del giugno 2025 era principalmente un attacco di decapitazione volto a neutralizzare sia la leadership politica che quella militare dell’Iran, mentre elementi armati addestrati dal Mossad, il MEK e i separatisti baluchi tra gli altri sarebbero stati infiltrati in Iran per fomentare la rivoluzione dalla base. A quel tempo, il figlio dell’ex Scià – in modo poco plausibile – veniva presentato ai media occidentali come il futuro leader dell’Iran.

Non ha funzionato. E ora Netanyahu sta sostenendo che Israele disponga di «nuove prove» del fatto che l’Iran si stia orientando verso la produzione di un componente bellico nell’ambito del proprio programma nucleare. Sta dicendo a Trump che ora deve portare a termine l’opera di distruzione dell’Iran. E per motivare ulteriormente Trump, il principale quotidiano israeliano Ma’ariv riporta che Israele ha trasmesso direttamente alla Casa Bianca i sondaggi del Likud, secondo cui Netanyahu potrebbe vincere le elezioni israeliane del 27 ottobre. Secondo l’articolo, queste informazioni del Likud (che contraddicono la maggior parte degli altri sondaggi israeliani) hanno spinto Trump a esprimere il proprio pieno sostegno elettorale a Netanyahu.

Allo stesso tempo, i miliardari filosionisti stanno esercitando il «terribile potere del denaro» su Trump: «Non accetteremo nulla di meno della sconfitta dell’Iran. Se continuerà a cercare un accordo, le ritireremo il nostro sostegno finanziario».

Alti funzionari della sicurezza israeliani, sia in carica che in pensione, confutano tuttavia la necessità di un attacco imminente all’Iran e l’affermazione di Netanyahu relativa a nuove prove che l’Iran si stia muovendo verso l’arma nucleare –il Capo di Stato Maggiore delle Forze di Difesa Israeliane (IDF) Zamir ha dichiarato al Canale 13 israeliano: «Non vediamo la necessità di attaccare l’Iran prima delle elezioni»; Il principale stratega militare israeliano Udi Evental ha messo in guardia: «Una guerra per ostacolare le elezioni e la democrazia, non per ostacolare il programma nucleare dell’Iran. Netanyahu, che si sospetta sia immerso fino al collo in considerazioni politiche e personali estranee alla questione, non è idoneo a prendere una decisione del genere. Non glielo si deve permettere».

Che esistano o meno prove del genere non ha davvero importanza. Probabilmente non esistono. L’affermazione costituisce semplicemente il pretesto con cui si sta esortando gli Stati Uniti ad agire per ‘portare a termine l’opera’ contro l’Iran. Come sempre, Netanyahu ha dichiarato negli ultimi giorni: «L’Iran sta ancora una volta cercando di sviluppare le sue armi di morte… C’è un solo modo per eliminare questa minaccia una volta per tutte: rovesciare il regime in Iran, e questa è la mia direttiva all’IDF, al Mossad e alle agenzie di sicurezza».Un alto funzionario iraniano ha dichiarato a Drop Site che l’attuale valutazione dei servizi segreti interni di Teheran indica un’elevata probabilità che possano iniziare bombardamenti su larga scala – anche prima delle elezioni israeliane di martedì.

Il punto è che all’Iran non interessa chi vincerà le elezioni di medio termine, né chi conquisterà la presidenza degli Stati Uniti nel 2028. Per la leadership iraniana è tutto uguale. Comprendono bene il concetto del «Grande Disegno» (come potrebbero non farlo?).In Iran è ben chiaro che il Paese è impegnato in una lunga guerra contro l’intero blocco atlantista: Israele, i suoi servizi di intelligence, i suoi arsenali, i suoi satelliti, la sua industria militare e la sua macchina mediatica. Non importa se alla Casa Bianca ci sia un repubblicano o un democratico. Gli alti funzionari iraniani ritengono che entrambi i partiti siano stati comprati dal terribile potere sionista del denaro.

Comprendere il «Progetto» significa comprendere che la classe dei finanziatori sionisti non si accontenterà mai di un «accordo o compromesso». Essi sostengono con certezza che l’Iran alla fine verrebbe meno a qualsiasi acconsentimento ipotizzato alle richieste statunitensi. Gli israeliani e i loro alleati della classe dei finanziatori semplicemente non credono (e lo ripetono incessantemente) che l’Iran accetterebbe mai di sottomettersi a Israele, né di accettare il dominio politico e culturale degli Stati Uniti. Potrebbero avere ragione. Perché? Semplicemente perché l’Iran possiede una civiltà profonda, che affonda le sue radici in un complesso di credenze e pratiche specificamente persiano-iraniane risalenti al secondo millennio a.C.: il mazdeismo, una cosmologia del dramma divino, rappresentata dalla lotta continua tra Luce e Oscurità.

Il rinomato studioso, il professor Henri Corbin, ha sostenuto che «l’Iran era situato in una posizione centrale… non essendo solo una nazione o un impero, ma un universo spirituale». Egli concepiva quindi l’Iran come una forza mediatrice, sia geograficamente che metafisicamente.

Per millenni, gli iraniani hanno percepito il mondo come dotato di una chiara dimensione metafisica – e di una storia. È quindi improbabile che possano essere attratti da un atteggiamento materialistico e nichilista di stampo occidentale. Gli Stati civilizzatori, siano essi l’Iran o la Russia, che abbracciano valori contrari non soccomberebbero mai al «Grande Disegno». Di conseguenza, devono essere distrutti.

Cosa significa questa storia metafisica? Significa che l’Iran si sta preparando alla guerra, non a un «accordo». Mohsen Rezaei, segretario del Consiglio Supremo di Sicurezza Nazionale iraniano e rappresentante personale della Guida Suprema, l’Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei, ha affermato che, «Se la domanda è se l’Iran abbia ancora la capacità di proseguire le operazioni con missili e droni [in caso di attacco], la risposta è “sì” … Gli Stati Uniti dispongono di risorse preziose nella regione. In caso di guerra, anche cavi, centri dati e strutture di intelligenza artificiale potrebbero rientrare nel raggio d’azione. Se il conflitto dovesse riprendere, avremo un piano più ampio». «Tutti devono comprendere che un’azione contro l’Iran comporta un costo».

Alti funzionari iraniani ritengono che la guerra sia imminente. L’Iran dispone di piani di ampia portata (in caso di attacco) che coinvolgono anche l’Arabia Saudita e la sua leadership, ha lasciato intendere un alto funzionario iraniano. Karl Miller (dal campo) afferma che, a questo proposito, un quarto della produzione petrolifera saudita è già stato distrutto e che i danni causati dagli attacchi di rappresaglia di AnsarAllah interessano l’intera catena produttiva saudita – «dalla testa di pozzo alla stazione di servizio» – e che l’Arabia Saudita sta colmando il deficit attingendo alle proprie riserve.

Il rapporto di Miller, citato da Larry Johnson, avverte che,«se i canali di esportazione dell’Arabia Saudita dovessero chiudersi, il suo petrolio non avrebbe altra destinazione se non le proprie raffinerie, le proprie centrali elettriche e i propri serbatoi di stoccaggio. Una volta che lo stoccaggio fosse pieno, si raggiungerebbe all’incirca il limite massimo di produzione che l’Arabia Saudita potrebbe mantenere. Se Ras Tanura e Yanbu venissero chiusi contemporaneamente, il Regno sarebbe costretto a chiudere la maggior parte dei propri giacimenti petroliferi. Questo è esattamente lo scenario che la campagna di Ansar Allah contro l’oleodotto, il Mar Rosso e i terminali del Golfo è volta a provocare». «Qualsiasi nuova campagna americana o israeliana contro l’Iran si abbatterà su un sistema energetico saudita che non dispone più di margini per assorbirla», osserva Larry Johnson.

Qualsiasi nuovo attacco all’Iran, per estensione, significherà la fine del Golfo così come lo conosciamo, la fine del petrodollaro e la fine del Golfo come principale fornitore di liquidità per Wall Street e il mondo della tecnologia.

Ciononostante, secondo quanto riferito, Trump avrebbe affermato che gli Stati Uniti non stanno attualmente negoziando con l’Iran e che qualcosa accadrà «molto presto».

Forse. (Ma con Trump tutto si riduce a speculazioni). Se però sta bluffando, non funzionerà, e la sua umiliazione sarà ancora più profonda.

Un uomo che conosce Trump meglio di molti altri (avendo scritto quattro libri su di lui), Michael Wolff, sostiene che se i Democratici vinceranno nelle elezioni di medio termine del 3 novembre –

«Cercheranno di far capire al mondo che è “un nuovo giorno”. Trump, dal canto suo, cercherà di far capire al mondo che è ancora lui a controllare la scena. Ci sarà una serie di eventi di questo tipo (come una presunta invasione di Cuba, ad esempio) di portata superiore a qualsiasi cosa possiamo immaginare. Non si mostrerà umile. Il concetto di umiltà non esiste nell’animo di Donald Trump. Pertanto, farà esattamente il contrario».

«Non ritirarsi, ma attaccare».

The United States has privately warned Middle Eastern allies to prepare for renewed military operations against Iran following the 3 November congressional elections, according to diplomatic sources. Although President Donald Trump has not authorised further strikes, the warnings have heightened concerns about regional escalation, energy infrastructure and the consequences for European economies already facing rising fuel costs.

American officials have advised several governments in the Middle East to prepare for possible new military strikes against Iran after next week’s US midterm elections, raising the prospect of another escalation in a conflict that has already disrupted international energy markets.

According to an Associated Press investigation published on 29 October, two diplomats familiar with the warnings said US officials had urged regional allies to consider the possibility of Iranian retaliation against energy facilities and other critical infrastructure.

The diplomats emphasised that President Donald Trump had not made a final decision to resume military operations.

Nevertheless, Washington’s warnings suggest that preparations are being discussed for a potential campaign extending over several days.

Regional governments are concerned that retaliatory action by Iran or organisations aligned with Tehran could prolong the fighting beyond the duration initially envisaged by the United States.

The White House and American officials declined to comment on the reported communications.

Military Preparations and Political Timing

The warnings come as Trump approaches the final days of campaigning ahead of the 3 November elections.

The president has repeatedly suggested that further military action against Iran could follow the vote, although he has also claimed that the conflict may be approaching its conclusion.

During a campaign appearance in Texas, Trump said the war could end within weeks, while reiterating his insistence that Iran must not acquire nuclear weapons.

The timing of possible military action remains uncertain.

The Pentagon has increased its regional military presence, including the deployment of the aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt and additional amphibious forces.

Approximately 9,000 military personnel were associated with the deployment announced in September.

However, the movement of forces does not establish that an attack has been authorised or that particular targets have been selected.

American military preparations can also serve as deterrence, signalling and contingency planning.

The distinction is important because the political consequences of renewed strikes would depend on their scale, objectives and Iranian response.

Tehran Maintains That Diplomacy Remains Possible

Iran has indicated that it remains willing to pursue negotiations.

Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on 28 October that Tehran was continuing to consider diplomatic proposals and wanted elements of its earlier ceasefire initiative to form the basis for renewed discussions.

That proposal had previously been rejected by Washington.

The continuing disagreement concerns both the conditions for ending military operations and wider questions about Iran’s nuclear programme.

The United Arab Emirates has urged the parties to seek political solutions and avoid returning to large-scale fighting.

Regional governments face a particularly difficult position because they may be exposed to retaliation even when they are not directly involved in American military operations.

Energy facilities, airports, ports and other infrastructure could become targets during an escalation.

Such attacks would also affect civilian populations and commercial activity beyond the immediate combatants.

The Conflict Has Already Spread

The war involving Iran, the United States and Israel began in late February and has subsequently affected other parts of the Middle East.

Iran-aligned Houthi forces have carried out attacks on Saudi oil infrastructure and airports, prompting retaliatory operations by a Saudi-led coalition against targets in Yemen.

These developments have complicated attempts to contain the conflict geographically.

The United States has not conducted a strike against Iran since early September, according to the reporting available on 29 October.

However, the absence of recent American attacks has not removed the risk of renewed operations.

Regional governments are therefore considering a range of possible developments, including limited strikes, a longer military campaign or retaliatory attacks preceding any American operation.

None of these scenarios should be treated as inevitable.

Europe Faces Another Energy Risk

For the European Union, a renewed confrontation would have implications extending well beyond diplomatic relations with Washington.

The Middle East remains a major source of global oil and liquefied natural gas supplies.

The Strait of Hormuz is particularly important to international energy shipping, connecting producers in the Persian Gulf with markets in Europe and Asia.

An increase in attacks on shipping, production facilities or export terminals could place further pressure on global energy prices.

The consequences would not necessarily be confined to countries purchasing oil or gas directly from the region.

European consumers compete in internationally connected markets, meaning supply disruptions can influence prices even where import arrangements have been diversified.

The EU has substantially reduced its dependence on Russian pipeline gas since 2022, but growing reliance on liquefied natural gas creates exposure to fluctuations in international supply and demand.

A further Middle Eastern escalation could therefore complicate Europe’s efforts to rebuild gas reserves and contain industrial energy costs before winter.

Higher fuel prices would also affect transport, food production and household expenditure.

The Strategic Dilemma for European Governments

European governments must balance several interests.

They support efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation, maintain relations with the United States and preserve stability in the Middle East.

At the same time, they have a direct economic interest in avoiding prolonged disruption to maritime trade and energy production.

A new American military campaign could revive debates concerning the legality, necessity and proportionality of military action, particularly if diplomatic alternatives remain available.

European governments may also face decisions about the protection of their nationals, regional diplomatic missions and commercial shipping.

The immediate significance of Washington’s warnings lies in the possibility of renewed hostilities, not in confirmation that such hostilities have been ordered.

With the American elections approaching, governments across the Middle East and Europe are preparing for developments that remain contingent on decisions in Washington and Tehran.

Whether the warnings lead to military action or renewed diplomacy will determine the next phase of a conflict whose economic effects are already being felt far beyond the region.

Photo: Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Kaylianna Genier / US Navy / Wikimedia Commons (Public Domain).

The diplomatic outreach was part of an effort to push talks to end the war in Ukraine, though it was not welcomed by all European leaders.

© Pool photo by Maxim Shipenkov

Irán y Rusia, ambos sometidos a sanciones que los llevan al olvido, están, de hecho, más alineados que nunca, coordinando todo en un frente común.

Únete a nosotros en Telegram , X y VK .

Escríbenos: info@strategic-culture.su

En lo que respecta a Ucrania, Washington podría estar pasando a un modo total de “salvar las apariencias”.

Después de todo, la magnitud de la derrota estratégica del Imperio, sumada al desmoronamiento de Occidente en el país 404, es abrumadora. A esto se suma la derrota estratégica en Irán y el implacable golpe que Yemen le está asestando a la Casa de Saud.

El gran maestro Lavrov lo expresó así:

Occidente nunca volverá a ser el actor principal que dicta las condiciones”.

La tentación de identificar un camino más directo hacia un orden mundial multinodal y policéntrico puede ser grande —a raíz de todas esas concesiones descabelladas y sin precedentes de Trump a Moscú—. Pero entonces siguen llegando las verdaderas nubes negras.

El culto a la muerte en Asia Occidental y el Sindicato de Epstein en su conjunto han logrado dominar a toda la masa de neoconservadores rusófobos repartidos por todo el MICIMATT (complejo militar/industrial/congresional/de inteligencia/mediático/académico/de think tanks, según la memorable definición de Ray McGovern) y reconstituir a Irán como la única e indiscutible emergencia de seguridad nacional.

El plan de 7 puntos o nada

El apresurado viaje del mariscal de campo Asim Munir, organizado a última hora desde Islamabad a Teherán a principios de esta semana, al final no pudo mediar en nada.

Munir se reunió con todas las personas importantes. Le preguntó sin rodeos al presidente del Parlamento, Ghalibaf: ¿qué se necesita para encontrar una solución al estancamiento entre Irán y EE. UU.?

Ghalibaf fue contundente —y lo repitió al menos ocho veces durante su reunión—:

Washington debe implementar las condiciones de siete puntos de Irán, que son esencialmente un resumen del memorando de entendimiento (MoU) que ha fracasado una y otra vez, el cual Trump firmó y luego destruyó.

Los siete puntos se propusieron por primera vez a Tweedledum y Tweedledee —Witkoff y Kushner— a través de los qataríes en una ronda anterior de negociaciones indirectas entre Irán y EE. UU.

El presidente Pezeshkian y el secretario del Consejo Supremo de Seguridad Nacional (SNSC), Mohsen Rezaee, en sus reuniones, hicieron hincapié exactamente en lo mismo. Ese es el mensaje que Munir debería transmitir al «sociópata en jefe».

Las fuentes oficiales iraníes no lo confirmarán; solo la versión estadounidense, fuertemente manipulada. Pero es posible que Munir haya transmitido un ultimátum definitivo de EE. UU. a Rezaee, Pezeshkian y Ghalibaf: abandonen su programa nuclear o enfrenten ataques masivos, dirigidos principalmente contra la Montaña del Pico.

Además de los 7 puntos, Mohsen Rezaee le informó nuevamente a Munir —y, por lo tanto, a la Casa Blanca— que ni una sola partícula de polvo nuclear saldrá de Irán. Volviendo a la única posibilidad de retomar las negociaciones: Washington debe aceptar los 7 puntos.

El ministro de Relaciones Exteriores, Araghchi, sigue insistiendo en lo esencial: «Estados Unidos no ha logrado ninguno de sus objetivos de guerra».

Así que la cadena de causalidad es ineludible: no hay victoria militar (ni cambio de régimen); los costos económicos son insoportables; la situación política es insostenible; por lo tanto, la única salida son los siete puntos.

Y, además de todo eso, Teherán controla el tiempo.

Paralelamente, en medio de la «Tormenta Yemení», Saná también controla el tiempo.

Con Aramco —el sustento vital de EE. UU., Israel y los matones salafistas-yihadistas al estilo del ISIS, y una fuente privilegiada de financiamiento para las «guerras eternas»—, ahora en la línea de fuego directa de Ansarallah, el impulso yemení es trabajar «para secar las fuentes del terrorismo».

Sin embargo, Riad está redoblando la apuesta, amenazando con bombardear cada reunión de tribus yemeníes. Si eso ocurre, más de un millón de yemeníes más se unirán a las Fuerzas Armadas de Yemen y marcharán hacia la frontera entre Yemen y Arabia Saudita.

Después de todo, las tribus, bien entrenadas y fuertemente armadas, solo están esperando una orden del líder de Ansarallah, Abdul-Malik Badr al-Din al-Houthi, para invadir el sur de la «Arabia Saudita» y recuperar las tres provincias —Najran, Jizan y Asir— que son tierras ancestrales yemeníes robadas por los británicos en 1934.

Un precio que no te puedes permitir pagar

Se puede desatar el infierno: ahora; pronto; o a más tardar a finales de noviembre. Si llegara a suceder antes, antes de las elecciones israelíes, es un hecho que el impulsor es el culto a la muerte.

El sociópata en jefe prefiere un ataque después de las elecciones de mitad de mandato.

El culto a la muerte está preparando un ataque masivo contra centrales eléctricas iraníes, infraestructura petrolera, objetivos militares e instalaciones nucleares.

Teherán ha advertido repetidamente que cualquier ataque, ya sea conjunto o por separado, por parte de EE. UU. e Israel, será tratado como una «Totalen Krieg», una guerra total, y que la respuesta romperá cualquier límite o restricción.

La inteligencia interna de Irán está totalmente enfocada en un escenario de bombardeos a gran escala que ocurriría antes del próximo martes, día de las elecciones en el culto a la muerte.

Pase lo que pase, la respuesta de Teherán se asegurará de que el precio a pagar sea más que prohibitivo. En cuanto a Israel, Irán contraatacará ambas refinerías israelíes; los puertos de Haifa y Ashdod; todas las bases aéreas; y Dimona, solo si se atacan las propias instalaciones nucleares de Irán.

En caso de un ataque de EE. UU., cualquier monarquía petrolera del Golfo que albergue un punto de lanzamiento se convertirá instantáneamente en un objetivo legítimo, incluyendo redes eléctricas; plantas desalinizadoras; refinerías; puertos; centros de datos; sedes e instalaciones de empresas estadounidenses.

El Estrecho de Ormuz quedaría completamente cerrado. El precio del barril de petróleo se disparará. La economía mundial entrará en una Gran Depresión.

Desde un punto de vista imperial, eso sería tan desolador como que Washington permitiera a Irán administrar el estrecho de Ormuz y cobrar tarifas por el tránsito: en realidad, el humillante fin de la talasocracia unilateral —con la Quinta Flota de EE. UU. teniendo que pedir permiso para entrar o salir de su propia base en ruinas en Bahrein—.

Mohammad Mokhber, uno de los principales asesores del líder Mojtaba Jamenei, subrayó que

si Estados Unidos e Israel atacan nuestra infraestructura petroquímica o nuestras centrales eléctricas, Irán atacará a nueve países».

Además, la agencia de noticias Fars, muy cercana al Cuerpo de la Guardia Revolucionaria Islámica (CGRI), se enteró de una serie de nuevas directivas: si los ataques implican el asesinato de funcionarios iraníes y la muerte de civiles, la respuesta iraní incluirá objetivos políticos asociados con Estados Unidos y todas las naciones que participen en la guerra, además de su infraestructura.

Lavrov y Araghchi reactivan el RIC

En medio de tanto horror, intentemos destacar al menos una tendencia positiva. Durante la reciente visita de Lavrov a Teherán, el ministro de Relaciones Exteriores iraní, Araghchi, fue directo al grano:

Nunca en nuestra historia Rusia e Irán han colaborado tan estrechamente como ahora.

El concepto clave es «Nunca en nuestra historia». Lavrov y Araghchi hablaron de «todo, desde Europa hasta Asia Occidental». Pero especialmente de estos cuatro temas: Líbano, Palestina, Ucrania y Yemen. Sin mencionar todo lo relacionado con la ampliación de la cooperación económica y «nuclear».

La cooperación económica se refiere especialmente al INSTC —el Corredor Internacional de Transporte Norte-Sur que conecta a tres socios de los BRICS y la OCS: Rusia, Irán e India.

Vean mi documental sobre el INSTC filmado en Irán el año pasado.

El Imperio del Caos se basa en sanciones, amenazas y bombardeos. La integración de Eurasia se basa en la construcción de infraestructura, el aumento del comercio y la cooperación soberana.

Por eso, Lavrov y Araghchi tuvieron que reactivar una vez más el RIC: la conexión original entre Rusia, India y China, concebida inicialmente como el Triángulo de Primakov, pero ahora con Irán en lugar de India.

Lavrov propuso que el nuevo RIC estableciera una «estructura de seguridad común» en el Golfo Pérsico mediante una cumbre trilateral. Eso equivale a que el RIC defina un marco unificado para el Estrecho de Ormuz.

La respuesta del Imperio será una mayor desorientación. Porque, una vez más, se trata de la «indivisibilidad de la seguridad» —tal como Rusia se lo propuso a EE. UU. y a la OTAN en diciembre de 2021—. En ese entonces, eso fue recibido con una respuesta que no fue tal.

En cuanto al Líbano, Palestina, Ucrania y Yemen, Lavrov y Araghchi se encontraban en primera línea de combate. Donde tenemos al Imperio del Caos y a sus aliados/vasallos de un lado, y a Rusia y a los aliados de Irán del otro.

Todo está interconectado, por supuesto. Un arco imperial de presión militar se extiende desde Ucrania hasta Yemen. La respuesta gira en torno a cómo coordinar la resistencia (cursiva mía) a dicha presión.

En cuanto a la cooperación económica, tanto Irán como Rusia se encuentran bajo un tsunami de sanciones. Sus bancos han sido expulsados de SWIFT y las exportaciones de petróleo están severamente restringidas. Por lo tanto, el comercio entre ambos países debe eludir el dólar estadounidense; todo el sistema financiero occidental; y la talasocracia impuesta por la Marina de los Estados Unidos.

El conocimiento técnico para eludir las sanciones es algo que Irán y Rusia podrían compartir con todo el Sur Global, a través de liquidaciones en monedas locales; el comercio de trueque; los corredores terrestres; el INSTC; y el comercio a través del mar Caspio.

Y eso nos lleva una vez más al estrecho de Ormuz, que controla Irán. Las petro-monarquías del Golfo están en pánico total. Rusia mantiene canales sólidos tanto con Irán como con el Golfo. Lavrov está en total sintonía con todos ellos. Llevó las preocupaciones del Golfo a Teherán y, a su vez, transmitió las condiciones de Teherán de regreso al Golfo.

Lavrov enfatizó que el Memorando de Entendimiento de Islamabad —que ha sido declarado muerto en repetidas ocasiones— es el único camino a seguir. Exactamente lo que Xi le dijo a Trump en el Despacho Oval. Exactamente lo que los líderes iraníes le dijeron a Asim Munir en Teherán.

También hizo hincapié en que las petro-monarquías del Golfo Pérsico deben ponerse de acuerdo y entablar un diálogo serio sobre seguridad con Irán y las naciones árabes, incluidos vecinos como Irak y Jordania, e involucrar a la Liga Árabe, la Organización para la Cooperación Islámica (OCI) y a los miembros permanentes del Consejo de Seguridad de la ONU.

Una vez más: la indivisibilidad de la seguridad.

Irán y Rusia, ambos sancionados hasta el olvido, están de hecho sincronizados como nunca antes, coordinando todo en un frente común, mientras que el desesperado Sindicato de Epstein permanece atrapado en su propia pesadilla de la «Guerra Eterna».

Traducción:  Observatorio de trabajador@s en lucha

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.

Join us on Telegram, X, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

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.

Netanyahu is telling Trump that he needs now to finish the job of destroying Iran

Join us on Telegram, X, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

The ‘Grand Design’ to “maintain [western civilisation’s] place at the head of the world” (as U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio put it) requires the tools for ensuring compliance are two-fold: The creating of destructive revolutionary fervour from below (now termed ‘regime change’); and secondly, the use of what Theodore Herzl in a now famous phrase termed “the terrible power of the purse to exert irresistible pressure on international politics” in order to co-opt the ruling strata into a power network that would advance the Grand Design ‘project’.

This is what we are observing with Trump’s war on Iran. The June 2025 Israeli-American attack was primarily a decapitation attack designed to disable both Iran’s political and military leadership, whilst armed Mossad trained elements, the MEK and Baluchi separatists inter alia would be inserted into Iran to foment revolution from the street below. At that time, the former Shah’s son – implausibly – was being presented to the western media as the incoming leader of Iran.

It did not work. And now Netanyahu is touting that Israel has ‘fresh evidence’ that Iran is moving towards producing a weapon component to its nuclear programme. He is telling Trump that he needs now to finish the job of destroying Iran. And to motivate Trump further, leadingIsraeli daily Ma’ariv reports that Israel stove-piped Likud polling directly into the White House to the effect that Netanyahu might win the Israeli elections on 27 October. According to the report, this Likud information (that runs counter to most other Israeli polls) prompted Trump’s full-hearted election endorsement of Netanyahu.

At the same time, the pro-Zionist billionaire donors are wielding the ‘terrible power of the purse’ at Trump: ‘We will not accept anything less than the defeat of Iran. If you continue to seek a deal we will pull our financial support from you’.

Senior current and former security officials in Israel however, refute the need for an imminent attack on Iran and Netanyahu’s claim of new evidence of Iran moving toward a nuclear weapon –

IDF Chief of Staff Zamir told Israel’s Channel 13: “We don’t see a need to attack Iran before the elections”;

Leading Israeli military strategist Udi Evental has cautioned:

“A war to thwart the elections and democracy, not to thwart Iran’s nuclear programme. Netanyahu, who is suspected of being up to his neck in extraneous political and personal considerations, is unfit to make such a decision. He must not be allowed to”.

Whether or not there is such evidence really does not matter. Likely it doesn’t exist. The claim simply forms the peg on which the U.S. is beingtold to take action to ‘finish the job’ on Iran.

As ever, Netanyahu said in the last days:

“Iran is once again trying to develop its weapons of death … There is only one way to remove this threat once and for all – to topple the regime in Iran, and that is my directive to the IDF, the Mossad and the security agencies.”

A senior Iranian official told Drop Site that Tehran’s current internal intelligence assessment indicates a high likelihood that large-scale bombing may begin – even before Tuesday’s Israeli elections.

The point here is that Iran does not care who wins in the midterms, nor who will win the U.S. Presidency in 2028. For the Iranian leadership it is all the same. They well understand the concept of the ‘Grand Design’ (how could they not?).

It is well understood in Iran that they are engaged in a long war confronting the entire Atlanticist bloc – Israel, its intelligence services, its arsenals, its satellites, its military industry, and its media machine. It does not matter whether it is a Republican or a Democrat in the White House. Senior Iranian officials see both parties to have been bought by the Zionist terrible power of the purse.

Understanding the ‘Design’ is to understand that the Zionist donor class will never be satisfied by some ‘deal or trade-off’. They claim it to be certain that Iran ultimately would renege on any mooted acquiescence to U.S. demands. Israelis and their donor class auxiliaries simply do not believe (and repeat incessantly) that Iran would ever accept compliance to Israel, or to accept U.S. political and cultural dominance.

They may be right. Why?

Simply because Iran has a deep civilisation, stretching back to a specifically Persian-Iranian complex of beliefs and practices of the second millennium BCE – Mazdaism, a cosmology of divine drama, represented by the continuing struggle between Light and Darkness.

The renown scholar, Professor Henri Corbin, has argued that “Iran was situated at a centre … it being not only a nation or an empire, but a spiritual universe”. He understood Iran therefore, as a mediating force, both geographically and metaphysically.

For millenia, Iranians have experienced the world as having a clear metaphysical dimension – and history. It is therefore unlikely that they would be attracted to a western nihilistic material posture. Civilisational states, whether Iran or Russia, that embrace contrarian values would never succumb to the ‘Grand Design’. Hence, they must be destroyed.

What does this metaphysical history mean? It means that Iran is preparing for war, not for a ‘deal’. Mohsen Rezaei, Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council and personal representative of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei, stated that,

“If the question is whether Iran still has the ability to continue missile and drone operations [in the event of an attack], the answer is ‘yes’ … The United States has valuable assets in the region. In the event of war, cables, data centres and artificial intelligence facilities could also come within range. If the conflict begins again, we will have a broader plan”.

      “Everyone must understand that action against Iran carries a cost”.

Senior Iranian officials believe that war is coming. Iran has extensive plans (in the event of an attack) that encompasses Saudi Arabia and its leadership, too, a senior Iranian hinted. Karl Miller (from the field) states that in this respect, already a quarter of Saudi oil production has been destroyed and that the damage as a result of AnsarAllah’s retaliatory attacks runs through the whole Saudi production chain – ‘from wellhead to the gas station’ – and that Saudi Arabia has been covering the gap by draining their tanks.

Miller’s report, quoted by Larry Johnson, warns that,

“if Saudi Arabia’s export outlets close, its oil has nowhere to go but to its own refineries, its own power plants and its storage tanks. Once the storage is full, that is roughly the ceiling on what Saudi Arabia could keep producing. Close Ras Tanura and Yanbu at the same time, and the Kingdom would have to shut in most of its oil fields. That is exactly the scenario Ansar Allah’s campaign against the pipeline, the Red Sea and the Gulf terminals, is built to produce”.

“Any new American or Israeli campaign against Iran will land on a Saudi energy system that has no slack left to absorb it”, Larry Johnson observes.

Any new attack on Iran, by extension, will mean the end to the Gulf as we know it, an end to the petrodollar, and an end to the Gulf as the primary supplier of hard cash to Wall Street and the Tech world.

Nonetheless, Trump reportedly has said that the U.S. is not currently negotiating with Iran, and something will happen “fairly soon”.

Maybe. (But with Trump everything distils into speculation). But if he is bluffing, it won’t work, and his humiliation will be all the deeper.

One man who knows Trump better than most (having authored four books on him), Michael Wolff, opines that if the Democrats win in the 3 November midterms –

“They will be trying to impress upon the world that it is ‘a new day’. Trump, for his part, will be trying to impress upon the world that he still controls the stage. There will be a series of these kinds of things (such as a putative invasion of Cuba, for example) greater than anything we may have imagined. He will not be humbled. The idea of humility does not exist in Donald Trump’s soul. Therefore he will do – the opposite”.

“Not retreat but attack”.

L’Iran e la Russia, entrambi sottoposti a sanzioni che li stanno portando alla rovina, sono davvero più allineati che mai e coordinano ogni cosa su un fronte comune.

Segue nostro Telegram.

Washington, sul fronte ucraino, potrebbe passare alla modalità “salvare la faccia” a tutti i costi. Dopotutto, la portata della sconfitta strategica subita dall’Impero e dall’Occidente allo sbando nel Paese 404 è sbalorditiva. A ciò si aggiunga la sconfitta strategica in Iran, oltre allo Yemen che martella senza tregua la Casa dei Saud. Il Gran Maestro Lavrov l’ha definita così: «L’Occidente non sarà mai più l’attore principale, a dettare le condizioni».La tentazione potrebbe essere forte di individuare un percorso più diretto verso un ordine mondiale multinodale e policentrico – sulla scia di tutte quelle concessioni sfrenate e senza precedenti di Trump a Mosca. Ma poi le vere nuvole nere continuano ad addensarsi.Il culto della morte nell’Asia occidentale e il «Sindacato di Epstein» nel suo complesso sono riusciti a sopraffare l’intera massa dei neoconservatori russofobi sparsi in tutto il MICIMATT (complesso militare/industriale/congressuale/di intelligence/mediatico/accademico/dei think tank, secondo la memorabile definizione di Ray McGovern) e a ricostituire l’Iran come l’indiscutibile e unica emergenza di sicurezza nazionale.Il piano in 7 punti o nienteIl viaggio affrettato e organizzato all’ultimo minuto del feldmaresciallo Asim Munir da Islamabad a Teheran all’inizio di questa settimana, alla fine, non ha potuto mediare nulla.Munir ha incontrato tutte le figure di rilievo. Ha chiesto senza mezzi termini al presidente del Parlamento Ghalibaf: cosa occorre per trovare una soluzione all’impasse tra Iran e Stati Uniti? Ghalibaf è stato schietto – e lo ha ribadito almeno otto volte nel corso del loro incontro: Washington deve attuare le condizioni in sette punti dell’Iran, che costituiscono essenzialmente una sintesi del memorandum d’intesa (MoU) ripetutamente fallito, che Trump aveva firmato per poi distruggerlo.I sette punti erano stati proposti per la prima volta a Tweedledum e Tweedledee – Witkoff e Kushner – tramite i qatarioti in un precedente ciclo di negoziati indiretti tra Iran e Stati Uniti.Il presidente Pezeshkian e il segretario del Consiglio Supremo di Sicurezza Nazionale (SNSC) Mohsen Rezaee, nei loro incontri, hanno sottolineato esattamente la stessa cosa. Questo è il messaggio che Munir dovrebbe trasmettere al «sociopatico in capo».Le fonti ufficiali iraniane non lo confermeranno; solo la versione americana, pesantemente manipolata. Ma Munir potrebbe aver portato un ultimatum finale degli Stati Uniti a Rezaee, Pezeshkian e Ghalibaf: abbandonate il vostro programma nucleare, oppure andrete incontro a massicci attacchi, mirati principalmente a Pickaxe Mountain.Oltre ai 7 punti, Mohsen Rezaee ha infatti comunicato nuovamente a Munir – e quindi alla Casa Bianca – che nemmeno un granello di polvere nucleare lascerà l’Iran. Si torna così all’unica possibilità di un ritorno ai negoziati: Washington deve accettare i 7 punti.Il ministro degli Esteri Araghchi continua a ribadire l’essenziale: «Gli Stati Uniti non sono riusciti a raggiungere nessuno dei loro obiettivi di guerra». La catena di nessi è quindi ineludibile: nessuna vittoria militare (e nessun cambio di regime); costi economici insostenibili; situazione politica insostenibile; pertanto l’unica via d’uscita sono i 7 punti.E, come se non bastasse, Teheran fa scorrere il tempo.Parallelamente, nel contesto dell’operazione «Yemeni Storm», anche Sana’a tiene il tempo.Con Aramco, linfa vitale degli Stati Uniti, di Israele e dei sicari salafiti-jihadisti sul modello dell’ISIS, nonché fonte privilegiata di finanziamento per le «guerre infinite», ora nella linea di fuoco diretta di Ansarallah, l’obiettivo yemenita è quello di adoperarsi «per prosciugare le fonti del terrorismo».

Riad, tuttavia, sta raddoppiando la posta in gioco, minacciando di bombardare ogni raduno delle tribù yemenite. Se ciò dovesse accadere, oltre un milione di yemeniti in più si uniranno alle Forze Armate yemenite e marceranno verso il confine yemenito-saudita.

Dopotutto, le tribù, ben addestrate e dotate di armamenti all’avanguardia, stanno solo aspettando un ordine dal leader di Ansarallah, Abdul-Malik Badr al-Din al-Houthi, per riversarsi nell’Arabia «saudita» meridionale e recuperare le tre province – Najran, Jizan e Asir – che sono terre ancestrali yemenite sottratte dagli inglesi nel 1934.

Un prezzo che non potete permettervi di pagare

Potrebbe scatenarsi il finimondo: ora; a breve; o al più tardi entro la fine di novembre. Se dovesse accadere prima, prima delle elezioni israeliane, è certo che a guidare il tutto sarà il culto della morte. Il sociopatico in capo privilegia un attacco dopo le elezioni di medio termine.

Il «culto della morte» sta preparando un attacco su vasta scala contro centrali elettriche, infrastrutture petrolifere, obiettivi militari e impianti nucleari iraniani. Teheran ha ripetutamente avvertito che qualsiasi attacco, congiunto o separato, da parte degli Stati Uniti e di Israele, sarà considerato una «Totalen Krieg», una guerra totale, e la risposta supererà ogni limite o moderazione.

I servizi segreti interni iraniani sono interamente concentrati su uno scenario di bombardamenti su larga scala che si verificherà prima di martedì prossimo, giorno delle elezioni nel «culto della morte».

Qualunque cosa accada, la risposta di Teheran garantirà che il prezzo da pagare sia ben oltre ogni limite. Per quanto riguarda Israele, l’Iran sferrerà un contrattacco contro entrambe le raffinerie israeliane; i porti di Haifa e Ashdod; tutte le basi aeree; e Dimona sarà aggiunta solo se i siti nucleari iraniani dovessero essere colpiti.

In caso di attacco da parte degli Stati Uniti, qualsiasi monarchia petrolifera del Golfo che ospiti un punto di lancio diventerà immediatamente un bersaglio legittimo, comprese le reti elettriche, gli impianti di desalinizzazione, le raffinerie, i porti, i centri dati, i quartier generali e le installazioni delle aziende americane.

Lo Stretto di Hormuz verrebbe completamente chiuso. Il prezzo del barile di petrolio schizzerà alle stelle. L’economia globale entrerà in una Grande Depressione. Da un punto di vista imperiale, ciò sarebbe altrettanto desolante quanto il fatto che Washington lasci all’Iran la gestione dello Stretto di Ormuz e la riscossione dei diritti di transito: in realtà, la fine umiliante della talassocrazia unilaterale – con la Quinta Flotta degli Stati Uniti costretta a chiedere il permesso per entrare o uscire dalla propria base fatiscente in Bahrein.

Mohammad Mokhber, uno dei principali consiglieri della Guida Mojtaba Khamenei, ha sottolineato che «se gli Stati Uniti e Israele colpiranno le nostre infrastrutture petrolchimiche o le nostre centrali elettriche, l’Iran colpirà nove paesi».

Inoltre, l’agenzia di stampa Fars, molto vicina al Corpo delle Guardie Rivoluzionarie Islamiche (IRGC), è venuta a conoscenza di una serie di nuove direttive: qualora gli attacchi comportassero l’assassinio di funzionari iraniani e l’uccisione di civili, la risposta iraniana includerà obiettivi politici associati agli Stati Uniti e a tutte le nazioni partecipanti alla guerra, oltre alle loro infrastrutture.

Lavrov e Araghchi rilanciano il RIC

In mezzo a tanto orrore, cerchiamo di sottolineare almeno una tendenza positiva. Durante la recente visita di Lavrov a Teheran, il ministro degli Esteri iraniano Araghchi è andato dritto al sodo:

«Mai nella nostra storia la Russia e l’Iran hanno collaborato così strettamente come ora».

Il concetto chiave è «mai nella nostra storia». Lavrov e Araghchi hanno discusso di «tutto, dall’Europa all’Asia occidentale». Ma in particolare di questi quattro temi: Libano, Palestina, Ucraina e Yemen. Per non parlare di tutto ciò che riguarda l’ampliamento della cooperazione economica e «nucleare».

Per cooperazione economica si intende in particolare l’INSTC – il Corridoio Internazionale di Trasporto Nord-Sud che collega tre partner dei BRICS e della SCO: Russia, Iran e India.

Si veda il mio documentario sull’INSTC girato in Iran lo scorso anno.

L’Impero del Caos fa affidamento su sanzioni, minacce e bombardamenti. L’integrazione eurasiatica si basa sulla costruzione di infrastrutture, sull’incremento degli scambi commerciali e sulla cooperazione sovrana. Pertanto, Lavrov e Araghchi hanno dovuto ancora una volta rilanciare il RIC: l’originario collegamento Russia/India/Cina, inizialmente concepito come «Triangolo di Primakov», ma ora con l’Iran al posto dell’India.

Lavrov ha proposto che il nuovo RIC istituisca una «struttura di sicurezza comune» nel Golfo Persico attraverso un vertice trilaterale. Ciò equivale a definire, nell’ambito del RIC, un quadro unificato per lo Stretto di Hormuz.

La risposta dell’Impero sarà un’ulteriore disorientazione. Poiché, ancora una volta, si tratta dell’«indivisibilità della sicurezza» – come quando la Russia l’ha proposta agli Stati Uniti e alla NATO nel dicembre 2021. Allora ciò fu accolto con una risposta che equivaleva a una mancata risposta.

Per quanto riguarda il Libano, la Palestina, l’Ucraina e lo Yemen, Lavrov e Araghchi erano in prima linea. Da un lato abbiamo l’Impero del Caos e i suoi alleati/vassalli, dall’altro la Russia e gli alleati dell’Iran.

È tutto interconnesso, naturalmente. Un arco imperiale di pressione militare si estende dall’Ucraina allo Yemen. La risposta ruota attorno a come coordinare la resistenza (corsivo mio) a tale pressione.

Per quanto riguarda la cooperazione economica, sia l’Iran che la Russia sono sottoposti a un vero e proprio tsunami di sanzioni. Le loro banche sono state espulse dal sistema SWIFT e le esportazioni di petrolio sono severamente limitate. Pertanto, il commercio tra i due Paesi deve aggirare il dollaro statunitense, l’intero sistema finanziario occidentale e la talassocrazia imposta dalla Marina degli Stati Uniti.

Il know-how necessario per aggirare le sanzioni è qualcosa che l’Iran e la Russia potrebbero condividere con l’intero Sud del mondo, attraverso pagamenti in valute locali, il baratto, i corridoi terrestri, l’INSTC e il commercio attraverso il Mar Caspio.

E questo ci riporta ancora una volta allo Stretto di Ormuz – che l’Iran controlla. Le petro-monarchie del Golfo stanno andando completamente nel panico. La Russia mantiene solidi canali di comunicazione sia con l’Iran che con il Golfo. Lavrov è in perfetta sintonia con tutti loro. Ha portato le preoccupazioni del Golfo a Teheran e, a sua volta, ha trasmesso le condizioni di Teheran al Golfo.

Lavrov ha sottolineato che il Memorandum d’intesa di Islamabad, più volte dichiarato «morto», è l’unica via da seguire. Esattamente ciò che Xi ha detto a Trump nello Studio Ovale. Esattamente ciò che la leadership iraniana ha detto ad Asim Munir a Teheran.

Ha inoltre sottolineato che le petro-monarchie del Golfo Persico devono darsi una regolata e avviare un serio dialogo sulla sicurezza con l’Iran e le nazioni arabe, compresi i paesi confinanti come l’Iraq e la Giordania, coinvolgendo la Lega Araba, l’Organizzazione per la Cooperazione Islamica (OIC) e i membri permanenti del Consiglio di Sicurezza delle Nazioni Unite.

Ancora una volta: l’indivisibilità della sicurezza.

L’Iran e la Russia, entrambi sottoposti a sanzioni fino all’oblio, sono infatti in sintonia come mai prima d’ora, coordinando ogni cosa su un fronte comune – mentre il disperato «Sindacato di Epstein» rimane intrappolato nel proprio incubo di una «guerra eterna» da lui stesso architettato.

'There will be no more red lines' if the Islamic Republic is attacked, one official warns, telling US not to 'play with fire'

Iran and Russia, both sanctioned to oblivion, are indeed in synch like never before, coordinating everything on a shared front.

Join us on Telegram, X, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

Washington, on the Ukraine front, may be switching to total Saving Face mode. After all, the scale of the strategic defeat for the Empire plus the discombobulated West in country 404 is staggering. Add to it the strategic defeat in Iran plus Yemen relentlessly hammering the House of Saud. Grandmaster Lavrov coined it: “The West will never again be the main player, dictating terms.”

The temptation may be great to identify a more straightforward path towards a multi-nodal, polycentric world order – in the wake of all those wild, unprecedented Trump concessions to Moscow. But then the real dark clouds keep coming down.

The death cult in West Asia and the Epstein Syndicate as a whole have managed to overpower the whole mass of neo-con Russophobes spread across the MICIMATT (military/industrial/congressional/intelligence/media/academia/think tank complex, in the memorable definition by Ray McGovern) and reconstitute Iran as the undisputable, one and only national security emergency.

The 7-point way or the highway

Field Marshal Asim Munir’s hasty, last minute-arranged trip from Islamabad to Tehran earlier this week in the end could not possibly mediate anything.

Munir met everyone who matters. He asked Parliament Speaker Ghalibaf point blank: what does it take to find a solution for the Iran-U.S. impasse? Ghalibaf was blunt – and repeated it at last 8 times during their meeting: Washington must implement Iran’s 7-point conditions, essentially a summary of the serially dead cat memorandum of understanding (MoU), which Trump signed and then destroyed.

The 7 points were first proposed to Tweedledum and Twedledee – Witkoff and Kushner – via the Qataris in a previous round of Iran-U.S. indirect negotiations.

President Pezeshkian and secretary of the Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) Mohsen Rezaee, in their meetings, stressed the exact same thing. That’s the message Munir should relay to the Sociopath-in-Chief.

Official Iranian sources will not confirm it; only the heavily-spun American version. But Munir may have carried a final U.S. ultimatum to Rezaee, Pezeshkian and Ghalibaf: ditch your nuclear program, or face massive strikes, mostly targeting Pickaxe Mountain.

Adding on the 7 points, Mohsen Rezaee actually informed Munir – and thus the White House – again, that not a single speck of nuclear dust will leave Iran. Back to the only possibility of a return to negotiations: Washington must accept the 7 points.

Foreign Minister Araghchi keeps coming back to the essentials: “The U.S. has failed to achieve any of its war objectives.” So the connectivity chain is inescapable: no military victory (and no regime change); unbearable economic costs; untainable political situation; thus only off-ramp is the 7 points.

And on top of it Tehran runs the clock.

In parallel, across the Yemeni Storm, Sana’a also runs the clock.

With Aramco, the lifeblood of U.S., Israel and Salafi-jihadi goons of the ISIS mould, and a privileged source of funding for the Forever Wars, now in Ansarallah’s direct line of fire, the Yemeni drive is to work “to dry up the sources of terrorism.”

Riyadh though is doubling down, threatening to bomb every gathering of Yemeni tribes. If that happens, more than a million more Yemenis will join the Yemeni Armed Forces and march to the Yemeni-Saudi border.

After all the tribes, well-trained and ultra-weaponized, are just waiting for a directive from Ansarallah’s leader, Abdul-Malik Badr al-Din al-Houthi, to pour into southern “Saudi” Arabia and recover the three provinces, Najran, Jizan and Asir, that are ancestral Yemeni lands stolen by the Brits in 1934.

A price you can’t afford to pay

All hell may break loose: now; soon; or until the end of November at the latest. Were it to happen sooner, before the Israeli elections, it’s a done deal the driver is the death cult. The Sociopath-in-Chief privileges a post-mid-terms attack.

The death cult is preparing a massive attack on Iranian power plants, oil infrastructure, military targets and nuclear installations. Tehran has repeatedly warned that any attack, joint or separate, from the U.S. and Israel, will be treated as Totalen Krieg, all-out war, and the response will break any limits or restraint.

Iran’s internal intel is fully concentrated on a large-scale bombing scenario happening before next Tuesday, Election Day in the death cult.

Whatever happens, Tehran’s response will make sure the price to pay is beyond prohibitive. On Israel, Iran will counterpunch on both of Israel’s refineries; the ports at Haifa and Ashdod; all airbases; and Dimona added only if Iran’s own nuclear sites are hit.

When it comes to a U.S. attack, any Gulf petro-monarchy that hosts any launch instantly becomes a legitimate target, including power grids; desalination plants; refineries; ports; data centers; HQs and installations of American companies.

The Strait of Hormuz would be completely closed. The price of a barrel of oil will skyrocket. The global economy will hit Big Depression. From an imperial point of view, that will be as gloomy as Washington letting Iran manage the Strait of Hormuz and charge fees for transit: actually the humiliating end of unilateral thalassocracy – complete with the U.S. Fifth Fleet needing to ask permission to enter or leave its own dilapidated base in Bahrain.

Mohammad Mokhber, a top adviser to Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, stressed that “if the U.S.-Israel strike our petrochemical infrastructure or power plants, Iran will strike nine countries.”

Moreover, the Fars news agency, very close to the IRGC, learned about an array of new directives: if the attacks involve the assassination of Iranian officials and the killing of civilians, the Iranian response will include political targets associated with the U.S. and all nations participating in the war, in addition to their infrastructure.

Lavrov and Araghchi revive RIC

Amidst so much horror, let’s try to stress at least one auspicious trend. During Lavrov’s recent visit to Tehran, Iranian FM Araghchi cut to the chase:

“Never in our History have Russia & Iran worked as closely as now.”

The key operative concept is “Never in our History”. Lavrov and Araghchi talked about “everything from Europe to West Asia”. But specially these four: Lebanon, Palestine, Ukraine & Yemen. Not to mention everything about expanded economic and “nuclear cooperation”.

Economic cooperation means specially the INSTC – the International North South Transportation Corridor linking 3 BRICS/SCO partners: Russia, Iran and India.

See my INSTC documentary shot in Iran last year.

The Empire of Chaos relies on sanctions, threats and bombing. Eurasia integration relies on building infrastructure, increasing trade, and sovereign cooperation. So Lavrov and Araghchi once again had to revive RIC: the original Russia/India/China connection first conceptualized as the Primakov Triangle but now with Iran in place of India.

Lavrov proposed that the new RIC establish a “common security structure” in the Persian Gulf via a trilateral summit. That amounts to RIC defining a unified framework for the Strait of Hormuz.

The Empire’s response will be increased discombobulation. Because once again this is about “indivisibility of security” – as in Russia proposing it to the U.S. and NATO in December 2021. Then that was met with a non-response response.

On Lebanon, Palestine, Ukraine and Yemen, Lavrov and Araghchi were on top of the top frontlines. Where we have the Empire of Chaos and its allies/vassals on one side, and Russia and Iran’s allies on the other side.

It’s all interconnected, of course. An imperial arc of military pressure stretches from Ukraine to Yemen. The counterpunch revolves around how to coordinate the resistance (italics mine) to such pressure.

On economic cooperation, both Iran and Russia are under a tsunami of sanctions. Their banks are expelled from SWIFT, and oil exports are severely restricted. So trade between them must bypass the U.S. dollar; the whole Western financial system; and the thalassocracy enforced by the U.S. Navy.

Know how in bypassing sanctions is something Iran-Russia may share with the whole Global South, via settlements in local currencies; barter trade; overland corridors; the INSTC; and trade across the Caspian Sea.

And that brings us once again to the Strait of Hormuz – which Iran controls. The Gulf petro-monarchies are completely freaking out. Russia maintains solid channels with both Iran and the Gulf. Lavrov is in total synch with all of them. He brought the Gulf’s concerns to Tehran, and in turn, conveyed Tehran’s conditions back to the Gulf.

Lavrov stressed that the serially dead cat Islamabad MoU is the only way to go. Exactly what Xi told Trump at the Oval Office. Exactly what the Iranian leadership told Asim Munir in Tehran.

He also stressed that the Persian Gulf petro-monarchies must get their act together and start a serious security dialogue with Iran and Arab nations, including neighbors such as Iraq and Jordan, and involve the Arab League, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), and the permanent members of the UN Security Council.

Once again: indivisibility of security.

Iran and Russia, both sanctioned to oblivion, are indeed in synch like never before, coordinating everything on a shared front – while the desperate Epstein Syndicate remains stuck in its self-concocted Forever War nightmare.

For weeks, the Iran-backed Houthis have been attacking the kingdom’s aviation and energy sectors.

© Afzal Khan/Alamy

Hamas mudou completamente o mapa do Oriente Médio, impediu a causa palestina de cair no esquecimento e dificultou a normalização de relações entre Israel e os países muçulmanos.

Junte-se a nós no Telegram , X e VK.

Escreva para nós: info@strategic-culture.su

Em 7 de outubro de 2023 iniciou-se, a partir de Gaza, uma memorável operação militar, na qual aproximadamente 4 mil homens armados das unidades de elite dos vários movimentos da resistência palestina local (Jihad Islâmica Palestina, FPLP, FDLP, Comitês de Resistência Popular, etc., liderados pelo Hamas) lançaram-se como um copo transbordando sobre os assentamentos sionistas dos arredores.

A ação era, simultaneamente, resposta à intensificação das expropriações de famílias palestinas na Cisjordânia, à pressão crescente sobre a Mesquita Al-Aqsa e à política de apaziguamento dos países árabes, e visava através da captura de militares (ativos e reservas) israelenses forçar a entidade sionista a uma guerra de atrito que pudesse conduzir a um desgaste significativo de Israel, internamente e externamente, e a uma reproposição da questão do Estado Palestino.

Ao que tudo indica, uma das expectativas da liderança do Hamas era de que o Hezbollah e o Irã e, talvez, as organizações militares da Cisjordânia se engajariam, também, brevemente e de forma sustentada, no conflito com Israel. Por uma série de motivos – totalmente diferentes para cada um dos atores – isso não aconteceu, exceto no caso do Hezbollah, e de forma limitada até a invasão terrestre do Líbano e, no caso do Irã, também de forma limitada durante a Guerra dos 12 Dias.

O evento levou a transformações cataclísmicas no Oriente Médio que podemos já descrever e a um panorama que, talvez, seja desconcertante para muitos que previram um cenário de vitória total sionista.

Não é nossa pretensão fazer uma descrição minuciosa dos processos que foram iniciados a partir da Guerra de Gaza, de modo que apenas tentaremos resumir cada um dos cenários em seus principais eventos e panorama atual.

Quanto à Gaza em si, a sua população foi vítima de limpeza étnica. Os números de mortes, se somarmos todas as causas, talvez chegue a 200 mil, ou seja, 10% da população a Faixa de Gaza. Uma parte significativa da liderança do Hamas, por sua vez, foi assassinada durante a guerra. Israel, porém, foi derrotada no conflito, considerando que não conseguiu alcançar os seus objetivos de destruir o Hamas, ocupar permanentemente toda a Faixa de Gaza e deslocar a população palestina. Os danos materiais e sociais para Israel, por sua vez, foram imensos. 60 bilhões de dólares em perdas econômicas gerais, aumento das tensões sociais internas e destruição total – talvez irreversível – da imagem internacional de Israel. Ademais, incapaz de derrotar o Hamas, Israel foi obrigada a aceitar um acordo de paz imposto pelos EUA. Enquanto isso, o Hamas segue com aproximadamente 12 mil soldados ativos e mais 15 mil recrutas jovens em treinamento, de modo que em breve retornará a aproximadamente o mesmo nível de força que antes de 7 de outubro de 2023.

Na frente libanesa, o conflito levou ao deslocamento de mais de 1 milhão de libaneses de suas casas, ao assassinato de Hassan Nasrallah, líder do Hezbollah, e de alguns outros líderes do movimento, à desestabilização política do Líbano, e envolveu a invasão por terra do país por parte do Estado de Israel, que, porém, não conseguiu também alcançar seus objetivos de forçar o governo libanês a desarmar o Hezbollah. O Hezbollah, por sua vez, que foi degradado de forma significativa entre 2023 e 2024 por tentar operar como forças armadas regulares, retornou à guerra de insurgência e com o aumento no uso de drones e novas ferramentas tecnológicas, bloqueou o avanço de Israel em 2026.

Quanto à Síria, testemunhamos o colapso do governo de Bashar Al-Assad e a tomada do país pelas milícias terroristas ligadas à Al-Qaeda, ao ISIS e outros grupos extremistas, os quais levaram à presidência Ahmed Sharrah. Israel se aproveitou do momento para destruir a maior parte do hardware militar sírio e ocupar uma faixa de segurança no entorno das Colinas de Golã, estabelecendo uma tênue aliança com as tribos e milícias druzas da região. A Queda de Assad impôs dificuldade para a logística do Hezbollah, que contava com a Síria para o trânsito de equipamento vindo do Irã. Se Israel esperava ter passagem livre pela Síria, porém, a situação é tornada mais complexa pelo fato de que a região é disputada, enquanto área de influência, com a Turquia, de modo que as tensões entre ambos países segue aumentando.

Os cenários palestino, libanês e sírio permitiam dizer, no início de 2025, por exemplo, que Israel estaria avançando significativamente em seus objetivos delineados no Plano Oded Yinon de desestabilizar e fragmentar os países vizinhos para facilitar a construção da Grande Israel. Teríamos aqui, naquele momento, a derrocada da estratégia do Crescente Xiita e do projeto geopolítico de Qassem Soleimani. Quando acrescentamos os cenários iraquiano e iraniano, bem como o contexto geral do Oriente Médio, a situação muda significativamente.

Porque no espaço entre a Guerra dos 12 Dias e a Guerra do Irã vimos o colapso do poder regional dos EUA no Oriente Médio, a ascensão do Irã a principal pretendente à hegemonia regional e o recuo de Israel para uma posição mais defensiva e de retaguarda.

Sinais de que o projeto israelense era mais frágil do que parecia à primeira vista apareceram já no conflito com o Irã em 2025. Incapaz de derrotar o Irã, que fustigava as defesas e infraestruturas israelenses com enxames de drones e mísseis, Israel teve que apelar por ajuda aos EUA, que realizaram um ataque aéreo majoritariamente simbólico contra instalações nucleares vazias no Irã. Isso não passou despercebido.

A nova rodada de conflito em 2026, iniciando-se no final de fevereiro, apesar de iniciar com o assassinato do Aiatolá Ali Khamenei, levou à eliminação de boa parte das bases dos EUA no Oriente Médio, ao bloqueio do Estreito de Ormuz, à destruição das capacidades antiaéreas israelenses, à evacuação das tropas estadunidenses no Iraque e à destruição do mito da superioridade militar incontestável dos EUA.

De fato, a incapacidade dos EUA de alcançar seus objetivos políticos militarmente no Oriente Médio (após o fracasso da tentativa de revolução colorida de janeiro), mesmo usando 2 porta-aviões (1 dos quais pode ter sido seriamente danificado nas operações), sua incapacidade de proteger seus aliados árabes, a própria incapacidade dos aliados árabes de defenderem a si mesmos, o esgotamento parcial dos estoques de mísseis dos inimigos do Irã, e a capacidade iraniana de rapidamente repor sua liderança e de agir militarmente de forma descentralizada, bem como sua demonstração de que sua capacidade industrial-militar permanecia ativa, mudaram o mapa geopolítico no Oriente Médio.

Em alguma medida, hoje, é o Irã quem dá as cartas. A evacuação do Iraque pelos EUA reabre o país para a penetração da influência iraniana, o que põe em risco até mesmo o domínio da Síria por Ahmed Sharrah.

Para contornar o controle iraniano de Ormuz, os sauditas têm experimentado com usar o Mar Vermelho e rotas terrestres. Se esses esforços fossem bem-sucedidos, a importância de Ormuz diminuiria e, com isso, o poder de barganha do Irã. O problema é que, exatamente quando isso começou a acontecer, o Ansarullah iemenita entrou no tabuleiro, iniciando uma operação militar em larga escala para derrotar os rebeldes apoiados por Riad. A resposta saudita aos avanços houthis levou ao fechamento parcial do Estreito de Bab-el-Mandeb e a ataques não apenas contra as instalações da ARAMCO, mas até mesmo contra poços de petróleo sauditas.

Se retornamos ao panorama geopolítico israelense, enfim, o país se encontra ainda com um problema palestino em Gaza, o Hezbollah ativo no Líbano, sem poder avançar na Síria por causa da ameaça turca e com suas capacidades militares defensivas bastante reduzidas.

Longe da “Pax Judaica” e da “Grande Israel” estamos vendo o reposicionamento dos atores geopolíticos e o ator na posição mais vantajosa é, hoje, o Irã. As negociações recentes entre Israel e os países árabes sunitas não muda significativamente o cenário.

3 anos depois da Operação Dilúvio Al-Aqsa, portanto, não nos é possível dizer se os objetivos de Ismail Hanyeh e Yahya Sinwar foram alcançados, mas é impossível negar que a ousadia do Hamas mudou completamente o mapa do Oriente Médio, impediu a causa palestina de cair no esquecimento e dificultou a normalização de relações entre Israel e os países muçulmanos.

Saudi Arabia is looking at ways to expand its oil pipeline capacity to destinations outside the Persian Gulf to 10 million barrels a day within two to three years, said Energy Minister Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

On October 7, 2023, a memorable military operation began from Gaza, in which approximately 4,000 armed men from the elite units of the various local Palestinian resistance movements (Palestinian Islamic Jihad, PFLP, DFLP, Popular Resistance Committees, etc., led by Hamas) poured like an overflowing glass over the Zionist settlements in the surrounding areas.

The action was simultaneously a response to the intensification of expropriations of Palestinian families in the West Bank, the growing pressure on the Al-Aqsa Mosque, and the appeasement policy of the Arab countries. It aimed, through the capture of Israeli military personnel (active and reservists), to force the Zionist entity into a war of attrition that could lead to significant exhaustion of Israel, internally and externally, and to a reassertion of the Palestinian State question.

Apparently, one of the expectations of the Hamas leadership was that Hezbollah and Iran, and perhaps the military organizations of the West Bank, would also engage, briefly and sustainably, in the conflict with Israel. For a series of reasons – entirely different for each of the actors – this did not happen, except in the case of Hezbollah, and only in a limited way until the ground invasion of Lebanon, and in the case of Iran, also in a limited way during the 12-Day War.

The event led to cataclysmic transformations in the Middle East that we can already describe, and to a panorama that may be disconcerting for many who predicted a scenario of total Zionist victory.

It is not our intention to provide a detailed description of the processes that were initiated by the Gaza War, so we will only attempt to summarize each of the scenarios in their main events and current panorama.

As for Gaza itself, its population was the victim of ethnic cleansing. The death toll, if we add all causes, may reach 200,000, that is, 10% of the population of the Gaza Strip. A significant part of the Hamas leadership, in turn, was assassinated during the war. Israel, however, was defeated in the conflict, considering that it failed to achieve its objectives of destroying Hamas, permanently occupying the entire Gaza Strip, and displacing the Palestinian population. The material and social damage to Israel, in turn, was immense. 60 billion dollars in general economic losses, increased internal social tensions, and total – perhaps irreversible – destruction of Israel’s international image. Furthermore, unable to defeat Hamas, Israel was forced to accept a peace agreement imposed by the US. Meanwhile, Hamas continues with approximately 12,000 active fighters and another 15,000 young recruits in training, so that it will soon return to approximately the same level of strength as before October 7, 2023.

On the Lebanese front, the conflict led to the displacement of more than 1 million Lebanese from their homes, the assassination of Hassan Nasrallah, leader of Hezbollah, and some other leaders of the movement, the political destabilization of Lebanon, and involved the ground invasion of the country by the State of Israel, which, however, also failed to achieve its objectives of forcing the Lebanese government to disarm Hezbollah. Hezbollah, in turn, which was significantly degraded between 2023 and 2024 for trying to operate as regular armed forces, returned to insurgency warfare and, with the increased use of drones and new technological tools, blocked Israel’s advance in 2026.

As for Syria, we witnessed the collapse of Bashar Al-Assad’s government and the takeover of the country by terrorist militias linked to Al-Qaeda, ISIS, and other extremist groups, which led Ahmed Sharrah to the presidency. Israel took advantage of the moment to destroy most of Syria’s military hardware and occupy a security belt around the Golan Heights, establishing a tenuous alliance with the Druze tribes and militias of the region. The fall of Assad imposed difficulties on Hezbollah’s logistics, which relied on Syria for the transit of equipment coming from Iran. If Israel expected free passage through Syria, however, the situation is made more complex by the fact that the region is disputed, as an area of influence, with Turkey, so that tensions between both countries continue to increase.

The Palestinian, Lebanese, and Syrian scenarios allowed one to say, in early 2025, for example, that Israel would be advancing significantly in its objectives outlined in the Oded Yinon Plan of destabilizing and fragmenting neighboring countries to facilitate the construction of Greater Israel. We would have here, at that moment, the collapse of the Shiite Crescent strategy and of Qassem Soleimani’s geopolitical project. When we add the Iraqi and Iranian scenarios, as well as the general context of the Middle East, the situation changes significantly.

Because in the space between the 12-Day War and the Iran War, we saw the collapse of US regional power in the Middle East, the rise of Iran as the main contender for regional hegemony, and Israel’s retreat to a more defensive and rear-guard position.

Signs that the Israeli project was more fragile than it seemed at first glance appeared already in the conflict with Iran in 2025. Unable to defeat Iran, which was pounding Israeli defenses and infrastructure with swarms of drones and missiles, Israel had to appeal for help from the US, which carried out a largely symbolic airstrike against empty nuclear facilities in Iran. This did not go unnoticed.

The new round of conflict in 2026, beginning at the end of February, despite starting with the assassination of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, led to the elimination of a good part of US bases in the Middle East, the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, the destruction of Israeli air defense capabilities, the evacuation of US troops in Iraq, and the destruction of the myth of the US’s incontestable military superiority.

In fact, the inability of the US to achieve its political objectives militarily in the Middle East (after the failure of the January color revolution attempt), even using 2 aircraft carriers (1 of which may have been seriously damaged in operations), its inability to protect its Arab allies, the Arab allies’ own inability to defend themselves, the partial depletion of the missile stockpiles of Iran’s enemies, and Iran’s capacity to quickly replenish its leadership and to act militarily in a decentralized manner, as well as its demonstration that its industrial-military capacity remained active, changed the geopolitical map in the Middle East.

To some extent, today, it is Iran that calls the shots. The evacuation of Iraq by the US reopens the country to the penetration of Iranian influence, which puts at risk even Ahmed Sharrah’s domination of Syria.

To circumvent Iranian control of Hormuz, the Saudis have been experimenting with using the Red Sea and land routes. If these efforts were successful, the importance of Hormuz would diminish and, with it, Iran’s bargaining power. The problem is that, exactly when this began to happen, the Yemeni Ansarullah entered the board, initiating a large-scale military operation to defeat the rebels supported by Riyadh. The Saudi response to the Houthi advances led to the partial closure of the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait and attacks not only against ARAMCO facilities, but even against Saudi oil wells.

If we return to the Israeli geopolitical panorama, finally, the country still finds itself with a Palestinian problem in Gaza, Hezbollah active in Lebanon, unable to advance in Syria because of the Turkish threat, and with its defensive military capabilities considerably reduced.

Far from the “Pax Judaica” and “Greater Israel,” we are seeing the repositioning of geopolitical actors, and the actor in the most advantageous position is, today, Iran. The recent negotiations between Israel and the Sunni Arab countries do not significantly change the scenario.

3 years after Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, therefore, it is not possible for us to say whether the objectives of Ismail Hanyeh and Yahya Sinwar were achieved, but it is impossible to deny that Hamas’s boldness completely changed the map of the Middle East, prevented the Palestinian cause from falling into oblivion, and hindered the normalization of relations between Israel and Muslim countries.

Attacks on tankers sailing through the Strait of Hormuz hit their highest last week of any week since the Iran war began, according to maritime security sources tracking incidents, amid a bigger export push by Gulf producers.

On Sunday, NBC News reported that Marines were injured during an Iranian cruise missile attack while transiting the Strait of Hormuz on Sept. 14. The network’s sources said the Marines were not on a U.S. Navy ship, but they did not identify which vessel they were on. However, a former Royal Mail vessel that at one point was being converted into a floating armory stands out as a strong possibility.

While much remains unclear about the Sept. 14 incident, there was only one vessel known to have been struck that day, according to the United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO) and a maritime security official we spoke with. The ship was eventually identified by several maritime media outlets as the M/V St. Helena. Again, the St. Helena’s involvement remains unconfirmed, but the ship’s interesting background is of particular note.

“Eight U.S. Marines were injured two weeks ago when an Iranian cruise missile attacked the ship they were operating on in the Strait of Hormuz,” NBC reported, citing three U.S. officials. “The Marines were not seriously injured, but they sustained smoke inhalation and possibly traumatic brain injuries, as they had symptoms of concussions, such as headaches, the officials said.”

“The Marines, seven of them enlisted and one officer, all returned to duty soon after the Sept. 14 attack, the U.S. officials said,” according to the network. “The officials said the Marines were operating as part of a battalion landing team during the Iranian anti-ship cruise missile attack.”

TWZ cannot independently confirm that Marines were on board the St. Helena or that they were injured. We reached out to the Pentagon and U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) for more information. The Pentagon referred us to CENTCOM, and CENTCOM declined comment.

The incident took place amid an uneasy truce between Iran and the U.S. broken up by sporadic Iranian attacks on ships transiting the Strait of Hormuz. At the same time, the U.S. military is enforcing a blockade on Iranian ships, during which it has struck several for trying to bypass that effort as well as in retaliation for Iranian attacks on shipping. Negotiations between Washington and Iran have ebbed and flowed, and U.S. President Donald Trump is once again mulling a choice between continuing talks or renewing large-scale attacks.

As we noted earlier in this piece, after the vessel was struck, several maritime industry trade publications identified it as the St. Helena.

“Iran has attacked a historic former British Royal Mail passenger ship in the Strait of Hormuz,” TradeWinds News reported on Sept. 15, a day after the incident. “Maritime security sources identify the 6,800-gt St Helena (built 1989) as the latest vessel to be hit by an ‘unknown projectile’ in the war-torn waterway. The attack was reported late on Monday, according to UK Maritime Trade Operations, which cited a ‘verified source’ for the incident without identifying the vessel.”

“UKMTO has received a time late report of an incident within the Strait of Hormuz,” the organization reported on Sept. 15, citing an incident that took place a day earlier. “A verified source has reported that a vessel has been struck by an unknown projectile.”

“There is no reported damage or environmental impact,” UKMTO added. “Authorities are investigating.”

UKMTO WARNING 135-26

Click here to view the full product https://t.co/VWOyM2oLdj#MaritimeSecurity #MarSec pic.twitter.com/Dfppt86s9b

— UKMTO Operations Centre (@UK_MTO) September 15, 2026

According to Lloyd’s List, the ship was being operated by the Ambrey maritime security firm at the time it was struck. Ambrey declined to comment. 

Shipping expert Sal Mercogliano and open-source investigator Tom Bike were among those suggesting the St. Helena could have been the vessel at the heart of the NBC report.

So piecing together the evidence it appears that the US may have converted St Helena into a armed merchant cruiser.

The Marines looked at putting Armed Guards on board commercial ships three years ago as reported by @USNINews.

Add modular/containerized weapon systems,… https://t.co/48lJ1BDMfs

— Sal Mercogliano (WGOW Shipping) (@mercoglianos) September 28, 2026

Exactly what the St. Helena was doing at the time it was struck is unclear; however, the ship has had a very unusual past.

The vessel entered into service in 1990 and “sailed between Cape Town, South Africa and Saint Helena and Ascension Islands, carrying both passengers and cargo, some of which was Royal Mail, earning her the rare RMS designation,” according to Cruise Arabia and Africa.

The St. Helena was Britain’s last working postal ship, according to Maritime Executive. After it was retired in 2018 because it was no longer needed for that function, things got really interesting.

Two different organizations took over the vessel, including, as we noted earlier in this story, a company that was planning to use it as a floating armory in the Middle East.

“Renamed MNG Tahiti, the 103-meter (340-foot) ship is being readied by her new owner MNG Maritime to become a floating armory working in the Gulf of Oman,” Maritime Executive wrote on April 22, 2018. “She will deliver security guards and weapons to vessels sailing through the region and is expected to be operational in her new role in the next few months.”

It is unclear what happened to that plan. However, two years later, an off-road racing series called Extreme E said that it “secured exclusive use of the former Royal Mail ship in 2018.” After that, the ship underwent “an extensive refurbishment process, which has included total overhaul of steelwork, engines, generators, propellers, interior and cabin space, and more, making it not only fit for purpose, but also as efficient as possible ahead of its new mission.” 

The ship was “specifically designed to transport all the infrastructure and equipment the Extreme E needs for their race weekends,” the organization stated. The plan was to have the ship serve “as its freight and logistics hub due to her versatility and ability to carry and unload a mixture of cargo, like all 10 of the championship’s ODYSSEY 21’s [electric off-road racecar], as well as team members and guests. This was also fit with a Science Laboratory so research can be conducted enroute to the race locations.”

Both the St. Helena and MNG Tahiti have the same international shipping identification number of IMO 8716306, according to the MarineTraffic website.

On Sept. 17, 2024, the St. Helena was put up for sale, according to Horizon Ship Brokers. The current ownership is unclear. We reached out to Horizon Ship Brokers for more details.

Last year, the saga of the St. Helena took a new turn. A company called Terra Nova Expeditions chartered the vessel for Antarctic cruises, but those plans were scrubbed last month because the vessel was stuck in the Persian Gulf and was no longer available for the Antarctic sailing season.

It was last tracked via its transponder near Dubai nearly two months ago, according to MarineTraffic.

While we can’t confirm that Marines were onboard when St. Helena was hit, Marines have been training for this exact mission set. USNI News reported in 2023 that a “force of 100 Marines, newly trained by Navy personnel,” stood ready “to respond, if ordered, to provide armed security aboard foreign commercial ships transiting the Strait of Hormuz.”

Those Marines were members of the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) embarked on the three-ship Bataan Amphibious Ready Group (ARG), USNI added at the time.

It is unclear if those plans are still in place and if Marines in the region have actually been ordered to provide armed security for foreign vessels sailing through or near the strait. Regardless, Marines could be quickly trained to take on this mission set and have drilled for ship boarding and searches for years, especially special operations and specially-tasked units. CENTCOM declined to comment when we asked if there are U.S. personnel embarking on commercial ships transiting the Strait of Hormuz.

At the same time, it is possible that the unique attributes of St. Helena made it a convenient host ship for sea base operations for U.S. forces in the region specifically for this crisis. Adapting commercial vessels for exactly this purpose has a long history around the Strait of Hormuz, as it was a central facet of the Tanker Wars during the 1980s, that saw U.S. forces operate from barges in the region. Today, commercial vessels remarkably similar to St. Helena operate in similar roles, especially in support of special operations and interdiction operations.

Once again, we have no idea what the ship’s mission was at the time of the incident and if Marines were simply helping it transit safely out of the Persian Gulf or something more, but the attack did expose the fact that individual Marines are more involved with activities in this tumultuous body of water than it may seem.

Contact the author: howard@twz.com.

The post Claims Swirl Around U.S. Marines Injured Aboard Mystery Vessel Attacked In The Strait Of Hormuz appeared first on TWZ.

The latest flare-up of fighting between the U.S. and Iran has seen American forces strike two Iranian oil tankers in retaliation for Tehran’s attacks on ships transiting the Strait of Hormuz. This new “tanker-for-tanker” targeting policy, first reported by Axios, marks a change from previous incidents where ships were only attacked for running the ongoing U.S. naval blockade on Iranian ports.

The two nations have resumed hostilities after a month-long pause in kinetic strikes against each other. The two Iranian tankers were struck in a round of attacks U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) said it carried out Tuesday in response to “recent attempted attacks by the IRGC [Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps] against commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz and against American service members.”

Iran, claiming several civilians were killed in the U.S. strikes, quickly followed those attacks by launching missile and drone barrages against U.S. facilities in Bahrain, Iraq, Jordan and Kuwait.

The new U.S. “tanker-for-tanker” policy of carrying out retaliation strikes on Iran’s fleet of oil transport vessels, was approved by Trump, Axios noted. The policy was designed to “further deter Iranian attacks on tankers that move through the strait.

“The Iranian government tankers were anchored off Iran’s coast north of the U.S. naval blockade line,” the outlet stated, citing anonymous U.S. officials. “U.S. drones launched missiles that hit their engine rooms.”

The attacks on the Iranian tankers were “part of a plan Trump and his senior aides have been considering in recent days to prevent Iran from rebuilding the radar and missile capabilities it needs to attack ships crossing the strait,” the outlet stated. “One U.S. official said the idea is to reduce the risk of Iranian attacks on oil tankers, U.S. Navy ships and Air Force aircraft — to ‘mow the lawn,’ as this person put it. A U.S. official told Axios on Tuesday that the new strikes degraded Iran’s attack capabilities in the strait and ‘bought at least a month’ of lowered threat levels for commercial ships.”

CENTCOM released a video after the conclusion of its Sept. 1 strikes that included what appears to be strikes on two separate vessels. One can be seen at about the 39-second mark of the video and another about 10 seconds later.  It’s not exactly clear from the video what kind of munitions were used, however, you can read more about how CENTCOM disabled ships trying to run the blockade here.

A CENTCOM spokesman declined to say if those ships were struck under a new policy and referred that question to “policymakers.” We have reached out to the White House for comment.

CENTCOM:

U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) forces successfully completed a wave of strikes against Iranian military targets Sept. 1.

U.S. forces struck Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) targets including air defense sites, radar systems, maritime assets and facilities, mine… pic.twitter.com/gbX4zP50oA

— Clash Report (@clashreport) September 1, 2026

The CENTCOM statement about those strikes makes no mention of oil tankers.

“U.S. forces struck Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) targets including air defense sites, radar systems, maritime assets and facilities, mine laying capabilities, and communications sites,” the command stated on X. “The strikes follow recent attempted attacks by the IRGC against commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz and against American service members.”

Talking to Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who runs the Lt. Dan podcast, President Donald Trump on Wednesday claimed that more than two dozen Iranian ships were destroyed in the U.S. attack; however he did not specify what kind or how.

“We now control the Strait of Hormuz. We control it,” Trump claimed. “Last night we took out 28 boats, 28 ships. We control it, they get nothing, and we took out ships.”

We reached out to the White House for clarification about what kind of ships Trump says were destroyed.

Trump on Iran:

We now control the Strait of Hormuz. We control it.

Last night we took out 28 boats, 28 ships. We control it, they get nothing, and we took out ships. pic.twitter.com/IsIavFSxC9

— Clash Report (@clashreport) September 2, 2026

Trump also took to Truth Social to suggest the Strait be named in his honor.

“Now that we have it under U.S.A. control, should we change the name Hormuz Strait to TRUMP STRAIT??? Like America itself, it would be ‘hotter’ than ever before!” the president proclaimed.

TRUMP: Suggests renaming Hormuz Strait “Trump Strait,” says it is under U.S. control pic.twitter.com/HCQx6YBYZO

— Trump Truths (@trumptruthsbot) September 2, 2026

Iran has struck several ships in recent days, including two on Sunday that were transporting Saudi Arabian crude oil.

The Saudi Arabian-flagged very large crude carrier (VLCC) Sidr “was struck by unknown projectiles about 16.6 nautical miles northeast of Khasab, Oman at about [11:52 PM local time Sunday],” Reuters reported, citing the Marisks ​maritime security firm. “Minutes later, the ​Liberian-flagged VLCC Senegal ⁠Prosperity was reportedly struck by three unknown projectiles approximately 17 nautical miles east of Khasab, Marisks said. All crew aboard were ​reported safe.”

The Saudis condemned the attack on the Sidr.

#Statement | The Foreign Ministry expresses the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s condemnation of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s targeting of the Saudi tanker (Sidr) while it was transiting the Strait of Hormuz, and resulted in fatalities among the tanker’s crew. pic.twitter.com/0EqcXkNzCf

— Foreign Ministry (@KSAmofaEN) September 2, 2026

On Wednesday, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) also claimed without providing proof that two ships were struck by mines in the Strait. However, the Ambrey maritime security firm pushed back on that.

“There is no meaningful evidence showing that any vessel has been hit by a ship mine,” Joshua Hutchinson, a former Royal Marine Commando who serves as the Managing Director of Intelligence and Risk (and Chief Commercial Officer) at Ambrey, told us.

The IRGC announced that two oil tankers struck mines and came to a halt after catching fire. The IRGC also warned that harsher penalties await shipping companies that choose to follow US provocations instead of complying with Iran's maritime regulations

— IRNA News Agency ☫ (@IrnaEnglish) September 2, 2026

However, as we previously reported, concern over Iran’s continuing ability to mine the Strait of Hormuz sparked the U.S. to resume attacking Iran on Sunday. CENTCOM told us it struck Iranian rocket launchers preparing to fire naval mines into the Strait of Hormuz. While the command did not provide recordings of that attack, Iran has previously introduced a system using what are said to be Fajr-5 rockets to launch mines, representing a dangerous new threat to shipping, which you can read more about in our initial report here.

“Strait of Hormuz transits remain contested and high risk, however, daily in- and outbound transits continue,” Ambrey stated in its latest security assessment. “Iran continues to seek control over Strait of Hormuz transits, while the US facilitates transits along the Omani coastline. Transits through the Transit Separation Scheme are not advised, despite the recent statement of the TSS having been cleared of mines.”

The alternatives “continue to be a northern route in coordination with Iranian authorities and a southern route facilitated by US forces,” Ambrey added. “On 24 August, the US Office of Foreign Assets Control updated their guidance in relation to US sanctions against Iran, expressly highlighting the risk of non-compliance if coordinating with Iranian authorities ‘including by accepting insurance or other services or responding to information demands for guarantees of safe passage, even if there is no associated payment or other exchange of value for these services.’” 

The U.S.-facilitated route “remains available to international shipping, with a layer of military support against attempted attacks against transiting vessels,” Ambrey noted. “However, Iran has continued to interfere with shipping on this route via VHF threats as well as Unmanned Aerial Vehicle and missile launches.” 

The renewed strife on the Strait has oil prices rising again. The per barrel price for Brent Crude was up to more than $95 on Wednesday, according to OilPrices.com. It had been $87.50 before the U.S. renewed attacks last week.

The Latest

Iran claimed that at least five people were killed and several others injured while attending a wedding reception during the CENTCOM strikes. Iranians called the incident a “war crime.”

“The truth of this unlawful war of choice – and the true face of the war crime – is in Sirik, where a wedding ceremony was brutally bombed as part of America’s desperate struggle to conceal its failure, not in AI-generated videos portraying American officials as triumphant heroes,” Iran Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei stated on X. 

The truth of this unlawful war of choice – and the true face of the war crime – is in Sirik, where a wedding ceremony was brutally bombed as part of America’s desperate struggle to conceal its failure, not in AI-generated videos portraying American officials as triumphant heroes.… pic.twitter.com/7GlHxE9oP1

— Esmaeil Baqaei (@IRIMFA_SPOX) September 2, 2026

TWZ cannot independently confirm that; however, remnants of an AGM-84H/K Standoff Land Attack Missile–Expanded Response (SLAM-ER) were reportedly found near the building where the wedding took place, according to open-source investigators.

“Weapon remnants said to have been recovered from tonight’s strike on a wedding ceremony in Kuhestak, Iran, have been identified by @Easybakeovensz [weapons technical analyst Trevor Ball] as SLAM-ER components,” New York Times Visual Investigations journalist Christiaan Triebert stated on X. “Manufacturer Boeing touts this cruise missile as the ‘most accurate’ weapon in the U.S. Navy’s inventory.”

Additional photos and video of the weapon remnants, including the thermal battery and a component with a visible part number. Some unidentified, may not be exclusive to SLAM-ER. Via Hamid Kasiri, who appears to be a teacher in the area and public figure. pic.twitter.com/n5e9dfv0d6

— Christiaan Triebert (@trbrtc) September 2, 2026

The wedding took place about 430 feet from an Iranian communications tower, CNN Visual Investigations Reporter Thomas Bordeaux noted on X. The tower was the likely target.

Geolocation of a building in a residential area in Kuhestak, Iran, said to have been struck by the US while it was hosting a wedding. The building is 430 feet from a comms tower, which was also struck.

Building: 26.80297, 57.02492
Tower: 26.80231, 57.02377
cc: @GeoConfirmed pic.twitter.com/QLzMGczb7W

— Thomas Bordeaux (@ThomasBordeaux7) September 1, 2026

CENTCOM spokesman, Navy Capt. Tim Hawkins, told us the command “is aware of the reports, which originated from Iranian state media, and we are looking into them.”

“The U.S. military never targets civilians, unlike the IRGC,” he added.

Hawkins also pushed back on Iranian claims that the IRGC killed a large number of U.S. troops in an attack on Camp Titin, a small U.S. Marine base on the Gulf of Aqaba coast.

“Not true, it’s an outright lie,” Hawkins told us when we asked about the Iranian claims of inflicting casualties on U.S. forces during their recent retaliation strikes. “All American personnel are accounted for.”

Iran’s IRGC says it launched a heavy barrage of ballistic missiles at Camp Titin, a base used by U.S. Marines near Aqaba in southern Jordan, in retaliation for the U.S. attack on a wedding ceremony in Sirik.

➤ The IRGC described the strike as the second wave of its… pic.twitter.com/HCyic7dpVm

— Drop Site (@DropSiteNews) September 1, 2026

Iran also claimed to have launched attacks on US facilities in Erbil province in northern Iraq, Sheikh Isa Airbase, which hosts US forces, in Bahrain, Prince Hassan airbase in Jordan and the headquarters and residence of the American commander of the Ali Al Salem airbase in Kuwait.

BREAKING | Iran Strikes U.S. Base in Kuwait

Iran’s IRGC claims it launched a combined missile and drone attack on U.S. facilities at Ali Al Salem Air Base in Kuwait.

The IRGC says the U.S. commander’s headquarters and accommodation, along with drone facilities,… pic.twitter.com/TMo13TVbWp

— IRAN IRGCC (@IranIRGCC) September 2, 2026

Jordanian officials said their air defenses shot down 10 Iranian ballistic missiles and three fell safely on unpopulated areas.

#Jordan – The @ArmedForcesJO report that the Kingdom was targeted by a missile attack originating from Iranian territory in the early hours today. Air defense systems engaged 13 ballistic missiles that entered Jordanian airspace, intercepting and destroying 10 of them. The… https://t.co/3zCIEjrIxH

— Dana Zureikat Daoud دانا زريقات (@DanaZkat) September 1, 2026

Iran’s military used Kheiber Shekan medium-range ballistic missile (MRBM) “extensively in strikes on the U.S. naval hub in Bahrain and other American bases during the six-month war with the U.S. and Israel,” USA TODAY reported, citing “the Iranian government and confirmed in USA TODAY interviews with former U.S. military and intelligence officials and weapons analysts.”

“Some of those analysts believe Iran used [these] missiles in the July 17 strikes on the U.S. Muwaffaq Salti Air Base in Al-Azraq, Jordan that killed three American service members,” the outlet added. Iran itself has also made that claim, “according to official government statements obtained by USA TODAY.”

On Aug. 31, an Iranian state-run outlet claimed Tehran used Kheibar Shekan missiles to hit Muwaffaq Salti − and the King Hussein air base in Jordan − in response to U.S. military attack on Iran’s Larak Island the previous night, USA TODAY proferred.

The Kheibar Shekan is a two-stage, solid-propellant, truck-launched MRBM that Iran first unveiled on Feb. 9, 2022. A third generation of the Fateh family of ballistic missiles, Iran claims it has a maximum range of 1,450 kilometers (900 miles). These missiles provide high terminal maneuverability and/or high speeds specifically intended to reduce their vulnerability to missile defense interceptors.

6/ DoD says its defenses work virtually all the time and its forces ‘remain fully operational.’ But experts – including former CIA, Army, DIA and Marine intelligence officials – told me say enough missiles are getting through to do real damage. Full story: https://t.co/7ykaUnEHEG

— Josh Meyer (@JoshMeyerDC) September 1, 2026

Russia “has been secretly helping Iran develop advanced supersonic cruise missiles in one of the most significant known transfers of strategic military technology from Moscow to Tehran,” Financial Times (FT) reported.

“The multiyear covert program, codenamed C430L, has enlisted some of Russia’s most experienced missile specialists to help Iran develop a new class of weapon capable of threatening US aircraft carriers and other warships in the Middle East,” the publication added. “An FT investigation uncovered the program, which began in 2023 and continued into the US-Israeli war against Iran, through leaked Russian correspondence, travel records and analysis of military patents.

The main purpose of C430L “is to help Iran to develop a ramjet propulsion system, an engine that allows a cruise missile to sustain flight at several times the speed of sound,” FT added. “Missile and military experts said the technology was almost certainly intended for anti-ship and land-attack cruise missiles.”

“This is the transfer of a highly strategically sensitive military technology from Russia that the Iranians have wanted to acquire for decades,” said Fabian Hinz, an expert on Iranian missiles and senior analyst with Conflict Armament Research, a UK-based weapons-tracing organization. “A program like this would require political clearance from the very top in Russia.”

The weapon system, or at least the impetus for it is, is possibly P-800 Oniks (SS-N-26). Russia has been using these against Ukraine since the early days of the all-out war and has exported the weapon in various configruations.

NEW: Russia has been secretly helping Iran develop advanced supersonic cruise missiles in one of the most significant known transfers of strategic military technology from Moscow to Tehran.

with @MilesMJohnson @charles_clover https://t.co/01SxsOypLq

— max seddon (@maxseddon) September 1, 2026

After numerous Iranian attacks on Bahrain, the U.S. evacuated ships and troops and no return date is on the horizon, according to the Chief of Naval Operations.

“We’re not getting back in there anytime soon,” Adm. Daryl Caudle said during a recent worldwide town hall meeting with sailors. “I just want to be completely honest with that. But we’re working real hard to develop a scheme of maneuver in order for you to get your things.”

JUST IN: US NAVY COMMANDER SAYS US FORCES WILL NOT RETURN TO BAHRAIN BASE pic.twitter.com/xqNQhNLQWe

— Sulaiman Ahmed (@ShaykhSulaiman) September 1, 2026

Iranian hackers have “targeted not only U.S. water systems but also America’s telecommunications, energy and other infrastructure in recent weeks,” NBC News reported, citing four people with access to government and industry information about cyberthreats.

The attempted cyberattacks “have focused on automated systems connected to the internet and so far have not been successful, the sources said,” according to the network. “But they underscore Iran’s readiness to retaliate against the U.S. beyond its interests in the Middle East. The U.S. and Israel have launched airstrikes on Iranian bridges, fuel depots and other infrastructure since the war began in February.”

A Telegram channel that presents itself as a voice for Iranian cyber operations “declared Sunday that it would target energy, water and telecommunications sectors in the U.S., saying its earlier warnings to halt attacks on Iran had gone unheeded,” NBC continued.

“Soon, the United States will witness unexpected and critical events in the energy, water, and telecommunications industries,” the group, APT IRAN, said on Telegram.

Iranian hackers have targeted not only US water systems but also telecommunications, energy and other infrastructure in recent weeks, NBC News reported on Wednesday, citing four people with access to government and industry cyberthreat information.

The attempted cyberattacks… pic.twitter.com/nqrTXrooRb

— Iran International English (@IranIntl_En) September 2, 2026

That’s it for now. We’ll update this story with new details when they emerge.

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

The post Iranian Oil Tankers In The Cross Hairs Of New U.S. Campaign appeared first on TWZ.

“The Strait of Hormuz cannot be separated from the broader regional conflict,” Rezaei said.

The post Iran links Hormuz Strait reopening to end of Mideast wars appeared first on BOL News.

A Turkish-flagged sailing catamaran with ten passengers onboard sank near the area west of the islet of Fleves in the Saronic Gulf on Friday. All passengers, foreign nationals, have been rescued. An alarm was raised in the sea area west of Fleves islet after a Turkish-flagged sailing catamaran carrying 10 foreign nationals began to sink. […]

The post Turkish-flagged catamaran with 10 onboard sinks in the Saronic Gulf appeared first on Keep Talking Greece.

Houthi attacks on Saudi oil tankers and facilities have reignited tensions around Bab el-Mandeb. But the Iran-backed group is no longer the only threat to security in the Red Sea. Across the water, conflicts in the Horn of Africa are merging, fuelled by competing middle powers and increasingly threatening one of the world’s most important maritime corridors.

The timing could hardly be worse. The war between the US and Iran exposed the vulnerability of the Strait of Hormuz, renewing interest in alternative export routes. In April and May, Saudi Arabia exported between three and four million barrels of oil per day through the Red Sea, nearly double the volume shipped via the Bab el-Mandeb strait in 2024. Energy projects designed to bypass Hormuz, such as the expansion of the East-West pipeline across Saudi Arabia or Iraq’s proposed connection with Jordan’s Red Sea port of Aqaba, could increase the corridor’s importance even further.

The Houthis have shown how easily Bab el-Mandeb can be disrupted, but the danger no longer comes from Yemen alone. Sudan’s civil war is increasingly converging with the Ethiopia-Eritrea crisis. In northern Somalia, local disputes are becoming entangled with the Saudi-Emirati and Israeli-Turkish rivalries, potentially creating a new flashpoint in the Gulf of Aden. At the same time, piracy is resurging, increasingly aided by al-Shabab. Between April and May, Somali pirates hijacked three ships in the Gulf of Aden, including two oil tankers—more hijackings than in the previous five years combined.

The spread of low-cost drones means that both state and non-state actors can target this narrow maritime corridor cheaply. Although no group has yet fully replicated the Houthis’ tactics, the Islamic State in Somalia has carried out its first recorded drone strike in January, in Puntland, while reports suggest that al-Shabab has used drones for reconnaissance and propaganda.

Any major disruption to commercial and energy flows through Bab el-Mandeb would reverberate far beyond the region, with European energy importers and export-oriented economies particularly exposed. As the Red Sea becomes more important, the Horn of Africa matters more too.

When the Horn’s conflicts merge

The war between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) in Sudan is not an isolated conflict. As it drives mass displacement and destabilises neighbours, it is also merging with the Ethiopia-Eritrea rivalry, raising the risk of a broader confrontation along the Red Sea.

Addis Ababa continues to seek sea access through Eritrea’s Red Sea port of Assab. Asmara, for its part, has strengthened ties with Tigrayan leaders and other anti-government groups inside Ethiopia. And their rivalry is increasingly spilling into Sudan. Reports indicate growing coordination between Tigrayan forces, the SAF and Eritrea in the east, while the RSF has allegedly received Ethiopian assistance in Sudan’s Blue Nile state. This new RSF front borders the areas of South Sudan where the government is trying to suppress a mounting insurgency among the Nuer, the country’s second largest ethnic group, potentially turning the vast tri-border area into a major conflict zone.

Any escalation between Ethiopia and Eritrea would likely draw in Sudanese factions and external powers, notably Egypt, which aligns closely with the SAF and Eritrea, and regards the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (located just across the border with Sudan) as a major security threat.

These tensions are amplified by competing Middle Eastern alignments: Egypt, Turkey and Saudi Arabia support the SAF and Eritrea, while the UAE, and to a lesser extent Israel, have ties with Ethiopia and the RSF, though officially denied. Such backing risks encouraging local actors to overestimate their capabilities and could trigger a wider regional confrontation threatening Red Sea security and navigation.

Somalia’s turbulent waters

Somalia could become the second major front in the Red Sea crisis. As in the Ethiopia-Eritrea-Sudan triangle, domestic feuds are becoming entangled with broader Middle Eastern rivalries.

In December 2025, Israel recognised the breakaway, UAE-backed republic of Somaliland. The two sides signed security agreements covering training and intelligence cooperation, and Israel could soon deploy asu limited military presence in the Emirati base in Berbera, which is reportedly under expansion. A visit to Israel in late June by Somaliland’s president Abdirahman Irro showed how quickly the relationship is deepening.

Mogadishu responded to the recognition by severing diplomatic and security ties with the UAE. It has since moved closer to Saudi Arabia and Qatar through defence agreements, while strengthening its longstanding partnership with Turkey. In January, Turkey deployed F-16 fighter jets to the Somali capital.

Amid its dispute with Mogadishu, Abu Dhabi has continued to support for Puntland and Jubaland,[1] two federal states that broke relations with the Somali government in 2024 in pursuit of greater autonomy. That support has become more consequential as Somalia enters another struggle over federal leadership.

In March 2026, President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud extended the mandates of both the presidency and parliament by one year beyond their May 15 expiration date. Opposition figures, including the leaders of Puntland and Jubaland, rejected the changes and demanded elections. After mediation failed, government forces and opposition-aligned groups clashed in Mogadishu on June 3rd and 4th, echoing the violence surrounding the 2020–2021 electoral process.

Although the federal government’s substantial deployment in the capital makes the forcible removal of the president unlikely, violence may intensify elsewhere.[2] The most concerning area lies in northern Somalia, where a local territorial dispute is increasingly drawing in external actors.

Since declaring independence in 1991, Somaliland has controlled most of this area, but its authority has long been contested in the eastern regions of Sool, Sanaag and Cayn by local clans and by neighbouring Puntland. These tensions erupted into conflict in 2023, when the pro-government Dhulbahante sub-clan defeated Somaliland forces. In the aftermath, Mogadishu then backed the creation of a new state, the North East State, covering territory claimed by both Somaliland and Puntland.

The main prize is Sanaag, located along the strategically important Gulf of Aden coast. Its sub-clans are divided in their loyalties among Somaliland, Puntland and Mogadishu, and a worsening drought is fuelling clashes over resources.[3] Such fractures offer tempting openings for outsiders.

Turkey reportedly plans to establish a presence in Lasqoray, Sanaag’s main coastal town, where both Turkish vessels and aircraft linked to the UAE have been spotted.[4] Meanwhile, Mogadishu is courting Puntland sub-clans and business elites dissatisfied with the state’s president, and has suggested that the army stands ready to deploy in Somaliland.[5]

Northern Somalia is therefore becoming a battleground where local and national rifts collide with rivalries between Saudi Arabia and the UAE, and between Israel and Turkey.

Northern Somalia is therefore becoming a battleground where local and national rifts collide with rivalries between Saudi Arabia and the UAE, and between Israel and Turkey. Any serious escalation would pose a direct threat to the Gulf of Aden. It would also create opportunities for other groups: piracy networks, the Islamic State in Somalia and al-Shabab also operate in the area, with the two jihadist groups receiving smuggled weapons from the Houthis across the sea last year.

Message for Europe

Instability in the Horn of Africa creates new threats to Red Sea navigation, with direct consequences for European security and economic stability. Strained European economies cannot afford another disruption after Hormuz.

Europe must therefore abandon the widespread perception that it is primarily a provider of aid. Prevention must combine soft and hard power.

The EU already deploys two naval missions in the Horn of Africa’s seas: Aspides and Atalanta. But both were designed for a different threat environment. Atalanta was created to combat Somali piracy, while Aspides was established to protect shipping from Houthi attacks with a deliberately defensive mandate.

As maritime threats intensify, the EU should increase deployments and expand the mandates of both missions to include offensive operations, particularly against al-Shabab and the Islamic State in Somalia. This would strengthen anti-piracy efforts, increase pressure on destabilising actors and signal a more credible European security posture in the Red Sea. To ease fears of retaliation, Europeans should reassure regional states such as Saudi Arabia and Djibouti that the expanded mandate will not include offensive operations against the Houthis. Europeans should also seek a greater naval presence from Asian players with major stakes in Red Sea security, such as South Korea and Japan.

At the same time, the EU and its member states should engage more directly with northern Somali actors, including Somaliland and Puntland. A stronger European presence through security and development instruments would increase influence in this highly contested area, feeding into its de-escalation efforts. An expanded mandate for EU naval missions, for instance, could support Puntland’s and Somalia’s federal government operations against the Islamic State in Somalia and al-Shabab.

Greater engagement would also give Europe more leverage to encourage dialogue between the federal government, Somaliland and Puntland over disputed territories, and help push Somali political actors toward a resolution of the electoral standoff. In this regard, the EU must act transactionally to ensure that its 2026 funding packages, including €75m for the African Union peace mission and €63m for humanitarian aid, contribute to these stabilisation goals.

The EU should also coordinate closely with America and Britain, which in the past have led credible mediation efforts around the electoral standoff and security initiatives in the north, such as anti-IS operations. Similar coordination could support de-escalation efforts between Ethiopia and Eritrea, where Washington has recently engaged both sides.

Finally, engagement with Middle Eastern actors is unavoidable. The Horn of Africa’s instability is increasingly shaped by the competition between the two emerging blocs around Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey on one side and the UAE and Israel on the other. The recent war with Iran has increased the value these states place on reliable international partners and regional stability. Europe should use this moment to press for restraint. The EU, Germany, France, Italy and Spain, in coordination with the UK and, where possible, the US, should make clear to Middle Eastern powers that any support to Ethiopia and Eritrea in the context of an all-out escalation would cross a red line and trigger immediate consequences on relations with them across the board. A similar approach should be adopted for northern Somalia.

Europeans can do far more to prevent the Horn of Africa’s conflicts from converging into a wider crisis. They cannot afford to wait until they become another maritime emergency.

---

[1] Author’s interview with Somalia security expert on May 21.

[2] Author’s interview with European diplomat on May 10.

[3] Author’s interview with Somalia security expert on May 21.

[4] Author’s interview with European diplomat on May 10.

[5] Author’s interview with Puntland-based civil society representative on May 12.

Source