Press TV – October 25, 2026
The speaker of the Yemeni House of Representatives has denounced the European Parliament’s push to blacklist the Ansarullah resistance movement, saying the step is rooted in hypocrisy and double standards.
In a statement on Saturday, Yahya Ali Ahmed al-Raee emphasized that the legislature’s stance on Yemen is nothing more than a political cover for the war crimes being perpetrated by Saudi Arabia and its forces against the Yemeni nation.
“The European Parliament’s latest resolution is a clear sign of double standards and hypocrisy. It is an attempt to distort the position of the Sana’a-based Yemeni government, and blatantly ignores its repeated guarantees and commitment to international maritime security,” he noted.
Raee stated that the European Parliament should have designated Israel as the source of terrorism, given the genocidal crimes it is committing in the Gaza Strip.
The senior Yemeni official noted that the legislative body of the European Union has turned a blind eye to the crimes of genocide, murder, siege, and starvation that the Yemeni people have been enduring for more than 12 years as a result of vicious Saudi assaults and blockade.
He also called on the European Parliament to dispatch a parliamentary delegation to Yemen and document the firsthand crimes and aggression that Saudi Arabia is committing against the Yemeni people.
On Thursday, the European Parliament called on the Council of the European Union to designate Yemen’s Ansarullah resistance movement as a terrorist organization, including its political and military wings, leadership, and military and security apparatus.
In a resolution, the lawmakers also called for dismantling the group’s funding channels and freezing its funds, economic resources, and assets belonging to entities facilitating its activities.
The resolution strongly condemned retaliatory Yemeni missile and drone attacks on Saudi Arabia, as well as attacks targeting energy infrastructure and commercial shipping in the Red Sea and the Bab al-Mandeb Strait.
The Sana’a administration announced a naval blockade against Saudi Arabia on July 20, in retaliation for “an unjust and oppressive siege” on Yemen that has continued for almost 12 years.
The Yemeni military has reported multiple successful operations targeting ships associated with Saudi Arabia in the Red Sea.
In March 2015, Saudi Arabia and its allies enacted a blockade on Yemen and initiated a large-scale war on the Arab country, with support from the United States and various Western nations in terms of military, political, and logistical resources.
The war has resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of Yemenis. Nevertheless, Saudi Arabia has not succeeded in achieving its goal of restoring a puppet government that aligns with its interests.
Pope Leo XIV demands an end to Yemen hostilities, highlights Taiz’s humanitarian crisis and calls for peace after a deadly church attack in Jordan.
Related: Pope Leo XIV Confirms Official Visit to Argentina in November
Pope Leo XIV demanded an immediate end to Yemen hostilities during his Angelus address on Sunday, October 25, warning that civilians are paying the highest price in the conflict. Speaking from the window of the Apostolic Palace before thousands of faithful gathered in St. Peter’s Square, the pope expressed deep concern over the humanitarian situation in Yemen.
He paid particular attention to the city of Taiz, where residents are suffering from severe shortages of food, drinking water and medical care.
“I make a heartfelt appeal for hostilities to cease and for the Yemeni people and all the peoples of the region to be guaranteed the right to live in peace,” Pope Leo said.
The pope’s message came as fighting and road closures have cut off vital supplies in Taiz, leaving civilians increasingly isolated. The Vatican said the pope’s appeal was directed at all parties involved in the conflict and at the international community.
Pope Leo also condemned the broader spiral of violence affecting West Asia, calling for urgent guarantees for regional peace. He denounced the devastating consequences of armed confrontations across the region and urged leaders to choose dialogue over war.
The pontiff said wars not only cause death and destruction but also impoverish and damage the world. His appeal placed the humanitarian suffering of Yemeni civilians at the center of the Vatican’s message.
Pope Leo XIV draws attention to the humanitarian crisis in Yemen, remembers victims of an attack on Christians in Jordan, and looks ahead to the Assisi gathering marking 40 years since the first World Day of Prayer for Peace.https://t.co/UZ47Hb6oMw
— Vatican News (@VaticanNews) October 25, 2026
Vatican News | United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs
The pope’s warning focused on Taiz, a city that has become one of the most visible symbols of Yemen’s humanitarian crisis.
Residents face severe shortages of food, clean water, fuel and basic medical services as fighting and road closures restrict the movement of supplies.
Humanitarian organizations have warned that the blockade of supply routes has worsened conditions for hundreds of thousands of people.
The United Nations has repeatedly called for unimpeded humanitarian access to affected communities across Yemen.
Yemen has been devastated by years of war, economic collapse and the destruction of essential infrastructure.
The conflict has left millions of people dependent on humanitarian assistance and has created one of the world’s most severe food-security emergencies.
The pope said the Yemeni people, like all peoples of the region, have the right to live in peace.
His message also called for an end to the cycle of violence that has spread across West Asia.
Pope Leo condemned the human cost of armed conflict and urged the international community to prioritize negotiation and diplomacy.
The Vatican has repeatedly emphasized that military solutions cannot resolve political crises or address the needs of civilians.
The pope’s appeal comes amid heightened tensions across the Middle East, where conflicts have displaced communities, damaged infrastructure and deepened humanitarian needs.
The Vatican’s message called for a regional approach to peace that protects civilians and guarantees access to humanitarian aid.
🚨 Saná denunció que Arabia Saudita incumplió pactos previos a 2023 al bombardear el aeropuerto de la capital y poner fin a la tregua. Mohammed Abdul-Salam afirmó que la vía diplomática se agotó tras la falta de respuestas claras de Riad. #Yemen #ArabiaSaudita #teleSUR #19Oct pic.twitter.com/ONZhAvdkCG
— teleSUR TV (@teleSURtv) October 19, 2026
Jordan News Agency | Middle East Council of Churches
Pope Leo XIV also addressed the deadly attack on worshippers at Saint George’s Orthodox Church in Hamoud, in Jordan’s Karak governorate.
The attack occurred on Friday, October 23, during a funeral service at the church.
Jordanian authorities said gunmen opened fire on worshippers, killing nine people and wounding around 40 others.
The pope prayed for those killed and injured in the attack and expressed his closeness to the affected community.
He also expressed solidarity with Jordan, a country he praised for its history of peaceful coexistence and respect among different religions.
Jordan declared three days of national mourning following the attack.
Jordanian authorities launched an investigation to identify those responsible. No group had claimed responsibility for the attack as of Sunday.
Christian leaders across the region condemned the attack as a crime against humanity and an assault on religious coexistence.
Patriarchs and heads of Churches in Jerusalem called on churches across the region to ring their bells in solidarity and pray for the victims.
The pope’s response highlighted the vulnerability of religious communities in a region marked by political instability and sectarian tensions.
His message emphasized that attacks on places of worship are attacks on human dignity and the right to religious freedom.
The Vatican has repeatedly called for the protection of Christian communities and all religious minorities in the Middle East.
119 ataques aéreos de la coalición saudita en 24 horas contra Yemen. En Taiz, un bombardeo a una escuela y un puesto sanitario dejó 3 muertos y 12 heridos, entre ellos mujeres y niños. La escalada supera 2.177 agresiones. #teleSUR #13oct pic.twitter.com/SLJn8j89uW
— teleSUR TV (@teleSURtv) October 13, 2026
Community of Sant’Egidio | Holy See Press Office
Pope Leo XIV called on the faithful to join spiritually in the peace gathering taking place in Assisi, Italy, on October 27.
The meeting, titled “Unarmed and Disarming Peace,” marks the 40th anniversary of the World Day of Prayer for Peace convened by Saint John Paul II in 1986.
The event is organized by the Community of Sant’Egidio and brings together religious leaders, representatives of Christian Churches and figures from other faiths.
The 2026 gathering includes 384 representatives of religions, cultures and institutions from 53 countries.
Participants will take part in 24 thematic forums addressing conflict, disarmament, migration, poverty, young people and the role of religions in building peace.
The pope had planned to attend the closing ceremony in person but canceled the trip on medical advice after undergoing thoracic surgery.
The Vatican said Pope Leo would send a message expressing his closeness to organizers and participants.
The pope urged believers around the world to join the Assisi gathering in prayer.
“Never has it been more evident that wars, in addition to sowing death and destruction, impoverish and harm the world,” he said.
The pope called on the international community to abandon weapons and commit decisively to understanding and harmony among peoples.
The Assisi meeting recalls the historic 1986 gathering, when Pope John Paul II brought together representatives of different religions to pray for peace.
That event became a landmark in interreligious dialogue and remains a reference point for Vatican diplomacy.
The 2026 meeting seeks to renew that tradition at a time of multiple conflicts and growing humanitarian crises.
The pope’s appeal on Yemen hostilities reflects the Vatican’s broader diplomatic effort to promote dialogue in a region marked by war and humanitarian emergencies.
Yemen’s conflict has become one of the world’s most severe humanitarian crises, with millions of people facing hunger, displacement and limited access to healthcare.
The war has drawn in regional and international powers, making a political solution increasingly difficult.
The crisis in Taiz illustrates how blockades, fighting and the collapse of public services can trap civilians between military objectives and humanitarian needs.
Pope Leo’s message also comes amid rising tensions across West Asia, where conflicts in Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran and Yemen have deepened regional instability.
The Vatican has positioned itself as a voice for civilian protection, humanitarian access and negotiated settlements.
The pope’s call for peace in Yemen and his solidarity with Jordan highlight the connection between armed conflict, religious violence and the erosion of social cohesion.
The Assisi gathering offers a platform for religious leaders to promote dialogue at a time when political institutions face growing difficulty in resolving conflicts.
The Vatican argues that interreligious cooperation can help reduce hatred, protect minorities and build conditions for peace.
The pope’s message is a reminder that wars have consequences beyond battlefields: they destroy economies, displace communities and damage the future of entire generations.
Dialogue Works | October 24, 2026
© Arash Khamooshi/Polaris for The New York Times
Alla luce del recente ritiro delle forze statunitensi dal Paese (esito anche della sciagurata aggressione all’Iran) si rende necessario ripercorrere storia e geopolitica dell’Iraq per meglio comprendere quelle che saranno le future direttrici di quello che per demografia, posizione e ricchezza (in termini di risorse naturali) si presenta come un sicuro protagonista nel futuro della regione.
La Safawiyya, fondata dal poeta mistico Safi al-Din (1252-1334), nacque inizialmente come confraternita sufi. Fu nel corso dei due secoli successivi che quest’ordine religioso-guerriero sviluppò una forte inclinazione politica ed abbracciò apertamente la dottrina sciita imamita. Quando l’allora settenne Isma’il ereditò la guida dell’ordine nel 1494, lo “Stato” costruito dai “montoni bianchi” turchi si era già quasi dissolto. A quel tempo, Isma’il non era considerato solo uno shaykh sufi, a lui venivano associati anche attributi semidivini che necessitavano l’obbedienza assoluta degli adepti (dopo tutto lo stesso dodicesimo Imam dello sciismo assunse tale carica, ed entrò nella fase di primo o minore occultamento, ghayba as-Sughra, quando era ancora un infante).
Ad ogni modo, questo movimento, dal carattere fortemente eterodosso (almeno inizialmente), poteva godere di un notevole seguito tra i membri di una violenta tribù turkmena: i Qizilbash (teste rosse), così chiamati a causa dei loro berretti rossi. Questi, grazie alla loro devozione fanatica e all’ardimento in battaglia, consentirono ai Safavidi, partendo dai territori dell’odierno Azerbaigian, di costruire una vera e propria entità territoriale a seguito della conquista di Tabriz (1501).
Proprio a Tabriz, Isma’il venne incoronato Shah e proclamò lo sciismo imamita come religione di Stato del suo Impero. Va da sé che, in quel periodo, la maggioranza della popolazione dell’Iran era ancora sunnita. Dunque, lo sciismo venne imposto in modo più o meno forzato. Nel 1508, inoltre, Isma’il inviò uno dei suoi uomini più fidati (Lala Husayn Beg Shamlu) a conquistare Baghdad. Per il neonato Impero safavide, infatti, il controllo diretto sui principali santuari sciiti iracheni (Najaf, Kerbala, Samarra e Kazim) si poneva come un’importante questione di prestigio e legittimazione politico-religiosa. Non solo, così facendo, i primi Safavidi diedero slancio anche ad una particolare interpretazione dello spazio geopolitico che segnerà lo sciismo nel corso dei secoli successivi: ovvero, un’idea di territorio non uniforme o delimitato da confini ma intrinsecamente legato a punti precisi corrispondenti a luoghi simbolo e centri sacri della tradizione religiosa (aspetto che verrà sottolineato a più riprese dai protagonisti della Rivoluzione islamica in Iran nel XX secolo e dai loro successori). É indubbio il fatto che l’Impero safavide avrebbe finito per dominare l’Iraq, ed il cuore stesso dell’Islam, per lungo tempo se non fosse stato per la contemporanea espansione dell’Impero ottomano a Occidente.
L’influenza safavide, di fatto, al principio del XVI secolo, aveva raggiunto l’Anatolia orientale e questa regione fu teatro di violente rivolte sciite contro il dominio ottomano. Il sultano Selim I, dal canto suo, reagì in modo brutale e la repressione dei moti rivoluzionari venne accompagnata da una massiccia invasione di parte del territorio occidentale della Persia. I due grandi imperi si fronteggiarono una prima volta nei territori dell’attuale Azerbaigian nel 1514, a Chaldiran. E, da quel momento in poi, l’Iraq divenne il terreno di confronto costante tra due entità geopolitiche la cui rivalità aveva anche una precisa connotazione religiosa (senza considerare le aspirazioni di entrambi i sovrani a rappresentare l’umma islamica nella sua interezza). Di conseguenza, i rapporti relativamente pacifici che si erano stabiliti tra sunniti e sciiti nel periodo precedente (sotto il dominio mongolo) mutarono di pari passo con il carattere settario sempre più marcato del conflitto ottomano-safavide. Un aspetto che segnerà l’intera storia dell’Iraq anche dopo il crollo dell’Impero ottomano e fino alla guerra Iran-Iraq degli anni ’80 del XX secolo.
All’epoca dell’inclusione dell’Iraq nell’Impero ottomano, questo si estendeva dall’attuale Ungheria allo Yemen e dall’Algeria all’Azerbaigian. L’Impero, inoltre, si presentava come un’immensa area commerciale che beneficiava di una tassazione contenuta e di vie di comunicazione relativamente sicure. Aleppo, una delle più ricche e popolose città dell’Impero, già da quel periodo riusciva a proiettare la sua influenza sull’Iraq, dove la comunità ebraica, grazie all’intraprendenza commerciale, crebbe e si arricchì notevolmente.
Questo merita l’apertura di una breve parentesi. Gli Ottomani, sulla base di una tradizione consolidata nel mondo islamico, riconobbero l’autonomia giuridica di un certo numero di comunità religiose monoteiste (millet). Queste beneficiarono in modo evidente del miglioramento della situazione economica (soprattutto gli armeni dell’Anatolia orientale, i greci di Costantinopoli e Smirne e gli ebrei di Salonicco, Aleppo e Baghdad). Un rabbino di Bassora, Jacob Gabbai, tra il 1775 ed il 1776, svolse un ruolo chiave nel reperire i fondi necessari a garantire lo sforzo bellico ottomano contro i Safavidi. Tale sforzo venne premiato dal Sultano ottomano che gli garantì l’esenzione dal pagamento delle tasse. Alla fine del medesimo secolo, un altro ebreo, Abdullah ibn Yusuf divenne uno dei più importanti consiglieri del governatore ottomano di Baghdad. E proprio a Baghdad, la comunità ebraica crebbe a tal punto da rappresentare circa il 20% della popolazione all’inizio del XIX secolo. Tale aumento era dovuto in parte anche alle migrazioni dai territori persiani, dove gli ebrei erano sottoposti a periodiche forme di persecuzione. Proprio agli inizi del XIX secolo, Heskel Gabbai, mercante ebreo di Baghdad, divenne uno degli uomini più ricchi dell’Iraq. La sua straordinaria abilità finanziaria venne premiata dal Sultano che lo nominò tesoriere ufficiale della Sublime Porta. Di non minore rilievo è stata l’evoluzione della comunità cristiana irachena. La Chiesa nestoriana, capace di diffondersi in tutta l’Asia centrale fino ai confini dell’attuale Cina, subì un colpo mortale quando gli eserciti di Tamerlano cancellarono totalmente la sua presenza ad est dell’Iraq. Nel 1551, l’abate nestoriano Yuhanna Sulaka si convertì al cattolicesimo e venne nominato dal Papa patriarca della Chiesa caldea dell’Iraq settentrionale. Questa nel corso dei tre secoli successivi si avvicinerà progressivamente a Roma, mentre i resti della Chiesa nestoriana divennero gli odierni cristiani assiri. Minore fortuna ebbero gli yazidi. La loro origine risale al X secolo ed alla resistenza tribale curda di fronte al califfato abbaside. Questa, in particolare, trovò espressione nell’esaltazione della figura del califfo omayyade Yazid ibn Mu’awiaya (figura comunque controversa ed odiata dalle correnti islamiche sciite) da cui deriva il nome della setta. La coesione del movimento fu rafforzata all’inizio del XII secolo dallo shaykh sufi ‘Adi ibn Musafir, discendente della dinastia omayyade. Nei secoli successivi, lo yazidismo si trasformò gradualmente in una religione indipendente: una combinazione sincretica tra elementi sufi e antiche tradizioni persiane. Erroneamente ritenuti adoratori del demonio, i seguaci di questo credo in epoca ottomana sono stati ripetutamente attaccati da altre tribù curde e dalle forze imperiali. Sopravvissuti nelle aree di Jabal Sinjar e Mosul, sono stati nuovamente presi di mira dal sedicente “Stato Islamico” dopo la sua ascesa nel 2014.
Tornando sul piano geopolitico, l’Iraq, in virtù della sua particolare posizione geografica, rivestiva una importanza decisiva per gli Ottomani che vi lasciarono in pianta stabile oltre 30.000 soldati. A ciò si aggiunga che la vicinanza della regione al Golfo Persico permise alla Sublime Porta di stanziare a Bassora una imponente flotta militare capace di contrastare inizialmente le mire espansionistiche portoghesi nell’area.
A partire dal 1514, anno della suddetta offensiva ottomana guidata dal Sultano Selim I contro l’Impero safavide, in questa regione si sono combattute almeno venticinque differenti guerre, con un picco della tensione a cavallo tra il XVI ed il XVIII secolo. Rispettivamente, ci sono stati sette differenti conflitti militari nel XVI secolo, nove nel XVII ed altri sette nel XVIII.
Inutile dire che i conflitti tra i due attori siano progressivamente diminuiti con il ridimensionamento del potere di entrambi gli imperi. Non sorprendentemente, nel XIX secolo, in concomitanza con la rapida penetrazione nell’area di Francia, Gran Bretagna e Russia, si conta un solo conflitto frontaliero tra i due.
Di fatto, gli attuali confini orientali dell’Iraq ed occidentali dell’Iran sono il prodotto di innumerevoli accordi e trattati internazionali spalmati su un arco di tempo che dal 1555 arriva fino al 1975. Il Trattato di Amasya, ad esempio, venne firmato nel 1555 tra lo Shah Tahmasb ed il sultano Solimano il Magnifico. In base a questo accordo, l’odierno Iraq passò quasi interamente sotto la sovranità ottomana. Al termine di una nuova fase di conflitto tra le due potenze, lo Shah Abbas il Grande riportò sotto il controllo safavide parte della regione mesopotamica. Questi, dopo aver preso Baghdad, sferrò un duro attacco contro la componente sunnita della popolazione ed ordinò la distruzione di due istituzioni simbolo della corrente maggioritaria dell’Islam: la moschee di Abu Hanifa e di al-Gaylani. Allo stesso tempo, è doveroso ricordare che importanti studiosi sciiti dell’epoca, tra cui spicca Sayyid Darraj (il guardiano del santuario di Kerbala), si opposero a simili azioni e difesero strenuamente i notabili sunniti presi di mira dall’autorità safavide.
Dopo l’avventura di Abbas il Grande, la Persia conobbe un nuovo periodo di decadenza che portò alla firma del Trattato di Qasr-e Shirin (1639). Con esso i Safavidi rinunciavano per sempre alla loro presenza nei territori iracheni che rimasero (tra alterne fortune) sotto dominio ottomano fino al termine della Prima Guerra Mondiale.
Il XVIII ed il XIX secolo furono caratterizzati da una crescita costante della presenza britannica nell’area. Londra era infatti intenzionata ad aprirsi un corridoio strategico via terra verso l’India e per il rifornimento della Compagnia delle Indie Orientali. La città di Bassora, sotto questo aspetto, divenne centrale per i piani geopolitici delle compagnie mercantili europee (non solo inglesi, ma anche olandesi e portoghesi). Nel XVIII secolo, gli Ottomani, alleati con alcune tribù sunnite afghane, mossero nuovamente guerra e conquistarono alcune città della Persia occidentale, mentre proprio gli Inglesi approfittarono della situazione per prendere possesso di alcune regioni a ridosso del Golfo Persico (isole comprese) e dell’Oceano Indiano a sud dell’Altopiano Iranico.
Con l’ascesa al potere di Nadir Shah e della dinastia afsharide (1736-1796), gli Ottomani, costretti sulla difensiva, cercarono di allearsi con i Britannici in chiave antipersiana. I ripetuti scontri tra Afsharidi e Ottomani portarono alla firma del Trattato di Gardan con il quale le parti riconoscevano, di fatto, i confini previsti dal precedente Trattato di Qasr-e Shirin.
Nel 1821, probabilmente su istigazione russa (Mosca era interessata ad uno scontro che indebolisse entrambe le parti per facilitare la sua penetrazione nel Caucaso), i due imperi entrarono nuovamente in conflitto. I Persiani, questa volta governati dalla nuova dinastia dei Qajar, riuscirono ad occupare alcune città dell’Anatolia orientale ma, successivamente, con il primo Trattato di Erzurum (mediato da Russia e Gran Bretagna) riconobbero nuovamente la linea di frontiera stabilita ai tempi di Nadir Shah.
Tutti questi Trattati avevano comunque il difetto di non delineare dei confini chiari tra le due entità geopolitiche. Essi, più generalmente, ne indicavano solo alcuni punti. Sulla base di questa incertezza, mentre i Persiani erano impegnati ad Herat in una sanguinosa battaglia contro le tribù afghane, gli Ottomani, sostenuti dagli inglesi, occuparono il fondamentale centro urbano di Khorramshahr, nell’area sud-occidentale dell’Altopiano. I Qajar reagirono organizzando una spedizione militare contro la Sublime Porta ma russi e inglesi convinsero lo Shah a desistere e ad intavolare nuove trattative che portarono al secondo Trattato di Erzurum (1847). Questo Trattato, per la prima volta nella storia, indicava in modo preciso quello che sarebbe dovuto essere il confine tra lo Stato dei Qajar e l’Impero Ottomano. In particolare, stabiliva che: “il governo persiano accetta che i territori a ovest di Zahab appartengono al governo ottomano, così come quest’ultimo riconosce la sovranità persiana sui territori a est di Zahab e della valle di Karand. Il governo persiano rinuncia a qualsiasi pretesa per quello che riguarda la città e la provincia di Suleimanyah, non interferendo negli affari della medesima, così come il governo ottomano riconosce la sovranità persiana sulle città a ovest del fiume Arvand (Shatt al-Arab) e riconosce la sovranità persiana su Khorramshahr e Abadan. Inoltre, le navi persiane sono libere di navigare nel fiume Arvand, dal punto in cui il corso d’acqua sfocia nel mare sino al punto in cui è stabilito il confine tra le parti”.
Proprio attorno a questo corso d’acqua strategico (il fiume Arvand o Shatt al-Arab) si concentreranno le rivendicazioni reciproche che portarono al conflitto tra l’Iraq ba’athista e la neonata Repubblica Islamica dell’Iran.
Un nuovo accordo venne preso nel 1935 a seguito di un rinnovato periodo di tensione questa volta tra l’Iraq sottoposto a mandato britannico e la Persia di Reza Khan. Già in quel periodo, ad onor del vero, si palesò la volontà irachena di occupare alcune città del Khuzestan. Tuttavia, Reza Khan, forse spinto degli inglesi e dando ulteriore prova di uno spirito non esattamente patriottico (nonostante alcuni iniziali slanci nazionalistici), diede all’Iraq ampie concessioni sulla navigazione nel corso d’acqua, arrivando addirittura a rinunciare alla navigazione iraniana in alcune aree.
La situazione si complicò ulteriormente quando nel 1958, a seguito del colpo di Stato militare di Kassem in Iraq ed all’uscita di questo dal Patto di Baghdad, le controversie assunsero una dimensione “globale” andando a legarsi allo scontro tra Stati Uniti ed Unione Sovietica. Ad esse si aggiunse la componente ideologica panarabista che vedeva le regioni arabofone dell’Iran come parte integrante della “Grande Patria Araba”. Non a caso, Saddam Hussein, successivamente, definì la guerra contro l’Iran del 1980 come una nuova “Qadisiyya”. Ma questi aspetti verranno analizzati nel dettaglio in seguito.
Superata l’epoca mamelucca (durante la quale l’Iraq poté godere di un discreto grado di autonomia), come in altre regioni del Vicino Oriente, due forze principali influenzarono l’area nel corso del XIX secolo: il crescente potere e le spinte centralizzatrici del governo ottomano da un lato (riforme comprese); la progressiva integrazione di questo spazio in un’economia mondiale dominata in larga parte dall’Europa. Ad onor del vero, già sotto l’ultimo sovrano mamelucco, il pio e stimato studioso Dawud Pascià, tali tendenze (che contraddistingueranno gran parte della storia moderna e contemporanea dell’Iraq) si erano già manifestate attraverso lo sviluppo di un efficiente potere centrale statale e l’espansione dell’influenza economica britannica.
Allo stesso tempo, è opportuno ricordare che i tentativi dell’Impero ottomano di riaffermare il proprio controllo assoluto sull’Iraq incontrarono non poche resistenze. Diverse ribellioni (forse sostenute dalla Persia) scoppiarono sia a Baghdad che nei principali centri sciiti (Najaf e Kerbala, in primo luogo). Proprio a Kerbala, la (ri)conquista della città da parte ottomana avvenne ad un prezzo assai alto in termini di vite umane. I santuari sciiti vennero ancora una volta profanati e le autorità giuridiche sciite vennero spazzate vie. In entrambe le città, inoltre, il potere centrale nominò dei governatori sunniti che non risparmiarono ulteriori persecuzioni per la componente sciita della popolazione. Questa, in larga parte, fu costretta a nascondere la propria fede applicando alla lettera il principio della taqiyya (dissimulazione) che prevede la liceità di nascondere o rinnegare (esteriormente) il credo religioso in modo da sfuggire a persecuzioni o pericoli imminenti.
Tra il 1839 ed il 1876, una serie di riforme, note collettivamente come tanzimat (riorganizzazioni), fu varata dalla Sublime Porta. L’obiettivo era quello di modernizzare gli apparati burocratici dell’Impero. Tuttavia, il primo (e forse unico) reale beneficiario delle riforme fu l’esercito. Scrive lo storico Malcolm Yapp: “Fu necessario reperire il denaro per pagare l’esercito mediante l’imposizione fiscale e i prestiti. Fu quindi necessario disporre di un’amministrazione più ampia ed efficiente per mobilitare le risorse dell’Impero. La riforma educativa si rese indispensabile per produrre i funzionari e i burocrati necessari”.
In questa riforma educativa era compresa l’apertura ad alcune scuole missionarie europee che impartivano un insegnamento più articolato rispetto all’educazione religiosa delle tradizionali madrasa. Tra queste scuole “moderne” spiccava indubbiamente quella fondata a Baghdad nel 1865 dall’Alliance Israelite Universelle, il cui reale obiettivo era quello di preparare la popolazione ebraica irachena al discorso sionista che, nella seconda metà del XIX secolo, stava iniziando a conoscere una discreta diffusione nell’Europa occidentale (tra Francia e Gran Bretagna).
Ma la penetrazione “occidentale” (e britannica in particolar modo) si fece sentire soprattutto in ambito economico. Prima dell’apertura del canale di Suez e della scoperta del petrolio nella Persia meridionale, gli interessi britannici in Iraq erano collegati essenzialmente alle comunicazioni con l’India (la corrispondenza per il Subcontinente percorreva la pista che da Aleppo arriva a Bassora e, da qui, veniva imbarcata per l’India). Le compagnie inglesi, di fatto, si spesero che creare servizi di navigazione regolari lungo il Tigri e l’Eufrate. Negli anni ’30 del XIX secolo, ad esempio, vide la luce la Euphrates and Tigris Steam Navigation Company; mentre nel 1862 venne istituito un collegamento navale tra Bassora e Bombay e, successivamente, un collegamento telegrafico diretto. Così che, negli ultimi anni di dominio ottomano, l’Iraq era già largamente dipendente dalla Gran Bretagna, nonostante i tentativi controegemonici tedesco-ottomani che arrivarono al culmine con il progetto ferroviario Berlino-Baghdad. Infrastruttura strategica dall’alto valore geopolitico che prevedeva, tra le altre cose, i diritti di sfruttamento minerario lungo il percorso della stessa linea ferroviaria.
Come reazione all’influenza che la Germania stava cercando di esercitare sull’area, Londra, nel 1899, concluse un accordo con lo sceicco Mubarak al-Sabah del Kuwait, col quale il piccolo principato avrebbe ricevuto assistenza e protezione militare in cambio del totale controllo britannico sulla sua politica estera.
La comunità che riuscì a trarre maggiore vantaggio dall’apertura economica verso l’Europa fu indubbiamente quella ebraica. Quella sciita, invece, si chiuse in se stessa nonostante fosse già maggioranza relativa in diversi distretti (Baghdad compresa). Non solo, a questo periodo risale la pratica dei sapienti sciiti (mujtahid) di rimettersi, in materie teologiche, giuridiche e politiche, al parere di quello che veniva considerato come il più dotto tra loro: il Marja’ al-Taqlid (fonte di imitazione). Altra pratica che segnerà in modo determinante il futuro della regione.
Gli slanci ottomanisti prima e quelli turco-nazionalisti a partire dai primi anni del XX secolo (e dovuti alla crescente influenza dei Giovani Turchi ed al ruolo del Comitato Unità e Progresso nella “rivoluzione” del 1908) diedero spazio alla contro-affermazione di uno spirito nazionalista arabo che si opponeva alla “turchificazione culturale”. Diverse associazioni segrete vennero create in questi anni. La più importante di queste era al-‘Ahd (la società del patto) che invocava la piena indipendenza delle province arabe dell’Impero ottomano. Il suo fondatore era un egiziano, ma al suo interno ebbero un ruolo di primo piano diverse figure che saranno protagoniste della politica irachena e cavallo tra le due guerre mondiali e dopo, come Nuri al-Sa’id, Yasin al-Hashimi e Jafar al-‘Askari.
Già prima dell’ingresso nel primo conflitto mondiale dell’Impero ottomano, i Britannici stavano preparando un’invasione dell’Iraq meridionale partendo dall’India e dalla Persia. Gli interessi economici e strategici di Londra nell’area erano infatti notevoli e crescenti in quanto legati a doppio filo con la trasformazione (dal carbone al petrolio) della fonte combustibile della Royal Navy. Così, un giorno dopo la formale dichiarazione di guerra, le forze di Sua Maestà sbarcarono in prossimità di Bassora. Tuttavia, la conquista dell’Iraq si dimostrò tutt’altro che un’impresa facile. Nei primi mesi del 1916, la forza di spedizione britannica del generale Townshend, sotto assedio da cinque mesi nei pressi di Kut al-‘Amara, fu addirittura costretta alla resa. Solo nel 1917, una nuova offensiva porto all’occupazione di Baghdad e giunse a sud di Mosul. Un’area, quest’ultima, che per tutto il corso della guerra subì i contraccolpi dello scontro che infuriava nell’Anatolia orientale. Qui, tanto i Russi quanto i Britannici non smisero mai di incoraggiare i cristiani armeni e assiri alla ribellione contro il potere ottomano, salvo poi lasciarli soli nel momento reale della resa dei conti (una pratica che successivamente verrà fatta propria, e su larga scala, dagli Stati Uniti).
Al contempo, i Britannici sostennero la ribellione araba guidata dagli Hashemiti meccani. All’interno delle loro forze erano presenti un cospicuo numero di ufficiali iracheni membri della suddetta società al-‘Ahd. La ribellione riuscì a distrarre le forze ottomane da altri fronti e nel 1918 portò Faysal, figlio dello sceriffo della Mecca Husayn, a Damasco. Qui, le sue speranze di dare vita ad un grande regno arabo indipendente si scontrarono con la realtà degli accordi segreti Sykes-Picot con i quali Francia e Gran Bretagna avevano deciso di spartirsi il Vicino Oriente assai prima della fine della guerra.
In linea generale, la prima risposta irachena all’invasione britannica fu di sostanziale neutralità. Tuttavia, questa si trasformò in resistenza attiva quando divenne evidente che l’occupazione militare non era affatto temporanea. Le reazioni variarono a seconda della regione. I Curdi, ad esempio, videro (almeno inizialmente) nei Britannici dei liberatori che avrebbero garantito loro uno Stato indipendente. Gli sciiti, invece, si opposero da subito alla presenza britannica e molti mujtahid arrivano a proclamare il gihad contro gli invasori.
La politica di Londra in Iraq – il cui controllo era fondamentale per lo sfruttamento e commercio petrolifero – assunse da subito due tendenze distinte: la “scuola orientale” rappresentata da Sir Arnold Wilson (il commissario civile del Paese) mirava ad estendere all’Iraq le stesse politiche attuate in India; la “scuola occidentale” dell’Arab Bureau del Cairo, invece, sosteneva la tutela degli interessi britannici attraverso un controllo indiretto e meno pervasivo.
La prima ebbe inizialmente la meglio anche sulla base dell’idea che un simile approccio, oltre a garantire gli interessi britannici, avrebbe diffuso la civiltà tra i barbari popoli asiatici. Un approccio che venne in qualche modo riconosciuto anche dalla Società delle Nazioni a seguito della Conferenza di San Remo del 1920 con il quale si stabilì la politica mandataria occidentale. Questa veniva giustificata così: “Alcune comunità che appartenevano prima all’Impero turco hanno raggiunto un grado di sviluppo tale che la loro esistenza come nazioni indipendenti può essere provvisoriamente riconosciuta, salvo il consiglio e l’assistenza amministrativa di una Potenza mandataria, finché non saranno in grado di reggersi da sé. I desideri di queste comunità dovranno essere principalmente tenuti in conto dalla Potenza mandataria”.
Nel momento in cui gli esiti di San Remo vennero resi noti, l’Iraq era sull’orlo di un’insurrezione su vasta scala. Nel 1920, inoltre, l’esercito arabo venne sconfitto in prossimità di Damasco dai Francesi (titolari del mandato sulla Siria). Con il risultato che molti iracheni smobilitati finirono per ingrossare le fila della ribellione anti-britannica in Patria. Il centro della “Grande Rivolta” del 1920 fu ancora volta Kerbala. Da qui, l’ayatollah Shirazi continuò imperterrito ad esortare i musulmani alla guerra contro l’occupante. Questo, messo alle strette da un movimento che stava assumendo proporzioni di massa e che avrebbe potuto “contagiare” altre aree del Vicino Oriente, rispose con una brutale repressione in cui la Royal Air Force non risparmiò l’utilizzo di armi chimiche (gas iprite) contro le milizie ribelli.
Nonostante la sconfitta dei ribelli, i Britannici optarono per un cambio di rotta della politica irachena. Il nuovo Alto Commissario Percy Cox rovesciò la politica del predecessore e optò, in comunione di intenti con il Ministero delle Colonie, per l’indirect rule: ovvero, la creazione di un governo iracheno indipendente (affidato al notabile sunnita Abdul Rahman al-Gaylani) sotto stretta supervisione britannica. Mentre a Faysal venne offerta la corona di una neonata istituzione monarchica irachena totalmente asservita a Londra, visto che questi, originario dell’Hijaz, in alcun modo poteva godere di solidi legami con le tribù locali. Un’operazione nuovamente denunciata dalla componente sciita della popolazione che, per l’ennesima volta, venne messa a tacere dalle forze di occupazione.
Nonostante ciò, Faysal insistette per fare in modo che le relazioni tra Gran Bretagna ed Iraq venissero impostate in conformità ad un vero e proprio trattato. Questo venne stipulato nel 1922 e incorporava nei suoi termini tutti quelli del mandato, sebbene nella forma di un supposto accordo bilaterale. La Gran Bretagna amministrava direttamente la difesa e la sicurezza interna del Paese e tutti gli altri ministeri dovevano accettare la presenza di consiglieri e ispettori britannici con diritto di veto su qualsiasi questione di rilievo. Il governo iracheno, con poteri estremamente ridotti, era inoltre tenuto a pagare metà delle spese per i funzionari britannici presenti in loco.
Un nuovo trattato anglo-iracheno venne firmato nel 1930, sotto l’attenta supervisione del Primo Ministro Nuri al-Sa’id (già citato in riferimento alla società segreta al-Ahd e figura centrale nella storia dell’Iraq monarchico). Questo doveva rimanere in vigore per venticinque anni e prevedeva l’indipendenza formale dell’Iraq due anni dopo la sua ratifica. Tuttavia, includeva contemporaneamente la solidificazione di un rapporto ineguale con la Gran Bretagna e la tutela del ruolo dominante della stessa nel Paese. Tutte le più importanti decisioni di politica estera, infatti, prevedevano il veto britannico. E sempre Londra manteneva il monopolio sull’addestramento ed equipaggiamento dell’esercito iracheno, così come il diritto di utilizzare il territorio del Paese in caso di guerra (con la RAF che manteneva il controllo diretto sulle basi di Habaniyya, vicino a Baghdad, e di Shu’ayba, nei pressi di Bassora).
Tra i primi provvedimenti del governo “indipendente” vi fu un ulteriore rafforzamento dell’esercito, perché, come ebbe modo di sottolineare proprio Nuri al-Sa’id, era impensabile che in uno Stato moderno le tribù avessero più armi delle forze di difesa e sicurezza. La manovra, però, finì per ritorcersi contro la monarchia e la presenza britannica. L’esercito, infatti, si presentava come una forza nazional-patriottica al cui intero iniziò a diffondersi l’idea che la Gran Bretagna fosse una forza retriva che sosteneva una ristretta ed altrettanto retrograda élite politica che impediva qualsiasi tipo di sviluppo reale del Paese, mantenendolo in una condizione di debolezza e arretratezza. Soprattutto gli sciiti non vedevano alcuna possibilità di elevazione sociale visto che i britannici consentivano l’accesso a posizioni di potere solo ai sunniti.
U.S. Ambassador to Turkey Tom Barrack suggested on Friday that the U.S. could strike Iran as early as this weekend. His statement caps a week of growing speculation about whether America and Israel could resume major attacks on the Islamic Republic.
“Could there be a strike this weekend? Absolutely,” Barrack told online commentator Mario Nawfal when asked to explain the end game of efforts to seek a diplomatic resolution. “The president is very clear. He’s open and available and accessible to a deal. And we’ve been at the table for months and months and months… the nuclear proliferation and where we go with the enrichment and all those things are, are details, the punctuation in the chapter that needs to be finished.”
— Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) October 23, 2026
I asked Trump's Special Envoy, Tom Barrack: “Could there be a strike on this this weekend?
His answer was direct: "Absolutely.”
Amb. Barrack laid out exactly where things stand with Iran right now.… pic.twitter.com/upe7UlgGvb
Asked about Barrack’s comments regarding the potential timing of a strike on Iran, President Donald Trump told reporters that the ambassador “is a powerful man, I guess. If that’s the case, I don’t know anything about it.”
Q: Your ambassador to Türkiye said that "absolutely" there could be a strike on Iran this weekend.
— Clash Report (@clashreport) October 23, 2026
Trump: He is a powerful man, I guess.
I don't know anything about it. pic.twitter.com/uDAqSYUocJ
Speculation about a return to hostilities was sparked earlier this week after heavy activity of fighter aircraft was reported over Iraq.
Israeli Fighter Jets Simulate Possible ATTACK on Iran Over Iraq
— Ryan Rozbiani (@RyanRozbiani) October 19, 2026
Around 10 Israeli fighter jets reportedly flew through Syrian airspace into Iraq tonight, conducting simulated attack runs.
Similar flights have occurred for DAYS as Iran remains on HIGH ALERT over a possible… pic.twitter.com/nK0c24vFP2
On Wednesday, Axios reported that dozens of Israeli fighters flew through Syrian and Iraqi airspace toward the border with Iran on Monday as part of a “power projection” exercise.
The sorties, extending some 800 miles away from Israel proper, were launched after U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth made a surprise trip to Israel earlier this week to meet with that country’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, reportedly to discuss new plans to attack Iran.
“Israel notified the U.S. in advance and described the operation as a training exercise [on Monday] intended for ‘power projection’ and aimed at deterring Iran from launching attacks against Israel ahead of the elections [in that country],” according to Axios. “Dozens of fighter jets and refueling aircraft” were involved.
After the Axios story came out, there were unconfirmed reports of additional major Israeli military air activity on Wednesday night.
Intense IAF fighter jet activity is now being reported over Iraq, especially on the border with Iran.
— MoloMonitor
Meanwhile, continuous takeoffs are taking place from the Ramon, Nevatim, and Ovda airbases. https://t.co/c35xIbtAAu
The last known Israeli strikes on Iran came in June. The U.S. military officially concluded major combat operations against the Islamic Republic in May, but tit-for-tat strikes have continued since then as part of an ongoing blockade of Iranian ports. For its part, Iran has continued to launch strikes on commercial vessels in and around the Strait of Hormuz, which continues to have major impacts on global energy markets despite U.S. efforts to safeguard the flow of tanker ships out of the Persian Gulf.
As TWZ editor-in-chief Tyler Rogoway pointed out on X Wednesday evening, the commotion over Iraq was likely practice runs and would be part of the prelude to any major new air operation targeting Iran. Conducting sorties relatively close to the Iranian border would also offer opportunities to gain valuable intelligence about the current state and disposition of that country’s air defenses.
“Dry runs are important for such a large integrated operation,” Rogoway noted. “They can be scaled as the operation gets closer. Getting a large part of the intended force up and in position can really help with the chances of mission success if the actual order to execute is given. So many moving parts to align. Not great to find out any weak spots on night one of a new offensive.”
“Stimulating Iran’s air defenses is critical,” he added. “By Iran operating as if a full scale attack could be coming, their air defenses can be detected, categorized and geolocated. This is absolutely critical prior to a major air operation. Surveilling them during times of lower alert does not provide the same fidelity of actionable intelligence. Knowing where those threats are and how they are operating can mean the difference of life and death and/or will help standoff munitions make their way to their targets as those defenses can be suppressed, destroyed, or avoided entirely via careful mission planning.”
Couple things on the large scale tactical aircraft activity over the Middle East tonight:
— Tyler Rogoway (@Aviation_Intel) October 21, 2026
I don't have any info on this operation or if it truly has gone kinetic, but here is likely what is happening if not:
1.) Dry runs are important for such a large integrated operation. They…
“U.S. officials said the Israelis knew that Iran’s air defense systems would detect the sortie[s on Monday],” Axios’ report also noted. “Some U.S. sources said they had the impression that Israel was hoping the Iranians would fire at the aircraft, providing a justification for launching strikes against Iran.”
TWZ cannot confirm this; however pushing Iran to react would not fit with the goals of a major exercise like this.
There have been other signs that a major new round of U.S. and/or Israeli strikes on Iran might be looming on the horizon. Fox News reported earlier this week that the Nimitz class aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt and the rest of its carrier strike group, as well as the Makin Island Amphibious Ready Group carrying the 13th Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU), were heading to the Middle East, citing unnamed U.S. officials.
“The ships will arrive in the Middle East by the end of November,” the officials said, according to a post on X from Fox’s Jennifer Griffin on Tuesday. “These new deployments will add about 10,000 sailors and Marines to the Middle East.”
Per @Liz_Friden The U.S. is sending the USS Theodore Roosevelt carrier strike group and the 13th Marine Expeditionary Unit to the Middle East, two U.S. officials confirm to Fox News. The ships will arrive in the Middle East by the end of November, the officials said. These new…
— Jennifer Griffin (@JenGriffinFNC) October 20, 2026
There have been indications of increased U.S. military air activity in the Middle East recently, as well. Observers have called attention to the particularly significant influx of aerial refueling tankers to bases in the region, as well as in Europe, which would be critical to any new major air campaign.
US Tanker Fleet Update 21/OCT/2026 #IranWar
— DefenceGeek
Overall numbers across CENTCOM and Europe have now stabilised back to the levels they were at back at the start of September, around 190-195. There are a few tankers dotted around at other sites temporarily (Glasgow Prestwick and… pic.twitter.com/taKi8op7Tv
In addition, there are claims that Russia is evacuating its scientists from the Bushehr Nuclear Power plant and other Russians ahead of a potential new round of strikes. TWZ cannot independently verify this.
BREAKING: Russian airforce TU-134 used to evacuate high ranking personnel has just left Iran with its transponder off rumoured to be picking up Russian scientists from Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant.
— WarMonitor
We saw similar evacuation flights before US strikes on Iran in February… pic.twitter.com/dFLvQvesNk
The New York Times reported on Wednesday that the U.S. and Israeli militaries had “developed specific plans for renewed strikes against Iran after the American midterm elections,” citing U.S. officials and other people briefed on the deliberations.
Authorities in Washington and Jerusalem appear to be planning “a short but intensive operation” that would last between three and five days, the newspaper added. “The targets would likely include Iran’s energy infrastructure, nuclear facilities, and missile and drone arsenal. Some officials say one more big round of attacks could push Iran’s economy over the brink and force the country to make diplomatic concessions after nearly eight months of conflict.”
Separately on Wednesday, NBC News also reported that the Pentagon and U.S. State Department were relocating personnel from bases and diplomatic facilities in the Middle East, amid the possibility of new strikes on Iran, as well as broader regional security concerns. The State Department subsequently pushed back on that report, saying that non-emergency U.S. government employees and dependents had only been directed to leave Saudi Arabia in response to attacks from Iranian-backed Houthi militants in Yemen.
This is inaccurate. The U.S. Department of State issued an ordered departure for non-emergency U.S. government employees and their family members in Saudi Arabia only.
— Tommy Pigott (@statedeptspox) October 21, 2026
Iranian-supported Houthis have increasingly engaged in hostilities against Saudi Arabia, including attacks on… https://t.co/yNrCwDcfIg
A high-ranking Israel Defense Forces (IDF) official we spoke with said a new war with Iran is not a foregone conclusion.
“I would describe the situation as increasingly tense, with a real risk of renewed escalation,” the IDF official told us. “However, I would be cautious about concluding that another war is inevitable or that its timing can be reliably predicted.”
“The recent IAF [Israeli Air Force] activity is significant, as are the reported military preparations and the increasingly confrontational rhetoric from both Washington and Jerusalem,” he added. “But military readiness, deterrence, and operational planning do not necessarily mean that a final political decision to launch another campaign has been made.”
“We do not see any indications of a need to strike Iran before the election,” IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir also said during a recent closed-door meeting, according to Israeli media reports. At the same time, “if we determine that a strike on Iran is necessary, we will carry it out.”
“Iran is once again attempting to develop a nuclear bomb,” Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu also warned again this week, according to The Jerusalem Post. “My directive to the IDF, the Mossad, and the defense establishment… [is] to overthrow the regime in Iran.”
The IDF official also raised questions about the potential efficacy of any new major air campaign against Iran.
“Both Trump and Netanyahu have previously described the results of earlier rounds of fighting as a decisive, even total, victory, emphasizing the damage inflicted on Iran’s ballistic missile capabilities, its production and supply chains, and its nuclear infrastructure,” the official noted. “This raises an obvious question: If the results were as decisive as they claimed, what has changed to make another confrontation necessary now?”
“I believe we must recognize the limitations of trying to defeat a country like Iran through targeted killings and stand-off kinetic strikes alone,” he added. “Such operations can destroy infrastructure, eliminate key personnel, disrupt production, and delay military programs. They can impose significant costs on an adversary. But they do not necessarily eliminate the adversary’s strategic ambitions, prevent the regeneration of capabilities, or produce a durable political outcome.”
U.S. President Trump’s repeated threats to launch strikes on a very hardened Iranian facility known as Pickaxe Mountain have raised similar questions. The Pickaxe Mountain site is believed to be tied to Iran’s nuclear program, but is also arguably the hardest-to-reach target in the country, and has gone untouched in previous U.S. and Israeli operations.
CBS News reported last week that the White House and Pentagon “have prepared plans to use a Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb [MOAB] to hit military sites in Iran,” including Pickaxe Mountain, “if ordered by President Trump.” However, the 22,000-pound-class MOAB, also designated the GBU-43/B, is not a deep-penetrating munition, and it was not immediately clear from that story how the weapon might be employed. The bomb is also only known to be currently cleared for employment via C-130-type aircraft. It has only been used in combat once, in Afghanistan in 2017, where the skies above were entirely permissive. You can read more about the targeting challenges specific to Pickaxe Mountain, and what options the U.S. military might have for halting, or at least degrading activity there, in a previous TWZ feature here.
MOAB’s use case would be limited against sites like Pickaxe Mountain. While its unique overpressure effects could harm any personnel openly exposed inside tunnel systems, it is unlikely to destroy or even heavily damage the hardened facilities themselves. It could cause damage to external support infrastructure and act as a psychological weapon in its own right, but it is not a bunker buster in any way.
Not what this weapon is really used for. Psychological effect, maybe https://t.co/hDWSXYKexr
— Tyler Rogoway (@Aviation_Intel) October 15, 2026
The puzzling leak about the MOAB may be part of the administration’s effort to use the media to try and compel Iran to negotiate. This has been a glaring pattern throughout the ebb and flow of this conflict and a common tactic used by the Trump administration.
Talking threatening plans against Iran here. They are always planning and have a slew of options.
— Tyler Rogoway (@Aviation_Intel) October 15, 2026
The leaks and sources are by and large fully aware what their marching orders are. It’s coordinated. A lever this admin pulls non stop right on cue.
For its part, Iran is operating on the assumption that a U.S.-Israeli attack is a “certainty,” The Jerusalem Post reported on Wednesday, citing Iran’s Fars News Agency, a quasi-state media outlet affiliated with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). “The report, which cited a senior Iranian security official, added that Iran will consider U.S. politicians legitimate targets if such an attack involves the assassination of Iranian officials.”
The IRGC has also threatened to launch expanded retaliatory attacks on targets across the Middle East in response to any new waves of strikes.
As we noted earlier in this story, Iran continues to actively attack commercial shipping in and around the Strait of Hormuz. The official Iranian IRNA news agency reported that the IRGC Navy claimed that it recently struck four ships transferring oil cargoes in the northern Persian Gulf, while three other vessels suffered damage after striking mines west of the Strait of Hormuz.
While TWZ cannot independently verify those claims, the Ambrey maritime security firm said that the number of vessels damaged during Strait of Hormuz transits has “increased sharply” this month.
“During the two weeks from 3 to 16 October, the number rose to 11 and 13 vessels per week, respectively, compared with an average of three to four per week in the preceding weeks,” Ambrey senior analyst Daniel Mueller noted today in the company’s latest security assessment. “This increase coincided with an expansion of Iranian operations aimed at restricting transits deemed unauthorized, while the US continued to facilitate transits along the Omani coastline.”
On Oct. 9, “the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) threatened to pursue and target vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz without Iranian authorisation throughout the wider Gulf region,” Mueller added. “During October, incidents attributed to Iran involved merchant vessels off Qatar, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Saudi Arabia and Sohar, Oman. Between 8 and 16 October, six merchant vessels – five tankers and one gas carrier – were damaged outside of the Strait of Hormuz. Additionally, a tanker was damaged offshore Iraq on 20 October.”
Reports emerging earlier this week from The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post do say that oil exports from the Persian Gulf have returned to prewar levels thanks to U.S. efforts to safeguard tankers out of the region.
“Middle East oil flows, including shipments through Hormuz and alternative routes across the region, averaged more than 24 million barrels a day in the week through Oct. 18, surpassing prewar levels of 23.3 million,” according to the Journal, citing ship tracker Kpler. “Preliminary figures show Hormuz oil flows, including offshore transfers in the Gulf of Oman, came to around 14 million barrels a day on average for the same period, or 82% of prewar levels.”
From the @WSJ: “Persian Gulf oil exports have surpassed prewar levels, as an improvised shipping system under U.S. protection is helping tankers move oil through one of Iran’s fiercest waves of attacks in the Strait of Hormuz.”https://t.co/SJo2jlUfew
— Javier Blas (@JavierBlas) October 21, 2026
However, global energy oil markets continue to be under immense strain as a result of the ongoing fallout from the conflict with Iran, thanks in no small part to surging insurance costs for shipping companies. This has been further exacerbated now by Yemen’s Houthis expanding their attacks on oil infrastructure in Saudi Arabia, including a recent strike near the Shaybah oilfield. The Houthis are also exerting their own pressure on shipping passing through the Bab Al Mandab Strait, a critical chokepoint that links the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden.
A Saudi-led coalition supporting Yemen’s internationally recognized government has been embroiled in an on-again-off-again conflict with the Houthis since 2014. Fighting with the Iranian-supported Yemeni militants in and around the Red Sea was inflamed last year as a by-product of Israel’s 12 Day War with Iran. The Houthis also retaliated with missile and drone attacks in support of Iran in the wake of U.S. and Israel launching their major operations against the regime in Tehran in February.
The U.S. government and the Houthis have been observing a tenuous ceasefire since May 2025. This has continued despite the Yemeni militants now imposing a blockade on the Bab Al Mandab Strait, and a new campaign of strikes on Saudi ships in the southern part of the Red Sea, as well as targeting critical energy terminals on that body of water and Saudi refineries. Iranian proxies have also struck the vital East-West pipeline that carries oil to the Red Sea to bypass the Strait of Hormuz. That line has reportedly since reopened after being shut down following a long-range drone attack.
The two sides have also been fighting battles across much of Yemen and the conflict between the two parties is ongoing.
“On Wednesday, two people were killed and two others injured by debris from intercepted drones near a processing plant at the Shaybah field, one of the biggest oilfields in Saudi Arabia,” The National noted. “Operations at the Shaybah field and its processing facilities remain unaffected, but the attack rattled markets again amid concerns about potential disruption to Saudi supply just as the Kingdom has largely restored its exports via the Strait of Hormuz and the Red Sea.”
As a result, the per-barrel price of Brent crude has jumped to more than $114 as of Friday morning, according to OilPrice.com, the highest that it has been since May during intensified fighting between the U.S. and Iran.
In addition, Saudi Aramco has told staff to evacuate its Dhahran headquarters and work remotely, Reuters reported, citing six people with knowledge of the matter. The move came a day after two people were killed in an attack on a nearby airport. The order marked the first time Aramco had asked staff to evacuate its headquarters since the start of the Iran war, Reuters added.
The Houthis “caused extensive damage to the company’s headquarters earlier this month when they struck the building, with fire spreading across several floors,” the outlet explained.
Houthi attacks on Saudi Arabia have spurred Britain to commit to providing “defensive counter air missions to support the protection of Saudi cities and critical national infrastructure against aerial attack, using RAF Typhoon fighter jets,” Defense Secretary Wes Streeting said in a statement. “These aircraft will operate in a defensive role and will not conduct offensive strikes against the Houthis. The UK will provide an RAF A400M to support the movement of defense materiel within Saudi Arabia, alongside UK military advisers to support Saudi staff officers.”
“The continuing attacks from the Houthis on our ally Saudi Arabia are absolutely despicable,” Streeting said.
As we noted earlier in this story, the U.S. is continuing its naval blockade of Iranian ports.
U.S. Central Command said Thursday on X that its renewed naval blockade of Iranian ports, now in its 100th day, “has helped prevent Iran from exporting at least $25 billion worth of crude oil and constrained the IRGC’s ability to fund proxy militias, criminal networks, and terrorism. There have been no exports or imports to Iran by sea except for the humanitarian aid U.S. forces have allowed.”
Today marks 100 days since CENTCOM forces resumed America's steel wall naval blockade against Iran. This effort has helped prevent Iran from exporting at least $25 billion worth of crude oil and constrained the IRGC's ability to fund proxy militias, criminal networks, and… pic.twitter.com/DwiamYBdHY
— U.S. Central Command (@CENTCOM) October 22, 2026
For its part, Iran is operating on the assumption that a U.S.-Israeli attack is a “certainty,” the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)-affiliated Fars News Agency reported, according to the Jerusalem Post.
“The report, which cited a senior Iranian security official, added that Iran will consider U.S. politicians legitimate targets if such an attack involves the assassination of Iranian officials,” the publication added.
The IRGC also announced that it was preparing to unveil a new weapon, which it dubbed the “Father of All Bombs,” in response to U.S. threats to use the most powerful conventional bomb in the American arsenal against Iran’s nuclear facilities, the Jerusalem Post also reported.
Officials, however, declined to offer any details about what kind of weapon it is, its power, whether it is operational or when it will be shown to the public, the Post noted.
In addition to the strategic and tactical issues in the region, the IDF official we spoke with raised concerns that “domestic political considerations may influence the rhetoric and decisions” of Prime Minister Netanyahu and U.S. President Donald Trump. Israel is holding nationwide parliamentary elections on October 27 that could have significant domestic political ramifications. The same is true of mid-term elections in the United States in November.
“I cannot know their precise calculations, but the possibility that political incentives could affect decisions with such enormous strategic consequences should not be dismissed,” the IDF official cautioned. “With Israel’s elections approaching, I sincerely hope that Netanyahu will not make a decision with far-reaching consequences for the country’s security based, even partly, on immediate political considerations. The stakes are simply too high for military action to become a means of reshaping a domestic political narrative.”
In a phone call with Trump recorded live on Monday and posted on his X account, Netanyahu thanked the American leader for his election endorsement and suggested future operations against Iran.
“Donald, we have a job to finish [in Iran]…and we’ll finish it together,” the Israeli leader told Trump. “We’ll finish it, and no one else will do it.”
בשיחה עם ידידי הנשיא טראמפ לאחר שהודיע על תמיכתו בי בבחירות. יחד אנחנו הולכים להסיר את האיום האיראני לתמיד! צאו להצביע מחל! pic.twitter.com/GuPEAPn0Tc
— Benjamin Netanyahu – בנימין נתניהו (@netanyahu) October 19, 2026
As for Trump, the President has previously said the war with Iran will end “immediately after the election” and has reportedly told aides he expects to resume strikes on the Islamic Republic after the midterms. Domestic U.S. polls show the ongoing conflict continues to be deeply unpopular with voters, who are also eager to see it concluded.
Speaking to reporters Thursday afternoon, Trump acknowledged that the Iran war could have a negative impact on Republican hopes for the midterms.
“Well in one way, they love it because I’m doing what should have been done by other presidents, and another way maybe they don’t,” Trump said. “It’s — there’s a price to pay, which I knew immediately when I did it, but we can’t let Iran have a nuclear weapon. I mean, in one way, people probably don’t love it, but many people, many great patriots, really love it. This should have been done a long time ago by other presidents. The Iran War, and we’ve knocked the hell out of them, and we may do it a little bit further.“
Q: How do you feel the Iran war impacted the midterm races?
— Clash Report (@clashreport) October 22, 2026
Trump: In one way, they love it. In another way, maybe they don't. There's a price to pay. pic.twitter.com/qtkE9M2vSQ
Later on Thursday, the American president said that: “We’re gonna have Iran finished very soon, one way or the other. It’s almost insignificant to me which way.”
U.S. President Donald Trump on Iran:
— Open Source Intel (@Osint613) October 23, 2026
"We're gonna have Iran finished very soon. one way or the other. It's almost insignificant to me which way.
It's going to be done very soon, and your gasoline prices and your oil is going to come tumbling down."
pic.twitter.com/vIGviqe8gi
While indicators are pointing to the U.S. and Israel at the very least in the very late stages of planning for new strikes against Iran, even if that doesn’t happen, the Middle East will remain a top concern. The ongoing threats to shipping and the escalating fighting between the Houthis and Saudi Arabia are having increasingly dire impacts on gas prices, which is spiking inflation, and causing heavy pressure on the global economy.
Contact the author: howard@twz.com
The post On The Brink Of Epic Fury Round Two? appeared first on TWZ.
Trump Jr.’s apparent opposition to his father’s foreign policy moves reflects wider divisions within the MAGA movement.
Join us on Telegram, X, and VK.
Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su
In a peek behind the curtain of the White House, it has been revealed that Donald Trump Jr. has privately opposed his father’s war with Iran from the very start, even personally confronting President Donald Trump with his objections, according to The Atlantic.
The president’s eldest son has continually expressed his reservations to the off-again, on-again nearly eight-month conflict behind closed doors, despite going to extra lengths to avoid any public criticism of his father.
Two anonymous sources who reportedly spoke directly with Trump Jr. said the MAGA leader has repeatedly questioned the military campaign, a position in line with his longstanding opposition to U.S. involvement in foreign wars.
The father-son fallout reportedly dates back to the beginning of the war, when Trump Jr. vocalized his objections directly to the president.
“Don has kept his views on the subject private, as he would never publicly break with his dad on an issue like this, but I can’t imagine anyone who knows Don would be surprised by his personal views on the subject,” a person supposedly close to Trump Jr. told the progressive magazine.
Trump Jr. has continuously propped up his father as a leader who would keep America out of costly foreign entanglements, particularly in the Middle East.
Trump Jr.’s apparent opposition to his father’s foreign policy moves also reflects wider divisions within the MAGA movement, where prominent conservative voices have questioned whether the conflict is consistent with the president’s states campaign pledges.
Meanwhile, the war has become an increasingly vexing political issue for Republicans ahead of November’s midterm elections.
Exploding gasoline prices and mounting economic pressures have fueled public frustration, while a Pew Research Center poll found that 65% of Americans disapprove of the administration’s handling of the conflict.
A spokesman for Trump Jr. refused to comment on the report.
British Prime Minister Andy Burnham has found a novel way of solving Britain’s cost-of-living crisis. By bombing Yemen.
Join us on Telegram, X, and VK.
Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su
British Prime Minister Andy Burnham has found a novel way of solving Britain’s cost-of-living crisis. By bombing Yemen.
Yes, you read that correctly. This week, Burnham authorized the deployment of British Typhoon fighter jets to Saudi Arabia for its war with Yemen.
Downing Street assured the British public that the deployment was for “defensive” operations only. The BBC and other British media outlets indulged this fantasy by repeating over and over that the Royal Air Force was being deployed for “defensive actions”. The RAF would not be engaging in attacking Yemen, it was claimed, and the British fighter jets were being sent to “protect” Saudi Arabia from “escalating” Houthi aggression.
Britain’s Minister of Defense Wes Streeting (a former health minister, please note) framed the RAF mission as necessary to counter instability in the Middle East and soaring energy prices. As if Britain was not the cause of instability and higher fuel costs by backing Trump’s aggression on Iran.
The Guardian reported: “The [British] military intervention [in Yemen] was partly justified because instability in the Middle East was driving up energy prices and affecting the cost of living.”
This logic is as absurd as it is gross deception.
Recall that Burnham was ushered into Downing Street in July to replace the hapless Keir Starmer as Labour prime minister. Burnham, formerly the Mayor of Manchester and posing with his working-class credentials, made a big public pitch that he would prioritize easing the cost-of-living crisis ravaging Britain.
However, since entering office, his most notable forays have been in foreign policy. For example, he has received the Ukrainian dictator Vladimir Zelensky in Downing Street with promises of more military aid in addition to the $20 billion that Britain has already provided (the second largest source of aid in Europe after Germany). Burnham has pledged to provide Ukraine with British blueprints for manufacturing cruise missiles.
Last month, Burnham announced that Britain was deploying an RAF in-air refuelling plane to “help” Saudi Arabia’s air strikes on Yemen. To allay public concerns about that move, Downing Street and the British media assured that the deployment was “defensive only” and for a limited period.
Ironically, Burnham made that announcement while travelling to address the United Nations General Assembly in New York, where he hailed Britain for offering world leadership for peace and security.
Now, again this week, the RAF deployment is extended to sending Typhoon fighter jets to Saudi Arabia. London is also providing a RAF A400M transport plane for troops and up to 100 military advisers.
This sounds like classic mission creep. Downing Street is aware of the exposure to public criticism. The prime minister’s office denied Britain was being dragged into the conflict. It said: “Our support for Saudi Arabia is considered, proportionate and focused on helping them defend themselves from relentless Houthi attacks.”
The British government and media are distorting the conflict between Saudi Arabia and Yemen as one of “aggression” by the Yemeni forces of Ansar Allah, referred to as “the Iran-backed Houthis”. That description makes the Yemenis sound like crazy terrorists who are being directed by Iran.
Here’s the BBC’s creative reporting: “The UK will deploy RAF Typhoon jets to defend Saudi Arabia in response to escalating Houthi missile and drone attacks, the government has said.”
The BBC goes on: “The defensive mission will help defend Saudi cities and infrastructure – a move authorised by Prime Minister Andy Burnham – against aerial attacks by the Iran-backed group… Since September, Saudi Arabia has been struggling to defend its skies from Houthi attacks after a ceasefire of sorts in Yemen broke down.”
This is reality inversion by the British state-owned media outlet.
The ceasefire in Yemen was violated in mid-July when Saudi Arabia launched air strikes on the international airport in Sanaa, the Yemeni capital, to target a delegation attending the state funeral of Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei, who was murdered in a U.S.-Israeli air strike on his family home in Tehran on February 28.
That ceasefire was called in 2022 to end a seven-year war of aggression by Saudi Arabia against Yemen. The war began in 2015 to reinstate a Saudi puppet regime that the Ansar Allah-led Yemenis ousted in 2014. The Saudis bombed Yemen relentlessly for seven years with support of the United States, Britain, and France. An estimated 20,000 Yemenis were killed in air strikes, and around 300,000 died from a humanitarian blockade that the Western-backed Saudi coalition imposed on the country.
Britain’s military minister Wes Streeting referred to recent Yemeni strikes on Saudi Arabia as “despicable”. He mentioned a ballistic missile attack on October 10 on King Khalid international airport in the Saudi capital, Riyadh. At least 13 people were killed in the strike, and over 300 were injured.
The Ansar Allah-led Yemeni Armed Forces have also hit several other Saudi airports and key oil industry installations. The number of Saudi civilians killed in these attacks is relatively small, around 20, whereas Saudi warplanes have killed hundreds of Yemeni civilians since it broke the ceasefire in July. This week, eight Yemeni fishermen were killed in Saudi strikes. What Yemen is doing to Saudi Arabia is self-defense, not aggression.
London and its media propaganda are making out that Britain is “defending” Saudi Arabia. The reality is London is assisting Saudi aggression and war crimes.
Significantly, Streeting flew to Washington, DC, last week, where he met the war secretary, Pete Hegseth. Their agenda was about how to respond to “Houthi escalation.” Obviously, the junior partner got the memo: send warplanes to Yemen; we’re too busy with Iran.
Meanwhile, in Britain, an unprecedented social crisis is unfolding from poverty and a crippling cost of living. Charities report that four million families are having to go without adequate food or home heating because of soaring bills. Oxfam estimates that 13.5 million Britons, or a fifth of the population, are suffering from poverty. More than six million people rely on food charities for a modicum of sustenance.
It tells you everything about a state whose government does nothing about its own people’s dire needs but finds the resources to send warplanes to distant countries to bomb other poor people.
Andy Burnham is just another puppet who is assigned to put on a show in Downing Street for public appeasement. The imperial deep state has its hand up his rear. That’s mission creep in Downing Street.
On October 20, 2026, a week before Israel’s elections, dozens of men were detained on suspicion of evading the draft – arrests that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called “unacceptable.” The young men attend ultra-Orthodox, or Haredi, religious schools, whose students were long exempt from the military service mandatory for most Israelis. A 2024 court ruling […]
The post Why ultra‑Orthodox parties will decide Netanyahu’s electoral fate appeared first on Asia Times.
© Ahmad Al-Rubaye/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
Login