In-person early voting for the U.S. midterm elections began on Monday in Washington D.C., while more than 23 million people across the country had already cast ballots by October 25, far surpassing the 15 million recorded in 2022.
Early voting opened on October 26 across Washington D.C. and will run through every district until Sunday, November 1.
Residents who missed the online or mail registration deadline can still register directly at the polling center. That same-day registration requires a valid, recent proof of address, such as an official identification, a utility bill or a bank statement issued within the past ninety days.
District law also lets non-citizen residents who meet age and local residency requirements vote in municipal elections. They receive a separate ballot limited to district offices, including the Council, the Board of Education and the Advisory Neighborhood Commissions.
In neighboring Maryland, the early voting period runs through Thursday, October 29, with centers open daily from 7 A.M. to 8 P.M. local time. Voters there can also register the same day by showing a document that proves their current address.
Election authorities detailed the rules for those who prefer mail ballots or official drop boxes before the November 3 general vote. In Washington D.C., ballots must carry that date’s postmark or be deposited before 8 P.M.
Maryland set Tuesday, October 27, as the cutoff for requesting printed ballots at each county’s local offices.
Voters who miss the October 27 request deadline in Maryland can still cast a ballot in person during the early window or on November 3. The mail route, however, closes at that point for printed ballots.
The midterm cycle has produced a sharp rise in early participation. As of October 25, more than 23 million people had voted early nationwide, up from the 15 million recorded in 2022.
After two years marked by unilateral decisions, a hardline stance on immigration, rising living costs and involvement in the war against Iran, Donald Trump’s administration now faces a ballot test that could strip Republicans of their absolute control of Congress.
All 435 seats in the House of Representatives are being contested. Republicans hold 218 seats against 214 for the Democrats, along with two vacancies and one independent seat occupied by Kevin Kiley after his departure from the Republican Party. That narrow margin leaves the chamber within reach for the opposition, and the surge in early ballots is being read as a measure of how much ground the ruling party could lose.
The early vote will keep building through the final weekend before November 3, when the full contours of the midterm electorate will emerge.
A House Judiciary Committee report alleges Donald Trump was actively involved in Epstein’s abuse of young women.
On Monday, Democratic lawmakers released a report calling for a special counsel to investigate possible ties between U.S. President Donald Trump and the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, just over a week before the midterm elections.
The more than 50-page report by Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee alleges that Trump was an “active participant in Jeffrey Epstein’s abuse of young women in the mid-to-late 1990s.”
The document, titled “The Case Against Donald Trump Emerging From the Epstein Files and the Justice Department’s Desperate Efforts to Cover It Up,” includes the names of five women who have accused Trump of “raping or sexually assaulting them” in the company of Epstein.
Among the women’s accounts is one being made public for the first time. It describes an alleged rape by Trump during a pageant held in November 1993 at the Plaza Hotel in New York City, although the account provides no evidence beyond the woman’s statements.
“The women who survived Epstein deserve to be heard, Congress must have the full files that the law requires, and an independent special counsel must investigate Epstein’s accomplices and the Justice Department’s cover-up, and ensure that state and foreign prosecutors have the evidence they need to pursue justice,” said Rep. Jamie Raskin, the committee’s top-ranking Democrat.
🇺🇸 Rep. Ted Lieu says there is “ample evidence” in the full Epstein files alleging Donald Trump raped children.
Trump, for his part, has repeatedly denied committing any wrongdoing related to Epstein’s actions. He has also repeatedly said that he had a falling-out with Epstein years ago and barred him from Mar-a-Lago, his Florida residence, “for being a creep.”
The Democratic lawmakers’ report also calls for greater federal cooperation in legal proceedings against Epstein’s accomplices and increased congressional action to uncover all possible connections within his sex trafficking network.
With the document’s release, Democrats are signaling that they have no intention of backing down from their efforts to continue investigating the connections between Trump and Epstein’s sex trafficking network. They are doing so at a time when they could win a majority in the House of Representatives and even challenge Republican control of the Senate on Nov. 3.
The midterm elections will determine all seats in the House of Representatives and one-third of the seats in the Senate, as well as numerous state and local offices.
Previously, President De la Espriella formalized his country’s accession to Trump’s Shield of the Americas.
On Monday, the Colombian army announced that more than 300 U.S. soldiers will participate in joint military exercises in Colombia focused on combating drug trafficking, illegal mining and unmanned aerial systems.
The U.S. military personnel will arrive on Tuesday at the Tolemaida military base, located in the municipality of Nilo, in the department of Cundinamarca, where the fourth edition of the “Southern Vanguard 2026” training exercise will take place through Nov. 11.
During the exercises, members of the Colombian army’s No. 1 Counter-Narcotics Battalion will exchange tactics, techniques and procedures with light infantry soldiers from the U.S. Army Mountain battalion.
The training will begin on Oct. 30, with a simulated aeromedical evacuation from Tolemaida to the facilities of the Cavalry School in Bogota, using aircraft and specialized medical equipment.
“The objective will be to verify the medical care and first aid procedures used by medical personnel from both armies to assist a person who would have been injured in a mined area,” the Colombian army said.
🇺🇸🇵🇪🇦🇷🇨🇱 O Exército dos EUA concluiu no dia 18 de setembro o Exercício Southern Vanguard 2026, uma operação internacional que contou com 400 militares dos EUA, Argentina, Chile e Peru treinando em conjunto situações de combate na selva amazônica peruana. pic.twitter.com/bZcK6NALun
The text reads, “On Sept. 18, the U.S. Army concluded Exercise Southern Vanguard 2026, an international operation involving 400 military personnel from the U.S., Argentina, Chile, and Peru, who trained together in combat scenarios within the Peruvian Amazon rainforest.”
Colombian authorities explained that the exercises aim to strengthen “military cooperation and assess both forces’ ability to operate jointly, coordinate maneuvers and make decisions in operational scenarios.”
The arrival of the military personnel comes amid closer relations between Bogota and Washington since Colombian President Abelardo de la Espriella, a U.S. citizen, took office on Aug. 7, with security cooperation and the fight against drug trafficking as central pillars of the bilateral agenda.
The far-right president formalized Colombia’s accession to the Shield of the Americas, an initiative promoted by U.S. President Donald Trump to strengthen regional cooperation against drug trafficking and criminal organizations.
The rapprochement was evident on Sept. 8, when U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio visited Barranquilla and met with De la Espriella in the first high-level meeting between the two governments since the Colombian president took office.
Following the meeting, the two countries announced the so-called Barranquilla Accords, a road map that includes, among other issues, security cooperation and the fight against drug trafficking.
Sen. Kevin Cramer is calling on Congress to reauthorize and modernize the Export-Import Bank by Dec. 31 to prevent China from dominating global energy markets and to protect over 45,000 U.S. jobs.
In the midst of Donald Trump's attempt to turn Russian diesel into a political asset to help him avoid disaster in November's midterm elections, the internet went out on the front lines.
Since the beginning of the full-scale invasion, Ukrainian forces have relied on Starlink to
President Volodymyr Zelensky's planned Oct. 26 trip to Brussels descended into a diplomatic guessing game, with conflicting signals from his own team leaving EU and NATO officials scrambling to establish whether he was coming — and who was supposed to meet him.
Israeli regime’s airspace – the airspace over the occupied territories – is widely regarded as among the most heavily defended in the world.
Yet the scale of its protection cannot be explained by Israeli military technology alone. Russia, China and even the United States do not benefit from an equivalent network of allied support dedicated to intercepting threats before they reach their territory.
Israel’s own defenses are indeed formidable. Arrow 3 is designed to intercept ballistic missiles outside the atmosphere, while Arrow 2 targets ballistic missile threats within it. David’s Sling is built to counter medium-range threats, and Iron Dome intercepts rockets and other short-range projectiles.
These systems are backed by fighter jets and an extensive radar network, creating multiple layers of protection against incoming attacks.
But Israel’s air defense shield extends well beyond its own arsenal. From October 2023 through Iran’s retaliatory missile and drone operations in 2024, 2025 and 2026, a group of allied states has played an active role in protecting the regime.
They have provided interceptors, radar capabilities, fighter aircraft, military bases and personnel, helping the Tel Aviv regime detect, track and counter incoming threats.
What emerges is not simply a domestic air-defense network, but a wider umbrella sustained by the resources and involvement of powerful allies – from the US to Europe to Arab countries.
This ironclad commitment of regional and extra-regional countries to Israel’s protection has come at a considerable cost.
The price goes well beyond dollars and shekels. It includes depleted weapons stockpiles that could take years to replenish, damaged radars and military bases, soldiers killed or wounded, and governments facing domestic political backlash for a costly partnership that much of their own public fiercely opposes and protests against.
The burden, however, is not shared equally. The United States has shouldered the largest financial and military inventory costs. The Persian Gulf monarchies and Jordan have faced intense operational demands and direct security risks. European states have incurred more limited but still significant costs, particularly in munitions and the political fallout from a war that has driven up energy prices and compounded the cost-of-living pressures facing their populations.
The Israeli bill
The Israeli regime’s direct costs are the easiest to track because they fall on its own treasury. In April 2024, after Iran launched a large number of drones and missiles at the occupied territories, Brig. Gen. Reem Aminoach, an economic adviser to a former Israeli military chief of staff, estimated in an interview with Ynet that defending against the attack that night had cost 4-5 billion shekels, or roughly $1.1–$1.35 billion at the exchange rate at the time.
Haaretz later put the total cost of defending against the same retaliatory attack at around $1.5 billion. That was just one night. Many more retaliatory strikes have hit the occupied territories since then.
The cost structure follows a clear logic. Iran uses inexpensive drones and mass-produced missiles, while Israel relies on some of the world’s most expensive interceptors to defend against them.
This disparity lies at the heart of the war’s financial burden. Israel’s broader budget picture adds another dimension. Sustained, high-intensity defensive operations have forced the regime to spend far more than it did previously.
With a net budget of about 60 billion shekels in 2023, the Israeli military could not sustain repeated nights of interceptions without substantial increases in funding and continued US support.
Israel has been able to sustain this costly imbalance largely because of extensive financial backing from American taxpayers. Much of its interceptor production is funded or co-developed through US programs, and the Arrow missile defense system is produced with American participation.
US Congress has also repeatedly approved emergency supplemental funding for Israeli missile defense. These ties mean that Israel’s financial burden and America’s are deeply interconnected and difficult to separate, which explains the public anger in the US.
The American inventory crisis
No country has spent more on Israel’s defense than the United States, and no factor is more consequential than the state of its interceptor stockpiles. Washington may be willing to spend the tens of billions of dollars required to protect their genocidal ally, but willingness alone cannot resolve the US military’s primary challenge: replenishing its dwindling missile interceptors.
The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), an American think tank, has published some of the most widely cited public estimates of US missile interceptor inventories.
Its analysis, updated following the 40-day war against Iran, found that American Patriot and THAAD inventories had declined dramatically.
According to CSIS estimates, the US inventory of Patriot interceptors fell from approximately 2,330 before the war began on February 27, 2026, to between 759 and 827 by July 27, 2026, marking a decline of roughly two-thirds.
The THAAD inventory also dropped sharply, falling from an estimated 452 interceptors before the war to between 239 and 257 by July 27, representing a decline of approximately 43 to 47 percent.
Estimates of remaining American Interceptor inventory (Source: CSIS)
Many military experts believe CSIS’s estimates are overly optimistic. Some, for instance, argue that the United States may have fired as many as 290 of its roughly 360 THAAD interceptors during the early phase of the war. That would amount to more than 80 percent of its pre-war stockpile.
Whatever the exact figures, Washington’s decision to prioritize Israel’s defense has left the US military dangerously underprepared and more vulnerable to another round of war if it breaks out.
The cost of replenishing stockpiles
The US Army’s FY2027 figures put the unit cost of a PAC-3 MSE interceptor at roughly $5 million and that of a THAAD interceptor at nearly $12 million.
Based on these figures, replacing the Patriot and THAAD interceptors expended would cost an estimated $10 billion. The Congressional Budget Office has offered a higher estimate, putting the cost of replacing the depleted interceptors at approximately $13.1 billion.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi in recent remarks noted that the US spent about $11 billion on missile defense for Israel over three years. In a post on X, quoting a tweet of a former Obama administration official, he said US forces had fired 609 interceptors in defense of the Israeli regime between October 2023 and June 2026, including SM-2, SM-3, SM-6, Patriot, and THAAD missiles.
The naval picture
The US Navy’s missile interceptor inventories are also under severe strain. The SM-3 and SM-6 are among the principal naval weapons used to counter ballistic missiles and other high-speed threats.
Public estimates vary widely, with some reports placing combined naval inventories in the low hundreds. A figure of 150–200 for the two interceptor types combined is plausible as a rough order of magnitude, but no precise public count is available.
The broader concern is that naval interceptors are expensive and slow to manufacture, while the Navy must preserve sufficient stocks to address other potential threats, including those posed by China and Russia. Every interceptor expended in the defense of Israel is therefore one fewer available for other contingencies until it can be replaced.
Not all US and allied defenses against Iran relied on ground-based or naval interceptors. Fighter jets also engaged Iranian drones using air-to-air missiles, including the AIM-9X and AIM-120. The AIM-9X reportedly costs several hundred thousand dollars per missile, while the AIM-120 AMRAAM costs more than $1 million.
Using such expensive weapons to destroy drones that cost only thousands of dollars compounds the economic imbalance, even when the immediate tactical objective is achieved.
The trade-off
By the final phase of the 40-day imposed war, following the initial ceasefire, it had become clear that US commanders were holding back dedicated SM-3 and THAAD interceptors rather than expending them to protect American bases in Jordan and elsewhere.
Footage of nighttime defensive missile launches appeared to show almost exclusively Patriot interceptors, with only one exception. The implication was stark: stocks had dwindled to the point where US commanders could no longer afford to use these missiles freely.
The apparent logic was to preserve the remaining interceptors for a larger war, prioritizing the future defense of Israel over the immediate protection of American service members.
That decision carried its own cost. Aircraft on the ground were hit, and US personnel were killed in some of the retaliatory attacks. This matters because it illustrates the full price of managing depleted stockpiles. A shortage of interceptors weakened the US military’s defensive capacity across multiple theaters, leaving American personnel exposed to attacks that more robust defenses might have helped repel – all in the effort to protect the Israeli regime.
Cost, however, is only part of the problem. Production capacity is the more consequential constraint in a prolonged campaign.
Patriot and THAAD interceptors are manufactured in limited quantities, and expanding output takes time.
CSIS estimates that restoring Patriot and THAAD inventories to their pre-war levels will take at least three years. Interceptors ordered in fiscal year 2027 are not expected to arrive until 2029, leaving a prolonged gap between expenditure and replenishment.
The China and Asia-Pacific dimension
The most serious long-term cost to the United States may emerge far from the West Asia region. As US interceptor stocks are depleted in the region, the Pacific is left more exposed.
The Indo-Pacific is where Washington faces its most formidable strategic competitor. Taiwan’s defense depends in part on US air and missile defenses, while Pentagon war plans for a potential war with China assume that American forces can withstand and respond to large-scale missile attacks.
If SM-3, SM-6, and Patriot inventories fall to a fraction of their previous levels, the margin for absorbing such an attack narrows considerably. A few hundred interceptors would be insufficient to sustain even several days of high-intensity combat in East Asia.
The extent to which US military capabilities in the South China Sea and across East Asia have been weakened cannot yet be quantified.
Nevertheless, the underlying concern is widely recognized among defense analysts: a shortage of interceptors in one theater affects the military’s ability to respond in every theater, and the Pacific is particularly difficult to reinforce quickly.
Persian Gulf states and early-warning network
The Persian Gulf monarchies and Jordan contributed to Israel’s defense in a different but equally consequential way.
Their role was not primarily to supply interceptors, but to provide sensors, airspace access, military bases, and the political authorization needed to put these assets to use.
Missile defense depends on early warning. A THAAD battery cannot intercept a missile it has not detected, and detection depends on radars capable of identifying and tracking threats at sufficient range and speed. The AN/TPY-2 radar used by THAAD is a large, transportable system. The US Missile Defense Agency’s 2025 budget puts the cost of each unit at approximately half a billion dollars.
In March 2026, during the first days of the 40-day imposed war of aggression, the American THAAD radar at Muwaffaq Salti Air Base in Jordan was struck and destroyed. Imagery showed craters around the site, suggesting that multiple strikes may have been involved.
Buildings housing similar radar systems were also hit at two locations in the United Arab Emirates. Another THAAD radar, at Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia, was destroyed as well.
Iran also targeted and struck the AN/FPS-132 early-warning radar in Qatar, which was used to track Iranian missile launches.
Taken together, these incidents point to a broader pattern of Iranian retaliatory attacks on US-aligned early-warning radars and THAAD sites across the region.
This interpretation is consistent with the available satellite imagery, which indicates that the campaign extended beyond individual military installations to the sensor network underpinning regional missile defense that has been at the service of the US and the Israeli regime.
Such radars are expensive and exceptionally difficult to replace. Their value lies not only in the hardware itself, but also in their integration with interceptor batteries and the data links connecting them to other sensors.
Destroying a single radar can compromise an entire interceptor network’s ability to detect and track threats approaching from a particular direction. Replacing these systems can take months or even years, and rebuilding them does not necessarily restore the coverage they previously provided.
Radar losses therefore carry a strategic cost as well as a financial one. Once a radar is destroyed, the states that depend on it must decide whether to rebuild it at an exposed location, relocate it, or accept a gap in their defensive coverage.
By providing Israel and the United States with tracking data on Iranian projectiles, Arab monarchies exposed themselves to Iranian retaliation and risked becoming direct targets in a war they had helped shape.
These losses also raised questions about Saudi Arabia’s vulnerability as the wider regional confrontation extended to other fronts.
Yemen is a prominent example. Damage to radar and air defense assets across the Persian Gulf may have further complicated Saudi Arabia’s position in its prolonged war against Yemen.
Although the Ansarullah-led Yemeni military possesses independent capabilities, and Saudi Arabia’s difficulties in Yemen stem from numerous military, political, and strategic factors, the decision to contribute to Israel’s defense added another layer of risk for the Persian Gulf monarchies.
Their involvement exposed critical military infrastructure to retaliation and potentially weakened their ability to respond to threats beyond the immediate confrontation with Iran.
Jordan’s exposed position
Jordan’s case is perhaps the most striking because of its small military and fragile economy. The country hosts US occupation forces, including a THAAD battery at Muwaffaq Salti Air Base, and lies along the flight paths of missiles and drones traveling between Iran and the Israeli-occupied territories.
During Iran’s 2024 retaliatory strikes, Jordan’s air force was reported to have intercepted many of Iranian drones and missiles crossing its airspace. The Jordanian government defended these actions as necessary to protect its territory and citizens – a lame justification.
For a country with limited military resources, however, the cost was significant: every interceptor fired and every fighter jet scrambled placed additional demands on an already constrained defense budget.
The political cost was even greater. Jordan has a large population of Palestinian origin, and public opinion is strongly sympathetic to Palestinians in Gaza and the occupied West Bank as well as the Axis of Resistance.
Jordan’s decision to intercept Iranian projectiles launched in retaliation for Israeli strikes proved controversial domestically, with Jordanians slamming their government for helping protect the Israeli regime.
Jordan made this choice despite facing its own concerns about Israel’s regional ambitions. Members of Israel’s ruling regime have openly advocated annexing the occupied West Bank, while some have promoted proposals that would displace Palestinians into Jordan.
This context makes Amman’s involvement in regional missile defense particularly sensitive. The country faces the dual risk of Iranian retaliation against US military assets on its soil and growing domestic anger over its role in protecting Israel.
Jordan’s economic vulnerabilities compound these pressures. Public debt, energy costs, and the burden of hosting refugees already strain its finances. Against this backdrop, even a relatively modest additional military expenditure can have significant consequences.
Jordan’s experience illustrates how participation in regional missile defense can impose not only military and financial costs, but also serious domestic political risks.
Royal Jordanian Air Force F-16s were used numerous times to intercept drones launched at Israel
Europe’s price
European states paid in a different currency. Most did not expend large numbers of interceptors against Iranian drones, but their involvement carried costs across three main areas: munitions, military operations, and the economic shock of the war imposed on Iran.
France deployed air assets to the region to intercept drones and missiles over the Eastern Mediterranean and the Levant. Some reports suggested that French stocks of air-to-air missiles, including the MICA, came under strain.
Such shortages would be significant, given France’s other military commitments. Its air force and weapons inventories are already stretched across support for Ukraine, operations in the Sahel, and the maintenance of its own strategic deterrent. Each additional deployment reduces the resources available for other missions.
Britain used its bases in Cyprus, including RAF Akrotiri, as well as its military presence in the Persian Gulf, to support operations against Iran. Reports indicated that RAF aircraft intercepted drones and missiles. The British armed forces are considerably smaller than they were at the height of the country’s military power, and sustained operations of this kind consume substantial flying hours, spare parts, and personnel capacity.
Europe’s greatest burden, however, has been economic and political. Closure of the Strait of Hormuz and the collapse of Persian Gulf energy exports drove up oil, gas, and diesel prices.
Europe’s dependence on imported energy meant that the shock quickly fed into household bills, transport costs, and food prices. Many European governments were already grappling with public dissatisfaction over the cost of living before the 40-day war. The war intensified those pressures as is evident now with protests raging across European countries.
European governments that committed military resources to Israel’s defense and offensive operations now face a difficult question: will their own citizens view that commitment as a principled security measure or as complicity in policies that have contributed to worsening economic conditions?
There is no straightforward answer, but the issue has become part of Europe’s domestic political debate. The costs of defending Israel have reached far beyond the battlefield, affecting budgets, energy security, and public confidence in government policy.
Defending the indefensible
The costs of protecting Israel have been substantial, although they have fallen unevenly across the countries involved.
The United States has spent billions of dollars and depleted significant portions of its advanced interceptor stockpiles, with replenishment expected to take years. The Persian Gulf states and Jordan have suffered damage to radar and air defense assets while assuming additional security risks.
European countries have borne the costs of munitions and military operations, alongside an energy shock that has intensified public anger over the cost of living.
Yet the financial figures tell only part of the story. The more fundamental question is whether the policies driving these expenditures serve the interests of the governments and populations bearing the costs.
The costs are real and continue to mount: public expenditure, depleted interceptor stockpiles, damaged radars and military bases, and the heightened risk of retaliation against countries drawn into a war beyond their borders. Meanwhile, rising fuel, food, and housing costs have placed additional pressure on ordinary households, deepening public frustration with government decisions.
Israel’s regional military campaign has drawn its partners further into a confrontation whose consequences extend well beyond the immediate battlefield. For these governments, the challenge is no longer simply how to sustain their support for Israel, but how to justify its mounting costs to their own populations.
The question is how much more they are willing to spend, how much additional risk they are prepared to accept, and how long their citizens will continue to support a policy whose burdens are becoming increasingly difficult to ignore.
South Korea is rebelling against U.S. dominance. It is witnessing a formidable opposition movement against the United States’ historic control over the Asian country’s military forces.
There is also growing pressure on the South Korean government to refuse demands by U.S. President Donald Trump for Korean troops to deploy in the Persian Gulf.
A major driver of this surging opposition movement is the widely held concern that Washington is maneuvering South Korea to fight a war with China.
Political analyst KJ Noh explains that the Korean people perceive the United States as positioning their country as a proxy to fight an eventual war with China, in a similar way to how Ukraine is being used as a front line to provoke Russia.
“The U.S. empire is making South Korea into the next Ukraine,” says KJ Noh. “It is weaponizing South Korea.”
This is analogous to how Ukraine was groomed and weaponized since 2014 to serve as a proxy for the U.S. and NATO to confront Russia.
He points out that China has always been the main target for American imperial planners seeking to extend U.S. hegemony. Pentagon Generals have openly spoken about going to war with China since 2025. Several strategic documents cite the imperative of confronting China for the U.S. to pursue its ambitions of global dominance.
Recently, the American commander in South Korea, General Xavier Brunson, referred to the country as “a dagger pointed at China” and “an unsinkable U.S. aircraft carrier.” Such brazen comments have sparked even broader opposition.
KJ Noh contends that U.S. strategists assumed defeating Russia and Iran would be relatively easy, paving the way for the main target: China. However, the protracted war in Ukraine and Trump’s debacle in the Persian Gulf have delayed the war plan against China.
Nevertheless, Korean people understand that when the U.S. empire gets around to attacking China, their country will be deployed as Uncle Sam’s proxy.
Historically, for the past 76 years, Washington has exerted full control over the South Korean military. This was enabled by the U.S. using fascist collaborators from the Second World War to control South Korea – a legacy that persists among the deep state in South Korea.
KJ Noh surveys a history of genocidal violence perpetrated by the U.S. empire in South Korea to wipe out political opposition movements. The scale of mass murder and mass graves is shocking and hardly known in the West.
Despite the brutal oppression over many decades, there is still a defiant consciousness among Koreans who refuse to be vassals of the U.S.
Koreans do not want to do Uncle Sam’s dirty work any longer, and they do not want their country to be dragooned into a proxy war against their Asian neighbor, China, with which much of the Korean economy has beneficial relations.
This is why Koreans are demanding that the United States finally hand over Operational Control of the country’s military. President Lee Jae-myung reflects the popular will by calling on Washington to comply. It is also why the Korean people and government are refusing Trump’s peevish calls for deployment in the Persian Gulf. Given the history of loyal Korean service in U.S. wars, this latest defiance is a watershed in relations.
Democrats are targeting G.O.P. strongholds that could set them up for new majorities. But if they don’t win those races now, it could be a long time before they have another chance.
Protesters outside of an event for Senator Roger Marshall in Topeka, Kan. Soaring fuel costs and economic struggles have made some Republican senators like Mr. Marshall vulnerable on their home turf.
Ukraine has waited almost a month for US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to sign off on missiles for its Patriot and NASAMS air defense systems, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said on 26 October. He ordered his team to raise it with Washington again. Two other US holds on Ukraine, on Starlink speeds and intelligence sharing, have been lifted, leaving the interceptors as the last one.
Russia keeps firing ballistic missiles at Ukrainian cities and the power grid before winter, and Patriots are the only systems in Ukraine that reliably stop Iskander-M, Kinzhal, and Zircon missiles. Zelenskyy has told EU leaders Ukraine needs 300 interceptors to get through winter, diplomatic sources told Radio Svoboda. The holds came as Washington pressed Kyiv to stop striking Russian refineries, which Trump blames for high US fuel prices before the midterms.
Zelenskyy: almost a month waiting for Hegseth’s signature
Zelenskyy held a meeting on weapons supplies with Ukraine’s defense minister, foreign minister, and commander-in-chief. They reported on interceptors for air defense, above all for Patriot systems. Afterward, Zelenskyy wrote:
“We are working in several directions: with the United States, Europe, and other partners that have stocks of PAC-2 and PAC-3 missiles. In particular, for almost a month we have been waiting for Mr. Hegseth’s signature on missiles for Patriots and NASAMS. I have instructed the team to discuss this with the American side once again.”
Talks with other countries continue, he added. The meeting also covered preparations for November’s Ramstein meeting of Ukraine’s allies, where Zelenskyy wants decisions already on the table carried out faster.
Aftermath of a Russian ballistic missile attack on Kyiv, 19 October 2026. Photo: State Emergency Service of Ukraine
Allies’ missiles need US approval
Some of the transfers come from friendly countries and need Hegseth’s approval, because the US must sign off on any re-transfer of its missiles, a US official and three people familiar with the matter said on 19 October. Hegseth has neither refused nor approved them.
Explore further
The Starlink hot potato: Musk points to Trump, Trump points to nobody, then credits Musk with the fix. The speed limit stays
A Ukrainian official said in mid-October that only “a couple” of interceptors were left. Hegseth has said the US wants “our guys” to have “the most possible” interceptors, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio insisted nothing was “being deliberately denied to Ukraine.”
Two of three US holds lifted
In an interview aired on 25 October, Zelenskyy listed three problems from his Oslo talks with the Americans: air defense, Starlink limits, and limits on US intelligence sharing. Full Starlink speeds returned on 24 October, and missile warnings resumed after his 20 October call with Rubio. Progress on Patriot missiles is “very slow,” he said, “slower than the flight of Russian missiles.”
Kyiv has also tried to trade for the missiles. Zelenskyy told US senators he had offered US envoys a 30-day pause in strikes on Russian refineries in return for Patriot interceptors. The envoys showed no openness to the idea.
Trump has called those refinery strikes a disgrace that only pushes oil prices higher. He said it days after striking a deal with Putin to bring Russian diesel back to the US ahead of the midterm elections on 3 November.
Trump treats Ukraine as the weak link to squeeze and wants a visible win partly with US domestic politics in mind, Ukrainian diplomat Oleksandr Khara has argued.
Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Pakistan made a rare joint visit to Tehran amid reports that the U.S. and Israel were drawing up plans to renew their attacks on Iran.
Mohsen Rezaei, the head of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, in July. He will meet with a delegation from countries in the Mecca Pact to discuss conflict in the region, according to an Iranian official.
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei says a meeting in Tehran with senior officials from Turkey, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia could lay the groundwork for a regional security framework based on the interests and decisions of countries in the region.
Speaking at a weekly press conference on Monday, Baghaei said Tehran would host Saudi Arabia’s defense minister, Pakistan’s army chief and Turkey’s intelligence chief as part of an initiative to discuss regional security.
He stated that the initiative was proposed during Pakistani Army Chief Asim Munir’s visit to Tehran and was welcomed by the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Responding to a question from IRNA about the purpose and format of the gathering, Baghaei said the participation of senior officials from the three countries reflected efforts to explore mechanisms for regional security.
“From our perspective, the fact that regional countries are seeking to establish, or at least consider, regional security mechanisms based on their own interests and concerns is a welcome development,” he said.
“This meeting could serve as a prelude to further steps toward shaping endogenous security, an issue we have insisted on for decades. We have consistently emphasized that regional security can only be ensured by relying on the will and security considerations of the countries of the region,” Baghaei added.
He noted that developments over the past two years, particularly the past eight months, had demonstrated the importance of cooperation among regional countries.
“Recent events have shown that sustainable and reliable security in our region can only be achieved through building trust and cooperation among regional countries,” the spokesman said.
Baghaei said the visiting officials would hold discussions with the Iranian president and the secretary of the Supreme National Security Council.
As this is the first meeting of its kind, he said, a range of issues would be on the agenda, with regional security challenges expected to feature prominently.
“Such a meeting cannot be held without taking into account the consequences of the United States’ military aggression against Iran for the security of the entire region,” Baghaei said, describing the issue as another important subject that should be considered within the framework of regional security discussions.
Deputy Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) Ali Bagheri Kani said the three senior officials are scheduled to meet with SNSC Secretary Major General Mohsen Rezaei and participate in a joint session on Monday.
Regional countries must strengthen capabilities to counter Israel
Responding to reports of disagreements between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the Israeli army chief over a possible attack on Iran, Baghaei said such differences would have no impact on Iran’s defensive preparedness.
“Despite possible differences in tactics, this group is united in its aggression and expansionism,” he said, adding that the regime’s actions across the region showed it was pursuing a common course aimed at undermining regional security.
He stressed that regional countries must enhance their capabilities to confront the Israeli regime’s threats and destabilizing actions.
Iran unconcerned about who rules in Israeli regime
Commenting on the upcoming Knesset elections in the occupied territories, Baghaei dismissed the process as a genuine democratic election, describing it instead as competition among rival groups seeking to commit greater crimes.
“For us, it makes no difference who ultimately takes the helm of the Zionist regime,” he said, noting that its record had brought nothing to the region but violence and bloodshed.
Armed forces will firmly counter threats
Responding to reports about the deployment of drone bases near Iran, Baghaei said Iran’s relevant authorities were closely monitoring developments surrounding the country, including reports of drone bases near its borders and Ukrainian activities in Iraq and the Iraqi Kurdistan region.
“Those responsible for monitoring these developments are following the situation carefully and will act whenever necessary to defend the country and repel hostile actions and threats,” he said.
He emphasized that Iran’s armed forces had firmly defended the country whenever threats or hostile activities targeted its territory and would continue to do so.
Europe part of the problem
Baghaei expressed doubt that European countries had genuinely changed their approach toward Iran, pointing out that their renewed emphasis on diplomacy could amount to a political gesture.
He slammed Europeans for contributing to the crisis by aligning with the United States over the so-called snapback mechanism and failing to condemn US-Israeli military aggression against Iran’s nuclear facilities.
Baghaei said Tehran hoped the three European countries would assess regional developments more realistically and adopt an independent and constructive approach toward West Asian affairs.
Brazilian people resisted unfair pressure
Commenting on Brazil’s presidential election and the defeat of the right-wing camp aligned with US President Donald Trump, Baghaei said the outcome demonstrated the Brazilian people’s determination to make independent political choices.
“The people of Brazil showed that they would not submit to misleading narratives and unjustified pressure, and that they would choose what they consider to be in their country’s best interests,” he said.
A senior Ukrainian official previously told the Kyiv Independent that the batch awaiting U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's approval was "significant."
Some of the remnant socialist governments appear to be sliding toward subservience
“Respect for sovereignty is the most significant norm in international politics, and its purpose is to minimize war and facilitate peaceful relations among states.”
—John Mearsheimer
American political scientist and international relations scholar and professor
The U.S. war against Vietnam was driven by the imperialist assumption that Vietnam was one of many inevitable dominoes that would fall to communism. But the communist dominos did not fall. Instead, today, we face a dramatic, devastating loss of progressive governments throughout Latin America, with the domino game won by the reactionary forces.
We must learn from history, or we are doomed to repeat it. But today, there is little public discussion and analysis of what led to these Latin American losses, if not outright condemnation of such questions.
Though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play upon the earth, so Truth be in the field, we do injuriously, by licensing and prohibiting, to misdoubt her strength. Let her and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter?
— John Milton English poet, polemicist, and civil servant
During the Cold War, the U.S. had a long pattern of supporting right-wing coups, dictatorships and death-squad operations, driven by the imperatives of big business which wanted to exploit Latin American resources.
One of the most notorious cases was Chile, where the CIA backed a coup against democratically elected leader Salvador Allende that brought in fascist Augusto Pinochet.
Today, as Peoples Dispatch reported: “The far right in Latin America is shaped by an anti-left agenda that it inherits from the Cold War, which means that its political formations typically endorse the era of U.S.-backed military dictatorships. The ideas of the left, whether from the Cuban Revolution (1959) or from the era of the Pink Tide (after 1998), are anathema to these political forces; these ideas include agrarian reform, state-led finance for industrialization, state sovereignty, and the importance of trade unions for all workers and peasants.”
Glenn Greenwald agrees: “Other than Uruguay, Brazil is the last country in South America still governed by a left-wing or center-left government, with one country after another electing leaders on the right: Argentina, Colombia, Peru, Ecuador, Chile, etc.”
Medea Benjamin also agrees: “Across the continent—from Colombia and Peru to Argentina, Chile, Ecuador, Honduras, Bolivia and Panama—there has been a stark reversal of the region’s progressives that brought hope for a more independent and socially just Latin America. The only two major powers in Latin America still governed by the left are Mexico and Brazil—and Brazil faces a fiercely contested presidential election in October.” Unfortunately, the recent election requires a runoff, as neither Bolsonaro nor Lula received over 50% of the vote. What is particularly concerning, is that Lula did not come in as strong as most predicted.
Alan MacLeod reports in Mint Press that “The United States is interfering in the Brazilian presidential elections, pressuring the Brazilian electorate into voting for right-wing candidate Flavio Bolsonaro, the son of disgraced former president, Jair Bolsonaro. If that does not work and President Lula da Silva secures a fourth term in office, the groundwork is already being laid for a potential military intervention.”
Former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro after he is presented with a soccer jersey by President Donald Trump. [Source: politico.com]
Colombia’s domino fell when its left-wing presidential candidate Ivan Cepeda conceded defeat on June 24 to hard-right populist Abelardo de la Espriella following a tight run-off race.
“There had been doubts among the Cepeda camp about the legitimacy of the vote process, with President Gustavo Petro—who was closely involved in the leftist candidate’s campaign—openly alleging fraud and foreign interference before and after the election.”
Colombia’s far right new President Abelardo de la Espriella celebrates his recent election victory. [Source: americasquarterly.org]
Nicaragua faces electoral interference as well. As reported in The Grayzone, “In his national address on July 19, Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega stated that, when the country’s next elections take place in 2027, none who promoted a violent anti-government insurrection in 2018 will be allowed to stand for office.” He declared that Nicaragua has the “sovereign right to fight foreign interference in its electoral process…Washington’s plans for regime change in Nicaragua are hardly a secret…The National Endowment for Democracy’s president, Damon Wilson, bragged to a House committee in February that his organization is funding media in Nicaragua with an eye to undermining its Sandinista government.”
Lest we forget, government control of media is essential for fascism to take hold. Benjamin outlines how “The market concentration of Latin American media conglomerates is among the highest in the world, with four transnational companies controlling 89 percent of the broadcast media across six major countries…The market power of these huge media conglomerates is a real obstacle to any movement for democracy or socialism.” Even darker, she reports that Allen Weinstein, a founder of the National Endowment for Democracy, told The Washington Post in 1991, “A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.”
Damon Wilson, the director of the National Endowment for Democracy. [Source: ned.org]
After Venezuela was subject to a U.S. military invasion on January 3, which resulted in the kidnapping of sitting president Nicolás Maduro and his wife Celia Flores, then-Venezuelan Foreign Minister Yván Gil said “We found ourselves alone.”
It was certainly a devastating disappointment that Russia and China, or neighboring countries such as Colombia and Brazil, did not (though under the boot of the U.S.) more militantly advocate for Maduro and Flores’s return. The illegal murders on the open seas of the Caribbean—with impunity—was writing on the wall that Venezuela was the next domino to fall. Why did the efforts to prevent the fall fail?
Is Venezuela still a sovereign country? Former Venezuelan Foreign Minister Jorge Arreaza said, “Everything is now negotiated” with Washington, requiring a daily give-and-take with Caracas. When does it become regime change if everything must be negotiated with Washington?
Peoples Dispatch reports that, “Despite every attempt to overthrow the government of Venezuela, President Nicolás Maduro remains in charge and has mobilized large sections of the population to defend the Bolivarian Revolution against any threats.” But as is acknowledged, “…U.S. imperialism, by having a gun pointed to the government’s head, is in a position to exert substantial coercion leading to unpalatable decisions, such as Alex Saab’s deportation.”
Doesn’t “substantial coercion” trespass upon sovereignty? When domestic peace occurs due to a gun to your head, is it the measure of success? Saab’s deportation is more grievous than unpalatable.
Criticizing a government does not make one equivalent to a particular opposition figure. Asking questions is not counterrevolutionary, but essential. What insights have we gained during this period of U.S. imperialism?
CovertAction Magazine’s “Cuba Is Not Venezuela or Jamaica as It Refuses to Become a U.S. Neo-Colony” recounts how, when Jamaican Prime Minister Michael Manley refused Henry Kissinger’s demand to end support for the Angola liberation struggle, the U.S. made sure Manley would lose the next election. Jamaica has been a willing servant of the Empire ever since, recently ending an essential Cuban health care program that brought doctors to the country. A neo-colony is certainly not sovereign.
It is tragic that Venezuela is used as the current example of what other countries want to avoid. Maduro recently posted that “Venezuela will be reborn.” Venezuelan popular movements now call for ‘anti-imperialist resistance’ to the recent oil deal for its lack of transparency and implications for Venezuelan sovereignty. Organizer Orlando Vega argued that the Venezuelan government “stumbled” in its response to the January 3 U.S. attacks. He urged a demand for the release of Maduro and Flores and a review of legislation approved “under U.S. coercion.”
But a key political question is: “What remains of Bolivarian sovereignty if control over the country’s primary energy resources is gradually transferred to private actors linked to U.S. interests?…A process born in the name of sovereignty and independence risks resulting in the subordination of key strategic resources to the interests of a foreign power…Venezuela faces what appears to be the liquidation of sovereignty, self-determination, and the legacy of the Bolivarian Revolution.”
“History shows that, more often than not, loss of sovereignty leads to liberalization imposed in the interests of the powerful.”—Noam Chomsky
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) recently issued a memo which states that Cuba is not Venezuela. They predict that “The same people who keep ’57 Chevrolets on the road with a coat hanger will wreak havoc against a foreign-imposed regime.”
Cuba refuses to accept a dialogue based on subordination. It declares it will engage in dialogue with Washington, but will not negotiate under pressure or cede its sovereignty. “We have no alternative but to resist. We must resist,” said Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel, who explicitly linked the defense of socialism to the defense of national independence and sovereignty. Is Cuba’s refusal to kneel to Uncle Sam the reason the U.S. strategy for Cuba recently shifted from the military option to sanctions?
“Our position is that we do not accept conditions of any kind which may affect the independence and sovereignty of our country just with the view to solve economic problems existing between the United States and Cuba.”—Fidel Castro
The Soviet Union helped Cuba survive its illegal sanctions, begun in 1960, but since the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, Cuba suffered and struggled under increasing sanctions—mostly alone. In a promising new development, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov recently announced that Russia and Cuba will continue strengthening their strategic partnership despite attempts to undermine bilateral cooperation through intimidation and political pressure.
The Peace of Westphalia, which established the nation-states in 1648, enshrined the concept of state sovereignty into international law, which was formalized centuries later by the United Nations Charter. The founding principle was that every State, regardless of size and economic importance, has an equal right to sovereignty. This cornerstone of modern international law establishes the concept that a nation-state has supreme, independent authority over its own territory and domestic affairs.
In tragic irony, sovereignty is used to justify the right to kill in defiance of international law. Carl Schmitt, a German philosopher and jurist who joined the Nazi Party in 1933, defined sovereignty as the “power to decide the state of exception.” William Blum’s Rogue State outlines in brutal detail how the U.S. has long been a lawless state, blind to others’ sovereignty, and the devastating danger that state of exception reflects.
Recently, Marco Rubio had the audacity to claim that “The ICC [International Criminal Court] poses an intolerable threat to U.S. sovereignty.” Then on October 9, the U.S. imposed new sanctions on the ICC, apparently because the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Navi Pillay, a former ICC judge who once criticized Israel.
However, “The ICC is not claiming jurisdiction over conduct in the United States,” said Kenneth Roth, of Human Rights Watch. “Rubio is dressing up his quest for impunity for American war crimes under the label of national sovereignty, which ignores the sovereign right of other nations to invoke the ICC for crimes committed on their territory.” Sovereignty does not imply immunity, but accountability to the rule of law.
Vijay Prashad outlines the struggle for sovereignty in the Global South: “Can the nations of the Global South act together with sovereignty and dignity? Can they build institutions that serve their peoples rather than global capital?…A political consciousness that favours sovereignty and strategic autonomy is rising in the Global South.”
When a country gives up strategic autonomy, has it compromised its sovereignty? Prashad concludes: “The peoples of the Global South demand sovereignty, equality, and peace.” Sovereignty is becoming a mantra, though its clear meaning remains elusive.
“How does any country give up any sovereignty and expect to survive as a government?…That would be political suicide.”—Benigno Aquino III
Geopolitical analyst Pepe Escobar explored modern global sovereignty in “Eurasia, the Hegemon, and the Three Sovereigns,” asserting that true, uncompromised national sovereignty in contemporary geopolitics requires reconceptualizing the understanding of sovereignty. He addressed the need to “pierce far beyond sovereignty as interpreted in conventional political science and predominant international relations narratives.”
When does genocide of resident civilians cancel the right to sovereignty over them? Banning a native language is legally genocide. Ukraine banned the Russian language on the first day of the 2014 coup.
So did Russia violate Ukraine’s sovereignty when it began the SMO? The Donbas, after 12,000 civilian deaths in eight years, voted—overwhelmingly—to rejoin the Russian Federation. The Duma voted to accept their request for reunification.
When international law fails, with total UN abdication, and agreements like Minsk I and Minsk II are used as a ruse, how is Ukraine’s alleged sovereignty legitimate while it commits genocide against its own people?
Cuba remains a sovereign socialist country which says it will not surrender. Venezuela reminds us how quickly a revolution can be compromised when sovereignty becomes a negotiable variable. What is the “difference between sovereignty and subordination, between resistance and surrender?”
When Castro won the Cuban Revolution, he immediately distributed guns to the peasants, because he knew that he needed the people to maintain the victory. And he certainly agreed with Frederick Douglass that “It’s better to die free, than live as a slave.”
Sovereignty requires that the people of each country are free to make their own choices, without coercion or a gun to their head.
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.
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.
Ukraine, the US, the EU, and NATO plan to meet in Brussels this week to discuss security for Ukraine, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy told Ukrainian TV. The meeting would follow last week’s talks in Oslo and a US envoy’s visit to Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Guarantees are what would oblige Ukraine’s allies to act if Russia attacks again. The Paris Declaration laid plans for that commitment in January. Kyiv had a briefing from the Americans, and now the partners want a broad discussion of security and guarantees, Zelenskyy said. Brussels comes ahead of three-way talks with Russia, which the Kremlin says Putin is ready in principle to resume in mid-November.
Zelenskyy: meeting planned for Tuesday or Wednesday
The meeting is planned for Tuesday or Wednesday, 27 or 28 October, Zelenskyy said in the interview, aired on 25 October. The EU would take part at the presidential level and NATO at the level of its secretary general. He did not know whether anyone else would join. He also said Ukraine’s neutrality and limits on its army are not up for discussion.
After Oslo, Witkoff briefed Putin in St. Petersburg
Earlier, on 20 October, Zelenskyy met US special envoy Steve Witkoff in Oslo, with Finnish President Alexander Stubb and Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre present. According to Zelenskyy, a wider round there included national security advisers from Germany, the UK, France, and Italy, the chief of staff of the European Commission president, and NATO representatives.
A day later, Witkoff met Putin in St. Petersburg and said he had brought papers setting out possible paths to a settlement. He told Putin the Oslo talks had been productive. However, Kremlin aide Yuri Ushakov claimed the new ideas from the Europeans and Kyiv that Witkoff relayed held little of use for a settlement.
Portuguese firm Tekever – Portugal’s seventh unicorn company after a funding round pushed its valuation past one billion pounds/ euros/ dollars, and which specialises in drones equipped with artificial intelligence
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’arivreports 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”.
Mail-in ballots account for more than half of votes cast so far, as early turnout builds across the United States ahead of Election Day.
More than 26.6 million U.S. citizens have already voted in the midterm elections, according to data released October 24 by the University of Florida’s Election Lab, with mail-in ballots accounting for 14 million of the votes recorded nationwide.
The latest figures show that 26,608,029 votes had been cast ahead of Election Day, including 14,006,420 ballots returned by mail and 12,601,609 votes cast in person. Election authorities have also received requests for more than 59.4 million mail-in ballots nationwide.
Early voting has increased in states including North Carolina, Kansas, Maine and Iowa, while Texas has seen a rise in mobilization among Latino voters, according to the report. The figures come amid concerns over economic conditions and the cost of living.
California has recorded 2,943,863 early votes, overwhelmingly through mail-in voting. Of those, 2,936,954 were returned by mail and 6,909 were cast in person. Voters in the state have requested more than 23.4 million mail-in ballots.
🚨 Estados Unidos se aproxima a unas elecciones legislativas decisivas, con la popularidad de Donald Trump en retroceso y creciente malestar por la economía. Los comicios del 3 de noviembre de 2026 definirán la composición del Congreso.
Text Reads: 🚨 The United States is approaching pivotal legislative elections, with Donald Trump’s popularity on the decline and growing discontent over the economy. The November 3, 2026, elections will determine the composition of Congress. 🗳️🇺🇸 What do you think?
Democrats account for the largest share of California’s early votes, with 1,383,916 ballots, or 50.2% of the total. Republicans have cast 799,054 votes, representing 29%, while voters registered without a party preference and those affiliated with minor parties account for 575,130 votes, or 20.9%.
Los Angeles County leads California in early voting, with 539,589 ballots processed. San Diego County follows with 356,667 votes, ahead of Orange County, where 279,953 ballots have been returned.
The elections will determine all 435 seats in the House of Representatives, 35 Senate seats and 36 governorships.
The run-up to Election Day has also been marked by a legal dispute over the certification of results in Alaska. A federal court challenge backed by former President Donald Trump seeks to block the potential certification of the state’s election results, raising questions about the electoral process as voting approaches its conclusion.
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.
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.
Login
