Senior officials from Iran, Pakistan, Turkey and Saudi Arabia begin a security meeting in Tehran.

By Junaid S. Ahmad | MEMO | October 27, 2026

For nearly half a century, Iran’s adversaries have tried to isolate it, intimidate it, sanction it into submission and bomb it into irrelevance. Now, in a remarkable inversion of regional power politics, three countries historically invested in its containment have arrived in Tehran to discuss their security with the very state they were supposed to marginalise.

The country they could not defeat is becoming the country they cannot afford to ignore.

Yesterday, Saudi Defence Minister Prince Khalid bin Salman, Pakistan’s army chief Field Marshal Asim Munir and Turkish intelligence chief Ibrahim Kalın met Iranian officials in an encounter whose diplomatic courtesies barely concealed its strategic significance.

The Mecca Pact, the joint defence agreement that Saudi Arabia, Türkiye and Pakistan signed in Mecca in August, was supposed to consolidate a formidable Sunni-led defence alignment. Yet its representatives have come to Tehran confronting an inconvenient reality: Iran cannot be excluded from regional security merely because Washington and its partners find its independence intolerable.

Apparently, the Islamic Republic has become considerably more respectable since demonstrating that it cannot be conveniently eliminated.

This is the distinction between military destruction and strategic defeat that Washington and Israel persistently confuse. Overwhelming firepower can devastate infrastructure, assassinate officials and inflict enormous suffering. It cannot manufacture political submission.

Iran has survived military confrontation, retained retaliatory capabilities and forced neighbouring governments to reconsider the potentially catastrophic consequences of another war.

Survival becomes strategic victory when your adversaries must reorganise their calculations around it.

For Saudi Arabia, the reckoning is particularly humiliating. Riyadh spent decades treating American military supremacy as an insurance policy against Iranian influence. Yemen exposed the bankruptcy of that assumption.

Ansar Allah, Yemen’s Houthi movement, demonstrated that superior arsenals cannot guarantee security against an adversary capable of imposing disproportionate costs. The Saudi monarchy possesses spectacular weaponry, immense wealth and powerful patrons. Yet none of these has eliminated its vulnerability to Yemeni retaliation.

Now Riyadh finds itself seeking Tehran’s cooperation to manage a conflict that its military superiority has failed to resolve.

Evidently, purchasing American weapons is considerably easier than purchasing strategic security.

Pakistan’s predicament is scarcely less revealing. Munir presides over a military establishment accustomed to presenting strategic dependency as diplomatic sophistication. Islamabad’s defence commitments to Riyadh now threaten to entangle Pakistan in confrontations with Iran and Yemen that serve neither its geography nor its national interests.

The Mecca Pact promises collective security. Its less advertised feature is collective exposure to somebody else’s strategic miscalculations.

Munir must now reconcile his obligations to Saudi patrons with the inconvenient realities of Iranian power. It is an awkward assignment for an establishment that has repeatedly mistaken proximity to foreign power for genuine strategic independence.

Türkiye confronts a different calculation but reaches a similar conclusion. Ankara understands that NATO membership, military capabilities and regional ambitions cannot abolish geography. No credible security architecture can be constructed by pretending Iran is dispensable.

The deeper contradiction, however, lies within the Mecca Pact itself.

Its members seek the reassurance of collective defence while attempting to avoid being dragged into another American-Israeli confrontation. An attack on one may formally constitute an attack on all. But such commitments become considerably less attractive when Iranian retaliation, Yemeni escalation and vulnerable Gulf infrastructure enter the equation.

Collective defence sounds magnificent until someone presents the collective bill.

Iran’s achievement is not that its neighbours have embraced its revolutionary worldview. They have not. Saudi Arabia remains deeply connected to Washington, Pakistan continues its elaborate balancing act, and Türkiye remains embedded in NATO.

The significance runs deeper: these governments increasingly recognise that excluding Iran from regional security may expose them to greater dangers than engaging it.

That realisation strikes at the foundations of the American security paradigm.

For decades, Washington cultivated regional dependence on American protection while organising strategic anxieties around Iranian power. Now those same governments are exploring cooperation with the country they were encouraged to regard as an existential threat.

The irony is devastating. Decades of attempting to contain Iran may have helped establish its indispensability.

And Tehran, displaying the composure of a state conscious of its diplomatic leverage, has welcomed its visitors graciously. No triumphalist declarations are necessary. The spectacle speaks adequately for itself.

The Mecca Pact arrived ostensibly to discuss regional stability. What it encountered was the strategic consequence of its own failed assumptions.

Iran did not have to join the alliance. The alliance had to come to Iran.

Press TV – October 27, 2026

Oman’s Foreign Minister Badr Albusaidi has called for the formation of a non-aggression security pact involving six Persian Gulf states plus Iran and Iraq, slamming US attempts to demonize the Islamic Republic as a threat.

Speaking at Girton College, Cambridge, on Monday, Albusaidi stressed that Washington has promoted for almost half a century the false image of Tehran as a threat to the Persian Gulf states, holding back West Asia’s ability to solve its own problems.

The Omani foreign minister, speaking to break the deadlock over the region’s future, stressed that the US would no longer be the region’s primary security provider.

“Issues such as the Strait of Hormuz have become impossible to resolve because external powers continue to define the terms of engagement, while regional powers are unable to take collective responsibility for making their own security arrangements and reach a consensus on them,” Albusaidi noted.

Iran has so far refused to ease its restrictions on transit through the strategic Strait of Hormuz, saying the key international energy waterway will be fully reopened once the US permanently ends its aggression and lifts its maritime blockade and sanctions against Iran.

Iranian authorities have also indicated that the country would not back down from its conditions and would respond decisively to any new act of aggression against its territory.

“What holds us back is that issues which ought to be handled at a regional level by the states of the [Persian] Gulf themselves, are made more complex, more intractable and sometimes simply impossible to resolve because the region’s security arrangements are insufficiently developed,” Albusaidi further stressed.

“And they are insufficiently developed because they have relied for too long on the involvement of external powers,” he added.

Oman’s top diplomat noted that the Islamic Republic “had been systematically excluded from playing any meaningful role in the security arrangements of the region.

Albusaidi also stressed that such exclusion had led to “profoundly negative consequences, not just for Iran, but for the region as a whole”, including the imposition of priorities on the region by external powers such as “the entirely false perception that there is a fundamental regional antagonism between Iran and the Arab states of the [Persian] Gulf.”

According to the Omani foreign minister, the most “damaging” of the priorities imposed on the Persian Gulf region from the outside has been the requirement that the Islamic Republic be excluded.

“Not just excluded. Worse. Positioned as the threat against which regional security had to be organized,” Albusaidi stressed, speaking on the day high-level defense and intelligence officials from Turkey, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia gathered in Tehran in an attempt to prevent a renewed act of aggression by the US against Iran.

Iran and Oman, both coastal states bordering the strategic waterway, engaged in intensive negotiations for months over arrangements for safe shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.

Tehran and Oman finally reached a temporary agreement on how shipping traffic should be managed in the strait, but the plan is on hold as Iran keeps the waterway closed due to US acts of aggression and violations.

Roughly one-fifth of global oil demand passes through the Strait of Hormuz, making the waterway one of the world’s most strategically important maritime chokepoints.

Oman’s foreign minister, without mentioning by name, also challenged US President Donald Trump’s case for a further war of aggression against Iran by saying that he believed the previous round of Oman-mediated negotiations between the US and Iran in February were “making significant progress, and that an agreement was within reach. We still stand by that judgment today.”

The US and the Israeli regime waged their first war of aggression against Iran, which lasted 12 days, in June 2025. Their second aggression began on February 28, 2026, and came to a halt in early April after 40 days.

Iran has been defending itself by targeting US bases and energy infrastructure in the Persian Gulf states with missile strikes and drone attacks.

Press TV – October 27, 2026

US President Donald Trump has again resorted to brazen falsehoods while defending Washington’s ongoing war of aggression against the Islamic Republic of Iran, claiming Tehran initiated the war and dismissing an earlier ceasefire as a “waste of time.”

Speaking at a campaign rally in Corinth, Mississippi, on Monday, ahead of the November midterms, Trump echoed the talking points of hardline Republicans by asserting: “We didn’t start the war with Iran. Iran started the war with us.”

He further claimed the Islamic Republic had developed missiles capable of striking American cities, declaring that “they’d hit San Diego, they’d hit Los Angeles, they’d hit our cities too,” and argued that the military offensive “should’ve been done a long time ago.”

Trump’s remarks stand in stark contradiction to the established record. On February 28, the United States and the Israeli regime launched the unprovoked so-called “Operation Epic Fury,” a coordinated assault that assassinated Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, senior military commanders, and hundreds of civilians, including schoolchildren in Minab.

The aggression followed months of escalating threats and came amid stalled diplomatic efforts, consistent with the pattern of the earlier 12-day US-Israeli war in June 2025.

Iran responded immediately and decisively with Operation True Promise 4. In successive waves of precision missile and drone strikes, the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps and allied resistance forces targeted US military installations across West Asia, including bases in Qatar, Bahrain, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait.

These retaliatory operations inflicted significant damage on American radar systems, tanker aircraft, command facilities, and naval assets, exposing the vulnerability of the US military footprint in the region and forcing a recalculation in Washington.

A ceasefire was secured in early April after nearly 40 days of intense fighting, largely on Iranian terms and in the face of sustained resistance. Far from a “waste of time,” the pause reflected the failure of the initial US-Israeli maximalist objectives — unconditional surrender, elimination of Iran’s defensive missile capabilities, and control over the Strait of Hormuz.

Trump’s own administration has repeatedly shifted its stated justifications for the war, from preventing a nuclear weapons program (despite Iran’s longstanding fatwa and the absence of evidence of a military nuclear effort) to claims of imminent attack, regime change, and reopening the Strait of Hormuz, which Tehran had restricted only to vessels linked to the aggressors.

Trump’s missile claims are equally baseless. Iran’s ballistic missile inventory, while advanced and regionally capable, consists primarily of systems with ranges of roughly 1,000–2,000 kilometers. These weapons have proven effective against US bases and Israeli targets in West Asia. They do not include intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of reaching the continental United States.

Independent assessments and US intelligence have consistently confirmed that Iran does not have the missiles to strike cities such as Los Angeles or San Diego. Trump’s assertion appears designed to manufacture fear and justify continued aggression rather than reflect military reality.

The economic consequences Trump now seeks to downplay stem directly from the US-initiated war of aggression and the resulting disruption in the Persian Gulf. Iranian officials have repeatedly stated that any naval blockade or further attacks on civilian and energy infrastructure will be met with proportional and stronger responses.

President Masoud Pezeshkian and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi have emphasized that diplomacy remains possible only on the basis of mutual respect and an end to aggression, while warning that renewed strikes will not alter Iran’s positions.

Trump’s latest comments also highlight a deeper hypocrisy. He campaigned as a president who would avoid new wars, yet authorized a major military offensive that has neither achieved its shifting goals nor ended.

His repeated declarations of victory earlier in the year have been contradicted by Iran’s continued ability to conduct retaliatory operations and the persistence of the conflict more than seven months after it began.

As midterm elections approach, such rhetoric appears aimed at deflecting domestic criticism over rising costs and the lack of a clear exit strategy rather than presenting an accurate account of events.

By Finian Cunningham | Strategic Culture Foundation | October 27, 2026

Western politicians and media claim that Russia is bogged down in a Ukrainian quagmire. We are told that Russian forces are taking heavy losses, held in a stalemate by gritty Ukrainian soldiers. Nearly five years after invading, it is claimed, Russia’s military is still confined to Ukraine’s far eastern territory with little progress.

But this upbeat Western narrative is flawed and wearing thin. The NATO-backed Ukrainian regime is straining from collapse. The grinding losses on the battlefield, as disproportionate body exchanges attest, the corruption within the Kiev regime, the dredging of conscripts to include women, and the incessant pounding by Russian air strikes are exposing a state teetering on defeat.

Even U.S. President Donald Trump seems to have sobered up from drinking the Kool-Aid about Ukraine winning. He’s peeved and telling Vladimir Zelensky it’s time for him to step aside and cut a peace deal.

There is a growing foreboding sense that European NATO leaders are dreading the inevitable implosion of their “Ukraine project”. As German MEP Michael von der Schulesburg pointed out in an interview with Glenn Diesen, European politicians are increasingly uneasy that their lies about Ukraine will soon be blown wide open. There will be hell to pay for bankrupt economies and impoverished societies, all based on lies.

Still, it is a fair question: why aren’t Russian forces making more rapid advance along the 1,000 kilometer front line? If the Kiev regime is so shaky, why isn’t Russia finishing it off quickly?

Aiden Minnis, a British-Irish volunteer serving in the Russian army, said he believes that victory is coming and is inevitable. But he explains that the advance is deliberately slow. The “meatgrinder” people refer to about the battlefield is not just about inflicting losses of military personnel. He says the conflict in Ukraine is being fought strategically as an attritional war to defeat the Western NATO alliance.

“We have defeated the Ukrainian army three times over from the losses it has suffered,” says Minnis. “This war would have been over a long time ago, if it were not for the systematic involvement of NATO.”

The amount of weaponry and personnel that NATO has funneled into Ukraine is on a scale that few in the West can imagine, he noted.

“NATO effectively runs and directs the war for Ukraine. That includes generals and special forces from NATO countries inside command structures and military units in Ukraine, and not always sheep dipped into the foreign legion either. Some are outright working without cover.

“They use NATO radars and intelligence to conduct combat operations and terrorist attacks inside Russia. None of the fighting, or rather 90 per cent of it in Ukraine, would be possible without massive Western assistance,” says Minnis.

For example, the EU is donating €90 billion to Ukraine just for 2026 and 2027 alone, never mind the €200 bn it gave from 2022 to 2025. About one-third of this money is used to manufacture and supply drones. This vast expenditure has transformed Ukrainian territory into a giant high-tech killing field. Traversing such territory is an unprecedented challenge.

Aiden Minnis left Britain in 2023 as a volunteer to fight for Russia. He has served in Donetsk and Lugansk as a sapper clearing explosives, as well as in the evacuation of civilians and wounded. Currently, he is deployed as a rifleman in a regiment on the front line in Kharkov Oblast near Kupiansk.

The British media have called him a criminal and a traitor. He says he doesn’t care because he has no intention of returning to the United Kingdom.

“I am labelled a traitor, but I only ever swore allegiance to one country… Russia, and I never broke it. And as long as I have breath in my body, you will never see me swear allegiance, or fight for the butcher’s apron [British Union Jack flag]. My soul is Irish and now Russian.”

Minnis says that what the Western media report about the war in Ukraine is “total lies”.

He says that Russian forces are making slow but relentless advances along most of the frontline. The pace is incremental because the Russian military is trying to minimize casualties among its troops and the civilian population.

“If you look at the exchanges of dead soldiers that are agreed upon from time to time, the Ukrainian side’s casualties are 10 times those of Russia.

“Also, despite the scale of this war – the biggest in Europe since World War Two – the number of civilian deaths is relatively low, and that’s because Russia is trying to minimize these casualties,” he says.

Minnis says that another factor that makes advances slow-going is that the NATO-backed regime uses tactics of boobytrapping buildings with civilians inside them. He says that when Russian forces take a village or town, the houses are often rigged with explosives, with families inside. This makes for painstaking work by sappers to defuse boobytraps.

And, of course, the massive deployment of drones is a big problem for infantry. The European Union and Britain have flooded Ukraine with drones that create “death zones.”

“The use of drone walls is in place of dwindling Ukrainian conscripts. These death zones make our ground progress difficult.”

However, Minnis said NATO’s deployment in Ukraine is a double-edged sword. The 27-nation military bloc has certainly made a Russian victory more difficult to achieve. It has prolonged the proxy war with millions of Ukrainian casualties.

But this war of attrition is grinding down the NATO arsenal with colossal impact. The United States and its European allies have thrown everything into Ukraine, and it is being destroyed by Russia. It’s a giant demolition site. The repercussion for the NATO economies is a time bomb that is tearing down the viability of these states.

Ukraine is a quagmire for NATO, not Russia. The battlefield does not have to move westwards; the Western powers are being sucked under.

In World War Two, the Soviet Red Army pushed all the way to Berlin. In today’s war, the new Berlin is in Ukraine, where Russia’s enemies are being ground down, hollowed out, and buried.

Aiden Minnis adds: “Russian leader Vladimir Putin is fighting this war very humanely; dare I say such a thing is possible in a war. But it’s a two-fold strategy: it’s to limit civilian casualties, but also a war of attrition, because what’s happening in real time is the demilitarisation of Ukraine, which won’t be able to wage a war again once this war is won by Russia, and also the demilitarisation and deindustrialization of NATO countries.”

By Deng Xiaoci | Global Times | October 27, 2026

Like Don Quixote tilting at windmills he mistook for menacing giants, Washington appears to be sounding the alarm over alleged threats in outer space, even as it presses ahead with its own military buildup in orbit.

In its latest assessment, released on Monday, the US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) claimed that China could deploy space-based directed-energy weapons by the late 2020s, while also highlighting Russia’s expanding anti-satellite capabilities, according to SpaceNews.

However, the claims come even as the US itself accelerates the militarization of outer space, having already publicly acknowledged deploying weapons in orbit while advancing its ambitious Golden Dome missile defense initiative.

Chinese military affairs expert Song Zhongping told the Global Times that Washington’s approach represents a classic case of “thief crying stop the thief,” as the US seeks to justify its own buildup of offensive and defensive space capabilities by portraying China and Russia as threats.

According to SpaceNews, the DIA’s latest assessment, contained in the 2026 edition of Challenges to Security in Space, claimed that China already possesses multiple ground-based laser systems capable of disrupting, degrading or damaging satellites in low-Earth orbit.

The report further alleged that Beijing may field space-based directed-energy weapons by the late 2020s, along with more powerful ground-based systems capable of threatening satellites in orbit.

Directed-energy weapons use concentrated electromagnetic energy, including lasers and high-powered microwaves, to interfere with or damage targets. Such systems could potentially disrupt satellite electronics or impair optical sensors, according to SpaceNews.

The US intelligence report also highlighted Russia’s alleged development of kinetic anti-satellite weapons, including the Burevestnik system, which it described as a developmental co-orbital anti-satellite weapon launched from a modified MiG-31 aircraft.

It further reiterated Washington’s assessment that Moscow is developing a satellite designed to carry a nuclear weapon. Moscow has said that Cosmos 2553, a satellite linked by US intelligence to the alleged program, was intended to test electronic systems under radiation conditions.

Song said the latest US intelligence assessment reveals two distinct strategic calculations behind Washington’s claims against China and Russia.

By hyping China’s potential development of space-based weapons, the US is seeking to justify its own deployment of offensive weapons in orbit, while claims about Russia’s anti-satellite capabilities aim to make the case for strengthening the defenses of American space assets, Song noted.

Such claims could also help the US administration secure additional congressional funding for an integrated space warfare architecture combining offensive and defensive capabilities, he said.

Notably, the latest allegations stand against the backdrop of Washington’s increasingly explicit pursuit of military capabilities in space.

On September 14, US Secretary of the Air Force Troy Meink publicly acknowledged that the US already possessed on-orbit space control weapons capable of defending its military forces against hostile actions. The announcement marked a significant development in Washington’s public posture toward space warfare, although the US military did not disclose the specific capabilities, the number deployed or their deployment dates.

Meanwhile, Washington is pressing ahead with its Golden Dome missile defense initiative, which includes the development of a constellation of space-based interceptors. According to an official US Space Force release in July, the program aims to develop interceptors capable of engaging missiles during their boost, midcourse and glide phases.

According to an official US Space Force release in April, the service has established the Space-Based Interceptor (SBI) program to develop a space-based missile defense system, with plans to demonstrate its integration into the Golden Dome architecture by 2028.

Song noted that the US is increasingly seeking to transform outer space from a domain used primarily to support military operations through reconnaissance, communications and navigation into a domain for direct offensive and defensive operations.

He said Washington’s pursuit of space-based weapons, including capabilities envisioned under the Golden Dome initiative, reflects its broader ambition to maintain military superiority by integrating advanced technologies and extending military operations into space.

China, meanwhile, has repeatedly called for efforts to prevent an arms race in outer space and opposed attempts to turn it into a battlefield.

In its latest position paper titled China’s Position on Strengthening Outer Space Governance, released on October 23, the Chinese Foreign Ministry warned: “The risk of an arms race in outer space and the trend of turning outer space into a new theater of conflict have become the gravest threat and challenge to space security.”

The document further stated: “States should oppose offensive military policies in outer space and take all possible measures to prevent an arms race in outer space.”

Song warned that Washington’s push to integrate artificial intelligence into military systems and expand offensive and defensive capabilities into space could transform outer space from a domain supporting military operations into a battlefield, threatening other countries’ space assets and potentially accelerating an arms race and increasing the risk of conflicts triggered by miscalculation, he said.

Daniel Davis / Deep Dive – October 26, 2026