© Pablo Porciuncula/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
One morning in June, the head of export at Ukrainian drone company Stellarion found himself unexpectedly in need of a U-Haul outside the Detroit Metro Airport in Michigan.
Stellarion was set to test its drones in front of American soldiers at a competition organized by the Pentagon at Camp Grayling,
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.
Especialista em Direito Internacional vê risco de corrida armamentista, impacto sobre satélites civis e necessidade de novas negociações internacionais
Por Júlia CARMO
Junte-se a nós no Telegram 
, X
e VK
.
Escreva para nós: info@strategic-culture.su
Os Estados Unidos reconheceram publicamente, pela primeira vez, que possuem armas de controle espacial posicionadas em órbita.
A confirmação foi feita pelo secretário da Força Aérea americana, Troy Meink, durante a Air, Space & Cyber Conference, em Maryland, e provocou reações imediatas de China e Rússia, que acusaram Washington de estimular uma nova etapa da corrida armamentista.
“Os Estados Unidos possuem armas de controle espacial em órbita capazes de defender a Força Conjunta contra ações hostis de adversários”, declarou Meink na segunda-feira (14).
O governo americano não informou quantos equipamentos estão no espaço, quais tecnologias utilizam nem se têm capacidade de destruição física de outros satélites.
A Força Espacial sustenta que a decisão responde ao desenvolvimento de capacidades espaciais e antiespaciais de Pequim e Moscou.
O reconhecimento público, entretanto, muda a forma como essa disputa é apresentada, até agora, Washington mantinha em sigilo a existência de armas efetivamente posicionadas em órbita.
Para Cássio Eduardo Zen, doutor em Direito Internacional e docente de Direito Internacional Público e Privado no Centro Universitário de Pinhais (Fapi), o episódio deve ser analisado com cautela.
“Precisamos nos recordar de que, na década de 1980, o presidente Ronald Reagan fez o programa Star Wars. Então, essa história de militarização do espaço não é uma novidade. Já foi aplicada ou discutida outras vezes”, contextualiza Zen.
Programa Star Wars
O especialista se refere à Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), anunciada por Ronald Reagan em março de 1983.
O projeto, apelidado de “Star Wars”, previa pesquisas para criar um sistema capaz de interceptar mísseis balísticos, inclusive com tecnologias baseadas no espaço.
O programa se transformou em um dos principais pontos de tensão entre Estados Unidos e União Soviética durante a fase final da Guerra Fria.
A União Soviética argumentava que a iniciativa poderia levar armas ao espaço e alterar o equilíbrio nuclear.
Documentos históricos do Departamento de Estado mostram que Moscou chegou a propor negociações para proibir a colocação de armamentos em órbita durante as discussões provocadas pela SDI.
Zen considera que esse histórico é importante antes de interpretar o anúncio atual como uma ruptura completa.
“É preciso perguntar até que ponto isso representa uma efetiva militarização e até que ponto pode ser uma provocação. Vindo do governo Trump, é possível que exista algum exagero na forma como essa informação está sendo apresentada”, pondera o professor.
Diferentemente da década de 1980, porém, o anúncio atual não trata apenas de pesquisa.
A própria Força Aérea americana afirmou oficialmente que existem hoje “on-orbit space control weapons”, ou armas de controle espacial em órbita.
Armas desconhecidas
A natureza desses equipamentos é uma das principais dúvidas. O governo dos EUA não informou se os sistemas são cinéticos, capazes de atingir fisicamente outro objeto, ou não cinéticos, como equipamentos de interferência eletromagnética, sistemas cibernéticos ou tecnologias capazes de bloquear ou desativar satélites sem destruí-los.
Lasers, interferência eletromagnética e ataques aos enlaces de comunicação estão entre as tecnologias possíveis em operações espaciais.
A Força Espacial afirmou que suas capacidades podem ser empregadas de maneira defensiva e ofensiva para “afetar as capacidades do adversário”.
Essa falta de detalhes dificulta até mesmo determinar quais normas internacionais poderiam ser aplicadas.
“Se for comprovado que existe uma militarização incompatível com as normas internacionais, outros países podem questionar essa atuação e exigir mudanças de conduta”, afirma Zen.
O professor considera que respostas diplomáticas e econômicas também poderiam aparecer.
“Os outros Estados podem adotar medidas políticas e até sanções econômicas, dependendo do tipo de violação que venha a ser constatada”, acrescenta o advogado.
Regra internacional
O principal acordo internacional sobre o tema é o Tratado do Espaço Sideral de 1967, do qual Estados Unidos, Rússia e China fazem parte.
Existe, contudo, uma diferença jurídica importante, o tratado não proíbe genericamente todo uso militar da órbita terrestre.
O artigo 4º impede que os países coloquem em órbita armas nucleares ou outras armas de destruição em massa.
Também proíbe bases militares, testes de armas e manobras militares na Lua e em outros corpos celestes.
O texto não estabelece a mesma proibição geral para armas convencionais colocadas na órbita da Terra.
É justamente essa lacuna que complica a reação jurídica ao anúncio americano. Zen defende uma interpretação mais ampla do princípio de uso pacífico do espaço.
“O princípio geral de Direito Internacional aplicável ao espaço sideral é considerar esse ambiente destinado a finalidades pacíficas. O problema agora será saber exatamente que tipo de equipamento os Estados Unidos colocaram em órbita e qual é sua função”, explica o docente.
Por isso, uma eventual conclusão sobre ilegalidade dependerá do tipo de arma, da finalidade, de sua operação e de outros compromissos internacionais aplicáveis.
China reage
Pequim respondeu ao anúncio nesta terça-feira (15).
“Instamos o lado americano a parar de expandir suas capacidades militares e de se preparar para a guerra no espaço sideral”, afirmou Guo Jiakun, porta-voz do Ministério das Relações Exteriores da China.
O governo chinês há anos defende publicamente negociações para limitar uma corrida armamentista espacial.
Em manifestação anterior, o próprio Guo afirmou que a China se opõe à “transformação do espaço em armamento” e apoia a criação de instrumentos jurídicos específicos sobre o tema.
Washington apresenta uma versão diferente. A Força Espacial americana afirma que a China já desenvolve capacidades “espaciais e contraespaciais” como parte de sua modernização militar e utiliza esse avanço como uma das justificativas para o fortalecimento das próprias forças.
Essa dinâmica preocupa Zen porque cada potência pode utilizar as ações da rival para justificar novos investimentos.
“Os outros países podem se sentir legitimados a fazer exatamente o mesmo tipo de conduta. Aí, sim, existe o risco de uma corrida armamentista”, alerta o especialista.
Rússia reage
A Rússia adotou discurso semelhante ao chinês. “Contamos com uma ampla consolidação internacional para continuar trabalhando em prol da desmilitarização completa do espaço”, declarou Dmitri Peskov, porta-voz do Kremlin.
Segundo ele, Moscou considera que o espaço deveria permanecer “livre de qualquer arma”.
A defesa dessa posição não começou com o anúncio americano. Rússia e China apresentaram ao longo dos últimos anos propostas para um instrumento internacional juridicamente vinculante destinado a impedir a colocação de armas no espaço e o uso ou ameaça da força contra objetos espaciais.
Os próprios Estados Unidos, porém, acusam Moscou de desenvolver tecnologias antissatélite e de considerar o espaço como um domínio relevante para futuros conflitos.
Para Zen, essa combinação cria um problema típico de segurança internacional, uma potência diz estar se armando para responder à outra, enquanto a rival utiliza justamente essa decisão como justificativa para fazer o mesmo.
“Se China e Rússia entenderem que os Estados Unidos já colocaram armas no espaço e responderem com equipamentos equivalentes, entramos numa lógica em que cada novo passo é utilizado para justificar o próximo”, observa o professor.
Satélites civis
Uma corrida desse tipo não atingiria somente as Forças Armadas. Satélites são utilizados para comunicação, localização, meteorologia, transmissão de dados e diferentes atividades econômicas.
Equipamentos civis e militares compartilham regiões orbitais e frequências que precisam ser coordenadas internacionalmente.
“Se acontecer uma militarização mais intensa do espaço, especialmente envolvendo satélites, isso é extremamente preocupante para os usos civis”, ressalta Zen.
Segundo ele, a preocupação envolve tanto a ocupação do ambiente orbital quanto a possibilidade de interferência.
“Você pode ter risco de interferência, problemas na utilização de frequências e dificuldades para operações de satélites destinados à comunicação e a outros serviços civis”, detalha o especialista.
A União Internacional de Telecomunicações (UIT) administra internacionalmente o uso de frequências e posições orbitais para reduzir interferências prejudiciais.
A própria organização trata o espectro e a órbita geoestacionária como recursos limitados que exigem coordenação entre os países.
Risco brasileiro
Para o Brasil, o tema não é distante. O país utiliza satélites para telecomunicações, transmissão de televisão, internet, monitoramento ambiental, meteorologia e sistemas ligados a diferentes setores da economia.
Zen chama atenção especialmente para a necessidade de o Brasil acompanhar as negociações internacionais sobre utilização das órbitas e segurança dos equipamentos espaciais.
“Isso também é relevante para o Brasil. Precisamos prestar muito mais atenção ao que acontece no ambiente orbital e às consequências que uma escalada militar pode trazer para serviços dos quais dependemos”, defende o professor.
Ele também menciona os riscos associados ao crescimento do número de objetos em órbita.
“Outro problema é o lixo espacial. É um risco que muitas vezes recebe pouca atenção até que um objeto perca o controle, seja destruído ou passe a representar perigo para outros equipamentos”, destaca Zen.
A preocupação possui respaldo técnico. A NASA considera detritos orbitais uma das principais ameaças a espaçonaves e satélites.
Objetos pequenos viajam em velocidades tão elevadas que podem danificar ou destruir equipamentos.
Colisões também podem produzir novos fragmentos e aumentar progressivamente a quantidade de material perigoso em órbita.
Novas regras
Zen não considera que o primeiro passo seja abandonar o arcabouço internacional já existente.
“Na minha avaliação, o ponto inicial não é simplesmente criar uma nova norma, mas aplicar e desenvolver aquilo que já existe para preservar o uso pacífico do espaço”, afirma o especialista.
Ao mesmo tempo, o anúncio americano evidencia as limitações das regras formuladas há quase seis décadas.
Em 1967, o principal temor era colocar armas nucleares em órbita. Hoje, sistemas militares podem funcionar por interferência eletrônica, ataques cibernéticos, lasers ou tecnologias capazes de incapacitar um satélite sem utilizar explosivos.
Por isso, China e Rússia defendem há anos um novo tratado específico para impedir uma corrida armamentista espacial.
As negociações, porém, esbarram em divergências sobre definições, fiscalização e verificação das tecnologias utilizadas.
Efeito imediato
Até agora, a consequência mais concreta do anúncio é política. Os Estados Unidos confirmaram uma capacidade que mantinham em sigilo, China e Rússia responderam cobrando desmilitarização e o debate sobre armas espaciais voltou a ocupar as relações entre as três potências.
Ainda não existem informações suficientes para afirmar se o equipamento americano viola o Tratado do Espaço Sideral.
Washington não revelou se as armas carregam material de destruição em massa, nem mesmo a natureza técnica dos sistemas posicionados em órbita.
Zen, por isso, recomenda cautela antes de tratar o anúncio como prova de uma mudança completa nas regras militares globais.
“Eu ainda considero possível que exista uma dose de bravata nessa confirmação. Estamos falando de um governo que utiliza declarações fortes como instrumento político e de negociação”, avalia o professor.
Mas ele ressalta que, caso as armas sejam efetivamente operacionais e provoquem uma resposta equivalente das outras potências, o efeito poderá ultrapassar a disputa diplomática.
“O risco maior é China e Rússia fazerem exatamente a mesma coisa. Se cada lado passar a colocar novos sistemas militares no espaço porque o outro já fez isso, podemos entrar numa corrida armamentista com consequências que não ficam restritas aos militares”, conclui Zen.
Publicado originalmente por obrasilianista.com.br
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.
Machine tools and other equipment from seven countries, led by China, work at Russian plants that make ballistic missiles and their components, Ukraine’s military intelligence (HUR) said on 26 October. The 30 items are a small slice of HUR’s War&Sanctions portal, which lists 1,698 machine tools at 223 Russian plants.
Seventeen of the 30 were made outside China, in Germany, Taiwan, the US, Türkiye, Switzerland, and Italy. One of HUR’s proposals reaches past Russia and China, to the firms that supply parts for Chinese machine tools. The list comes two weeks after the EU blacklisted 1,569 Russian arms suppliers and executives. More than half of those listings hit the ballistic missile supply chain, EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas said. Sanctioning a company, though, does not stop the machines in its workshops.
HUR’s statement leads with a GX-650 five-axis machining center made by China’s Hyper Machine Tool. Such computer-controlled machines cut complex metal parts from several angles. HUR said it works at the Votkinsk Plant, which the agency described as the maker of 9M723 missiles for the Iskander-M system and the missile section of the Kh-47M2 Kinzhal, an air-launched ballistic missile.
HUR has flagged Votkinsk before. In November 2025, it published hackathon findings showing that Russian companies supplied Chinese and Taiwanese machine tools to the plant after the full-scale invasion began.
Chinese Shtral turning and milling centers work at PEMZ Molot, which builds electronics units for Iskander-M missiles, according to HUR’s statement. At UPKB Detal, which makes altimeters for hypersonic Zircon cruise missiles, HUR found measuring equipment from Germany’s Rohde & Schwarz.
The portal entries paint a broader picture. Only four of the 30 entries list a ballistic missile among the plant’s weapons. Most of the rest list cruise missiles, glide-bomb kits, guided artillery shells, or Geran-2 attack drones. HUR did not publish its evidence, though the portal says partner agencies can request it.
Russian plants use the equipment to make missiles and parts such as altimeters, control surfaces, and gyroscopes, HUR said. The agency noted a growing number of Chinese machine tools, including five-axis models. According to HUR, those Chinese machines contain European, Japanese, and Taiwanese components, from numerical control systems to precision spindles and bearings. In HUR’s assessment, Russia still cannot replace equipment from leading foreign makers with its own.
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.
Irán y Rusia, ambos sometidos a sanciones que los llevan al olvido, están, de hecho, más alineados que nunca, coordinando todo en un frente común.
Únete a nosotros en Telegram , X y VK .
Escríbenos: info@strategic-culture.su
En lo que respecta a Ucrania, Washington podría estar pasando a un modo total de “salvar las apariencias”.
Después de todo, la magnitud de la derrota estratégica del Imperio, sumada al desmoronamiento de Occidente en el país 404, es abrumadora. A esto se suma la derrota estratégica en Irán y el implacable golpe que Yemen le está asestando a la Casa de Saud.
El gran maestro Lavrov lo expresó así:
Occidente nunca volverá a ser el actor principal que dicta las condiciones”.
La tentación de identificar un camino más directo hacia un orden mundial multinodal y policéntrico puede ser grande —a raíz de todas esas concesiones descabelladas y sin precedentes de Trump a Moscú—. Pero entonces siguen llegando las verdaderas nubes negras.
El culto a la muerte en Asia Occidental y el Sindicato de Epstein en su conjunto han logrado dominar a toda la masa de neoconservadores rusófobos repartidos por todo el MICIMATT (complejo militar/industrial/congresional/de inteligencia/mediático/académico/de think tanks, según la memorable definición de Ray McGovern) y reconstituir a Irán como la única e indiscutible emergencia de seguridad nacional.
El plan de 7 puntos o nada
El apresurado viaje del mariscal de campo Asim Munir, organizado a última hora desde Islamabad a Teherán a principios de esta semana, al final no pudo mediar en nada.
Munir se reunió con todas las personas importantes. Le preguntó sin rodeos al presidente del Parlamento, Ghalibaf: ¿qué se necesita para encontrar una solución al estancamiento entre Irán y EE. UU.?
Ghalibaf fue contundente —y lo repitió al menos ocho veces durante su reunión—:
Washington debe implementar las condiciones de siete puntos de Irán, que son esencialmente un resumen del memorando de entendimiento (MoU) que ha fracasado una y otra vez, el cual Trump firmó y luego destruyó.
Los siete puntos se propusieron por primera vez a Tweedledum y Tweedledee —Witkoff y Kushner— a través de los qataríes en una ronda anterior de negociaciones indirectas entre Irán y EE. UU.
El presidente Pezeshkian y el secretario del Consejo Supremo de Seguridad Nacional (SNSC), Mohsen Rezaee, en sus reuniones, hicieron hincapié exactamente en lo mismo. Ese es el mensaje que Munir debería transmitir al «sociópata en jefe».
Las fuentes oficiales iraníes no lo confirmarán; solo la versión estadounidense, fuertemente manipulada. Pero es posible que Munir haya transmitido un ultimátum definitivo de EE. UU. a Rezaee, Pezeshkian y Ghalibaf: abandonen su programa nuclear o enfrenten ataques masivos, dirigidos principalmente contra la Montaña del Pico.
Además de los 7 puntos, Mohsen Rezaee le informó nuevamente a Munir —y, por lo tanto, a la Casa Blanca— que ni una sola partícula de polvo nuclear saldrá de Irán. Volviendo a la única posibilidad de retomar las negociaciones: Washington debe aceptar los 7 puntos.
El ministro de Relaciones Exteriores, Araghchi, sigue insistiendo en lo esencial: «Estados Unidos no ha logrado ninguno de sus objetivos de guerra».
Así que la cadena de causalidad es ineludible: no hay victoria militar (ni cambio de régimen); los costos económicos son insoportables; la situación política es insostenible; por lo tanto, la única salida son los siete puntos.
Y, además de todo eso, Teherán controla el tiempo.
Paralelamente, en medio de la «Tormenta Yemení», Saná también controla el tiempo.
Con Aramco —el sustento vital de EE. UU., Israel y los matones salafistas-yihadistas al estilo del ISIS, y una fuente privilegiada de financiamiento para las «guerras eternas»—, ahora en la línea de fuego directa de Ansarallah, el impulso yemení es trabajar «para secar las fuentes del terrorismo».
Sin embargo, Riad está redoblando la apuesta, amenazando con bombardear cada reunión de tribus yemeníes. Si eso ocurre, más de un millón de yemeníes más se unirán a las Fuerzas Armadas de Yemen y marcharán hacia la frontera entre Yemen y Arabia Saudita.
Después de todo, las tribus, bien entrenadas y fuertemente armadas, solo están esperando una orden del líder de Ansarallah, Abdul-Malik Badr al-Din al-Houthi, para invadir el sur de la «Arabia Saudita» y recuperar las tres provincias —Najran, Jizan y Asir— que son tierras ancestrales yemeníes robadas por los británicos en 1934.
Un precio que no te puedes permitir pagar
Se puede desatar el infierno: ahora; pronto; o a más tardar a finales de noviembre. Si llegara a suceder antes, antes de las elecciones israelíes, es un hecho que el impulsor es el culto a la muerte.
El sociópata en jefe prefiere un ataque después de las elecciones de mitad de mandato.
El culto a la muerte está preparando un ataque masivo contra centrales eléctricas iraníes, infraestructura petrolera, objetivos militares e instalaciones nucleares.
Teherán ha advertido repetidamente que cualquier ataque, ya sea conjunto o por separado, por parte de EE. UU. e Israel, será tratado como una «Totalen Krieg», una guerra total, y que la respuesta romperá cualquier límite o restricción.
La inteligencia interna de Irán está totalmente enfocada en un escenario de bombardeos a gran escala que ocurriría antes del próximo martes, día de las elecciones en el culto a la muerte.
Pase lo que pase, la respuesta de Teherán se asegurará de que el precio a pagar sea más que prohibitivo. En cuanto a Israel, Irán contraatacará ambas refinerías israelíes; los puertos de Haifa y Ashdod; todas las bases aéreas; y Dimona, solo si se atacan las propias instalaciones nucleares de Irán.
En caso de un ataque de EE. UU., cualquier monarquía petrolera del Golfo que albergue un punto de lanzamiento se convertirá instantáneamente en un objetivo legítimo, incluyendo redes eléctricas; plantas desalinizadoras; refinerías; puertos; centros de datos; sedes e instalaciones de empresas estadounidenses.
El Estrecho de Ormuz quedaría completamente cerrado. El precio del barril de petróleo se disparará. La economía mundial entrará en una Gran Depresión.
Desde un punto de vista imperial, eso sería tan desolador como que Washington permitiera a Irán administrar el estrecho de Ormuz y cobrar tarifas por el tránsito: en realidad, el humillante fin de la talasocracia unilateral —con la Quinta Flota de EE. UU. teniendo que pedir permiso para entrar o salir de su propia base en ruinas en Bahrein—.
Mohammad Mokhber, uno de los principales asesores del líder Mojtaba Jamenei, subrayó que
si Estados Unidos e Israel atacan nuestra infraestructura petroquímica o nuestras centrales eléctricas, Irán atacará a nueve países».
Además, la agencia de noticias Fars, muy cercana al Cuerpo de la Guardia Revolucionaria Islámica (CGRI), se enteró de una serie de nuevas directivas: si los ataques implican el asesinato de funcionarios iraníes y la muerte de civiles, la respuesta iraní incluirá objetivos políticos asociados con Estados Unidos y todas las naciones que participen en la guerra, además de su infraestructura.
Lavrov y Araghchi reactivan el RIC
En medio de tanto horror, intentemos destacar al menos una tendencia positiva. Durante la reciente visita de Lavrov a Teherán, el ministro de Relaciones Exteriores iraní, Araghchi, fue directo al grano:
Nunca en nuestra historia Rusia e Irán han colaborado tan estrechamente como ahora.
El concepto clave es «Nunca en nuestra historia». Lavrov y Araghchi hablaron de «todo, desde Europa hasta Asia Occidental». Pero especialmente de estos cuatro temas: Líbano, Palestina, Ucrania y Yemen. Sin mencionar todo lo relacionado con la ampliación de la cooperación económica y «nuclear».
La cooperación económica se refiere especialmente al INSTC —el Corredor Internacional de Transporte Norte-Sur que conecta a tres socios de los BRICS y la OCS: Rusia, Irán e India.
Vean mi documental sobre el INSTC filmado en Irán el año pasado.
El Imperio del Caos se basa en sanciones, amenazas y bombardeos. La integración de Eurasia se basa en la construcción de infraestructura, el aumento del comercio y la cooperación soberana.
Por eso, Lavrov y Araghchi tuvieron que reactivar una vez más el RIC: la conexión original entre Rusia, India y China, concebida inicialmente como el Triángulo de Primakov, pero ahora con Irán en lugar de India.
Lavrov propuso que el nuevo RIC estableciera una «estructura de seguridad común» en el Golfo Pérsico mediante una cumbre trilateral. Eso equivale a que el RIC defina un marco unificado para el Estrecho de Ormuz.
La respuesta del Imperio será una mayor desorientación. Porque, una vez más, se trata de la «indivisibilidad de la seguridad» —tal como Rusia se lo propuso a EE. UU. y a la OTAN en diciembre de 2021—. En ese entonces, eso fue recibido con una respuesta que no fue tal.
En cuanto al Líbano, Palestina, Ucrania y Yemen, Lavrov y Araghchi se encontraban en primera línea de combate. Donde tenemos al Imperio del Caos y a sus aliados/vasallos de un lado, y a Rusia y a los aliados de Irán del otro.
Todo está interconectado, por supuesto. Un arco imperial de presión militar se extiende desde Ucrania hasta Yemen. La respuesta gira en torno a cómo coordinar la resistencia (cursiva mía) a dicha presión.
En cuanto a la cooperación económica, tanto Irán como Rusia se encuentran bajo un tsunami de sanciones. Sus bancos han sido expulsados de SWIFT y las exportaciones de petróleo están severamente restringidas. Por lo tanto, el comercio entre ambos países debe eludir el dólar estadounidense; todo el sistema financiero occidental; y la talasocracia impuesta por la Marina de los Estados Unidos.
El conocimiento técnico para eludir las sanciones es algo que Irán y Rusia podrían compartir con todo el Sur Global, a través de liquidaciones en monedas locales; el comercio de trueque; los corredores terrestres; el INSTC; y el comercio a través del mar Caspio.
Y eso nos lleva una vez más al estrecho de Ormuz, que controla Irán. Las petro-monarquías del Golfo están en pánico total. Rusia mantiene canales sólidos tanto con Irán como con el Golfo. Lavrov está en total sintonía con todos ellos. Llevó las preocupaciones del Golfo a Teherán y, a su vez, transmitió las condiciones de Teherán de regreso al Golfo.
Lavrov enfatizó que el Memorando de Entendimiento de Islamabad —que ha sido declarado muerto en repetidas ocasiones— es el único camino a seguir. Exactamente lo que Xi le dijo a Trump en el Despacho Oval. Exactamente lo que los líderes iraníes le dijeron a Asim Munir en Teherán.
También hizo hincapié en que las petro-monarquías del Golfo Pérsico deben ponerse de acuerdo y entablar un diálogo serio sobre seguridad con Irán y las naciones árabes, incluidos vecinos como Irak y Jordania, e involucrar a la Liga Árabe, la Organización para la Cooperación Islámica (OCI) y a los miembros permanentes del Consejo de Seguridad de la ONU.
Una vez más: la indivisibilidad de la seguridad.
Irán y Rusia, ambos sancionados hasta el olvido, están de hecho sincronizados como nunca antes, coordinando todo en un frente común, mientras que el desesperado Sindicato de Epstein permanece atrapado en su propia pesadilla de la «Guerra Eterna».
Traducción: Observatorio de trabajador@s en lucha
By Pepe ESCOBAR
Join us on Telegram, X, and VK.
Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su
It don’t mean a thing if it ain’t got that Brazilian swing. The stakes couldn’t be higher: a matter of do or die. So Brazilians hit the streets – and the polling stations – and managed to pull it off.
They did nothing less than tame the Mother of All Hybrid Wars and defeat, even momentarily, a powerful, toxic coalition including the full force of the “Donroe Doctrine” administration; Silicon Valley techno-feudalism, especially deployed by Meta; Wall Street and the Goddess of the Market; the multiple tentacles of Zionism Inc.; the old reactionary elites – and their media; the new bling-bling elites; the evangelical dementia; and last but not least, a mediocre neo-fascist dynasty bent on converting Brazil into an extractivist neo-colony to the benefit of His Master’s Voice.
The – soothing – effect is similar to an Antônio Carlos Jobim bossa nova anthem sung by Frank Sinatra. Yes, Brazil is too big – and too wild – to be anyone’s backyard. And what a turnaround, when it comes to Lula personally: geopolitics hasn’t seen a comeback like this since the Battle of Stalingrad.
We lost: so the election was “rigged”
Election Day dawned in nail-biting territory – but with Flávio Bolsonaro still given an 82% chance of winning, according to DARPA darlings Polymarket. It’s as if the Deep State knew the result in advance – just like in the first round of voting.
Yet in the end Lula won by 4.4 million votes. Not without plenty of drama. Just before the polls closed, a Supreme Court justice – formerly Lula’s personal lawyer during the Car Wash corruption case – extended voting nationwide by two hours. The electoral court should have ruled on this. It didn’t because another Supreme Court justice – Bolsonaro-appointed – was dragging his feet over it.
The extension was vital – because by then it had already been proven that Bolsonarist mayors were deliberately hobbling public transport, especially buses, in Lula strongholds like Salvador in Bahia: a tactic straight from the oligarchic sabotage playbook, used to suppress the popular vote.
The key fact is that both campaigns had asked for a voting extension. And that completely undercuts claims by Bolsonarist and MAGA-linked twats that the election was “rigged.”
Predictably, Flávio Bolsonaro is refusing to concede and wants the election annulled. That won’t happen – according to the same Bolsonaro-appointed justice who was dragging his feet in the first place.
In the second round, Lula increased his vote total by over 10.1 million votes, while Bolsonaro got only 3.6 million more. Add to that a near improbability: there were over 1.8 million fewer (italics mine) null and void ballots compared to the first round – and the overwhelming majority went to Lula.
Several reasons explain the performance by the Comeback Kid – or Grandpa. Starting with massive popular mobilization: abstention fell from 21.08% to 19.21%. Nearly 3 million more people showed up at the polls.
Lula expanded his margins where he was strong – in the Northeast – and reduced his losses in the wealthy Southeast.
Lula’s campaign deployed serious self-correction: instead of focusing on the past – the practical results of his government – he started talking about the dire, present reality: family economics; huge levels of indebtedness; the cost of living; salaries; and even advancing concrete proposals for the next four years.
The digital mobilization campaign was something to watch – complete with a lethal weapon unleashed on WhatsApp: the “Lula’s Army” channel, which went from about 50,000 followers to a whopping 10 million in less than three weeks: a de facto digital infantry. Brazil is one of the most connected nations on the planet.
Spearheaded by newly elected Congressman André Janones, the campaign showed how Lula beat techno-feudalist hegemon Meta at its own game: the strategy will be studied in the annals of political science for generations.
And then there’s Flávio Bolsonaro’s stunning incompetence – a deadly mix of arrogance and ignorance which simply could not be sold as a moderate alternative.
Only two days before the runoff, during the last, crucial debate, Bolsonaro, live, in front of the whole nation and millions of undecided voters, called Lula “the 9 fingers” – mocking his physical disability.
Lula crafted the blowback in real time like a cobra. He recalled how he lost his pinkie at 19 in a metalworking press, a victim of the precarity and lack of safety that millions of workers in Brazil endure: “Something very different from you, Bolsonaro, who has never worked.”
That sealed it: the lost pinkie as the definitive symbol of dignity in the face of privilege.
This is gonna get very ugly
Governing Brazil will be a Sisyphean task for Lula’s fourth term. The Senate (81 seats) is controlled by the extreme right (48 seats): an absolute majority. In Congress, the extreme right has 303 seats (way above the majority at 257), the center has 86 seats, and the left only 124 seats. Any reform, budget, or law will face an Iron Wall.
Arguably the best definition of Lula was once offered by the late great El Comandante, Fidel Castro:
“He was never a leftist extremist, nor did he rise to the status of revolutionary from philosophical positions, but from those of a worker of very humble origin and Christian faith, who worked hard creating surplus value for others.”
Lula, now in his eighties, seems to have recovered that spark. There’s no question he knows very well how this massive defeat for Trump, MAGA and the Donroe Doctrine will force him to summon all of his powers – to organize Brazil while containing the out-of-control fury of the Empire.
Whatever the results in the US midterms next week, Trump will inevitably ramp up sanctions and/or tariffs against Brazil and will continue to pull out all the stops and launch dirty operations to destabilize the country. The CIA and the Deep State are deeply enmeshed in the Brazilian reality and able to unleash an unlimited bag of dirty tricks.
Lula knows: this will get very ugly.
In sum, Lula may be characterized as personifying a Catholic, traditional, Lusophone-mestizo and progressive Brazil.
This is in a frontal clash with the reactionary, evangelical neo-Pentecostal, Anglo-American Zionist axis. After all, neo-Pentecostalists carry the lunatic End Times theology that shaped Anglo-American Christian Zionism.
Flávio Bolsonaro – like all clan members – promised to move Brazil’s embassy to Jerusalem; dismissed BRICS as “highly ideological”; and attacked Lula’s relationship with Iran (also a BRICS member). Flávio, an empty shell, may have lost an election. Yet the infernal machine behind him will never give up.
Original article: geopoliticsprime.substack.com
Raids in broad daylight by US immigration police have become a daily reality for the Portuguese community in the State of New Jersey, which several Portuguese nationals have described to
The post Portuguese in New Jersey (U.S.) shocked by ICE raids appeared first on Portugal Resident.
Daniel Davis / Deep Dive – October 26, 2026
© Pablo Porciuncula/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
© Leonardo Fernandez Viloria/Reuters
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.
RELATED: Trump’s Grip on Senate at Stake in 10 Key Midterm Races
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.
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.
RELATED:
Swedish Exmodel Sues France Over Denial of Justice in Epstein-Linked Case
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.
— Morgan J. Freeman (@mjfree) October 5, 2026
“This is all on videotape.” pic.twitter.com/X6PRNdGGDZ
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.
teleSUR/ JF
Source: EFE
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.
RELATED:
Boric Reiterates Criticism of Chile Joining Trump’s Shield of the Americas
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
— Análise Geopolítica (@AnaliseGeopol) October 2, 2026
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.
teleSUR/ JF
Source: EFE
Login