Pitch for defense treaty and moving US military to Israel is insane

The Jewish Institute for National Security of America (JINSA) is pushing a plan that would also include expanded integration and a new $38 billion MOU

Jennifer Kavanagh

Aug 24, 2026

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/us-israel-integration-mou/

On August 18, Israel bombed a non-operational Syrian air base, reportedly to derail Turkish plans to deploy military forces to the installation. The move drew swift condemnation from the United States, which did not receive prior notification despite its growing support for Syria, its alliance with Turkey, and the presence of thousands of U.S. military personnel based nearby, in Jordan and other parts of the region.

Is this the behavior of a “model ally”? The Jewish Institute for National Security of America seems to think so.

The group, which promotes "strategic cooperation" between the United States and Israel, tries to defend this position in its new report, “Shifting the Center of Gravity: Transforming the U.S.-Israel Security Partnership.” It also lays out an ambitious set of proposals JINSA hopes will be part of a renewed 10-year U.S.-Israel Memorandum of Understanding (the current one expires in 2028). JINSA wants this "final" direct aid package to include $38 billion total and be "paired with new, mostly non-monetary initiatives that deepen and expand the U.S.-Israel partnership."

The recommendations in this report — which also include signing a mutual defense pact, basing U.S. military forces in Israel, and integrating Israeli technology into U.S. homeland defense — should be rejected as threats to U.S. national security. Not only would they cost taxpayers tens of billions of dollars, but the prescriptions would make the United States less safe than it is today, by institutionalizing U.S. military entanglement with (and even dependence on) Israel and increasing the risk of future wars.

The Trump administration should instead let the current MoU expire in 2028 with no replacement. With a strong military and nuclear arsenal, Israel can defend itself.

The JINSA report opens by heralding Israel as “America’s most important ally,” praising its military prowess, technological capability, and willingness to project military power in pursuit of supposedly shared goals. Missing from its account of Israel’s support during Operation Epic Fury, however, is any mention of Israel’s role in starting, escalating, or widening the war. These are certainly relevant details if we are judging whether the bilateral relationship is an asset or a liability to the United States.

The report sidesteps these realities and instead moves quickly to a set of 10 proposals that it argues will take the bilateral partnership to the “next level.” From the perspective of protecting U.S. national interests, these ideas range from bad to insane.

Among the more worrying recommendations are those that suggest the United States should form a mutual defense treaty with Israel and begin shifting U.S. assets away from current positions in the Persian Gulf to a wider and permanent force posture in Israel — including a new CENTCOM headquarters and a "regional U.S. prepositioned arsenal hub." These would break long-established firewalls in the U.S.-Israel relationship and undermine U.S. interests.

Since 1975, the United States has had a security commitment to Israel, formalized in a memorandum of agreement, that promises “remedial action” should Israel face external threat. In recent years, this commitment has functioned as a de facto security guarantee on par with Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty. Still, the United States has intentionally refrained from signing a more explicit mutual defense agreement with Israel or basing U.S. personnel inside Israel’s borders for two reasons.

First, it was Israel’s preference. Jerusalem has long prided itself on the fact that only its soldiers directly defend the country and that it could fight its own battles as long as the United States offered military support. Second, Washington feared a more formal defense obligation or forward bases in Israel would increase the risk that the United States would eventually become entangled in Israel’s ongoing border skirmishes or complicate relationships with U.S. Gulf state partners, like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, on whom the United States relied to keep oil prices low.

The recommendations by JINSA, which count 43 retired U.S. officers — including 24 generals and nine admirals — on its roster discard these redlines. The mutual defense agreement they describe is framed as a narrow one that would be triggered “by the high bar of existential threat to Israel or Iranian use of weapons of mass destruction against U.S. bases in the region.” But history tells us that, for Israel, the “existential threat” threshold is met easily and often.

In recent years, Israel has argued that Iran posed an existential threat while also claiming Hezbollah and Hamas as existential challenges to Israel’s security. In other words, signing onto this agreement would all but guarantee U.S. involvement in future Middle East wars against Iran or possibly even Turkey, which some in Israel have already identified as the next target despite the fact that it is a NATO ally.

Of course, this is the goal of the recommendation: to ensure that no matter how far Israel falls in U.S. public opinion, the United States will be obligated to come to its defense, or risk undermining the credibility of its other commitments.

Basing U.S military forces inside Israel would only worsen the moral hazard engendered by U.S. support to the country. With U.S. personnel as a tripwire, Israel’s leaders would feel assured that any attack would almost certainly drag in the United States, giving them little incentive to act with restraint. The risk that the United States might be ensnared in Israel’s future military adventures would be high.

The second major focus of JINSA’s recommendations covers the sharing of military technology and joint industrial projects between Israel and the United States. Most of these proposals demand that Israel gain the same level of access to U.S. technology as is enjoyed by the closest NATO allies who have spent years working to meet U.S. security standards. That Israeli officials are suspected of spying on the United States should be warning enough that giving Israel this type of access to sensitive U.S. technology would be a mistake.

The most dangerous of these tech sharing ideas, however, is one suggesting that Israeli technologies should be directly integrated into U.S. air and missile defense, specifically the Golden Dome project. This provision would mean that, if the Golden Dome project or something like it eventually covers the United States, Israeli technology would be part of its foundation, making the U.S. dependent on Israel for its own defense.

The United States tried something similar once before with Israel and the project had to be cancelled. The reason? Israel refused to allow the United States access to the source code needed to integrate the Iron Dome systems it planned to purchase into the U.S. air defense network. Experimenting with this type of cooperation a second time would be an act of self-harm on the part of the U.S. government.

Taken together, then, the JINSA proposals do not advance U.S. interests in the Middle East or elsewhere. In fact, they do just the opposite. They will increase the U.S. security burden and tie the United States down in the Middle East in ways that may quickly become irreversible while also undermining the physical security of the homeland. And they will do so at a cost of $38 billion from U.S. taxpayers in the form of annual military aid.

This outcome should be entirely unacceptable to any American president, regardless of the specific ally or partner in question and especially for a president who ran on promises to put U.S. interests first.

Elsewhere, President Donald Trump is pushing allies to defend themselves without so much (or any) U.S. support. He should do the same with Israel. The endless cycle of MoUs has run its course. The current one should be the last.

Israeli Military Warns Netanyahu Will Escalate Wars to Postpone Upcoming Elections

Israel is engaged in several conflicts in the Middle East, including the war against Iran, the occupations of Lebanon and Syria, and the genocide in Gaza.

by Kyle Anzalone | August 23, 2026

https://news.antiwar.com/2026/08/23/israeli-military-warns-netanyahu-will-escalate-wars-to-postpone-upcoming-elections/

Senior Israeli military officials are sounding the alarm that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is preparing to escalate ongoing wars to have a pretext for postponing the upcoming Knesset election. 

The Israeli outlet Maariv reports speaking with senior officials familiar with an IDF assessment that Netanyahu will attempt to escalate an ongoing conflict or ignite a new one. The Prime Minister hopes that putting Israel on a more active military footing will create a political opening to delay elections scheduled for October 27. 

Maariv speculates that the military operation will intensify the ongoing genocide in Gaza. In an interview with Mario Nawfal on Friday, US Ambassador to Turkey Tom Barrack said Israel was attempting to “bait” Turkey into an escalation by attacking a military base in Idlib, Syria. 

Senior Israeli military officials told Maariv that the IDF would not allow Netanyahu to start a new war before the upcoming election. 

Since the US brokered a ceasefire agreement between Hamas and Israel last October, Tel Aviv has continued its onslaught in Gaza at a reduced pace. Over 1,000 Palestinians have been killed in the past ten months, and the IDF has expanded its control over the Strip. 

Netanyahu has used Israel’s military conflicts in Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, the West Bank, and Gaza to delay his corruption trial.

 

'Shameful:' UK, Canada and Australia condemn Israel's refusal to investigate aid worker attack

Israel sidelining death of aid workers is 'egregious', allies say

MEE staff

Published date: 21 August 2026 

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/shameful-uk-canada-and-australia-condemn-israels-refusal-investigate-aid-worker-attack

Israel's decision not to launch a criminal investigation into an attack on a World Central Kitchen (WCK) convoy in Gaza is "shameful", according to the UK, Canada and Australia.

The 2024 attack by Israel killed at least seven humanitarian workers.

"The announcement by the [Israeli military] on August 19, 2026, that it would not pursue criminal investigations into this strike, without further explanation, is shameful," the three countries wrote in a statement on Friday. 

Refusing to investigate the strike on World Humanitarian Day was "particularly egregious", the countries added. 

"This decision is both too little and too late. The victims of this incident and their families deserve justice and accountability, and we will continue to seek answers on their behalf."

Gaza has become a particularly deadly place for aid workers.

In 2025, Israeli attacks on the Strip accounted for more than half of all deaths of humanitarian workers globally, with 186 killed in the year, the UN said this week. 

Israel's failure to investigate its attacks has riled even countries long considered staunch supporters.

Poland has summoned Israel's ambassador over the decision, noting that a Polish volunteer was among those killed when Israeli aircraft struck the charity's clearly marked convoy in central Gaza. 

The UK's signing of the statement comes after Andy Burnham, the country's new prime minister, vowed to change Westminster's response to Gaza, conceding in July that the previous Labour government "caused huge hurt".

Under a ceasefire brokered by the US in October 2025, Israel was mandated to allow massively increase aid to enter the enclave which it has blockaded since 2007. Instead, Israel has continued attacking Gaza.

A Commission of Inquiry established by the UN Human Rights Council declared in September 2025 that Israel was committing genocide in Gaza. The death toll has hit at least 73,399, with 174,310 injured. 

At least 1,265 Palestinians have been killed since the ceasefire agreement was signed between Israel and Hamas in October 2025.

 

The corridors remaking West Asia

Ports, railways, and data cables are reshaping regional power as competing trade routes cut across the old alliance map.

A Cradle Correspondent

AUG 18, 2026

https://thecradle.co/articles/the-corridors-remaking-west-asia

The alliance map stretching across West and South Asia is no longer drawn by geography or sectarian alignment alone. In recent years, a new regional order has begun to take shape in which security interests are bound up with technology, energy, ports, supply chains, and communications cables. 

Control of cross-border infrastructure has become as central to the contest for influence as military and political agreements.

At the heart of this shift is a web of partnerships linking Israel, India, and the UAE, backed by direct US involvement through the I2U2 framework. Alongside it are other routes where the interests of Turkiye, Pakistan, Qatar, and the Persian Gulf states converge, extending into projects such as the China–Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) and Iraq’s Development Road.

The region has not split into two coherent blocs, nor do the states involved share a position on every issue. The more important development is the movement away from conventional military alliances toward networks of economic, technological, and security influence built around ports, railways, energy, and data. 

The I2U2 framework 

The I2U2 framework is one of the clearest expressions of this shift. Bringing together India, Israel, the UAE, and the US, it began as a vehicle for cooperation in food security, clean energy, technology, trade, and investment. At the first summit of the four countries’ leaders in 2022, they emphasized joint investment and initiatives in water, energy, transport, space, health, and food security. 

I2U2’s importance, however, lies beyond its announced projects. It draws together Israeli technology, Indian industrial capacity and markets, Emirati capital and logistics, and US political and strategic power. 

The framework connects West Asia to the Indian and Pacific oceans and enables Israel, India, and the UAE to build partnerships that reach beyond their traditional bilateral ties. 

The grouping also grew out of the political opening created by the Abraham Accords. Normalization between the UAE and Israel gave Washington a platform through which Indian capital, labor, and industrial capacity could be tied more closely to Israel’s technology sector and the Gulf’s logistics hubs. 

Yet its economic language does not erase the strategic purpose beneath it, with defense no longer confined to borders and conventional armies. It increasingly includes supply-chain resilience, ports, digital infrastructure, cybersecurity, and the protection of energy and trade flows.

Ideology oils the machinery 

Economic and security interests are accompanied by some overlap in political outlook, particularly toward political Islam and transnational armed groups, although the motives of each state differ considerably. 

In the Emirati case, confronting political Islam has become a central part of Abu Dhabi’s view of national and regional security. Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies has described an Emirati religious-political doctrine that presents peace as an Islamic value and a component of national identity. 

Abu Dhabi advances this state-directed doctrine against the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafi currents, as part of a wider campaign against political Islam across the region.

India approaches political Islam and armed groups from a domestic and regional security perspective shaped largely by its conflict with Pakistan and the dispute over Kashmir. That has supplied further ground for cooperation with Israel and the UAE, particularly in intelligence, cybersecurity, surveillance, and military technology. 

Successive Israeli governments, especially those led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, have used the confrontation with armed groups and asymmetric threats to market Israel as a technological and security power on which regional states can rely. 

The wars and crises of recent years have added pressure for closer defense and technological cooperation among Israel, India, the UAE, and the US. 

Yet ideology alone cannot explain these relationships. India does not necessarily share Israel’s position on Iran, while Emirati foreign policy does not simply follow New Delhi or Washington. Overlapping interests allow practical partnerships to advance even where the participating states diverge elsewhere. 

India’s pivotal weight 

India carries exceptional weight in this equation because of its demographic, economic, and geographic reach. Its population of more than 1.4 billion, expanding manufacturing and technology sectors, and vast diaspora across the Persian Gulf make New Delhi difficult to exclude from any effort to reorganize trade between Asia and Europe. 

A Jerusalem Post analysis published in 2022 described an emerging “Indo–Abrahamic alliance” linking Israel, the UAE, and India through maritime security, missile defense, drones, data security, and opposition to Islamist extremism.

India’s significance, however, is not limited to its military role. Its presence in the Gulf and growing trade relations with the UAE and Saudi Arabia give it the ability to redirect part of Asian trade toward routes that do not necessarily pass through the traditional corridors where Pakistan and Iran carry greater weight.

That position also gives India room to hedge. It maintains energy and transport ties with Iran, including through Chabahar, while pursuing the India–Middle East–Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC) with Washington and its regional partners. 

New Delhi can therefore participate in competing systems without surrendering its longstanding policy of strategic autonomy, even as its security relationship with Israel continues to deepen.

IMEC’s infrastructure front 

Announced at the G20 summit in New Delhi in 2023, IMEC is intended to connect India, the Persian Gulf, and Europe through ports, railways, and energy and communications infrastructure. 

The plans encompass a railway link, electricity interconnection, clean hydrogen infrastructure, and high-speed data cables. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen presented the corridor in 2023 as a way to accelerate trade between India and Europe while opening new connections in energy and the digital economy. 

In 2025, the European Commission separately advanced the EU–Africa–India Digital Corridor within the wider IMEC framework. The initiative centers on an 11,700-kilometer subsea cable system linking Europe and India through the Mediterranean, West Asia, and East Africa, with the stated aim of providing secure, high-capacity data connections. 

Corridors are increasingly becoming integrated systems carrying goods, energy, and data. The states able to secure or influence these networks acquire a form of strategic power once associated primarily with control of ports and straits. 

The project, however, remains exposed to politics and war. IMEC depends on an overland passage through Saudi Arabia and Jordan to Israel’s Haifa port. The Gaza genocide and the absence of Saudi–Israeli normalization have left its political foundations uncertain, prompting growing questions over its viability.

Gwadar and the Development Road 

CPEC and Iraq’s Development Road should not be treated as one project or as pieces of a unified alliance led by Turkiye, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. They belong to different networks, but each helps prevent a single route from monopolizing regional trade. 

CPEC is the Pakistani arm of China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), connecting China with Pakistan and Gwadar Port on the Arabian Sea. Pakistan’s CPEC Secretariat lists a network of port, free-zone, road, and logistics projects around Gwadar. Among them is the Gwadar Eastbay Expressway, built to connect the port and its free zone to Pakistan’s national highway network.

Iraq’s Development Road is a separate undertaking, but Iraq’s location between the Persian Gulf, Turkiye, and Europe gives it particular importance. In April 2024, Iraq, Turkiye, Qatar, and the UAE signed a memorandum on the project, which is designed to connect the Grand Faw Port to the Turkish border through roughly 1,200 kilometers of roads and railways across Iraq.

The planned investment is around $17 billion, with implementation divided into three stages. Qatar’s Ministry of Transport says the first is scheduled for completion in 2028, followed by phases in 2033 and 2050. Baghdad presents the Development Road as a competing east–west trade corridor linking the Persian Gulf to Europe.

This participation complicates any attempt to divide the contest into Israel, the UAE, and India on one side and Turkiye, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia on the other. The UAE is part of the Development Road alongside Turkiye, Qatar, and Iraq. 

Ankara and Riyadh hedge

Turkiye holds a particular place in this equation. It is a NATO member with economic ties spanning Europe, Russia, the Persian Gulf, and Central Asia, while its political and military reach extends from Syria and Iraq to the Caucasus. For Ankara, the Development Road offers an opportunity to reinforce its position as the overland bridge between the Persian Gulf and Europe.

Saudi Arabia is harder to place within a fixed bloc. Riyadh is an IMEC signatory but has also deepened relations with China, Russia, Turkiye, and Pakistan. It shows little appetite for a closed regional alignment, preferring to turn its geographic and economic position into leverage across several centers of power.

Major regional states increasingly avoid choosing between two camps. They seek a place in multiple networks, using one partnership to strengthen their bargaining position in another. 

This is less a stable balance than a permanent hedge. A railway, port investment, defense agreement, or energy partnership may bind two states on one file while leaving them opposed on another.

The Levant left outside

The competition is also reshaping the Eastern Mediterranean. The Syrian and Lebanese coastlines are more than sites of military confrontation. They occupy ground where potential energy, transport, and communications routes between the Persian Gulf, the Mediterranean, and Europe could converge.

For Israel, stronger links with the Persian Gulf, India, and Europe assign the eastern Mediterranean a new role within trade and energy networks. For Turkiye, any corridor connecting the Persian Gulf to Europe while bypassing Turkish territory would erode the value of its location. 

The Development Road instead offers Ankara the role of terminal and gateway for traffic arriving from the Persian Gulf through Iraq.

Lebanon and Syria face the danger of moving from the center of strategic geography to the margins of new transport and investment networks. Ports, roads, railways, energy links, data networks, and political stability are all required to turn geography into economic power.

Beirut has already shown interest in joining the Israel-centered IMEC route, despite the political and security contradictions such a move would entail. Syria, meanwhile, remains constrained by war damage, sanctions, and fragmented infrastructure, leaving both countries at risk of being bypassed by corridors drawn around them.

Power flows through the network

The emerging map does not show two opposing blocs in the old sense. It marks a transition from rigid alliances to overlapping networks. 

Israel, India, the UAE, and the US cooperate where technology, security, and trade converge, while Turkiye, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq participate in other networks that repeatedly cross the first.

The next contest will therefore extend beyond borders and political influence to control over the movement of trade, energy, and information.

Ports and straits were among the principal instruments of power in the 20th century. In the 21st century, subsea cables, data centers, artificial intelligence, cybersecurity systems, rail networks, and hydrogen pipelines have joined them.

West Asia’s future will be shaped by military power, but also by the states capable of making themselves indispensable nodes in these new systems.

Has Trump Turned the Tables on Iran – or Is Another Round of War Coming?

For the first time, Trump thinks time is on his side. But Iran appears unfazed – for now

by Trita Parsi | Aug 21, 2026

https://original.antiwar.com/trita-parsi/2026/08/20/has-trump-turned-the-tables-on-iran-or-is-another-round-of-war-coming/

The Trump administration believes it has turned the tables on Iran. Washington assesses that the rerouting of maritime traffic through the Omani corridor, combined with a global shift away from Persian Gulf oil, has reduced the effectiveness of Tehran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz. At the same time, the U.S. blockade has sharply constrained Iran’s ability to sell its oil. The result, in Washington’s view, is a status quo that imposes greater costs on Iran than on the United States.

That calculation changes the strategic equation. Rather than being forced to accommodate Iranian demands, President Donald Trump now believes he can afford to wait Tehran out. For the first time since the war began, the White House has concluded, time is working in America’s favor.

Assuming that assessment is correct, the more important question is what Trump intends to do with this newfound leverage. If Washington interprets Iran’s vulnerability as an opportunity to extract capitulation rather than to negotiate a durable settlement, the result is more likely to be another round of war than an end to the conflict. Tehran has already demonstrated that when confronted with a choice between surrender and escalation, it will choose the latter. Giving Iran the same choice again is therefore unlikely to produce a different outcome.

The only way to turn this unexpected shift in the balance of leverage into a political victory is through diplomacy. If Washington’s assessment is correct, it now has an opportunity to use its leverage to secure a compromise that addresses its core interests while giving Tehran sufficient reason to accept an agreement. If, instead, the administration pursues maximalist demands, it risks converting a moment of leverage into another cycle of war.

Historically, however, Washington has tended to make precisely this mistake. Whenever U.S. policymakers have concluded that time and leverage are on their side, they have often treated Iranian weakness not as an opening for compromise, but as an opportunity to seek capitulation. The danger is that Trump will repeat that pattern. He will mistake leverage for victory and turn a potentially favorable negotiating position into the continuation of the tragedy that is US-Iran relations.

Trump failed militarily, but thinks he can win economically

America has run out of military options. The clearest indication is that the Trump administration has stopped striking Iranian targets even as Tehran continues to attack ships transiting the Strait. On Monday, an Iranian attack killed a sailor aboard a vessel using the southern corridor. Yet Washington did not respond militarily – even though the second round of the war began precisely because the administration had declared that it could not accept Iran firing on ships.

According to Reuters, U.S. forces have used virtually all of their global stockpile of ATACMS and Precision Strike Missiles (PrSM) during the five-month Iran conflict. Moreover, roughly 65% of Patriot interceptors, 38% of THAAD interceptors, and almost half of the Navy’s Tomahawk cruise missiles have been expended.

The depletion of these stocks appears to have forced Trump to abandon its pursuit of a military knockout and instead shift the burden of economic pressure onto Tehran. That strategy, in turn, appears to be producing results faster—and to a greater degree – than the administration anticipated.

In the American description of events, this success is mainly due to three factors: New, much larger ships are being used that carry primarily crude oil. These VLCCs (Very Large Crude Carrier) can carry up to 2 million barrels of oil. In comparison, other oil tankers can transport between 350,000 and 1 million barrels.

Before the outbreak of the war, approximately 21 million barrels of petroleum and crude oil passed through the Strait of Hormuz on a daily basis. These were carried by 65 to 80 tankers. Roughly the same amount of oil transition through the strait can now be achieved by only ten VLCCs a day. And given that the vast majority of ships transitioning through the Strait in the Southern Corridor have their transponders off, this traffic has not been noted by outlets tracking the traffic.

Secondly, demand for Persian Gulf oil has significantly dropped as numerous economies have started to transition to other sources of supply. Brazil, for instance, has increased its exports and started to serve markets that previously relied on Persian Gulf oil. Most importantly, Beijing appears to have deliberately reduced its oil consumption to prevent prices from remaining above $100 a barrel and thereby aggravating the risk of a global recession.

Third, the war has created economic incentives strong enough to attract ships and crews willing to assume substantially greater risks. The growing volume of traffic through the Southern Corridor, despite the obvious dangers, is evidence that these incentives are surprisingly powerful.

Unlike its earlier illusions about the blockade as a guaranteed knockout blow against the Iranian theocracy, Washington no longer expects economic pressure to produce a quick surrender. Instead, the administration appears to be betting on a slower process of economic strangulation that will eventually force Tehran to capitulate. Faith in a knockout blow has given way to the more fragile hope of prolonged strangulation.

Tehran isn’t worried – for now

Iran’s calculation is effectively the opposite of Washington’s. Tehran doubts the United States can sustain the flow of VLCC traffic through the Strait and believes Trump will have little choice but to return to the Islamabad MOU within the next two to three weeks. Trump may have made progress on oil exports, but LNG and many petrochemical products, including fertilizers, remain unable to leave the Persian Gulf.

Tehran also appears to believe that it retains the ability to halt the VLCC traffic, but is deliberately refraining from doing so for now. The calculation is to avoid escalation while waiting to see whether the United States’ depleted military options ultimately compel Trump to return to the MOU.

In short, Tehran does not appear overly concerned – for now. But that could change. If Trump refuses to return to the MOU, or succeeds in turning the balance of economic pain against Iran, Tehran will face a far harsher reality. Just as Washington underestimated Iran’s resilience, Tehran may have underestimated the both resilience of the global economy and Trump – the former’s ability to shift away from oil and the latter’s craftiness in finding non-military ways to effectively reopen parts of the Strait.

Between surrender or escalation, Iran will almost certainly choose escalation. Even if Trump has gained the economic upper hand, Tehran still believes it holds a military advantage. Its options range from more aggressive attacks on VLCCs to strikes on Emirati pipelines that bypass the Strait, and potentially to renewed escalation in the Red Sea.

Indeed, it was precisely Trump’s erroneous assumption that Iran would choose to surrender over war that helped drive the United States toward escalation in the first place. Washington’s recurring search for Iran’s breaking point has repeatedly produced escalation rather than capitulation. There is little reason to expect the pattern to be different this time.

The US-Iran tragedy

Herein lies the tragedy of the lethal dance between Washington and Tehran. America’s winner-take-all approach makes agreement unacceptable when Iran has the momentum. When the momentum shifts to Washington, the United States comes to believe that nothing short of Tehran’s full capitulation is palpable.

Because Iran fears surrender more than war, the cycle oscillates between economic pressure and military escalation, interrupted only by brief and often fragile periods of diplomacy. Put simply, the structure of the situation favors war.

This is particularly visible today as neither side is investing in any real diplomacy with the other. Tehran’s “diplomacy” is to simply wait for Trump to return to the MOU, while Trump has barred U.S. officials from engaging with Iran and committed himself instead to economic warfare.

When you don’t negotiate when you’re weak, because you are weak, and you don’t negotiate when you are strong, because you are strong, then war becomes the baseline.

Some Shattering Illusions of Our Declining Empire

Americans are waking up to ugly truths.

George D. O’Neill Jr.

Aug 19, 2026

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/some-shattering-illusions-of-our-declining-empire/

Now that the lofty 250th-anniversary rhetoric about the greatness of our country has faded, it is time to face the reality of our country’s actual behavior. The U.S. fashions itself as a generous and benevolent world leader enforcing the “rules-based order”—a deceptive construct used by globalist elites to bully other countries. The rules are arbitrarily changed to suit the bullies and are regularly fashioned into pretexts for military action against uncooperative nations. In short, it is a hoax, untethered from the principles and ideals of our founders.

Almost daily we witness some spectacle illustrating the appalling corruption of our country’s leadership. The recent release of Anthony Fauci’s diary entries confirms long-held suspicions about the Covid-19 narrative, which we now know even Fauci himself did not fully believe. Think of the millions of lives ruined and harmed by that corruption. Yet this vain phony, when asked to testify before Congress, hid behind half a dozen lawyers and refused to answer any questions. What a fine example of transparency from one of our leading scientists and civil servants! What else are our leaders still hiding about the worldwide disaster caused by Covid-related deceptions and manipulations? There has not yet been any meaningful examination of our medical profession, which largely acted as cowards during the pandemic, adhering to the bogus official narrative at the expense of the welfare of their patients.

Our leadership has not even begun to scratch the surface of the horrors created by the many secret—and potentially illegal—biolabs scattered around the globe, supported by funds often hidden from voters under the guise of “national security.” The Fauci crowd appears to have been deeply involved in that dark world.

America’s Middle East policy remains a source of shame. The U.S. Treasury secretary brags about ruining the currency of the Iranian people, against whom we have waged a war of aggression. In Gaza, Washington has enabled a brutal assault on a vulnerable population. Not many years ago, most Americans considered standing up for the vulnerable and innocent an honorable act of a true American. Not our leaders. These days, opposing the harm of politically inconvenient innocents attracts name-calling, ostracism, and sanctions. What would our Founding Fathers have thought of that?

The current wars have exposed the shortcomings of our nearly trillion-dollar military and its multi-billion-dollar weapons systems. If the Covid mess is any indication, we should assume there is hidden and shockingly ugly information about the behavior and practices of the military-industrial complex. The failure of our various expensive defense systems to protect our Persian Gulf “allies” from Iranian missile and drone attacks is a tragic example of government dishonesty. Despite repeated failures, the administration continues to brag of its ability to destroy Iran’s military and shoot down its remaining missiles and drones. After years of being told we possess the “most powerful military” in history, Americans are beginning to realize it is a fantasy. The success of that false narrative rests on decades of fighting people riding donkeys and bicycles.

Our government classifies and redacts documents as a matter of course. Think of the billions of pages we are still not allowed to see—especially information about the most important events in our country’s history. Many significant, history-changing events remain shrouded in secrecy. How is it that information is still being withheld about the assassination of President John F. Kennedy? After six decades, what bad behavior are they still “protecting” from the public? Most Americans suspect the official government narrative was false, yet officials continue to withhold information that might shed light on that crime. The same is true for the assassinations of Robert F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr., our government’s willful abandonment of U.S. prisoners of war in Vietnam, the September 11 attacks, and the late, disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein. Not to mention the disgusting manipulations and secret operations used to drag our country into the long list of dishonest, illegal, and failed wars we have “fought.”

Our political leadership’s frenzied efforts to hide the Epstein files make it look as though the “national security” excuse is merely a convenient tool to obscure malfeasance, rape, blackmail, bribery, and plain old corruption. They clearly believe they are not subject to the same pesky and inconvenient laws as the rest of us who live in the country. So much for equal protection under the law and the “rules-based order.”

We watch with horror the chaos, death, and destruction currently being wreaked on the world—and on our own country—by our “exceptional nation.” Why has the second Trump administration bombed at least seven countries and engaged in underhanded efforts to weaken and harm the political systems of others? None of this serves the interests of the American people; it serves only the special interests of our elites. All this from a president who campaigned on an America First policy, an end to forever wars, and the promotion of peace. It looks like we were fooled again. Presidential candidate after presidential candidate promises peace, and we get war after war. The system is subverted by corruption.

As the failure of the illegal war against Iran becomes increasingly obvious, more Americans are realizing that it in no way serves their interests. As the war against Russia in Ukraine grinds toward failure, American and European leaders continue more frantically than ever to promote the fantasy that Ukraine can defeat Russia in that sad and disastrous conflict.

There is one positive development: The American people, especially the younger generation, are beginning to recognize the corruption at the top of our country and the magnitude of the war lies. They understand that the special interests driving these belligerent policies care nothing about the well-being of the general populace or of our nation. There has always been skepticism toward powerful special interests, but we are moving past skepticism into righteous fury.

This is also true of our “allies,” who watched U.S. elites prioritize Israel over American security when the missiles started flying.

Ours is not an “exceptional nation.” It is not the “shining city on a hill.” It is not “a thousand points of light.” Not anymore. It is a declining empire with a declining military—one unable to protect its allies, yet still seeking to bully and harm any country that angers its corrupt elites.

Our military defenses are so ineffective that Iran—a country one-fourth our size, with an economy smaller than our bloated military budget—can practically name its next round of targets knowing our mighty military can do little to stop them.

With a governing elite that serves foreign and special interests rather than the people and a sweeping surveillance state that stretches from sea to shining sea, Americans are becoming increasingly disillusioned. A sobering question to consider: When the illusion finally shatters, who will be left willing to defend a government that wouldn’t defend its own?

The New Great Game, Revisited

Pepe Escobar • August 13, 2026

https://www.unz.com/pescobar/the-new-great-game-revisited/

It took only a few Yemeni missiles on Saudi refineries to wake up “leadership” vectors of the Ummah; not over 100,000 Palestinians killed in Gaza by the death cult.

The Mecca Sunni NATO pact between Saudi Arabia, Turkiye and Pakistan remains a puzzle. Or dodgy sub-standard theatre – complete with photo ops and sparse intel sharing. The full text has not been released. Everything is quite vague, only stressing “collective deterrence”.

Against whom, it’s in the eyes of the beholder. All options – Eretz Israel, US-Israel, India (in case of attacking Pakistan) – might apply. The operative concept is “might”. Add to it Turkiye’s myriad NATO constraints: a viper’s nest in itself.

Significantly, Turkiye informed Iran before signing the Mecca deal. Extra layers of spin even promote Iran joining the deal in a later stage, as Riyadh in theory rejects military strikes on Tehran, and Iran might be covered by Pakistan’s nuclear umbrella.

Geography, once again, will dictate matters. Turkiye will remain in NATO – because Turkish elites are essentially Atlanticist. Saudi Arabia would have to perform miracles to extricate itself from the US security umbrella – and Indian labour. Pakistan’s priority is China and the New Silk Roads, plus the IP gas pipeline from Iran. Mecca is essentially Deterrence Theater.

A different, more intriguing scenario would point to the instrumentalization of Greater Turan – a key Turkiye objective – to the benefit of the US/Zionist combo. That would point to a neo-Ottoman remix, now reconfigured as the leadership of comprador Arab affairs. As in Ankara recreating the Ottoman hierarchy with itself at the center – as a matter of “saving” Zionists and Salafis from themselves.

It seems that the Mecca spark came from MbS himself (no one really knows, as things in Riyadh are so opaque). As Riyadh is being deprived of exporting oil via the Red Sea by Yemen – and might even lose their oil wells if things get rough – why not bet on benign neo-Ottomanism?

Why the US can never lift sanctions on Iran

Meanwhile in Iran, under a revamped – by Leader Mojtaba Khamenei – Supreme National Security Council (SNSC), the solidified consensus is that Tehran will never compromise, especially under the current “no war, no peace” status.

Washington would have to meet a set of very harsh conditions before the Strait of Hormuz reopens, including:

1.   The end to US threats and “insults”;

2.   Permanent end to US wars against Iran and its allies in Palestine, Lebanon, Yemen, and Iraq;

3.   Lifting of the American naval blockade and withdrawal of all US forces;

4.   No less than $300 billion in compensation for war damages;

5.   Lifting of all sanctions;

6.   Unconditional release of all frozen assets;

7.   Iran’s right to charge up to 7% on cargo transit;

8.   A ban on US and Israeli vessels;

9.   A 20% violation toll on ships if conditions are breached.

Call it an intimation for a US surrender: a capitulation on every front – from “follow the money” to military expulsion, end of sanctions and total Iranian control over the Strait of Hormuz.

Even grains of sand across the Old and New Silk Roads are aware that humongous US debt is avid for new mechanisms to be fed with control over natural resources – from oil and gold to rare earth minerals. And these natural resources must be priced in US dollars and the petrodollar.

Iran – the key crossroads of Eurasia – has absolutely everything the US needs. Yet it’s sovereign, independent and intimately aligned with the Russia-China strategic partnership.

So this has all the makings of a Forever War. Washington will never lift sanctions on Iran. That’s politically – and geoeconomically – impossible. And Washington, whoever is in power, will never accept Iran’s control over the Strait of Hormuz, administrative fees included, because that seals, in practice, the imperial failure to use economic sanctions as its “diplomatic” tool of choice.

The result is that some of the serious consequences of the war unleashed on February 28 are already quite clear. Those include the possible financial destruction of the GCC, complete with the collapse of their ruling regimes; Yemen’s nearly inevitable geographical expansion; virtually complete international isolation of the death cult; a massive global economic crisis in tandem with a US financial crisis; and Iran’s accession to the status of prominent West Asia power, prominent Eurasia power, and prominent Global South power.

All that implies a massive geoeconomic game-changer facilitating a much faster rise for BRICS – and BRICS+ – complete with the solidification of Shanghai as the ideal solution for Global South capital to secure their savings.

Watch out for the “Eurasian Axis”!

The Empire of Chaos, Lies, Plunder and Piracy will not take any of that lying down. So the chessboard will continue to be destabilized even in nodes that in theory are controlled by the Sovereign Independents.

Enter the Caspian Sea – a key node of the International North South Transportation Corridor (INSTC), one of the premier connectivity corridors of 21st century pan-Eurasia trade, linking BRICS members Russia, Iran and India to Central Asia while bypassing Western sanctions and NATO-controlled maritime chokepoints.

Hybrid War in the Caspian perfectly fits the imperial scenario of provoking negative systemic fallout expanding beyond Russia and Iran all the way to China and Europe. After all China regards the Caspian as a key connectivity channel between Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) projects and Central Asia and Europe.

So the Caspian could become the apex of a geopolitical divide near the center of Eurasia, contraposing Washington/Tel Aviv/Kiev to the BRICS/SCO Sovereign Independent civilization-states.

Enter, once again, Turkiye – now as the possible missing link in the Zionist axis drive to connect both wars (NATO on Ukraine, US/Israel on Iran): after all they are the one and same war from the beginning.

Still it will be a hard sell to seduce Sultan Erdogan to go after Russian and Iranian strategic assets in the Caspian, even indirectly via Azerbaijan. An even more complex replacement would be Kazakhstan, which for all of its “multi-vector” policies is a full SCO member, a full Eurasia Economic Union (EAEU) member and a BRICS+ partner.

Turkiye’s actions should be ultimately measured by the official drive to strengthen the Organization of Turkic States (OTS; Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan are both members) and what they might come up with to try to choke Iran’s geopolitical maneuvering.

Once again: it’s all about how they will play the Greater Turan card across the Caucasus and especially Central Asia, with their vast reserves of oil, uranium, lithium and critical minerals.

Moscow is carefully observing it all, with extreme discretion. Incidentally, last November Kazakhstan became the first Central Asian “stan” to join the Abraham Accords, in connection with a massive US-Kazakhstan minerals deal.

History Repeating is always quirky: we’re back to the original, late 19th century Russia-Britain Great Game. MI6 after all fully supports Greater Turan – as a premier counterpunch to the Three Sovereigns, Russia, Iran and China. Or what Trump has recently defined, for the first time ever (Elbridge Colby whispering in his ear?) as the “Eurasian Axis”.

At the National Museum in Astana, Kazakhstan, there’s a flashy panel representing all Turkic peoples, over 40 ethnic groups. Uygurs are in the mix, as well as Kazakhs and Azeris. But to translate that into Turkiye moving as a great player across Eurasia – complete with support from fake mythological narratives – is a whole new ball game.

The whole drive is not more sophisticated than creating a market for outright Turkic nationalism, with the Central Asian “stans” incorporated at best as junior partners.

Mecca as a Hail Mary pass

As the imperial pressure over The Three Sovereigns won’t relent, interlocked signature moves make all the difference. For instance: China investing in the Wakhan Corridor in Afghanistan as an extra road to reach Iran.

It’s The Great Game all over again: the Wakhan Corridor came out of nowhere at the end of the 19th century to “protect” British India from Russia’s advances in Turkestan. It connects with China’s Xinjiang for only 70 km or so, as I saw during my Pamir Highway travels before Covid.

This is one of the most high-altitude strategic borders on the planet. Only 5 months ago, Beijing came up with a new county in Xinjiang, Cenling, overlooking the border. Everything in this mountain wilderness is run from Kashgar, where the $60 billion China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) begins.

Translation: on top of the China-Iran railway – previously bombed during the war on Iran by the Americans – this is an extra overland path from China to Iran bypassing the maritime routes, susceptible to Trump’s blockades.

China, in trademark win-win mode, will go all the way betting on both options simultaneously: CPEC, via Pakistan, and the Wakhan, via Afghanistan.

To round up our travels across selected spots of the New Great Game: in the end everything will be decided in West Asia. And that brings us back to the Mecca Sunni NATO pact.

This sharp analysis points to Mecca as a Hail Mary pass linked to the current sore lack of petrodollar recycling by the petro-monarchies – the mechanism propping up that monster, unpayable US debt; the pyramid of derivatives; and Wall Street’s solitary AI mega-bubble.

And this is what’s really driving the imperial desperation to settle something, anything with the Persians.

Because Iran has defined the prime geoeconomic battleground for the RICs (Russia, Iran, China, the new Primakov triangle), much more efficiently than endless BRICS discussions: the collapse of the GCC petrodollar racket.

Without this racket, a financialized neo-colonial empire run by remote control is absolutely impossible.