Trump Considering Strikes on Iran to Reignite Protests

Secretary of State Marco Rubio claimed Trump has the ‘preventive defensive option’ to strike Iran

by Kyle Anzalone | January 29, 2026

https://news.antiwar.com/2026/01/29/trump-considering-strikes-on-iran-to-reignite-protests/

President Donald Trump is considering strikes on Iran, hoping the attack will restart anti-government protests.

Reuters reported on Thursday that Trump was hoping strikes on Iran would reignite the protest movement. Earlier this month, the President was considering striking the Iranian government and security forces in response to the crackdown on demonstrators.

Trump initially asserted he would attack Iran for killing protesters, but decided against strikes because they lacked enough military assets in the Middle East to deliver a decisive blow to the Islamic Republic and protect American forces from retaliatory attack.

The President has since ordered a massive military buildup in the Middle East.

In an effort to justify the major US military buildup in the Middle East, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that the US must be prepared for an Iranian strike on American troops in the Middle East. He asserted that President Donald Trump had the right to launch a “preemptive defensive” attack on Iran.

Rubio told Senators that the US needed a large military footprint in the Middle East because “At some point, as a result of something, the Iranian regime decided to strike at our troops in the region,” Rubio said.

Tehran has maintained that it does not seek war and would only attack US bases in the Middle East if Iran were attacked.

Rubio went on to argue that Trump could order an attack on the Islamic Republic even if Iran does not attack the US. “The President always reserves the preemptive defensive option,” the Secretary of State said.

During a session of the Foreign Relations Committee, Rubio laid out a scenario where the US would strike Iran if it did not dismantle its defenses.

“If we tell [Tehran] we don’t want to see drones from Iran, as an example, pointed at the US or threatening our forces or our presence in the region or our allies’ presence in the region, and they refuse to comply with that, the president does reserve the self-defense to eliminate that threat,” the Secretary of State said Wednesday.

He went on to add that the US needed a massive military presence in the Middle East to “preemptively prevent” an Iranian attack.

The President has reportedly been presented with options for causing regime change in Iran, including high-level strikes and a blockade of Iranian oil.

A new military axis rises to counter Israel’s divide-and-rule tactics?

The budding defense alliance between Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Turkiye threatens to undo Israel and the UAE's plans to balkanize West Asia.

F.M. Shakil

JAN 26, 2026

https://thecradle.co/articles/a-new-military-axis-rises-to-counter-israels-divide-and-rule-tactics

A quiet arms race is underway in West Asia. With implicit support from Washington, Tel Aviv and Abu Dhabi are consolidating a nuclear partnership with India. Meanwhile, reports indicate that Turkiye is poised to establish a trilateral defense pact with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, focusing on a “shared and reciprocal rapid response” to an attack on any member. 

In response, the UAE swiftly moved on 19 January to formalize a more structured nuclear defense agreement with New Delhi. India cautiously downplayed the development, sensing that the India–UAE defense collaboration would affect the Indian diaspora in Saudi Arabia. India's Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri told the media that the “letter of intent” on defense cooperation did not mean that New Delhi would be involved in a regional conflict.

The India–UAE nuclear pact includes provisions on atomic energy safety and reactor deployment – and appears to have the quiet endorsement of Tel Aviv. Israeli media wasted no time branding it a tripartite Israel–India–UAE alliance. Senior columnist, Shakil Ahmad, who is published regularly in Pakistan’s leading Urdu newspapers, tells The Cradle:

“In fact, Israel wants a rift among West Asian nations so that it could continue with its nefarious designs. India collaborates closely with Israel for this purpose. We should view the recent defense agreement between India and the UAE in this context. The only aim of this understanding is to create ill will among powerful West Asian economies so that there is no resistance against Tel Aviv’s expansionist design.” 

Regarding Turkiye joining the Saudi–Pakistan accord, Ahmad observes that Riyadh had sectarian differences with Tehran as opposed to Ankara – with whom it had only political disagreements – but now both sides understood that their mutual rift would serve the purpose of their enemies alone:

“Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Turkiye each offer unique contributions to the table. Pakistan can leverage its strategic depth, missile capabilities, and nuclear deterrent, as demonstrated in the four-day war with India.”

The rise of the Riyadh–Ankara–Islamabad axis

A senior official in Pakistan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs confirms to The Cradle that Ankara has formally proposed a military alliance with Riyadh and Islamabad. 

“It might be a stopgap transient cooperation for limited objectives and scope,” the official says, without elaborating on what these “objectives” are.

Still, both Pakistani and Turkish authorities have signaled that the alliance is moving forward. They say joint operations will soon commence under a framework designed to bring “stability and peace” to West Asia.

According to Ahmad, the new axis unites the three states' core strengths: Pakistan's strategic depth and nuclear deterrence, Saudi Arabia's vast financial resources, and Turkiye's battle-tested conventional military and growing arms industry.

This realignment comes after Hamas's unprecedented Operation Al-Aqsa Flood in October 2023 and Israel’s brutal response; regional equations have shifted dramatically. The UAE and Tel Aviv have entrenched themselves within failed or fragmented states, from Libya and Sudan to Egypt and Somalia. Their strategy: exploit state weakness to extend influence and normalize ties with Israel.

In contrast, Saudi Arabia and Turkiye have aligned around a different doctrine – one that supports strong, central governments capable of resisting Tel Aviv and its Gulf partners. Strengthening defense ties is central to that plan.

“Saudi Arabia and Turkiye had not been seeing eye-to-eye with each other due to several historical, political, and geostrategic issues, but in the last few years, their mutual differences narrowed down, and they began converging on shared security threats emanating from the US’s unrestricted support for Israeli atrocities and its unwarranted bombing of Iran,” Ahmad explains. 

Riyadh's military outreach intensifies

Saudi Arabia is doubling down. Alongside the Pakistan–Turkiye initiative, Riyadh is now pursuing military cooperation with Egypt and Somalia – a direct response to Emirati power plays across Africa and the Red Sea.

Somali President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud is expected to finalize a defense pact with the kingdom. This understanding comes on the heels of Somalia's recent annulment of port and security agreements with the UAE, which it accused of undermining Somali sovereignty. 

The fallout has been swift with the withdrawal of the UAE from the Yemeni theater following Saudi airstrikes on UAE-backed proxies and Riyadh’s overt stance against Abu Dhabi's disruptive military presence. The kingdom is especially incensed by Israel's overtures to Somaliland, which it sees as part of a wider plan to destabilize the Horn of Africa.

Mark Kinra, an Indian geopolitical analyst specializing in West Asia, tells The Cradle that Riyadh's pivot has less to do with its friction with the UAE and more with Washington's waning commitment to the region. 

“Pakistan has traditionally acted as the main security guarantor for Saudi Arabia, and the present US position in West Asia, along with its indifferent approach, has led both nations to reassess and adjust their defense strategies.” 

Kinra adds that the alliance will influence US–Iran tensions; generally, the US will no longer be the exclusive guarantor of security in West Asia. Furthermore, any lethal US intervention in Iran will exacerbate tensions between Iranians and the alliance partners, particularly if they offer any support to the US.

Turkiye eyes strategic depth

For Ankara, this trilateral initiative offers multiple dividends. Turkiye and Pakistan signed a significant defense cooperation pact in March last year, and Turkiye has since accelerated defense localization agreements with Saudi Arabia. A recent deal between Saudi Arabian Military Industries (SAMI) and Turkish drone manufacturer Baykar signals deeper military integration.

“Turkiye will undoubtedly reap the benefits of having access to Saudi Arabia's financial resources, which will also provide a boost to the Turkish military sector. Additionally, the influence of Turkiye will continue to grow in both West Asia and South Asia under this arrangement,” Kinra says.

Turkiye sees the alliance as a response to Tel Aviv's unchecked aggression in Gaza, Syria, and Lebanon – and Washington's unwillingness to restrain it.

The alignment is not aimed at the UAE but rather reflects a shared urgency among Muslim states to consolidate power amid growing threats.

While it remains to be seen whether the Riyadh–Ankara–Islamabad axis can evolve into a long-term counterweight to Tel Aviv and its western allies, its emergence marks a clear pushback against decades of divide-and-rule tactics.

Trump Weighing Options for Iran, Including Blockade and High-Level Strikes

The US has engaged in a substantial military buildup in the Middle East over the past week

https://news.antiwar.com/2026/01/26/trump-weighing-options-for-iran-including-blockade-and-high-level-strikes/

by Kyle Anzalone | January 26, 2026 

President Donald Trump is considering a range of options to force regime change in Iran. 

According to Middle East Eye, Arab officials said that Washington is considering strikes against high-level targets in Tehran. A former US intelligence official familiar with the White House’s internal debate explained that President Donald Trump was still pushing for regime change. 

The Jerusalem Post reports that a second option is to impose a blockade on Iranian oil shipments. Trump ordered a similar embargo on Venezuelan oil last year. The US then seized several tankers carrying Venezuelan oil and kidnapped President Nicolas Maduro. 

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has pushed for Trump to use economic warfare to bring down the Iranian government. He believes that if the economic situation in the Islamic Republic becomes desperate enough, the Iranian people will overthrow their government. 

Other members of Trump’s Cabinet, including Vice President JD Vance, have pushed the President to launch strikes targeting the Iranian government and military. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu favors military action if it leads to the fall of the Iranian government. 

Earlier this month, Trump declined to strike Iran out of concern that the US did not have enough military assets in the Middle East to topple the government in Tehran. A former US official told Middle East Eye that they believe a strike on Iran is more likely now than earlier this month. 

The President has ordered a significant military buildup in the region that includes an aircraft carrier strike group, fighter jets, and advanced air defense systems.

‘Chairman Trump’ and a Dystopian Vision for Gaza Without Gazans

by Alan Mosley | Jan 25, 2026

https://original.antiwar.com/Alan_Mosley/2026/01/25/chairman-trump-and-a-dystopian-vision-for-gaza-without-gazans/

When Donald Trump strode into the World Economic Forum in Davos this January flanked by Jared Kushner and other confidants, it was ostensibly to sign a charter establishing a “Board of Peace.” The document, hailed by its backers as a technocratic alternative to decades of dead‑end diplomacy, promises “pragmatic judgment” and a “nimble and effective” institution to rebuild war‑torn Gaza. The preamble reads like an attempt to imitate the United Nations Charter without its collective obligations. Beneath that veneer, the charter sets up a structure that concentrates virtually all authority in the hands of its chairman, Donald J. Trump, and relegates Palestinians to spectators while foreign investors draw up the blueprints for their homeland.

A personal chairmanship with no term limits

The charter treats the chairmanship as a personal role rather than an office tethered to the U.S. presidency, or any other head of state. The text explicitly states that “Donald J. Trump shall serve as inaugural Chairman of the Board of Peace,” with no mention of the presidential office or any fixed term. In other words, the chairmanship belongs to Trump, exclusively. The charter further grants him the sole authority to designate his own successor; replacement can occur only upon his resignation or incapacitation, and even then the successor is someone he has already chosen. Once appointed, the chairman can renew the board ad infinitum. It is scheduled to dissolve only when the chairman deems it “necessary or appropriate,” and the board can otherwise continue indefinitely with annual renewals controlled by him.

Membership is by invitation only. The charter states that membership commences when a state consents to be bound after receiving an invitation from the chairman. The initial term lasts three years and is renewable “by the Chairman,” while states that contribute $1 billion in cash to fund the board’s activities secure permanent membership; an echo of pay‑to‑play diplomacy. Member states may be removed at any time by the chairman, subject only to a veto by two‑thirds of the other members. A diplomat quoted by Reuters said the model resembles a “Trump United Nations” that sells permanent membership to those demonstrating “commitment” – a euphemism for financial support.

Agenda control and veto power

The Board of Peace is ostensibly composed of heads of state and government who meet to vote on budgets, international agreements, and major policies. Yet every aspect of its operations is subject to the chairman’s approval. The agenda for voting sessions, to be held at least annually, is set by the executive board “subject to notice and comment by Member States and approval by the Chairman.” Decisions require a majority vote of member states but do not take effect unless the chairman approves them; he may also cast a tie‑breaking vote. The chairman may invite regional bodies to attend under “such terms and conditions as he deems appropriate,” and he alone may create, modify, or dissolve subsidiary entities. In case of disputes over the meaning or application of the charter, the chairman is “the final authority” on interpretation. He is empowered to issue resolutions or directives unilaterally, further eroding any semblance of collective governance.

The extent of this concentration of power is jaw‑dropping. Trump has the sole power to invite states, set agendas, override board decisions and terminate membership. He selects the executive board, interprets the charter, chooses his successor, and controls the board’s budget. Membership is renewable at his discretion and can be revoked unilaterally. His personal control of a peace‑building institution fits seamlessly with the pay‑for‑play ethos of his foreign policy. Even the board’s duration hinges on his whim. The charter allows the board to be dissolved only when the chairman decides or at the end of every odd‑numbered year unless he renews it by November 21. Thus, Trump can keep the board alive indefinitely, effectively constructing a new international organization under his, or his chosen successor’s, personal chairmanship.

Layers of subservience: executive boards and technocrats

Below the Board of Peace is an executive board selected entirely by the chairman. Members serve two‑year terms but may be removed or reappointed at his discretion. The executive board elects its own chief executive, but this individual is nominated by the chairman and subject to his veto. The executive board’s decisions become effective only until the chairman chooses to overturn them. He may establish subcommittees and determine their mandates, meaning that all administrative structures derive from his authority.

At the bottom sits the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza (NCAG), a Palestinian technocratic body. According to the White House, the NCAG will manage public services and economic development under the supervision of a U.S.‑appointed high representative. Gaza’s only Palestinian component is this committee; the top decision‑making positions are reserved for foreign leaders and investors. Gaza’s future is thus to be managed by an international corporate board while Palestinians remain relegated to municipal duties.

“Glitzy Gaza” at Davos

If the board’s composition evokes colonial governance, the development pitch that accompanied its launch further exposes its priorities. At the signing ceremony in Davos, Kushner presented a slide deck promising to turn Gaza into a glitzy resort. The plan, he said, could be completed in three years if Hamas demilitarizes. Kushner described Gaza’s reconstruction as “a Mediterranean utopia” with terraced towers, a seaport, and an airport. He called the project a “master plan” for “catastrophic success” and urged critics to “just calm down for 30 days” while the new board gets to work. He and Trump repeatedly emphasized Gaza’s “beautiful piece of property” on the sea, underscoring the real‑estate logic behind the initiative. Kushner advocated a free‑market economy in Gaza, claiming that the plan would deliver “100 percent full employment” and raise household incomes to $13,000 per year within a decade. He insisted there was “no plan B” and called for $25 billion in private investment.

Such rhetoric reveals a striking disconnect. While Gaza reels from what rights groups call a genocide that has killed over 71,000 Palestinians and displaced virtually the entire population, U.S. officials promote luxury developments contingent on the disarmament of the territory’s defenders. The requirement that Hamas demilitarize before reconstruction can begin effectively conditions aid on surrender. Kushner’s reference to Gaza’s waterfront as prime real estate echoes his earlier suggestion that the enclave’s inhabitants could be removed temporarily to make way for redevelopment. The Davos pitch thus appears less about humanitarian recovery than about transforming Gaza into an investment opportunity for global capital.

A colonial echo chamber

Critics across the political spectrum have denounced the Board of Peace as neo‑colonial. Rights advocates told Reuters that having Trump supervise a foreign territory’s governance resembles a colonial structure and undermines the United Nations. Diplomatic sources warned that the board could become a permanent global peace‑making body that rivals the UN. One diplomat described the plan as a “Trump United Nations that ignores the fundamentals of the U.N. charter.” Several European governments expressed concern that the board might erode multilateral institutions and privilege wealthy states that can afford membership fees.

Gaza analyst Iyad al‑Qarra said that Trump treats Gaza “not as a homeland, but as a bankrupt company in need of a new board of directors.” He describes the structure as a “corporate takeover” that turns sovereignty into a commercial venture. The lineup of investors and real‑estate developers at the top, he suggests, reflects the transformation of the Palestinian cause into a business deal. Even Israeli objections to the inclusion of Turkish and Qatari officials appear more tactical than principled; analysts note that Israel still retains security control while outsourcing Gaza’s day‑to‑day misery to international donors.

A dystopian vision without Gazans

What emerges is a dystopian vision for Gaza’s future. The board’s charter eliminates any possibility of Palestinian self‑determination; all authority flows upward to a chairman who owes his position to personal ambition rather than democratic mandate. By tying membership to billion‑dollar payments and awarding permanent seats to financiers and war hawks, the plan monetizes governance and disenfranchises those whose lives are at stake. The executive board resembles a consortium of business executives and politicians who view Gaza’s reconstruction as a chance to implement neoliberal policies and real‑estate projects.

Furthermore, the board’s insistence on complete demilitarization before any rebuilding can begin ensures that Gaza remains under Israeli military domination. Israel’s assault has killed tens of thousands of people and created a hunger crisis; yet the board offers no mechanism to halt the bombardment or lift the blockade. Instead, it conditions aid on the elimination of armed resistance. This mirrors earlier proposals in which U.S. envoy Kushner offered economic incentives only if Palestinians abandoned claims to their land.

The plan’s disregard for Palestinian agency is perhaps its most striking feature. Despite repeated references to “peace” and “partnership,” the board includes no Palestinian voices at the top. Palestinians are relegated to a municipal committee under the supervision of a foreign high representative. The board invites 60 nations to join and solicits billion‑dollar memberships, but it does not invite the people whose fate it claims to manage. Even the technocratic NCAG is answerable to the board and not to Gaza’s residents.

Empire disguised as peace

By designating himself chairman for life and constructing a governance structure that is answerable only to him, Donald Trump has created an organ that resembles a private company more than an international peace‑building body. Its membership roster reads like a who’s who of pro‑Israel hawks, real‑estate speculators and corporate financiers. The “glitzy Gaza” pitch at Davos underscores the board’s priorities: expensive towers, free‑market economics, and a lavish Mediterranean destination built atop the ruins of Palestinian homes. As rights advocates and diplomats have observed, this plan is less about peace than about consolidating U.S. and Israeli control over Gaza’s future. It is a dystopian vision for Gaza without Gazans – a world in which sovereignty is commodified, resistance is criminalized, and war profiteers masquerade as peace‑makers.

Trump's Doctrine offers a grim choice for the world: Obey or suffer

Alain Gabon

25 January 2026 

Venezuela and Iran are just the latest examples of this twisted approach, which prioritises US interests above global security

https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/trumps-donroe-doctrine-offers-grim-choice-world-obey-or-suffer

The prospect of US military intervention in Iran seems to have been avoided for the time being, thanks to vigorous diplomatic action from the Gulf states and Turkey, and more surprisingly, Israel itself.

Given US President Donald Trump’s declarations that there would be no mass executions of protesters in Iran, and that the killings had stopped, it appears that Iran will for the moment be spared the Venezuela treatment or worse. 

Yet even without military action in the form of targeted assassinations or bombing campaigns, it would be safer - especially for the Iranian regime - to consider such interventions as having only been put on hold, at best. 

This sudden change of heart might simply be a sort of psy-op ploy to reassure Iran’s regime, encouraging the nation to lower its guard before an actual strike. It’s also possible that Trump was genuinely convinced to shelve that option, at least for awhile. 

Many factors might have contributed to this about-face, including the resolute opposition of Trump’s regional allies; the still-fresh example of the Iraq disaster; the lack of preparation among the US and its regional allies for a major operation in Iran; the likely destabilising consequences for the region, especially Lebanon; the possibility of “mission creep”; the uncertainty over the ultimate outcome in Iran itself; and the lack of viable opposition figures.

On the latter point, Trump neither respects nor trusts Reza Pahlavi, the son of Iran’s last shah, who claimed to lead the protests from Los Angeles.

Domestic factors in Trump's decision not to strike include a probable increase in the price of oil, which would hurt Trump’s own voters in the run-up to this year’s crucial midterm elections; deep divisions on this issue, even within Trump’s closest circle; and the fact that the overwhelming majority of both Democrats and Republicans strongly oppose military intervention in Iran.

Cynical calculations

Trump likely favours a “Venezuela solution” for Iran: namely, a show of military might and threats, followed by quick de-escalation (a tactic he previously adopted in his June 2025 bombing campaign against Iran). 

Trump’s now-recognisable strategy of alternating between threats and dialogue, also visible not only in his dealings on the Russia-Ukraine war but also on Greenland, amounts to a tacit promise that the enemy regime will be allowed to survive - as long as it cooperates, or at least no longer threatens, US and Israeli interests.

Trump remains, first and foremost, a businessman. In his estimation, a good deal with a dictatorial and deeply antagonistic, yet stable and coherent, regime is preferable to a messy war with uncertain consequences. 

The Gulf states themselves, in their typically cynical and pragmatic calculations, might also greatly prefer a regional situation where the Iranian regime has been weakened to the point where it no longer represents a credible threat - political, economic or military - yet remains in charge domestically, to prevent the emergence of a genuine democracy that could represent a model for their own populations.

Despite the incendiary rhetoric between Israel and Iran, Tel Aviv’s priorities are to eliminate Iran’s nuclear programme and to destroy its ballistic missile capabilities, to the point where it no longer represents an existential threat. Yet despite a series of US-Israeli attacks on Iranian nuclear and military facilities last June, major questions remain about the extent of damage that was actually done.

Iran’s “axis of resistance”, meanwhile, is essentially dead for the foreseeable future, or at least no longer operational.

Another credible scenario that we might see unfolding involves genuine attempts to eliminate Iran’s current regime through a mix of covert Israeli-US destabilisation operations (as we’ve already witnessed this January), alongside support for anti-regime elements in an effort to foment or support an internal coup. Targeted bombings and assassinations could then be deployed in a campaign to eliminate the last major “irritant” and obstacle to full Israeli-US regional hegemony.

Supremacist manifesto

All of this comes in the context of Trump’s seminal November 2025 National Security Strategy. The slim document, which is around 30 pages, reads like a typically Trumpian “America uber alles” manifesto on steroids, triumphantly supremacist and imperialistic. 

Page after page, it repeats that the US must dominate all the regions of the world where it has interests - and Washington’s tentacles are spread over much of the globe. On the other hand, it rejects “global domination” and declares that “not every country, region, issue, or cause - however worthy - can be the focus of American strategy”. 

The document forcefully asserts that the US must avoid getting sucked into foreign conflicts that are “peripheral or irrelevant” to its national interests. It also advocates for a dramatically refocused definition of national interests, and encourages a “predisposition to non-interventionism”.

This is not to be confused with isolationism or disengagement from world affairs. Indeed, interventionism in the name of “protecting national interests” has for decades been the major - if not the main - foreign policy practice of the US.

As the National Security Strategy makes abundantly clear, Trump wants a relatively stable and secure Middle East, where he can do business and access its natural riches. The region may fall short of being pro-US, but it must serve its interests, even if that means via threats and coercion. At the very least, it cannot be allowed to endanger them. 

Democratisation and human rights do not matter any more than the Iranian people themselves. On the contrary: while the National Security Strategy places a historically low priority on the Middle East and advocates relative disengagement from the region, this in no way signifies a recognition of those nations’ sovereignty, or even autonomy from the US.

Both the regimes and the peoples of the region remain, like every other nation on earth, subject to the perceived interests of the US, living with that Sword of Damocles above their heads. In that world order, there can be no real, substantive sovereignty or self-determination anywhere. 

Trump’s “Donroe Doctrine” can thus be summed up in two options: obey or suffer. Venezuela and Iran are just the latest two examples. 

Trump weighs imposing 'total oil blockade' on Cuba in bid to topple government

Following the kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, the White House reportedly believes the Cuban government is 'ready to fall'

News Desk

JAN 23, 2026

https://thecradle.co/articles/trump-weighs-imposing-total-oil-blockade-on-cuba-in-bid-to-topple-government

The White House has discussed imposing a total blockade on oil imports to Cuba as part of an effort to promote regime change in the Caribbean nation, Politico reported on 23 January, citing three people familiar with the matter.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio is behind the proposal, according to the sources.

US President Donald Trump stated last week that the US would end Venezuela's shipments of oil to Cuba, which account for 60 percent of the island nation's oil consumption.

Havana has sought to replace subsidized Venezuelan oil with purchases from Mexico at higher market rates to stave off an economic crisis. Cuba sold some of the oil provided by Caracas for the foreign currency needed to import food and machine parts amid harsh US sanctions.

Trump abducted Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro on 3 January, called himself “acting president,” and is personally managing the revenues of shipments of Venezuelan oil recently sold by Washington.

"A total blockade of oil imports into Cuba could then spark a humanitarian crisis" and, ultimately, regime change, Politico wrote.

"Energy is the chokehold to kill the regime," said one person familiar with the plan.

Toppling the country's communist government, which took power following the Cuban revolution in 1959, which toppled US-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista, is "100 percent a 2026 event" in the view of White House officials, the person added.

Secretary of State Rubio, the son of Cuban immigrants who left the island years before the revolution, has long pushed for regime change in Havana.

After President Trump reacted to a social media post joking about Rubio becoming the president of Cuba, Rubio replied, "Sounds good to me."

Some Republican lawmakers have also pushed for an oil blockade on Cuba in recent weeks.

"There should be not a dime, no petroleum. Nothing should ever get to Cuba," said Senator Rick Scott of Florida last week.

The Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday that White House officials are actively seeking regime change in Cuba, believing that its economy is "close to collapse and that the government has never been this fragile after losing a vital benefactor in Maduro."

US officials are reportedly looking for Cuban officials who "want to cut a deal," the paper added.

Trump says US ‘armada’ moving towards Iran

President warns Washington is watching Tehran closely as US naval forces move into the region

By MEE staff

Published date: 23 January 2026 

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/trump-says-us-armada-moving-towards-iran-amid-renewed-threats

US President Donald Trump said on Thursday that he is sending an “armada” towards Iran, threatening Tehran against resuming its nuclear programme.

Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One after returning from meetings with world leaders in Davos, Switzerland, Trump said Washington was closely monitoring Iran as US naval assets moved into the region.

“We have a lot of ships going that direction, just in case,” Trump said. “I’d rather not see anything happen, but we’re watching them very closely.”

He added: “We have an armada heading in that direction, and maybe we won’t have to use it.”

US officials, speaking anonymously to Reuters, said the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln and several guided-missile destroyers were expected to arrive in the Middle East in the coming days.

One official said Washington was also considering deploying additional air defence systems to protect US bases from potential Iranian retaliation in the event of an American strike.

The deployments expand Trump’s military options and follow a US attack on Iranian nuclear facilities in June.

The summer strikes were widely seen as a violation of international law.

The warships began moving from the Asia-Pacific last week as tensions rose following a crackdown on protests across Iran. Tehran has accused Washington of encouraging the unrest.

Trump has repeatedly threatened intervention warning Iran against killing protesters, but in the end US strikes were called off. Demonstrations appeared to ease last week.

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said “several thousand” people were killed during weeks of nationwide protests.

Trump claimed on Thursday that Iran had cancelled nearly 840 executions after US warnings.

“I said, ‘If you hang those people, you’re going to be hit harder than you’ve ever been hit,’” Trump said. “It’ll make what we did to your nuclear programme look like peanuts.

He said the executions were cancelled an hour before they were due to take place, calling it “a good sign”.

Iran’s top prosecutor Mohammad Movahedi, however on Friday dismissed Trump's claim suggesting the judiciary had authorised mass executions, calling the allegations baseless.

Speaking in comments carried by the judiciary’s Mizan News Agency, Movahedi said “this claim is completely false; no such number exists, nor has the judiciary made any such decision”.

Trump also repeated his warning that the US would strike again if Iran restarted its nuclear programme.

“If they try to do it again, they have to go to another area. We'll hit them there too, just as easily,” he said.

Protests in Iran began on 28 December with demonstrations over economic hardship in Tehran’s Grand Bazaar before spreading nationwide.

An Iranian official told Reuters that the confirmed death toll had exceeded 5,000, including 500 members of the security forces.