Iconos

Iconos
Volcán Popocatépetl

miércoles, 30 de septiembre de 2026

The Mirage of Statecraft: America’s Blind Drift in West Asia

by M. Reza Behnam | Sep 30, 2026 

https://original.antiwar.com/reza_behnam/2026/09/29/the-mirage-of-statecraft-americas-blind-drift-in-west-asia/

For decades, the architecture of West Asia has rested on a comforting fiction: that Pax Americana could indefinitely manage the region through the policy of offshore balancing, security guarantees to autocrats and the supreme might of the U.S. military.

That order is gone. Not bruised, not bending, but wholly vaporized.

Washington’s illusion that it could facilely pivot away from the region while maintaining a stranglehold on its security dynamics has collided with the hard reality of enduring quagmires. Current historical events have swept away the geopolitical framework of the past that relied on predictable diplomatic patterns, managed proxy clashes and the arrogant belief that normalization pacts could be achieved while entirely ignoring public sentiment.

As Washington stumbles through the wreckage, one inescapable harrowing question hangs in the air: the old-order is spent; the status quo is dead; America is rudderless, clueless and at war. So what now?

To understand how the United States found itself adrift, one must confront a bipartisan delusion. For a quarter century, since the launch of the “war on terror,” U.S. strategists have operated on the flawed belief that military might could permanently freeze a dynamic region in embers.

Washington thought it could dispense billions in weaponry, project power through sprawling military bases across the Persian Gulf and treat the fundamental grievances of millions as merely background noise. It assumed that Arab rulers would remain compliant, that energy routes would remain permanently pacified by default and that their adversaries, like Iran, could be permanently contained through economic starvation, sabotage and periodic airstrikes.

The foundation has buckled under the weight of its own contradictions. The proliferation of precision drones, ballistic missiles and asymmetric warfare has punctured the myth of invulnerability. The comforting scripts of past decades no longer apply.

The United States now finds itself entangled in ever-widening military clashes. It is a superpower operating on muscle memory, reacting with kinetic force and without a coherent doctrinal compass. A rudderless empire is dangerous; not because of its strength, but because of its unpredictability.

Washington’s current geopolitical posture fluctuates between grand attempts to engineer a “new regional order” through flawed summits and reactively managing wars without a clear vision. Policy roadmaps look brilliant in think tanks, but they completely fail to align with the fractured realities of Beirut, San’a, Tehran, or Gaza. Policymakers ignore the reality that regional state and non-state actors have learned to operate around, beneath and directly against American power.

To label the current American establishment “clueless” is not an insult; it is a structural diagnosis. There is a profound failure of imagination among leaders who refuse to accept that U.S. hegemony in West Asia is no longer the organizing principle of local affairs. Regional powers are hedging, diversifying partnerships by building stronger ties with China and Russia, while pursuing their own agendas independent of Washington’s preferences.

When fighting a war you do not know how to exit and clinging to a status quo that has turned to ashes, you are no longer shaping events. Events are shaping you.

If the old superpower playbook is bankrupt and you are flying blind, what comes next? It is unrealistic to believe that the political conditions that led to the 1995 Oslo Accords or the 2010-2011 Arab Spring can be recreated today.

The Gaza revolution of October 7, 2023, alongside the ongoing U.S.-Israel war against Iran, have established a completely new reality for the region. The road ahead for the United States demands a radical sober geopolitical reckoning built on epochal realities; much like the following:

  • Acknowledge the limits of power: Washington must accept that it can no longer dictate and control the geopolitical dynamics of the Levant and the Persian Gulf. It cannot rely on sheer military might to sustain its regional alliances with undemocratic regimes. The U.S.-led security framework has been exposed as an outdated fantasy that needs to be completely abandoned. Security will increasingly be negotiated, or fought over, by the people who actually live there.
  • Prioritize diplomatic statecraft over force: A realistic withdrawal from the addiction to endless interventions is long overdue. If the U.S. insists on maintaining a footprint in the region, it must replace its default reliance on military force and transactional alliances with diplomacy involving all regional stakeholders. It cannot continue treating allies merely as military outposts and and gas stations.
  • Stop enabling the Zionist colony: High priority must be given to the immediate cessation of all military assistance and diplomatic backing for Israel; ending the decades-long blank check policy. Washington should instead leverage its significant economic and diplomatic weight to end the genocide in occupied Gaza and the West Bank and halt Israel’s military escalation against its neighbors.
  • Palestinian grievances must be addressed: True lasting regional peace is impossible without placing justice for the Palestinians at the center of all diplomatic efforts. The United States must pivot toward comprehending and addressing root political grievances rather than furthering Israel’s reliance on brute military force. Until Washington transitions from active accomplice in Israel’s protracted expansive wars and begins acting as an honest broker bound by international law, any talk of regional stability will remain a cruel and lethal mirage.

The courage of regional state and non-state actors who, at great cost, have been resisting injustice has inspired a wave of action among frustrated, subjugated and oppressed people across the globe.

West Asia is writing a new chapter in real time. It is being written in the ink of shifting alliances, bitter resentments and intense struggles for local autonomy. The United States will be left completely sidelined, bypassed not by another global superpower, but by the relentless march of a region that has finally learned to move forward without asking permission from Washington. America’s political class must wake up to the changing reality.

martes, 29 de septiembre de 2026

US arms sales to Israel worth $21.6 billion in 20 months

US arms deals for Israel reached $21.6 billion under Trump, including billions in bombs, missiles and military equipment 

Mohamed Elbedewy

Washington, D.C.

25 September, 2026

https://www.newarab.com/news/us-arms-sales-israel-surge-216-bn-20-months

Notifications submitted by the US President Donald Trump administration to Congress, along with US State Department data covering the period from 20 January 2025 to 17 September 2026, show that the Trump administration has approved arms deals for Israel worth $21.6 billion in just 20 months.

The value of military aid, funded by US taxpayers, and arms deals approved by former President Joe Biden for Israel between October 2023 and early 2025 exceeded $17.9 billion, according to a study by Brown University.

These weapons were used in the genocide in Gaza and the killing of more than 50,000 civilians, children and women during this period.

September 2026: $2.8 billion in weapons

The US State Department informally notified the offices of the four top Republican and Democratic members in the House of Representatives and Senate last week of a $2.8 billion military aid deal involving new weapons for Israel that Washington is preparing to conclude.

The deal includes 40,000 2,000-pound bombs, 20,000 BLU-117 bombs and 20,000 I-2000 penetrating warheads.


A 2,000-pound bomb is considered one of the most destructive munitions in the world, as its explosion sends metal fragments thousands of feet in all directions and can penetrate metal and thick concrete.

Despite opposition from Democrats, the deal is expected to pass as usual under emergency authority that allows the administration to bypass congressional objections.

Historically, Congress has failed to stop any arms deal.

The following are the main previous large deals:

January 2025: $2.04 billion

After the Biden administration had previously sent shipments of 2,000-pound bombs to Israel, and as criticism mounted following their use in the genocide in Gaza and the killing of tens of thousands of children and women, his administration suspended one shipment in 2024.

In the first week of the Trump administration after his return to the White House in January 2025, he announced the immediate lifting of the ban on that shipment.

The shipment was valued at $2.04 billion.

February 2025: $7.4 billion

In the first week of February 2025, the US State Department informed Congress in two separate statements that it had approved an arms deal for Israel worth $7.4 billion.

It included 20,000 bombs, guidance systems and equipment worth $6.75 billion, and 3,000 Hellfire air-to-ground missiles worth $660 million.

The administration bypassed congressional notification to obtain approval.

The Trump administration used emergency powers that allow for immediate sales, citing national security interests, to bypass the usual congressional review procedures.

It provided Israel with a $675 million deal including 5,000 1,000-pound bombs and guidance kits and a $295 million deal including Caterpillar bulldozers.

The deal was announced at a value of $3.01 billion, but it included what the administration had announced in January 2025.

June 2025: $510 million

Following the US-Israeli attack on Iran in June 2025, and to rebuild Israel's stockpile, the Trump administration approved the provision of high-precision guidance systems to the Israeli military, worth $510 million.

The deal included more than 7,000 guidance kits for offensive munitions.

January 2026: $6.67 billion

In September 2025, The Wall Street Journal reported, citing sources, that the Trump administration was seeking congressional approval for an arms deal with Israel worth more than $6 billion.

The deal would be funded through the Foreign Military Financing programme, or military aid.

In January, the deal was announced with a total value of $6.67 billion. It includes 30 Apache helicopters, doubling Israel's fleet of this type of aircraft, 3,250 assault vehicles and other equipment.

March 2026: $650 million

One week after the US-Israeli war on Iran began this year, Israel requested more than 20,000 bombs.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, as stated in a statement in March 2026, determined that an emergency existed requiring the sale to Israel to be completed immediately and the deal to be exempted from congressional review.

The deal was announced at a value of $650 million and included 12,000 1,000-pound bombs, as well as 500-pound bombs.

Reuters also quoted an official as saying that Israel would purchase an additional $298 million worth of munitions through direct sales.

May 2026: $992 million

On 1 May, Rubio again used emergency powers to approve a deal for Israel to purchase 10,000 APKWS laser-guided rocket systems worth $992.4 million.

These rockets have been used as countermeasures against Iranian drones because of their lower cost compared with expensive weapons.

This means that the total value of the deals announced and approved by the administration so far is $19.2 billion.

It will rise to $21.6 billion when the administration completes procedures for the latest deal, with at least half of the amount being military aid funded by US taxpayers.

lunes, 28 de septiembre de 2026

Israel bans Arab parties from election: Who they are, why it matters

Israeli politicians under ICC arrest warrants or international sanctions remain eligible to run.

By Caolán Magee

Published On 26 Sep 2026

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/9/26/israel-bans-arab-parties-from-election-who-they-are-why-it-matters

Israel’s Central Elections Committee has voted to bar the country’s two main Arab-majority political lists from next month’s parliamentary election, potentially leaving Palestinian citizens of Israel without their principal representatives in the Israeli parliament, the Knesset.

The committee also voted to disqualify Ofer Cassif, a Jewish politician from the Arab-Jewish Hadash party, and Sami Abu Shehadeh, the leader of the Palestinian nationalist Balad party.

The votes are not the final word on who can run in the October 27 election. The Supreme Court is expected to review the decisions next week and has overturned previous attempts to exclude Arab parties and candidates.

But the committee’s decision has already prompted accusations of double standards, with Palestinian-led parties facing exclusion while parties led by far-right ministers, some of whom have been sanctioned internationally, remaining on the ballot. Here is what the decision means.

Which parties have been barred?

The committee voted to disqualify two separate groups. The first is the Joint List, an alliance of Hadash, Balad and Ta’al. The second is Ra’am, also called the United Arab List, which is running on its own. Both rely on support from Palestinian citizens of Israel, who make up about one-fifth of the country’s population.

The Joint List

This brings together three parties. Hadash is a left-wing party with Jewish and Arab members, Ta’al campaigns primarily for the rights of Palestinian citizens of Israel, and Balad calls for a state with equal rights for all its citizens. They agreed to contest this election on a single list, meaning their candidates would appear together on the ballot.

It is an electoral tactic used to not split votes among parties that are similar ideologically. A list must also win at least 3.25 percent of the national vote to enter the Knesset, so by joining forces, smaller parties combine their votes and reduce the risk that each falls below the threshold – in which case none of them would win seats.

In the current 120-seat Knesset, the Hadash-Ta’al alliance holds five seats. Of the Hadash-Ta’al seats, three belong to Hadash politicians and two to Ta’al. Balad has no seats.

Ra’am

Led by Mansour Abbas, it is running separately. It has been more willing to negotiate with other parties over funding and services for Arab communities. Ra’am joined the broad coalition that governed Israel from 2021 to 2022. The Joint List did not join that government.

In the current Knesset, Ra’am holds five seats.

Why have these parties been barred?

The decision followed petitions by the right-wing parties, Likud and Otzma Yehudit, which accused the parties and candidates of denying Israel’s existence as a Jewish and democratic state, supporting armed struggle against Israel or inciting racism.

The committee is chaired by a Supreme Court justice, but its voting members represent parties in the outgoing Knesset. Politicians therefore vote on whether rival parties and candidates can contest the election, although the Supreme Court has the final say.

The committee voted 18-5 to bar Ra’am and, in a separate vote, 18-5 to bar the Joint List. It also voted 18-5 to bar Cassif and 31-4 to bar Abu Shehadeh, according to Adalah, the Palestinian legal rights group representing the lists and candidates.

Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara opposed the disqualification of the two lists and Cassif, saying the evidence did not meet the legal threshold. She took a different position on Abu Shehadeh, however. The case against him centres in part on an article he wrote on October 8, 2023, the day after Hamas’s attacks on Israel.

The article was published on the Arab 48 website and referred to the attack as “an important historic event militarily, politically and strategically”.

The attorney general claimed its wording could amount to support for armed struggle.

Abu Shehadeh rejects that reading. He said on X that he opposed armed struggle and supported a “political and civil struggle for peace, justice, and equality”.

Other opposition parties in Israel support the disqualification of Abu Shehadeh. Yair Golan, leader of the opposition Democrats party, said of Abu Shehadeh: “Whoever wants a Jewish-Arab partnership does not speak this way, period,” he said, calling any legitimacy given to armed struggle or harm to civilians “a red line”.

Adalah disputes the case against Abu Shehadeh. It says the article contains no call for violence and argues that the petitions against the Joint List largely rely on old material or positions previously examined by the courts. It plans to challenge the decisions in the Supreme Court.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, meanwhile, remains eligible to run, despite being the subject of an International Criminal Court (ICC) arrest warrant over alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza, and a corruption trial that began in 2020 and remains ongoing. Netanyahu denies the allegations against him.

Cassif, whose disqualification from a previous election was overturned by the Supreme Court in 2019, called Wednesday’s decisions “another nail in the coffin of the remnants of democracy” in Israel. He said he and the Joint List would be in the next Knesset.

Attempts to exclude Arab candidates are not new. Adalah has documented challenges in elections in 2003, 2013, 2015, 2020 and 2022. The Supreme Court has repeatedly reversed committee decisions, but that history offers no guarantee of what it will do this time.

What about the far right?

Petitions which sought to disqualify the two far-right ministers in Netanyahu’s cabinet, National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir’s Otzma Yehudit party and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich’s Religious Zionism party, were rejected by the election committee.

Ben-Gvir and Smotrich have both advocated the displacement of Palestinians from Gaza and the annexation of the occupied West Bank, and face international sanctions over their actions and rhetoric towards Palestinians.

Attorney General Baharav-Miara, who has repeatedly clashed with Netanyahu’s government, said the bids to bar the far-right parties lacked a legal basis, according to Haaretz. However, for his part, Golan has said he supported disqualifying Ben-Gvir as well.

Netanyahu, meanwhile, remains eligible to run, despite an International Criminal Court arrest warrant over alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza, and a corruption trial that began in 2020 and remains ongoing. Netanyahu denies the allegations against him.

Human rights advocate Ubai Al-Aboudi condemned the decision. The committee, he told Al Jazeera, has decided “not to bar Israeli politicians, parties or lists that are openly calling for the ethnic cleansing and genocide of Palestinians”.

“It has not even decided to view their statements as extreme.

“This shows that the current Israeli political structure still views Palestinians as a demographic threat, is still vilifying Palestinians.”

What happens now?

About one-fifth of Israel’s population is Palestinian. If the Supreme Court upholds the votes against both Ra’am and the Joint List, voters could still cast ballots for other parties, but neither of the two main Arab-majority lists would be able to contest the election. The court will also decide whether Cassif and Abu Shehadeh can stand.

Al-Aboudi said earlier attempts to bar Arab representatives had been overturned, but this vote went further. “It is the first time that all representation has been barred,” he said, describing it as a sign of “the mentality and extremism of the current Israeli political structure”.

The final decision rests with the Supreme Court. Al-Aboudi said its past rulings offer some grounds for hope, but added that, given the present political atmosphere, it is unclear whether it would overturn “part, all or none” of the committee’s decisions.

domingo, 27 de septiembre de 2026

A quarter-century after the 'war on terror' began, the American Middle East is over

Hesham Gaafar

24 September 2026

The US-built regional order is not collapsing in a single dramatic moment. It is fading quietly into the background - until one day people wake up to an entirely new reality.

https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/quarter-century-after-war-terror-american-middle-east-over

Last month, a photographer in Tehran captured a passing scene that seemed unremarkable: people walking past a large anti-American billboard in the city, without so much as glancing up at it. 

The image ran alongside a lengthy essay titled “The End of the American Middle East” by Marc Lynch, a political science professor at George Washington University, in the September/October issue of Foreign Affairs. 

Lynch, who belongs to a critical current within the American academic establishment rather than its fringes, writes that the regional order Washington has sponsored since 1991 has fallen, and that the American-Israeli war with Iran was merely the final bullet in a body that had been bleeding for years.

The question is not whether Lynch is correct - the evidence is difficult to refute - but why it took this long for it to be stated so plainly, in a magazine long seen as a near-official reference point for the American foreign policy establishment. 

What does it mean, for the region’s people before their rulers, that an order presented for decades as inescapable fate is now being declared over?

The order that took shape after the 1991 Gulf War rested on two pillars that appeared contradictory, yet worked in tandem. These included dual military containment of Iran and Iraq through bases stretching from the Gulf to the Eastern Mediterranean, and an unwritten bargain with Arab rulers, trading American security guarantees for silence over domestic repression and erasure of the Palestinian question. 

Entire generations of Arabs lived this as daily reality: military aid to rulers who were never questioned about their prisons, a “peace process” renewed every few years without ever approaching a Palestinian state, and an American shield protecting Israel from accountability at the UN Security Council. 

The arrangement never needed popular legitimacy, because it was never built to answer to anyone at home.

Accountability gap

This absence of accountability, which for decades looked like the order’s strength, ultimately became the point of its collapse. A superpower that grants allies unconditional security guarantees exempts them from the price of their own decisions; those who know someone else will bear the consequences take greater risks.

This is what happened in Yemen, where Riyadh found in American backing cover for a war with no clear horizon for victory, sliding the country into catastrophe without a decision-maker paying a political price. 

It happened more dramatically in Gaza, where unconditional American protection became a de facto mandate for an Israeli campaign that has killed more than 73,000 people, many of them women and children. Various international bodies and experts have described it as a genocide. 

The same Washington that mobilised the world to defend Ukraine’s sovereignty simultaneously defended its ally’s right to expand settlements and raze Gaza with impunity - a double standard that deepened the fractures in the perceived legitimacy of the regional order.

That contradiction cost the American system much of its remaining moral authority in the Global South, while the elite consensus sustaining it at home began to crack, amid unprecedented student protests on American campuses and a sharp generational shift in how Americans view Israel. 

When domestic opinion inside the sponsoring state itself questions the bargain, it is no longer just a matter of image abroad, but the start of a rupture in the consensus that lets the bargain continue.

From the outset, American strategy rested on the assumption that ordinary Arab citizens’ opinions carried no real weight, so long as their rulers stayed cooperative - a deeper flaw than any calculation of immediate interest. 

When the 2011 uprisings erupted, demanding bread and dignity, Washington searched less for ways to support democratic transitions, and more for a formula to preserve the existing structure at the lowest cost - a logic that peaked with the Abraham Accords, a security bargain among ruling elites dressed up as historic peace, pushed through without ever reaching a ballot box. 

An order built on such disregard for public opinion does not need a major crisis to be shaken.

Double shock

What distinguished recent years was a double shock: moral, in the collapse of whatever authority Washington claimed following its position on the Gaza holocaust, and military - more painful still for an establishment that defined its regional influence through deterrence.

Despite its devastating campaign against Hezbollah, Israel failed to secure its northern border. The Houthis imposed an effective naval blockade on Israeli-linked Red Sea shipping, withstanding months of American and British strikes - proof that a non-state actor could disrupt global trade against the most formidable military power in history. 

Iran then launched a direct missile barrage towards Israel, shattering a decades-old red line and forcing the American fleet to intervene, highlighting Israel’s dependence on costly US backing. 

In the 2026 war, Washington proved unable even to protect its Gulf allies. The very things that justified the American base network from Qatar to Bahrain - the capacity to deter, guarantee freedom of navigation, and protect allies without direct war - crumbled at once. 

The question now is no longer whether American influence will contract, but how long before that becomes undeniable to everyone.

Lynch invokes the 1956 Suez crisis, the moment Britain and France lost the capacity to impose their will on the region - though both empires needed decades before full withdrawal.

What makes the current moment different is that regional hedging began before the death certificate was written: when Riyadh and Tehran restored relations in 2023 through Chinese mediation that excluded Washington, it signalled regional powers were willing to resolve disputes through other channels. 

Since then, Gulf states have expanded partnerships with Beijing and Moscow, while some joined Brics - insurance against a day when American guarantees no longer demand exclusive loyalty.

Profiting from chaos

The painful irony is that Israel and Iran, the two actors most capable of shaping a new regional order, share an interest in keeping the region on the edge of instability. 

For Israel, a persistent state of war justifies settlement expansion and postpones any reckoning over the state’s treatment of Palestinians. For Tehran, permanent tension offers a ready-made narrative to justify domestic repression - especially after the war left the regime emboldened, having shown it could close the Strait of Hormuz and strike Washington’s allies. 

Caught between them, Washington has no real tools to restrain either - even as it remains, formally, the region’s largest security guarantor.

The Gulf states, which long wagered that Washington would tip this balance in their favour, now face a painful conclusion: a power that cannot protect its partners from direct attack, nor consult them before a war that reaches them anyway, is no longer the reliable partner the 1991 arrangement was built upon.

The real costs fall not on those who designed the order, but on the peoples never consulted about its shape. Egypt is a stark example: while headlines dwell on missiles and mediation, Cairo bears the direct economic costs of a war it did not choose - fuel and food prices spiking, and Suez Canal revenue collapsing, atop an already deepening financial crisis. These daily bills deserve counting, alongside maps of influence and balances of power.

Lynch closes with a reformist appeal: abandoning military intervention as a first resort, engaging Iran diplomatically instead of isolating it, tying aid to human-rights standards, and accepting a multipolar region that Washington no longer solely defines. This is reasonable in theory, but he never clearly answers who possesses the will to carry it out. 

By his own diagnosis, the current administration is not equipped for a coherent approach of any kind, let alone one requiring real concessions on tools Washington has long treated as axiomatic to its influence. History teaches that institutions abandon entrenched habits only once the costs of continuing exceed the costs of change - which is precisely what appears to be happening now, albeit too slowly for those living through this moment to notice.

This returns us to the image of people walking past that Tehran billboard without a glance - an exact summary of what is happening more broadly. 

The old order is not collapsing in one dramatic moment for all to witness; it is fading slowly into the everyday scenery, until people wake up one morning to a wholly different reality, no longer remembering quite when it began.

sábado, 26 de septiembre de 2026

Trump rejects Iran ceasefire bid, plans renewed bombing after midterms: Report

Iranian officials offered a ceasefire and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz on the sidelines of the UNGA, based on the previous MoU signed by Washington and Tehran in June

News Desk

SEP 26, 2026

https://thecradle.co/articles/trump-rejects-iran-ceasefire-bid-plans-renewed-bombing-after-midterms-report

US President Donald Trump has rejected an Iranian proposal for a seven-day ceasefire and intends to resume bombing the Islamic Republic after upcoming midterm elections, the Wall Street Journal reported on 26 September, citing US officials.

Tehran relayed a proposal to Washington, offering to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and resume nuclear talks in exchange for a cessation of hostilities and the US lifting its naval blockade of Iranian ports.

Iranian diplomats conveyed the offer during meetings on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York earlier this week.

Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi ⁠discussed the offer while speaking with reporters at the UN on Friday.

"If the necessary conditions are met, the strait can be reopened, a normal maritime passage restored within seven days. The choice ‌now ⁠rests with the United States," he said.

"The actions that the United States should take ⁠are not new. They are all already in the MoU," signed between Washington and Tehran in June, he ⁠added.

However, Trump has rejected the plan and expressed skepticism regarding Tehran's ability to meet his demands, including the "complete dismantling" of its nuclear program as a condition for any agreement.

US officials believe their naval blockade is putting intense pressure on the Iranian economy.

At the same time, Iran's seven-month closure of the Strait of Hormuz in response to the US war has disrupted oil flows, putting severe pressure on Washington's Gulf allies, who rely on oil exports.

The strait’s closure has also sent energy prices soaring worldwide, putting pressure on the global economy.

Trump is seeking to reduce oil and fuel prices ahead of the midterm elections in November to avoid harming the chances of his party.

Once the elections have passed, there will be less need to appease US voters, thereby giving Trump more freedom of action to attack Iran again.

The US last bombed Iran in early September, including attacking a wedding party, killing five and wounding dozens. Iran responded with strikes on US bases in the region.

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian discussed a possible ceasefire in an interview with CBS News on the sidelines of the UNGA.

Pezeshkian said the ceasefire would take effect immediately if Washington accepted it, based on the MoU it previously signed in Islamabad.

"We will negotiate with all our heart, but we do not accept bullying and coercion, and we will not accept being forced into submission," the Iranian president said.

At the same time, he expressed distrust in the US, citing its failure to live up to its previous commitments under the MoU and under a 2015 nuclear deal known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

In 2018, Trump unilaterally withdrew from the deal, which provided Iran relief from US sanctions in exchange for curbs on Iran's nuclear program.

Pezeshkian affirmed that Iran does not seek nuclear weapons and is prepared to address the issue within the framework of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and other international arrangements.

He also cited US military attacks on Iran, including the killing of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, during periods of negotiations as a source of Iranian mistrust.

"You put yourselves in our position. If someone comes and kills your leader and then does not honor the agreement you reached, what would your reaction be?"

The Iranian president also said Tehran's new plan to reopen the strategic Strait of Hormuz was coordinated with the new Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, the slain Iranian leader's son.

viernes, 25 de septiembre de 2026

New York City mayor slams 'lies' in Netanyahu's UN speech, cites ICC warrant for his arrest

Israeli Premier Netanyahu 'used his speech to repeat baseless lies meant to sanitize his genocide of Palestinians,' says Zohran Mamdani

Diyar Güldoğan

24 September 2026

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/world/new-york-city-mayor-slams-lies-in-netanyahus-un-speech-cites-icc-warrant-for-his-arrest/4068590

WASHINGTON DC

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani on Thursday hit back at Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's criticisms in his UN General Assembly address, pointing to the international warrant seeking the visiting prime minister’s arrest.

Netanyahu’s “lies” in his UN address cannot erase the warrant for genocidal war crimes issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC), said the mayor.

“As he has done time and again, Prime Minister Netanyahu used his speech to repeat baseless lies meant to sanitize his genocide of Palestinians," Mamdani said in a statement, local media reported.

"Yet no lie can change the fact that he remains the subject of an International Criminal Court arrest warrant alleging war crimes and crimes against humanity.”

In November 2024 the ICC, based in The Hague, issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for war crimes and crimes against humanity in the Gaza Strip.

This July, Mamdani urged US federal authorities to enforce the ICC arrest warrant for Netanyahu, acknowledging that New York City authorities lack the legal power to carry it out.

jueves, 24 de septiembre de 2026

US Democrats to propose sanctions targeting Israel’s E1 settlement project

Senator Chris Coons said the US ‘must send a strong message’ condemning the behavior of ‘violent extremist settlers’

News Desk

SEP 23, 2026

https://thecradle.co/articles/us-democrats-to-propose-sanctions-targeting-israels-e1-settlement-project

A group of Democratic senators will put forward legislation on 23 September calling for US sanctions on individuals and organizations facilitating Israel’s ongoing, illegal E1 settlement project in the occupied West Bank. 

The bill would place sanctions on any company, person, or entity responsible for or complicit in the construction of illegal settlements linked to the E1 project.

This would also include the submission of tenders linked to the E1, according to the legislation.

Senators Chris Coons ​of Delaware, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Ron Wyden of Oregon, and Ruben Gallego of Arizona are the main sponsors of this bill.

“As Palestinian civilians face a campaign of ​devastation and fear from violent extremist settlers, the US must send a strong message that this behavior is unacceptable and that it remains committed to freedom, security, prosperity and self-determination for all Israelis and Palestinians,” said Coons. 

The Democratic Party currently holds 47 seats in the Senate, which is made up of 100 members. Recent polls indicate they could secure majorities in midterm elections, planned for November.

The bill coincides with a rapid advancement of the Israeli settlement project, which was paused for years due to international opposition but has now been revived. 

Israel recently tripled the number of housing units it will begin constructing in the illegal E1 settlement.

According to an Israeli rights group, Tel Aviv has added ⁠2,167 additional housing units ‌to its tender for the E1 settlement expansion plan, after an initial tender was issued in August to build 1,234 units in the Jewish settlement.

This brings the total number of illegal housing units to 3,401 units.

The revival of the E1 project came last year. In August 2025, Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich announced the plan, approving construction of housing units and vowing at the time to “bury the idea” of a Palestinian state.

Netanyahu signed the plan back into motion in September last year. 

The E1 settlement project – which aims to link occupied East Jerusalem, viewed as integral to any future Palestinian state, to the illegal Maale Adumim settlement – had been frozen for decades as a result of strong opposition from the international community. 

The advancement of the plan comes as settler terror attacks and illegal land grabs are at an all-time high in the occupied West Bank.