Thomas Massie's defeat shows Aipac's enduring grip over US Republicans

Sami Al-Arian

23 May 2026

The Kentucky congressman's stand against US aid to Israel and the Iran war triggered a pro-Israel donor backlash that reveals how firmly the lobby still shapes Republican politics.

https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/massies-defeat-shows-aipacs-enduring-grip-over-republicans

In American politics, certain transgressions are tolerated. Challenging Israel is not among them. US Congressman Thomas Massie crossed that line - and on Tuesday, paid the price.

His defeat in Kentucky's 4th Congressional District was widely portrayed as another demonstration of President Donald Trump's continued dominance over the Republican Party. That explanation is politically convenient but analytically incomplete.

What happened to Massie was not merely a clash of personalities or a dispute over loyalty to Trump. It was the enforcement of a political boundary deeply embedded within the structure of American power. Massie had violated one of the deepest taboos in American politics: alienating the Israel lobby.

Unlike many politicians accused of dissent, Massie's divergence was not rhetorical or symbolic. It was documented through votes, public statements and a sustained critique of unconditional American support for Israel.

As the only member of Congress to vote against House Resolution 888 in November 2023, Massie committed a cardinal sin - rejecting the congressional resolution that affirms Israel's "right to exist" and opposes calls for the dismantling of the Israeli state.

The resolution passed 412-1, with even progressive "Squad" members including Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar and Ayanna Pressley voting in favour.

Massie was also among a small number of members of Congress who opposed emergency military aid packages and several pro-Israel resolutions after 7 October 2023.

He also consistently argued that all foreign aid - particularly aid to Israel - violated both constitutional principles and fiscal conservatism. At a moment when Israel was carrying out what numerous human rights organisations, UN experts, genocide scholars and even former Israeli officials described as genocidal acts in Gaza, Massie openly opposed using American taxpayer money to finance the war.

In Washington, such positions are treated as dangerous deviations from the consensus on Israel - defiance that must be politically punished.

Support for Israel has been one of the most entrenched bipartisan pillars of American foreign policy. Since October 2023, the United States has poured tens of billions of dollars in military aid to Israel while shielding it at the United Nations.

The Costs of War Project at Brown University puts the direct figure at well over $22bn.

In Gaza, the health ministry and international observers documented more than 75,000 Palestinians killed and over 180,000 injured - countless left maimed - as entire neighbourhoods, hospitals, universities, schools, water facilities, electric grids and refugee camps have been systematically destroyed.

Massie did not simply challenge a policy, but confronted an entrenched power structure that has shaped American foreign policy in the Middle East for decades.

A familiar pattern

Washington has witnessed similar episodes before. Former Republican Congressman Paul Findley of Illinois lost his seat in 1982 after criticising Israeli policy and the growing influence of Aipac. Likewise, Republican Senator Charles Percy of Illinois suffered a similar fate in 1984 after tensions with pro-Israel lobbying networks.

In the past two decades, many Democratic members of Congress encountered the same fate. Cynthia McKinney in Georgia, Earl Hilliard in Alabama, Jamaal Bowman in New York and Cori Bush in Missouri all faced massive financial interventions after criticising Israeli policy or supporting Palestinian rights.

These cases are too numerous and too targeted to remain anecdotal. The system enforcing them is structural. Aipac's super PAC, which labelled Massie "the most anti-Israel Republican in the House", contributed $9m to the race alone. When the result came in, Aipac declared: "Pro-Israel Americans are proud to help defeat anti-Israel candidates."

During the Cold War, questioning anti-communist orthodoxy carried political consequences. Today, questioning unconditional support for Israel carries the same weight of orthodoxy in Washington.

The Kentucky race became the most expensive House primary in modern American history, with spending exceeding $34m. Yet the significance lies as much in how the money was mobilised and coordinated as in the sheer amount spent.

Press reports indicate that millions in outside expenditures came from networks aligned with pro-Israel advocacy organisations and donor ecosystems that have increasingly intervened in congressional races nationwide.

The campaign against Massie followed a now-familiar model: massive independent expenditures, relentless advertising blitzes, coordinated media narratives and efforts to portray dissenting candidates as extremists or unreliable actors outside the accepted boundaries of Washington politics.

Massie was not merely outspent but politically marked and strategically targeted.

These campaigns are not simply about defeating one candidate. They are designed to create fear and send a message to every member of Congress that opposition to Israeli policy, especially during wartime, carries severe political costs regardless of seniority, popularity or ideological credentials.

A shifting public

American public opinion has shifted dramatically against Israel. Multiple polls conducted over the past two years show a stark erosion of support, particularly among younger Americans. A February Gallup poll showed that sympathy for Palestinians had surpassed sympathy for Israelis for the first time.

Pre-election polling found that older Republican voters in the district broke decisively for Ed Gallrein, while younger and middle-aged voters leaned towards Massie - a generational divide visible far beyond Kentucky.

Even among Republicans, support for unconditional military involvement abroad has weakened considerably, especially after the escalation towards the war on Iran. A growing number of Americans, above all young people, view Israel not as a strategic asset but as a source of regional instability capable of dragging the United States into wider wars that serve no American national interest.

Massie reflected this sentiment openly. During debates surrounding the possibility of direct military confrontation with Iran, he warned that Washington was being pushed towards another catastrophic Middle Eastern war driven primarily by Israeli regional interests rather than core American ones.

In one widely circulated statement, Massie argued that Congress should not authorise military escalation without direct constitutional approval and questioned why American taxpayers and soldiers should bear the burden of wars initiated by foreign policy priorities disconnected from domestic needs.

After decades of war, debt and the decline of basic services, those arguments now resonate with far more Americans than Washington elites care to admit.

Israel's growing public relations crisis has intensified these tensions. Images from Gaza - where entire families have been erased, children buried beneath rubble and famine conditions imposed on a trapped civilian population - have transformed global public opinion.

South Africa's genocide case before the International Court of Justice further amplified international scrutiny, while major human rights organisations accused Israel of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity. For millions around the world, Gaza destroyed the myth that western human rights discourse applies equally to all people.

Facing this crisis of legitimacy, Israel and its supporters have invested heavily in narrative control across media platforms, digital spaces, universities and political institutions. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, himself an indicted war criminal, has repeatedly boasted about Israel's influence within western media networks and social media platforms. The struggle is increasingly one over information and perception.

In his concession speech, Massie remarked: "It took a while to find Ed Gallrein in Tel Aviv."

Massie was not simply conceding defeat to his opponent. He was identifying the terrain on which the battle had been fought. This was not merely a Kentucky primary race. It was an election shaped by national donor networks, foreign policy alignments and political enforcement mechanisms extending far beyond the district itself.

The wider message

Some commentators tied to the Israeli lobby attribute Massie's defeat solely to Donald Trump. But this narrative is both factually flawed and analytically superficial. Trump certainly played an important role - he endorsed former Navy SEAL Ed Gallrein and repeatedly attacked Massie as disloyal, transforming the primary into a referendum on allegiance to the Maga movement.

Yet Trump alone does not generate more than $30m in congressional primaries, nor does he independently mobilise a vast donor infrastructure against a single congressman among dozens who have disagreed with him over the years.

A more accurate reading is that Trump's machinery converged with well-established Zionist donor networks and enforcement structures - what some critics now describe as the "Epstein Class": a nexus of billionaire financiers, political operatives, media influence networks and intelligence-linked figures whose loyalties often appear more connected to preserving Israeli regional supremacy than defending coherent American national interests.

Trump did not create the target on Massie's back - he just helped pull the trigger.

What happened to Massie exposes a structural reality long understood but rarely discussed openly: there are policy red lines within the American system, and Israel sits among the brightest. Crossing those lines carries consequences - coordinated funding flows, nationalised opposition campaigns, coordinated messaging portraying dissent as extremism, and political isolation.

But the implications extend far beyond Kentucky.

To Maga Republicans, it signals that "America First" has limits. One may challenge trade agreements, immigration policy, global institutions or even party leadership. But challenging Washington's alignment with Israel remains extraordinarily dangerous.

To libertarian conservatives, the answer is equally stark: fiscal conservatism and scepticism towards foreign intervention remain acceptable only until they intersect with Israel.

And to the broader Republican Party, the lesson could not be clearer: party discipline increasingly requires adherence to Trumpism and to a foreign policy consensus in which Israeli priorities remain deeply embedded within the permanent foundations of American power.

Massie was defeated for one main reason: he challenged one of the most protected structures within American political life. Once that occurred, the Zionist machinery activated with remarkable speed: enormous funds mobilised, opposition networks unified overnight, media narratives deployed and political deterrence established.

These are not passing phenomena. They discipline political behaviour. And as public anger over Gaza deepens and younger Americans continue breaking with old political orthodoxies, it is no longer clear that these instruments of political discipline can hold indefinitely in a society already entering a deeper crisis of legitimacy.

Yet despite Massie's defeat, the results of recent primary races suggest that Aipac's long-standing dominance over American politics may be waning. On the same evening, Chris Rabb - a democratic socialist, vocal Palestine advocate and open Aipac critic - won the Democratic primary in Pennsylvania's 3rd Congressional District against two Aipac-backed opponents.

Earlier this year, Aipac's campaign against moderate Democrat Tom Malinowski in New Jersey backfired spectacularly, inadvertently propelling Analilia Mejia - the race's most vocal Palestine advocate - to victory.

The ground is shifting and the lobby knows it.

Deported flotilla activists allege 'sadistic' sexual abuse and torture in Israeli captivity

Activists report being stripped, 'water-tortured' and dragged along the ground with bound hands and feet

By MEE staff

Published date: 22 May 2026 

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/sadistic-deported-flotilla-activists-allege-sexual-abuse-and-torture-israeli-custody

Flotilla activists who were abducted and jailed by Israeli authorities while in international waters have reported being subjected to sexual abuse and torture while in Israeli captivity.

Some 430 activists, who were held after Israeli forces raided the Gaza-bound Global Sumud Flotilla, were deported to Istanbul on Thursday evening. 

Footage showed activists arriving at airports clad in grey prison tracksuits and keffiyehs with their fists raised, as families and supporters greeted them.

Upon arrival the activists reported being fired at with rubber bullets, beaten and subjected to sexual assault while in Israeli custody.

Italian journalist Alessandro Mantovani, who is among the deportees, told reporters at Rome’s Fiumicino airport that he and others were “taken to Ben Gurion airport in handcuffs and with chains on our feet and put on a flight to Athens”.

He said that Israeli soldiers “beat us up. They kicked us and punched us and shouted, ‘Welcome to Israel’.”

Miriam Azem, from the Israeli rights group Adalah, reported that one of the activists “was forced to strip naked and run while guards were laughing”.

One activist said in a video interview that her hands and feet were bound as she was dragged by Israeli soldiers, adding that the cuffs were so tight that “my hands lost feeling”.

"They laughed all the time. Super sadistic," she told reporters. "They took off my shirt, took pictures. Mistreated us all night long."

Australian activist Juliet Lamont said she was “tied with cables, water tortured and sexually assaulted”.

“People had broken ribs, were tased in the face, and injected with unknown sedatives.”

Photos shared online appear to show activists who have sustained injuries from the alleged beatings.

Brazilian activist Thiago Avila who was detained by Israeli during a previous flotilla operation published a video in which he alleged that activists were “raped” by Israeli soldiers.

He said that there were “many cases of sexual violence … on the prison boat, on the way to the port of Ashdod”.

Adalah said that Israel’s “entire operation”, including the “unlawful” raid of the aid vessels in international waters and the "systemic torture, humiliation, and arbitrary detention" of the activists on board, constitutes "a flagrant violation of international law".

Global outrage

The activists’ release follows global outrage over a video circulated online of far-right security minister Itamar Ben Gvir overseeing the humiliation and abuse of the detained flotilla participants.

He was filmed waving an Israeli flag and confronting the detained activists as they were being manhandled and forced to kneel facing the ground by officers from the Israel Prison Service.

The footage sparked a backlash inside Israel, though it was largely focused on concerns that the video had damaged the country’s standing abroad.

It also drew condemnation from several world leaders, including officials from countries whose citizens were among those detained by Israel.

Antonio Costa, president of the European Council, said he was "appalled" by the footage.

Meanwhile, a number of countries, including the UK, Italy, Spain and France, summoned Israel’s charge d'affaires over the video.

Joe Kent: Trump can't end war until Israel taken out of the loop

In a wide-ranging interview the ex-counterterrorism chief also balks at arguments that Americans need to 'sacrifice' in order to prevent a future nuclear attack

Kelley Beaucar Vlahos

May 20, 2026

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/joe-kent-trump-iran/

When the Iran war began, the Trump administration told the American people that if the U.S. did not attack and assassinate Iran's leadership, the Islamic Republic could soon be launching missiles at U.S. cities.

Now, as Americans absorb skyrocketing prices and note the grim inflation, fuel, and food supply forecasts, Trump and his surrogates in Congress and the media are ramping up the rhetoric. It goes something like this: Main Street America must accept the “trade off” and sacrifice affordability or face a “ lunatic dropping a nuclear weapon on us.”

Joe Kent, who led the National Counterterrorism Center before resigning in protest of Trump’s Iran war policy, continues to call out what he deems a desperate attempt to maintain support for a terrible mistake. He says Iran never posed an imminent threat to the U.S. before the war. Kent, who is the highest-ranking member of the Trump administration to resign over the war, is also a U.S. combat veteran (11 tours primarily in Iraq), former CIA paramilitary, and a MAGA conservative.

In a wide-ranging interview with Responsible Statecraft, Kent pointed out that, days before the U.S. cut off talks with Iran and started bombing its nuclear facilities last June, his boss, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, testified that Iran was not building a nuclear weapon. This jibes with assessments during the Biden administration and earlier intelligence community briefings dating back two decades, which all say there is no evidence Iran restarted its nuclear weapons program since 2003.

“There was no reason to trust their (Iranians') word, but every bit of evidence we had for verification showed that they weren't developing a nuclear weapon," Kent told RS. "Even at their height, if they wanted to break out and develop a nuclear weapon, that timetable was anywhere from several months to several years to develop the weapon itself, but then you still have a major issue with delivery.”

“The idea that they could put a nuclear weapon on a ballistic missile system and get it to America, it's just preposterous,” he added.

“And again, too, why would they do that? Because it would immediately mean that we would wipe them off face the earth,” he added. “So that argument in itself, I just think, is absolutely preposterous. It just shows to me how desperate the administration is to have any kind of narrative that they can sell to the American people.”

Kent pointed to new polling on Monday that shows the majority of Americans oppose the war. While that only includes 22% of Republicans, the longer the Hormuz Strait is closed and economic conditions fray here in the U.S, the softer Trump’s base of support becomes.

“I think, like, every penny it goes up at the pump, and every day it goes on longer, he's going to lose more and more of those Republican voters,” Kent said, adding that prominent MAGA voices who oppose the war are “kind of giving permission for other people to say, 'Oh yeah, okay, I'm not for this.'”

Of course, it will be one heck of a battle. Seven-term Rep. Thomas Massie, (R-Ky.) lost his primary Tuesday night after a grueling race in which his opponent Ed Gallrein was backed by Trump and pro-Israel billionaires eager to get the anti-Iran war, anti-Israel aid Massie off the playing field.

"He walks out of this with his honor intact," Kent posted last night. "He’s a patriot & kept his integrity. As long as the voters give their votes to whoever can run the most ads, we will have politicians who are purchased by foreign governments & corporate interests."

‘Every time it’s been the Israelis’

In his resignation letter, Kent said that early in this second Trump administration, “high-ranking Israeli officials and influential members of the American media deployed a misinformation campaign” that “sowed pro-war sentiments to encourage a war with Iran.” Kent was immediately accused of antisemitism. He maintains that the Israelis have divergent interests and that, when the administration was close to getting a deal with Iran in June 2025, they convinced Trump to abandon talks and pursue regime change.

This was borne out in an explosive New York Times "reconstruction" of Trump’s path to the most recent war on Feb. 28. In it, the paper notes that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s four trips to the U.S. from July through December 2025 paid off. “The U.S. decision to strike Iran was a victory for Mr. Netanyahu, who had been pushing Mr. Trump for months on the need to hit what he argued was a weakened regime.”

During that period, Kent contends that the DNI started getting sidelined, which was also borne out in reporting at the time.

“After the 12-day war, after Midnight Hammer, it seemed like the (Trump) circle shrunk down to just the president and a handful of advisers," he said. Once Operation Epic Fury began, he claimed, “(we) worked diligently for two weeks trying to present the President with kind of off-ramps, but our ideas really weren't even reaching the White House.”

Kent said the Israelis, to their credit, “have always, in my experience with them, since January of 2025 when we came in the administration, they've been very upfront about what they wanted. They never came to us and said, like, 'we just want to make sure Iran doesn't get a nuclear weapon.' No, they said, 'This is the time for us to change out the Iranian regime.'”

Kent caused a stir just last week when he charged that the U.S. was on the cusp of getting a better deal than President Barack Obama’s Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action when Trump threw it all away to bomb Iran in June 2025.

“The Iranians feared and respected Trump in a way they never respected Obama — he took out the terror mastermind (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Commander) Qasem Soleimani, yet was prudent enough not to get sucked into the quicksand of another Middle Eastern quagmire that would only favor Iran and strengthen its hardliners,” he posted on X on May 13.

Eight months after Operation Midnight Hammer, despite Trump’s claims that Iranian nuclear sites had been “obliterated,” the Israelis helped to convince Trump the time was ripe to strike again as protests roiled the streets of Iran, according to press accounts. Trump, feeling emboldened by the Venezuela operation months before, made the final decision to move.

Kent said it was a mistake that he felt he could no longer condone by staying in the government.

“We killed the Supreme Leader, who had the prohibition on developing a nuclear weapon, who was able to withhold the proxies, killed him, killed (head of Iran’s National Security Council Ali) Larijani, killed a bunch of the other Iranian moderates, and now we're stuck with these hardliners,” Kent said. “That was the Israeli strategy. It was very effective, and now we're back in this situation. So, that's why I've always said, in order for us to get ourselves out of the situation and get a deal with Iran, the first step has to be restraining the Israelis.”

As Kent posted on X, “President Trump can still correct course,” but he has to “leverage the potential of sanctions relief to open the Strait of Hormuz and secure a new deal on the nuclear issue.”

His advice was not taken so well by the White House, which claimed that Kent’s resignation letter and current comments were “riddled with lies.”

"Most egregious are Kent’s false claims that the largest state sponsor of terrorism somehow did not pose a threat to the United States and that Israel forced the President into launching Operation Epic Fury,” the White House said in a statement to Fox News. “President Trump’s number one priority has always been ensuring the safety and security of the American people.”

But the lack of messaging management has allowed for different narratives to peek through, like when Secretary of State Marco Rubio said (then walked back) that the U.S. bombed on Feb. 28 because Israel was going to first, and a swift Iranian retaliation would be inevitable. More recently, Trump said the war in Iran was “at the behest of allies” in Gulf. Even Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth admitted Iran does not have the current capability to hit the U.S. with missiles.

Kent’s resignation and public criticisms of the administration’s policies have drawn swift rebuke from detractors, who called his letter — which put more onus on Israel than the president for American actions, and suggests that Israel had pulled the U.S. into the 2003 Iraq War — “virulent anti-Semitism” (Sen. Mitch McConnell), deploying "ugly stuff that plays on the worst antisemitic tropes" (J Street's Ilan Goldenberg). Longstanding accusations of Kent indulging in January 6 conspiracy theories and having extremist and Christian Nationalist “associations,” which came up during his confirmation hearings last year, soon resurfaced.

“Other people before me that said things like this had their entire lives ruined for it, because they were just immediately labeled as being horrible anti-semites,” he noted regarding his charges of Israeli influence on the government. Things have changed, he added. He stands behind what he says is his direct experience in the administration. “I think with a younger generation that's more active on social media and doing their own research… It's just not sticking as much as it did, you know, in the past.”

Head-of-state diplomacy guides China-Russia relations to ‘new heights’: Global Times editorial

By Global Times

Published: May 21, 2026 

https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202605/1361534.shtml

On May 20, Beijing witnessed another important moment in the development of China-Russia relations. Chinese President Xi Jinping held talks with visiting Russian President Vladimir Putin at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing on Wednesday, with the two sides agreeing to further extend the China-Russia Treaty of Good-Neighborliness and Friendly Cooperation.

President Xi outlined efforts to promote higher-quality development of China-Russia relations in four dimensions, during a joint press meeting with President Putin after the talks: First, Xi called for efforts to consolidate higher-quality political mutual trust and strengthen strategic support for each other; second, Xi stressed the need for China and Russia to empower higher-quality mutually beneficial cooperation and jointly promote their respective development and revitalization; third, Xi stressed the need to promote higher-quality people-to-people exchanges and strengthen the foundation for lasting friendship between the two peoples across generations; and fourth, Xi called on China and Russia to pursue higher-quality international coordination and work together to reform and improve global governance. These four dimensions clearly chart a path for the higher-quality development of China-Russia relations from a new starting point.

This visit yielded fruitful outcomes and carried far-reaching significance. The two heads of state signed a joint statement on further enhancing the comprehensive strategic coordination and deepening good-neighborliness and friendly cooperation between the two countries, and witnessed the conclusion of a number of important bilateral cooperation documents. The two countries also issued a joint statement on promoting a multipolar world and a new type of international relations. In addition, the two heads of state also attended the opening ceremony of the China-Russia Years of Education. In a single day, such an intensive schedule of activities, with so many major outcomes being introduced one after another, is fully evident that, under the strategic guidance of the two heads of state, the China-Russia comprehensive strategic partnership of coordination for a new era is characterized by full substance, a high level of mutual trust, a solid foundation, and broad prospects.

Standing at the historical juncture marking the 30th anniversary of the establishment of the China-Russia strategic partnership of coordination, the 25th anniversary of the signing of the China-Russia Treaty of Good-Neighborliness and Friendly Cooperation, and the launch year of the China-Russia Years of Education, the two heads of state once again held face-to-face communication. This not only injects new political momentum into bilateral relations, but also sends a clear signal of stability, cooperation, and mutual benefit to the world. This shows that the two countries regard the development of bilateral relations as a long-term strategic choice, rather than a matter of expediency. As President Xi emphasized, "As permanent members of the UN Security Council and important major countries in the world, China and Russia should take a strategic and long-term perspective, drive the development and revitalization of our respective countries through comprehensive strategic coordination of even higher quality, and work to make the global governance system more just and reasonable."

What does a strategically far-sighted China-Russia relationship mean for the world? First, it means a stronger safeguard for global peace and stability. By upholding the international system centered on the United Nations and adhering to the purposes and principles of the UN Charter, China and Russia serve as key forces in opposing hegemony, promoting multipolarity, and stabilizing the global situation. Moreover, the forces defending international fairness and justice have become stronger. China and Russia maintain close ties under multilateral frameworks such as the United Nations, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), BRICS, and the G20, jointly safeguarding the legitimate development rights and interests of Global South countries. Both sides remain firmly committed to defending the post-World War II international order and the authority of international law, opposing all forms of unilateral bullying and actions that seek to reverse the course of history, especially provocations that deny the outcomes of World War II and attempt to whitewash and revive fascism and militarism. Together, they are working to build a more just global governance system. History shows that when China and Russia stand firmly together, there is greater hope for international fairness and justice, greater certainty amid once-in-a-century global changes, and greater strength for human progress and development.

At present, the international landscape is marked by turbulence and uncertainty, with various forms of "unpredictability" posing major challenges to peace and development. Against this backdrop, China and Russia's willingness and ability to "take a strategic and long-term perspective" is itself an important contribution to the international community. This strategic resolve demonstrates that the two countries consistently uphold the principles of "non-alliance, non-confrontation, and not targeting any third party." They adhere to equality, mutual respect, good faith, and win-win cooperation. The China-Russia relationship, which transcends traditional military and political alliances, is a model for interactions between major powers and neighboring countries alike. It possesses strong internal momentum and enduring strategic resilience, and has become a key stabilizing factor amid global uncertainty.

Under the strategic guidance of the two heads of state, China-Russia relations have reached a new starting point. China-Russia comprehensive strategic partnership of coordination is not about creating confrontation, but about opposing hegemony; not about exclusivity, but about upholding multilateralism; not about zero-sum rivalry, but about promoting common security and shared development. The China-Russia relationship that has entered a new stage of "greater achievements and faster development" aligns with the global trend toward peace, development, cooperation, and mutual benefit. It benefits both countries and the world.

China and Russia are good neighbors and friends who stand together through adversity; and valuable partners that help each other succeed. Standing at a new historical starting point, China-Russia relations will continue to maintain strategic resolve amid changing global circumstances, unleash potential through mutually beneficial cooperation, and demonstrate responsibility amid international transformation. As the two countries move together toward a future of higher-quality development, they will inject strong momentum into each other's growth and national rejuvenation. China-Russia close strategic coordination on the international stage will also continue to serve as an important stabilizing force in a turbulent world, making irreplaceable contributions as major countries to safeguarding international fairness and justice and to building a more just and reasonable global governance system.

US Official: US-Israeli Bombing Campaign Has Left a More Hardened and Resilient Iran

by Dave DeCamp | May 19, 2026

https://news.antiwar.com/2026/05/19/us-official-us-israeli-bombing-campaign-has-left-a-more-hardened-and-resilient-iran/

The New York Times reported on Monday that the five-week US-Israeli bombing campaign against Iran “has left a more hardened, resilient adversary” as the Iranian military is preparing to face renewed airstrikes.

The report, which cited an unnamed US military official, said that Iran has used the ceasefire to “dig out scores of bombed ballistic missile sites, move mobile missile launchers, and, despite significant losses, adjust its tactics for any resumption of strikes.”

The Times previously reported that the US intelligence assessments have found that Iran still has about 70% of its pre-war missile inventory and fields 70% of its missile launchers, a starkly different picture than what the Trump administration has claimed publicly.

The US military official speaking to the Times this week said that the US-Israeli bombing campaign instilled a belief in Iran that the country can resist more attacks by keeping the Strait of Hormuz closed, striking energy infrastructure across Gulf Arab states, and shooting down US aircraft.

The report came after President Trump said that he would “hold off” on plans to attack the Islamic Republic due to requests from Gulf Arab states to give diplomacy more of a chance. But the president threatened that US-Israeli attacks could resume at any moment, stating that he instructed the US military to “go forward with a full, large scale assault of Iran, on a moment’s notice, in the event that an acceptable Deal is not reached.”

The Times report said that some US officials were concerned that Trump’s announcement that he was holding off on attacking Iran could be a “form of misdirection and that he could still move ahead with strikes,” since he launched the war in February while another round of negotiations with Iran was scheduled. The June 2025 war also began right after Trump declared on Truth Social that he was committed to a diplomatic solution with Iran, a post that came as Israeli warplanes were getting in the air to bomb Iran.

Trump appears poised to restart the Iran war

Tehran believes fresh attacks will come over next two days. Feeling emboldened, leaders there are ready with new targets for retaliation.

Trita Parsi

May 18, 2026

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/iran-trump-restart-war/?mc_cid=48ba3b9970&mc_eid=944feb3e1c

The Middle East is once again teetering on the brink as Trump appears poised to reignite war with Iran. Press reports indicate he will convene military advisers on Tuesday, though my understanding is that both the meeting and the decision are likely to come sooner. Over the past several hours, Trump has flooded Truth Social with a barrage of incendiary threats. While some of this may be theatrical brinkmanship designed to force Tehran into submission, sources in the Iranian capital tell me they expect the United States to resume hostilities within the next 48 hours.

We should first recognize that restarting the war amounts to an admission that Trump’s previous escalatory gambit — the blockade of the blockade — has failed. That, in turn, was itself an admission that the war had failed. Which was an admission that the threats of war in January had failed. As I have argued before on my Substack, this relentless search for an escalatory silver bullet capable of bringing Iran to its knees is not unique to Trump; it has become a defining pathology of American Iran policy for decades.

Although negotiators have made meaningful progress on several fronts, talks have thus far failed to produce an agreement, largely because of irreconcilable differences over Tehran’s highly enriched uranium stockpile. And as Washington has come to realize that the blockade is backfiring, a new and dangerous dynamic has emerged: both sides now believe another round of fighting will strengthen their hand in the negotiations that follow.

As I argued in numerous interviews in January, Trump dramatically underestimated Iran’s strength, while hard-liners in Tehran believed war would strengthen Iran’s leverage by exposing the illusion of Iranian weakness. In their view, the outcome of the conflict vindicated that assessment, leaving them increasingly confident — even emboldened — about what a second round of war could yield. I am told the new Supreme Leader belongs to this camp.

Moreover, just as Tehran believes Trump intends to prosecute the next war with far greater ferocity, Iranian planners are preparing a far more expansive and punishing retaliatory campaign, complete with new strategic objectives and targets.

First, Iranian officials increasingly describe the next war as an opportunity to inflict maximum strategic damage on the United Arab Emirates, citing Abu Dhabi’s active role in the previous conflict, its deepening and increasingly overt partnership with Israel, and its role in urging Trump to resume hostilities.

Tehran is likely to target American data centers in the UAE, a move that serves multiple purposes. Iranian officials argue that these American technology firms have already become participants in the conflict through their support for the Pentagon. At the same time, Tehran sees an opportunity to cripple the UAE’s ambitions to become a global artificial intelligence hub — and, in doing so, potentially undermine Washington’s AI competition with China.

This points to a second defining feature of Iran’s strategy in a future war. Tehran believes Trump and his family hold financial stakes in many of these same technology ventures. Targeting Trump’s personal business interests is a lever Iran conspicuously avoided pulling during the first conflict but now appears increasingly willing to use. The logic is straightforward: Trump may tolerate damage to American strategic interests, but he is acutely sensitive to threats against his own financial empire. Raise the personal cost to Trump himself, the reasoning goes, and he may prove more willing to adopt a realistic negotiating position.

Third, Tehran is likely to show far less restraint if evidence emerges that other Gulf Cooperation Council states permit the United States or Israel to use their territory or airspace in a renewed conflict. The result would be broader and far more perilous horizontal escalation, with potentially catastrophic consequences for the global economy should critical energy infrastructure come under attack.

Fourth, the Red Sea is now in play. That would dramatically widen the geographic scope of the conflict while placing even greater upward pressure on already volatile oil prices.

Finally, Tehran is increasingly examining the possibility of severing the major submarine fiber-optic cable networks running beneath the Persian Gulf — arteries through which most GCC internet traffic flows, including billions of dollars in financial transactions. Iranian officials increasingly view this as a potential second Strait of Hormuz: a powerful new point of leverage capable of disrupting the global economy at enormous scale.

Renewed war is not inevitable. But when both sides convince themselves that another round of fighting will strengthen their negotiating position, the gravitational pull toward conflict becomes dangerously strong — however irrational the logic may ultimately be.