France and UK's recognition ploy on Palestine is too little, too late

Marco Carnelos

21 August 2025

Long-overdue pledges to recognise a Palestinian state are a diversion from the real issue: the urgent need to stop arming Israel

https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/france-uk-recognition-gambit-over-palestine-too-little-too-late

In recent weeks, the depressing European political discourse on Gaza - and more generally, on the right of Palestinians to self-determination - has cast a few rays of light onto a dismal situation.

France, followed by the UK and Canada, formally announced its intentions to fully recognise a Palestinian state next month. 

The first two countries share the biggest historical responsibility for the mayhem endured by the Middle East and its people after the tragic decisions they took a century ago: from the 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement, to the 1917 Balfour Declaration, to the 1919 Treaty of Versailles and its fallout.

If legal rights had real value, and had the countries of the region been braver and savvier, these two top colonial powers would have been buried under a long overdue class-action lawsuit worth billions of dollars for the immense damage they have inflicted on the Middle East.

It is a tragic law of history that the most culpable often escape the punishment they well deserve. 

In the meantime, if France and Britain follow through on their vow to recognise Palestine when the UN General Assembly meets next month, it is difficult to say whether this long-delayed act of justice would improve their respective political standings.

French President Emmanuel Macron, whose approval ratings are low and who has little to show for his historical legacy, might be hoping to boost his popularity among the country’s large and vocal Muslim minority. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer is also dealing with plummeting support for the Labour Party - so much so that roughly 18 percent of Britons would consider voting for a new party led by former leader Jeremy Corbyn.

Disastrously packaged gesture

In addition, rather than justifying his overdue decision as what it is - a century-late act of justice - Starmer presented it as a lever to deploy if Israel fails to bring an end to the atrocities it has been carrying out in Gaza. Legal experts are unanimous that this is a genocide. 

If his clumsy intent was to make everyone happy, Starmer may find it has the opposite effect. Powerful pro-Israel lobbying groups in the UK will not forgive him, while the growing pro-Palestinian movement will see it for what it is: a disastrously packaged gesture.

Israel and the US have reacted with fury to these developments, wrongly suggesting that the recognition of a Palestinian state would “reward terror”, while setting back the “peace process”. And yet, three decades after the Oslo Accords, ostensibly designed to bring about that goal, it appears further away than ever, as Israel moves to annex more and more of the land that was supposed to form a Palestinian state.

Israel’s far-right finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, has said as much. He responded to the recent flurry of recognition announcements by telling the BBC: “It’s not going to happen. There will be no state to recognise.”

Indeed, the US and Israel do not consider the recognition of a Palestinian state to be a long-overdue act of justice that fulfills the Palestinian people’s inalienable right to self-determination. Rather, it is nothing more than a bargaining chip - and Israel must always have the last word. 

Only when Israel is satisfied with the conditions attached to the creation of a Palestinian state would this ever be allowed to happen - which, in the current political climate, likely means never. 

Until a few months ago, this twisted logic was shared by major European powers - but as images of starving children in Gaza became impossible to ignore, some have finally started to shift their approach.

The real test, however, will not be whether these promises to recognise Palestine are ultimately fulfilled. Rather, it will be in what European democracies are ready to do to stop the ongoing massacre in Gaza, alongside the accelerating annexation, dispossession and deadly settler provocations in the occupied West Bank. 

Beyond shedding crocodile tears, are they willing to halt all military assistance to Israel and adopt sanctions against it, with the same zeal displayed against Russia - and following the example of smaller states like Ireland and Slovenia?

Just this week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu levelled harsh new accusations against France over its decision to recognise Palestine, saying the move fuelled antisemitism (and finally getting the scorn he deserved from Paris in response). At the same time, Hamas has formally accepted the latest Gaza ceasefire proposal presented by mediators Egypt and Qatar.

While these might seem to be encouraging signals, neither will end the ordeal facing Palestinians - especially as the US and Israel continue to dig in their heels, with President Donald Trump on Tuesday asserting that both he and Netanyahu were “war heroes”.

This bizarre inversion of reality does not bode well for the future of Gaza.

Washington's nightmare: Modi and Xi break the ice

A potential India–China border breakthrough could mark a turning point in Asia, easing decades of hostility while undermining Washington’s grip on New Delhi.

MK Bhadrakumar

AUG 22, 2025

https://thecradle.co/articles/washingtons-nightmare-modi-and-xi-break-the-ice

This week, India and China have taken a great leap of faith in their mutual efforts to incrementally advance the normalization process in their bilateral relationship. This may assume the nature of a rapprochement when Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi meets Chinese President Xi Jinping on the sidelines of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation [SCO] summit in the port city of Tianjin in northeast China on 31 August–1 September.

The Sino-Indian rapprochement will be a historic event in world politics. It holds the potential to be a key template in the emerging world order in the 21st Century. From the Indian perspective, what is unfolding promises to be the finest legacy of Modi in a tumultuous political career as his 75th birthday approaches next month.

Wang Yi’s Landmark Visit to New Delhi

No doubt, the two-day visit to New Delhi this week by Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, who is also a member of the Political Bureau of the Communist Party of China (CPC) Central Committee and director of the Office of the Central Commission for Foreign Affairs, will go down as a watershed event. It is a game-changer because Wang, arguably one of the world’s most seasoned diplomats, has turned boundary talks into a mission to harness recent positive momentum and inject a new dynamic into the normalization process.

Wang forcefully argued that China and India are obligated “to demonstrate a sense of global responsibility, act as major powers, set an example for developing countries in pursuit of strength through unity, and contribute to promoting world multi-polarization and democratization of international relations.” Xinhua news agency characterised Wang’s remarks as the “consensus” opinion between him and India’s External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar.

Wang and Jaishankar noted that a critical mass is accruing in the relationship. The Chinese foreign minister said Beijing–New Delhi relations are “showing a positive trend toward returning to cooperation.” Jaishankar concurred that bilateral relations “are continuously improving and developing” and “exchanges and cooperation between the two sides in all fields are moving toward normalization.”

Interestingly, Jaishankar called for India and China to “jointly maintain the stability of the world economy” and stressed that “stable, cooperative, and forward-looking bilateral ties serve the interests of both countries.” The Indian external affairs minister proposed that New Delhi is willing “to deepen political mutual trust with China, strengthen mutually beneficial cooperation in economic and trade fields, enhance people-to-people exchanges, and jointly maintain peace and tranquility in border areas.” He later said in a social media post, “Confident that our discussions today [18 August] would contribute to building a stable, cooperative and forward-looking relationship between India and China.”

Wang’s visit yielded some breakthroughs, too. Principally, the two countries agreed to resume direct flights; facilitate trade and investment flow; cooperate on trans-border rivers; reopen border trade via the Himalayan passes; facilitate visas to tourists, businesses, media, and other visitors in both directions; and expand the visits of Indian pilgrims to the holy places of Kailash-Manasarovar. China is reportedly lifting the ban on rare earth and fertilizer exports to India, as well as heavy equipment for making tunnels in mountainous areas.

Border settlement: Modi’s defining challenge
The most sensational development is that the two countries are exploring an “early harvest” in delimitation of boundaries and have agreed on new mechanisms on border management, which will also work towards de-escalation. This is a highly sensitive issue, as Indian public opinion is shaped by self-serving narratives that emerged after the 1962 war and by the idea of establishing a border that never historically existed.

This is where Modi’s leadership becomes crucial. Modi is probably one of the only leaders today who has the credibility, decisiveness, and vision to navigate a border settlement with China. He has prioritized the normalization of relations with China and is conscious that a truly stable relationship is critically dependent on predictability and stability, which makes it imperative that a border settlement is reached. Modi, during a meeting with Wang on 19 August, emphasized the importance of maintaining peace and tranquility on the border, and also reiterated India's commitment to a “fair, reasonable, and mutually acceptable” resolution of the boundary issue.

Traditionally, India attributed primacy to its post-Cold War relationship with the US as a hedge against China, which, unsurprisingly, spawned absurd notions that Washington regarded New Delhi as a “counterweight” to Beijing. Suffice to say, the administration of US President Donald Trump's erratic foreign policies and, specifically, its unfriendly moves recently to curb India’s strategic autonomy came as a wake-up call.

On the other hand, India’s actions have also been partly driven by domestic economic pressures. The point is, India seeks to lift some restrictions imposed on China in recent years, welcome Chinese investment, and increase people-to-people exchanges to boost its economic confidence. Equally, facing US pressure such as high tariffs, India aims to diversify economic and trade ties with countries, including China, which may help to reduce some of the external pressure from the US.

Shared interests in a multipolar world
Wang has signaled that Beijing is as eager as New Delhi to improve the relationship against the backdrop of an increasingly reckless and belligerent Trump administration. Both sides sense that they have common interests. Inevitably, a China–India working relationship anchored on a strategic understanding will do wonders for BRICS. This prospect is already worrying Trump, who has threatened BRICS more than once for allegedly working to dethrone the dollar as the world's currency.

It is still early to tell, but if the positive trends in Sino-Indian relations gain traction and become a driving force in international politics, it can galvanise the dormant Russia–India–China [RIC] process, which Moscow has been promoting since the idea was first mooted in the late 1990s by the great Russian visionary-statesman late Yevgeny Primakov. Indeed, the correlation of forces internationally has shifted over the past three decades more or less in the directions that Primakov had envisioned with great foresight.

The roadblocks ahead
On the flip side, though, there is a strong pro-American lobby in India with influence over the media, think tanks, academia, and even the Indian establishment and elite community that root for the ties with the US as a defining partnership of the 21^st century. All sorts of vested interests are in play. Besides, there are phobias regarding China’s intentions, which will take time to wither away. Commensurate with its rise as a global power, China has a growing presence in the regions surrounding India, which is understandable; however, India tends to view it through the security prism – which only adds to threat perceptions. Then there is the complicated Dalai Lama succession issue, where the signs are that New Delhi treads softly to avoid offending Chinese sensitivities.

Typically, an ex-foreign secretary regretted just this week, amidst all the humiliations heaped on India by Trump, that the US has “lost” India. For a country with a century and more of humiliation in its history as a colony, a slavish mentality may seem strange, but the comprador class is a veritable Indian reality. Make no mistake, the Trump administration’s frustration with India is geopolitical. None other than the famous White House counsellor for trade and manufacturing and Trump’s close aide, Peter Navarro, blurted out in a Financial Times (FT) op-ed this week that the US should not transfer “cutting-edge” military technology to an India which is “cozying up to both Russia and China.”

However, a paradigm shift may ensue if Trump indeed proceeds to sanction India, which cannot be ruled out, forcing a profound Indian rethink on its doctrine of strategic autonomy, which had been predicated on the notion that all countries were equal but America was more equal than others.

RUSSIA AND CHINA AT A CRITICAL MOMENT IN THEIR GLOBAL COMPETITION WITH THE UNITED STATES

The arrival of Donald Trump, for his second term as president of the United States, has redefined the global competition between Russia-China and the United States.

On the one hand, Trump did not buy into the entire narrative and policies that the Washington establishment, dominated by neoconservatives and hawks, had pushed during the Biden administration, such as diplomatically isolating Russia, crippling its economy with sanctions, and maintaining military support for Ukraine, all in order to wear down Russia, with the goal of getting it to request an armistice under conditions of weakness; or better yet, to bring about regime change internally.

Trump and his inner circle believed that continuing with this strategy would require a huge amount of economic and military resources to be directed toward the Ukrainian conflict. His priorities of strengthening the U.S. economy, reducing his international commitments, and his very personal ambition to win the Nobel Peace Prize would be thwarted if he continued along the path followed by the Biden administration.

Therefore, Trump has opened an opportunity for Russia to find a solution to the conflict, which would entail painful concessions on the part of Ukraine, but in which Russia would also have to concede important points that it has refused to accept throughout the conflict.

Thus, Trump is willing to force Ukraine—and the greatly weakened European countries that make up NATO and support Ukraine—to accept the loss of the Donbas, the Crimean Peninsula, and parts of Zaporizhzhia and Kherson; the veto on Ukraine's NATO membership; and eventually, the lifting of the economic sanctions that the West and many other countries have imposed on Russia.

But Russia would also have to give something in return, such as accepting security guarantees for Ukraine, including the presence of troops from some NATO countries on its territory, and even aerial surveillance by the United States.

The Putin government does not want to accept the stationing of NATO troops in Ukraine, as this would imply a kind of commitment under Article 5 of the NATO Treaty, which specifies that all member countries must intervene in the defense of any of their member states in the event of an attack against them. This would effectively nullify the guarantee being given to Russia that Ukraine will not be part of NATO.

Obviously, there will have to be observers and military personnel from certain countries, accepted by Russia and Ukraine, on the ground to verify a ceasefire first; that the established lines of contact, which could later become border lines, are respected; and that the conditions imposed to normalize the situation between the two countries are met.

Putin must decide soon whether to agree to initiate a possible peace agreement based on these initial proposals, or else Trump, who feels that his age (79) and the international conditions themselves could soon catch up with him (and is desperate to reach an agreement that, according to him, would secure him the Nobel Peace Prize), could close this window of opportunity.

This would allow Washington's "hawks" to convince him to return to the previous scheme (Biden's), which would once again corner Putin into a situation where he has yet to defeat Ukraine; internally, the Russian population and the country's economy are already severely worn down by the war effort; and the international community demands a solution to the conflict as soon as possible.

As for China, the economic war that Trump has intensified (remember that he had already begun it with the application of tariffs during his first term, and Biden continued it) poses a major challenge to the world's second-largest economy. First, Beijing has already understood that the US market and US investments are no longer a reliable source of prosperity and growth for China, as they have been for the past 25 years.

The Europeans, increasingly subservient to Washington's directives, have reluctantly joined the strategy of economic confrontation with China, forcing Xi Jinping to recalibrate how the Asian giant will maintain its position as a leading and constantly growing economy.

Thus, China must now not only focus its efforts on increasing its domestic consumption, but also on maintaining and expanding its markets in the Global South, before the West can close those areas to Chinese products and investments.

Chinese leaders believed they could maintain a constructive relationship with the West, without entering direct confrontation with Washington and the Europeans, while the Chinese economy strengthened and became on par with the United States and the European Union. Neither the Americans nor the Europeans are willing to be the steppingstones to China's triumph and hegemony in the world, and they have decided to stop it by any means necessary.

Therefore, China can no longer delude itself into thinking that, with a few concessions, patience, and a lot of negotiation, it will "convince" the West that it can return to the status quo ante. That's not going to happen, so Beijing must define where and with which countries will pursue its strategy of economic growth, technological innovation, and military buildup, because it is clear that the West will do everything possible to stop it.

US lawmaker exposes Israeli lobby’s ‘incredible influence and control’ on Congress

‘Israel is the only country I know of that has some sort of incredible influence and control over nearly every single one of my colleagues,’ says Marjorie Taylor Greene

Rabia Iclal Turan  |20.08.2025 

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/americas/us-lawmaker-exposes-israeli-lobby-s-incredible-influence-and-control-on-congress/3664945

WASHINGTON

US congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene accused Israel of having “incredible influence and control” on nearly all members of Congress, exposing pro-Israel lobby trips for American lawmakers to visit Israel.

In an interview on The Megyn Kelly Show on Tuesday, Greene said no other country enjoys the level of political leverage in the US as Israel.

“Israel is the only country I know of that has some sort of incredible influence and control over nearly every single one of my colleagues,” she said.

Her comments came as Kelly described receiving repeated invitations and pressure to travel to Israel. “I have had multiple, multiple reach outs to me, both from friends and from connected people in DC, begging me to go to Israel with them. And I have said no every time,” Kelly said, adding that the outreach had intensified in recent months in light of her criticism of Israel’s war on the Gaza Strip.

Greene argued that activities by the pro-Israel American lobby, the Israel Political Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, amount to foreign lobbying without accountability.

“AIPAC argues, oh, but we're Americans. Yes, they are Americans, but they are coming to Congress and to the federal government asking on behalf of the country of Israel,” she said.

Unlike other foreign-linked groups, she noted that AIPAC is not required to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA).

The lawmaker from the state of Georgia also highlighted congressional trips to Israel, calling them a deliberate strategy to cultivate loyalty among new legislators.

She added that AIPAC “takes every single … freshman member of Congress their first year” on “a very special trip to Israel in August,” which is Congress’ recess and month-long district work period. She stressed that she refused to participate.

“I don't know what they do there, but they take them on tours, like the pictures we've seen recently of the (House) Speaker (Mike Johnson) and other members (of) Congress at the Wailing Wall … They wear the kippah … They're not Jewish, but yet they're adorning Jewish attire, and they're at these Jewish religious sites,” Greene said.

Greene last month attempted to strip $500 million in US funding for Israel’s Iron Dome defense system, criticizing the bombing of Gaza’s only Catholic church and the “wiping out” of the civilian population. Her effort failed in a 422-6 vote in the House of Representatives.

She became the first Republican lawmaker to publicly describe the situation in Gaza as a “genocide,” while simultaneously condemning Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, attacks and Israel’s military campaign.

During her interview with Kelly, Greene questioned the $3.8 billion in annual US military aid to Israel.

While insisting she is not anti-Israel, Greene said her stance is about protecting US interests.

“I’ve turned radically and unapologetically for America, just flat out for America,” she said. “I'm sorry. We don't have time to fund what you're doing.”

Military Preparing Attacks on Mexican Cartels

Secret orders target cartels as the new terrorists

Ken Klippenstein

Aug 20, 2025

https://www.kenklippenstein.com/p/military-preparing-attacks-on-mexican

The Trump administration has directed the military to prepare for lethal strikes against cartel targets inside Mexico, three military sources tell us. The Top Secret planning order, issued in late Spring, directs Northern Command (NORTHCOM) to manage the attack plans, which are to be ready by mid-September.

Though U.S.-Mexico military relations are broad and cooperative, any military action south of the border is considered extremely sensitive for both Washington and the Mexican federal government and is rarely discussed in public.

“Not only is Donald Trump uniquely focused on TCOs [transnational criminal organizations, the official name for cartels], having designated them terrorists in one of his first Executive Orders, but he has shown himself to be willing to take unilateral action despite potentially negative political ramifications,” says one senior intelligence official. He and the other sources say that military action could be unilateral — that is, without the involvement or approval of the Mexican government.

The unprecedented order was discussed at a July meeting at NORTHCOM headquarters in Colorado Springs that was led by Colby Jenkins, the unconfirmed Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict. Within days, Gen. Gregory M. Guillot, commander of NORTHCOM, hosted the two highest ranking Mexican military officials: Gen. Ricardo Trevilla Trejo, Secretary of National Defense, and Adm. Raymundo Pedro Morales Ángeles, Secretary of the Navy.

"Today, more than ever, the challenges we face demand a joint, coordinated, and adapted response," Morales said after the Colorado visit, trying to impress upon Pentagon and military leaders that any potential operation be conducted by the two nations together.

To address the extreme political sensitivities and to honor Mexico's sovereignty, operations inside Mexico have previously been conducted by the CIA and the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), the clandestine arm of the U.S. military that has been involved in targeted killings in the Middle East. The New York Times has reported that the CIA has increased reconnaissance operations over Mexico with its own drones, another indicator of increased preparations for operations.

“NORTHCOM was previously sidelined in any Mexico planning, the conventional special operations components mostly involved in joint training with their Mexican counterparts and non-lethal missions such as at-sea interdictions of shipments, but now it is being tasked to be the hemispheric synchronizer, of a far larger magnitude” says the senior intelligence official. One reason is that prospective attacks also have to coordinate with the intelligence community at large, the FBI, and various homeland security agencies (such as Border Patrol and ICE) who all now are focused on Mexico (and are conducting their own operations inside Mexico).

NORTHCOM is already involved in Mexico in a host of ways, including in combating the cartels. Gen. Guillot alluded to this in recent testimony to Congress, where he said that his cooperation with Mexico is already closer than at any point in history.

“It is already apparent the military-to-military relationship between the United States and Mexico is robust and expanding as both nations address the challenges posed by common threats to our citizens and shared interests. The bonds between USNORTHCOM and our Mexican military partners are broad, resilient, and focused on expanding our combined capability to defend and secure North America from myriad state and non-state threats. Countering competitor influence in the region remains a key priority for USNORTHCOM and our Mexican military partners, and as a direct result, the U.S. and Mexican militaries are more operationally compatible than at any point in our shared history.”

That’s the overt side: countering Chinese influence and investments in Mexico, thwarting Russian influence (and operations); and stemming the flow of drugs, precursor chemicals and even weapons of mass destruction components through Mexico.

Now, NORTHCOM has tasked its subordinate Special Operations Command (called SOCNORTH) to undertake “operational preparation of the battlespace” inside Mexico to set the stage for future military operations, and to prepare cartel-related “target packages” for potential strikes and “direct action” attacks on the ground against high-value individuals, compounds, and supply chain targets associated in particular with the Sinaloa Cartel and the Jalisco New Generation Cartel. Direct attacks could also involve air and drone strikes.

“Direct action” is a term special operations forces use to describe small-scale offensive operations carried out by Army Green Berets, Navy SEALs, or Marine Corps raiders. Think of the airstrikes on Iran this summer as a kind of direct action, against a discrete target with a “strategic” or national purpose.

There is one major difference when it comes to Mexico: the political sensitivities involved. Unlike Iran, Mexico is a rich country which, of course, borders the U.S. and cooperates with it in countless ways. Independence from America is a major issue domestically, not to mention the large Mexican-American population.

In congressional testimony by Gen. Guillot, he has also addressed increased NORTHCOM intelligence collection.

GUILLOT: Recently we've been permitted to increase our ISR [Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance], our intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance to —

SEN. ROGER WICKER: Permitted by Mexico?

GUILLOT: No, by the department, sir. But we do have intelligence sharing with Mexico to show them what we see. And we have increased cooperation with Mexico to go address the cartel violence in terms of sending more troops.

It is by no means clear that Mexico City would ever approve any type of U.S. military action inside the country. In 2023, former Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador took the controversial step to ask the Mexican legislature to approve increased operations (which was described as “training”) by the Army 7th Special Forces Group. Those operations commenced in February, when a small group arrived in Mexico to train their counterparts.

Jenkins, the Acting Assistant Secretary told Congress after the brief deployment that “SOCNORTH’s training of our capable Mexican SOF [Special Operations Forces] partners are critical to … denying cartels or other criminal organizations their desired end states.”

When Trump declared the cartels’ trafficking of drugs and people into America an “invasion,” he wasn’t joking. Far from a rhetorical flourish, it’s by now clear that the language he’s using has created the basis for the military to prepare to respond to cartels in a similar way that it did with terrorists after 9/11. 

“We have to start treating them as armed terrorist organizations, not simply drug dealing organizations,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio said of the cartels in a recent interview.

Trump, military sources also tell me, is focused on results, willing to ignore law, rules, and even policy recommendations in his zeal to have “progress” towards his goals with regard to national security. For the White House, the fentanyl crisis in America is one of the key measures of the success of the new war on the cartels.

Fentanyl’s death toll represents a crisis, having claimed the lives of over 225,000 Americans.

In a tense exchange, Chairman of the Armed Services Committee Sen. Roger Wicker pressed Gen. Guillot on what progress his command was making on fentanyl, stressing its death toll. Guillot replies, “I wouldn’t say it’s better.”

WICKER:  So, because time is limited, we had 225,000 in a three year space. Are we making any progress? Now it's 2025. Has it gotten better?

GUILLOT: No, I, I wouldn't say it's better, but I do think, Chairman, that we have a better foundation now that we've increased the intelligence to, to make a rapid progress against this threat.

WICKER: It definitely needs to get better.  And so tell us what you need and, uh, thank you for your efforts.  You got eight seconds. 

GUILLOT:  More, uh, more ISR [Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance] is the first. And then, uh, expanded authorities would be required to, uh, um, more advise and assist types of operations between our forces and the tier one Mexican forces.

(“Tier one” being another term for the clandestine special operations forces, Guillot is here referring to Mexico’s equivalent to Delta Force and SEAL Team 6 under the JSOC, called Fuerza Especial de Reacción.)

The intelligence community’s annual threat assessment released in March put an unprecedented emphasis on cartels, casting them as “the most immediate and direct threat to America’s security.”

“Western Hemisphere-based TCOs [transnational criminal organizations] and terrorists involved in illicit drug production and trafficking bound for the United States endanger the health and safety of millions of Americans and contribute to regional instability,” the assessment reads. The document specifically mentions several cartels based in Mexico, including Sinaloa and New Generation Jalisco. 

Gen. Guillot is even more explicit, saying in February that Mexican cartels “threaten U.S. sovereignty.”

 “Transnational criminal organizations based in Mexico continue to threaten US sovereignty and territorial integrity through the production and trafficking of fentanyl and other illicit drugs, and the facilitation of unlawful mass migration towards the US southern border.”

Asked in January if he would deploy special forces into Mexico to take out cartels, President Trump replied, “Could happen.” Now, with the order to prepare target packages inside Mexico, a far more likely and ominous possibility looms. Not an invasion, not the “deployment” of U.S. special operators, not boots on the ground, but the kinds of strikes that the U.S. military has become expert at in the Middle East and South Asia.

Israeli Military to Call Up 60,000 Reservists as It Prepares for Gaza City Ethnic Cleansing Campaign

Under the plan, the IDF will forcibly evacuate over 1 million civilians from the city, then spend over a year destroying it

by Dave DeCamp | August 19, 2025

https://news.antiwar.com/2025/08/19/israeli-military-to-call-up-60000-reservists-as-it-prepares-for-gaza-city-ethnic-cleansing-campaign/

About 60,000 Israeli reservists will receive call-up orders that the Israeli military will issue tomorrow as it’s preparing for a major offensive on Gaza City, The Times of Israel reported on Tuesday.

The report said that reservists will have two weeks before they need to report for duty and that not all of them will take part in the offensive on Gaza City since some will replace IDF troops deployed in other areas of Gaza.

The Israeli military’s plans to take over Gaza City involve the ethnic cleansing of over 1 million Palestinian civilians from the area. Since civilians are expected to remain in the city after evacuation orders, the IDF is prepared to use artillery strikes as its means of forcibly moving them, according to Haaretz.

While the IDF hasn’t yet launched its ground offensive, it has ramped up strikes on Gaza City in recent weeks with a focus on the eastern Zeitoun neighborhood. Thousands of Palestinians have already fled the area, and an investigation from Al Jazeera found that many of the Israeli attacks were hitting displacement shelters.

Once the city is taken over, the IDF plans to spend more than a year destroying it, similar to how it made the northern cities of Beit Hanoun, Beit Lahia, and Jabalia uninhabitable. The IDF will demolish homes in Gaza City under the guise of “dismantling Hamas infrastructure,” but Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has previously told a Knesset committee that the IDF’s destruction of homes would force Palestinians to leave Gaza altogether.

The idea of the Gaza City offensive is to force all the Palestinians to the south, and from there, Israel will pressure them to leave Gaza, but it remains unclear where they could go. Israel has reportedly been in talks with several countries on taking in a large number of Palestinian refugees, but so far, none have publicly committed to the idea.

The Ukraine crisis has taught Europe a lesson in realpolitik: Global Times editorial

By Global Times Published: Aug 19, 2025

https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202508/1341167.shtml

After the US-Russia summit in Alaska, several European leaders formed a delegation to "accompany" Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to the US for a meeting with US President Donald Trump on Monday. The group included European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, French President Emmanuel Macron, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, and Finnish President Alexander Stubb. The presence of such a high-level delegation underscores the importance European leaders place on participating in discussions regarding the resolution of the Ukraine crisis. The Qatar-based Al Jazeera commented that "strength" in numbers seemed to be one of the reasons behind this collective visit, as the EU and Ukraine are attempting to "show a united front." Macron further stated, Europe should be represented at the next summit talks on Ukraine between Russia, the US, and Ukraine.

Europe's anxiety is not hard to understand. The Ukraine crisis has been escalating for over three years, and resolving it is not something that can be achieved overnight. All parties are aware that finding a clear direction or path to solve the Ukraine crisis is not easy under the current circumstances. Following the US-Russia summit, European leaders issued a joint statement, which not only failed to touch upon the Trump-proposed peace agreement but instead threatened further sanctions against Russia, highlighting the differences between Europe and the US and reflecting the complexity of resolving the Ukraine crisis. The European continent still has a long way to go before achieving lasting peace and stability.

Looking back at the evolution of the Ukraine crisis, some Europeans' dependence on the US for security and its strategic subordination to the US, coupled with blind faith in the Transatlantic Partnership, have been significant factors contributing to the escalating crisis. Led by the US, NATO has always been "America-centric" since its founding and continues to be infused with Cold War thinking, playing a dangerous role in instigating conflict and confrontation. Europe's security architecture is far from "secure." Many US scholars have pointed out that NATO's plan to open its doors to Ukraine is the root cause of the crisis. Over three years ago, the collapse of US-Russia strategic stability talks directly triggered the Ukraine crisis, serving as the final straw that broke the camel's back. Over the past three years, there have been opportunities to de-escalate, but the US has used the crisis to "control Europe and weaken Russia," continually stoking the flames, making a resolution seem distant. However, some European countries have failed to acknowledge this, blindly following the US-led NATO eastward expansion strategy, resulting in a prolonged confrontation with an unmovable neighbor across the Eurasian continent - leading to the current deadlock.

The Russia-Ukraine conflict has dragged on for three and a half years, and it is time for Europe to take stock. Europe has lost access to the Russian market and energy supplies; the risks of war have triggered "deindustrialization" and capital flight, while the refugee issue has fueled social tensions. Major economies such as Germany have even recorded negative economic growth for two consecutive years. By contrast, the US has become the EU's main energy supplier, and thus rising to the world's largest producer of liquefied natural gas. Through the Inflation Reduction Act, it has attracted European industries to relocate to the US, while its arms manufacturers have reaped enormous profits. In the process, Europe's security situation has become increasingly volatile, with greater dependence on the US, a shrinking discourse power, and the Ukraine crisis growing more complex and difficult to resolve. And it is not just the Ukraine crisis. On issues such as NATO members' defense spending and tariffs, Washington has never hesitated to show Europe its "tough love." Europe treads cautiously in dealing with the US, often swallowing grievances, but still cannot avoid being forced into repeated concessions. Many of these issues are not just about the distribution of interests between the US and Europe, but also concern the trajectory of globalization and a multipolar world. Macron has repeatedly stated publicly that the EU should not be US "vassal." An increasing number of European voices also argue that "strategic autonomy must be pursued." All this suggests that Europe's urgent task is not only to "recognize" the need to accelerate reshaping its security architecture, but also to "take up" the reins in determining its own destiny. This will test European leaders' strategic resolve and vision.

For Europe, the Ukraine crisis is a costly lesson in realpolitik, reflecting its dilemma over strategic autonomy. Only by accelerating its pursuit of strategic autonomy from the US can Europe gain strategic space and fully exercise initiative - the power of choice still lies in the hands of Europe's leaders. This war on European soil has already lasted far too long. Europe has every reason to play a more active role in pursuing peace, shoulder greater responsibility, address the root causes of the crisis, and find a balanced, effective, and sustainable security framework to achieve lasting stability and jointly build global peace. It is also an expectation shared by the international community.