Iran « nuclear-news

Trump’s War of Choice: Oman Reveals Iran Agreement Was Imminent

February 28, 2026, by Joshua Scheer, https://scheerpost.com/2026/02/28/trumps-war-of-choice-oman-reveals-iran-agreement-was-imminent/

Hours before U.S. bombs began falling on Iran, a quiet but extraordinary diplomatic revelation aired on American television.

On CBS’s Face the Nation, Omani Foreign Minister Badr Albusaidi—the chief mediator between Washington and Tehran—stated plainly that a nuclear agreement between the United States and Iran was “within our reach.”

It was not vague optimism. It was a detailed outline of concessions.

According to Albusaidi, Iran had agreed to something that went beyond the 2015 nuclear accord negotiated under Barack Obama—a deal later abandoned by Donald Trump. This time, Tehran had committed not merely to limits on enrichment, but to zero stockpiling of enriched nuclear material. No accumulation. No reserve. Full and comprehensive verification by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

“If you cannot stockpile material that is enriched,” Albusaidi explained, “then there is no way you can actually create a bomb.”

In other words: the central justification for war was being diplomatically neutralized.

And yet, within hours, Trump announced military strikes on Iran and signaled a campaign aimed not at containment, but regime change.

The Timing Speaks Volumes

Oman has long served as a discreet intermediary in U.S.–Iran diplomacy. It is known for caution, not grandstanding. For Albusaidi to go public—on a flagship American news program—was highly unusual.

According to Trita Parsi of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, the move was unprecedented. Oman’s message was clear: diplomacy had produced real progress. Trump could have declared victory.

Instead, he declared war.

If Albusaidi’s account is accurate, then the administration’s claim that Iran “rejected every opportunity” to curb nuclear ambitions collapses under scrutiny. What was preempted was not an imminent nuclear breakout—it was a diplomatic breakthrough.

War of Choice, Not Necessity

The United States Constitution vests the power to declare war in Congress. No such declaration has been issued. International law permits force only in response to an armed attack or with authorization from the United Nations Security Council. Neither condition appears to have been met.

This is not a defensive war. It is a war of choice.

And it is a deeply unpopular one. A recent survey found that only 21% of Americans support initiating an attack on Iran under current circumstances. The public understands something Washington elites often ignore: wars in the Middle East do not remain limited, surgical, or contained. They metastasize.

The echoes of 2003 are unmistakable.

Diplomacy Sabotaged

The tragedy is not only that bombs are falling. It is that negotiations were ongoing. Additional talks were scheduled for next week. The diplomatic channel was open.

By launching strikes at the moment mediation was yielding results, the administration has sent a stark message—not just to Iran, but to the world: agreements reached through dialogue can be nullified by executive fiat.

This damages more than a single negotiation. It undermines the credibility of American diplomacy itself.

If zero stockpiling under full IAEA verification was indeed on the table, then the choice before Washington was clear: accept an enforceable nonproliferation framework—or escalate toward regional war.

The administration chose escalation.

The Broader Implication

Regime-change wars have a long and destructive history in U.S. foreign policy. They rarely produce democracy. They often produce chaos, extremism, and prolonged suffering—for civilians first and foremost.

The question now is not simply whether this war is legal or justified. It is whether it was avoidable.

The Omani foreign minister’s televised appeal suggests that it was.

Peace, he said, was within reach.

And then the bombs began.

March 2, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Iran, secrets,lies and civil liberties, USA | 1 Comment

Trump Says ‘Heavy and Pinpoint Bombing’ of Iran Will Continue “As Long As Necessary”

February 28, 2026, Scheerpost Staff, https://scheerpost.com/2026/02/28/trump-says-heavy-and-pinpoint-bombing-of-iran-will-continue-as-long-as-necessary/

In rapidly escalating developments reported by Al Jazeera English, US President Donald Trump declared that US bombing operations inside Iran will continue “uninterrupted throughout the week or, as long as necessary.”

The comments came amid conflicting claims over the fate of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Israeli officials and Trump have alleged that Khamenei was killed in the joint US-Israeli assault, while Iranian authorities have strongly denied the claim, with semi-official media insisting he remains “steadfast” and directing operations.

According to Al Jazeera’s live coverage, Trump wrote on Truth Social that Iran had been “very much destroyed and even, obliterated” in a single day of strikes. He further called on Iran’s Revolutionary Guard (IRGC) and national police forces to join what he described as “Iranian patriots” seeking regime change, suggesting “that process should soon be starting.”

“The heavy and pinpoint bombing,” Trump added, “will continue… as long as necessary to achieve our objective of PEACE THROUGHOUT THE MIDDLE EAST AND, INDEED, THE WORLD!”

Regional Fallout

Al Jazeera reported missile strikes in Tel Aviv following Iranian retaliation, as well as debris falling across Jordan from intercepted projectiles. In the United Arab Emirates, officials confirmed an “incident” at Zayed International Airport resulting in one fatality and multiple injuries, while a drone interception reportedly caused a limited fire at the Burj Al Arab hotel in Dubai.

At the United Nations Security Council, Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned that the strikes by the US and Israel, along with Iran’s response, pose a “grave threat to international peace and security,” cautioning that military escalation risks igniting uncontrollable consequences in an already volatile region.

Iran’s UN ambassador, Amir-Saeid Iravani, said Tehran considers “all bases, facilities and assets” of US and Israeli forces in the region to be legitimate military targets under its right of self-defense. Meanwhile, Israel’s UN ambassador, Danny Danon, defended the joint operation as a necessary response to what he described as an existential threat.

Escalation and Uncertainty

Trump also told ABC News he has a “very good idea” of who should lead Iran if the current government falls — reinforcing suggestions that regime change may be an underlying objective of the operation.

The US military’s Central Command said there were no reported US casualties and that naval assets remain fully operational.

As Al Jazeera’s live blog continues to update, the situation remains fluid, with conflicting claims, mounting civilian impacts, and warnings from international officials that the widening conflict could destabilize the broader Middle East.

For live updates from Al Jazeera English here

March 2, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Iran, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

US and Israeli attack on Iran: At least 51 girls reported killed in strike on school

February 28, 2026 , by Joshua Scheer, https://scheerpost.com/2026/02/28/us-and-israeli-attack-on-iran-at-least-51-girls-reported-killed-in-strike-on-school/

In the latest escalation of the U.S.–Israel assault on Iran, at least 51 young girls were reportedly killed when an airstrike struck a primary school in the southern city of Minab. According to Iranian state media, the victims — between the ages of seven and twelve — were inside Shajareh Tayyebeh elementary school when the building was hit in broad daylight.

Footage circulating online appears to show civilians digging through the rubble as smoke rises over the surrounding neighborhood.

Washington says the strikes are aimed at “eliminating imminent threats.” Tehran calls it a massacre.

The truth — and the consequences — demand scrutiny.

Here is breakthrough news on the ground

In moments like this, journalism is not a matter of slogans — it is a matter of moral clarity.

If the reports from Minab are confirmed, the bombing of an elementary school filled with young girls is not a “strike on imminent threats.” It is the annihilation of children. It is the kind of act that shatters whatever remains of the language of precision warfare and exposes the brutality beneath it.

The United States and Israel insist they are acting defensively. Tehran calls it a massacre. The world is left with rubble, grieving families, and the now-familiar choreography of denial, justification and geopolitical spin.

But certain facts demand scrutiny regardless of allegiance: Why were negotiations underway if war was already being prepared? What intelligence justified striking a civilian school in broad daylight? Who will independently verify the casualty count? And most importantly — who will be held accountable if the worst fears are confirmed?

The pattern is not new. From the siege of Gaza to suffocating sanctions regimes, from covert operations to open bombardment, the language of “security” has too often masked policies that devastate civilian life. The human cost is absorbed by those with the least power: children in classrooms, families in apartment blocks, workers in cities far from decision-making centers.

We should resist both reflexive propaganda and reflexive dismissal. Iranian state media must be scrutinized. Pentagon briefings must be scrutinized. Viral footage must be verified. But skepticism cannot become moral paralysis. If dozens of schoolgirls have been killed, that reality outweighs every talking point.

Escalation with Iran is not a contained regional maneuver. It risks a wider war, global economic shock, environmental catastrophe, and a further erosion of international law. Once normalized, the bombing of civilian infrastructure becomes precedent.

The responsibility of independent media is not to amplify rage, but to insist on evidence, accountability, and humanity. If civilians are being killed in the name of “security,” the public deserves answers that go far beyond press releases.

The truth — and the consequences — demand scrutiny.

This tweet bears repeating again and again:

“Bombing Iran in the middle of negotiations, while starving Cuba, while genociding Palestinians, while threatening to invade Greenland… the U.S. and Israel are the single greatest threat to humanity — and it’s not even close. We are all forced to live in the nightmare they create.” https://x.com/jasonhickel

March 1, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Iran, Israel, weapons and war | Leave a comment

‘Bombs Will Be Dropping Everywhere’: Trump Launches Illegal Regime Change War Against Iran

February 28, 2026, By Jake Johnson for Common Dreams, https://scheerpost.com/2026/02/28/bombs-will-be-dropping-everywhere-trump-launches-illegal-regime-change-war-against-iran/

President Donald Trump announced in the early hours of Saturday morning that the US has launched a massive military operation aimed at toppling the Iranian government as blasts were reported in Tehran, including near the offices of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Israel, under the leadership of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, is taking part in the assault. Unnamed Israeli security sources told Channel 12 that Israel and the Trump administration are “going all in” against Iran as Trump instructed Iranians to “stay sheltered,” warning that “bombs will be dropping everywhere.” People were seen seeking cover in Tehran as the US and Israeli bombs began to fall.

The assault, dubbed “Operation Epic Fury” by the Pentagon, comes days after the US and Iran took part in talks in Geneva, which Trump’s envoys characterized as “positive.” In announcing military action on Saturday, Trump said falsely that the Iranian government has “rejected every opportunity to renounce their nuclear ambitions.”

The US and Israeli attacks—which both nations characterized as “preemptive”—are plainly illegal under international law, which prohibits the threat or use of force except in response to an armed attack. The Trump administration is also violating US law, which gives Congress the sole power to declare war.

“The term ‘preemptive’ is pure propaganda,” wrote Drop Site journalist Jeremy Scahill. “The US once again used the veneer of negotiations as a cover to bomb Iran. Tehran had just offered terms that went far beyond the 2015 nuclear deal. What was preempted was diplomacy. The same propaganda tactics used in the 2003 Iraq war.”

Trump, who ditched the 2015 nuclear deal during his first White House term, repeatedly made clear in his remarks Saturday that he does not intend the new assault on Iran to be limited in scope like his bombings of Iranian nuclear sites last year. In the weeks leading up to Saturday’s attack, the Trump administration carried out a massive military buildup in the Middle East even as the president publicly claimed he was open to a diplomatic resolution.

“We may have casualties,” the US president said of American troops. “That often happens in war. But we’re doing this not for now. We’re doing this for the future.”

Trump also urged the Iranian armed forces to surrender or “face certain death” as the US fired Tomahawk cruise missiles and other munitions at Iran.

The Iranian government’s immediate response to Saturday’s onslaught was a pledge of “crushing retaliation” and a wave of drone and missile attacks on Israel. The Associated Press reported that “hours after the strikes on Iran, explosions rocked northern Israel as the country worked to intercept incoming Iranian missiles.”

Iran’s foreign minister later informed his Iraqi counterpart that Iran would be targeting US military installations in the region in retaliation for Saturday’s attacks.

A spokesperson for the Iranian military declared that “we will teach Israel and America a lesson they have never experienced in their history.”

“Any base that helps America and Israel will be the target of the Iranian armed forces,” the official added.

March 1, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Iran, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Iran will not bow down to US pressure in nuclear talks, Pezeshkian says

Iranian president vows to stand firm as Trump threatens strikes and the US bolsters its military presence in the Gulf.

By Al Jazeera Staff and News Agencies, 22 Feb 2026

Iran’s ⁠President ⁠Masoud Pezeshkian has pledged not to fold to pressure from the United States after his American counterpart, Donald Trump, said he was considering limited strikes to force a deal on Tehran’s nuclear programme.

Pezeshkian’s comments on Saturday came amid high tensions in the Gulf, with the US continuing to grow its military presence with the deployment of two aircraft carriers and dozens of jets.

“We will not bow down in the face of any of these difficulties,” Pezeshkian said at a ceremony to honour members of the Iranian Paralympics team.

“World powers are lining up with cowardice to force us to bow our heads. Just as you did not bow down in the face of difficulties, we will not bow down in the face of these problems,” he said.

Iran and the US resumed indirect talks on Tehran’s nuclear programme in Oman earlier this month, and held a second round in Switzerland last week.

Although Washington and Tehran described the talks in overall positive terms, they failed to achieve a breakthrough.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on Friday that a diplomatic solution appeared within “our reach” and that his country was planning to finalise a draft deal in “the next two to three days” to send to Washington.

Crossroads

Al Jazeera’s Tohid Asadi, reporting from Tehran, said the two countries appear to be at a “crossroads once again” and that residents of the Iranian capital were watching closely for signs of diplomatic progress.

“How can anyone not worry about war?” one woman told Al Jazeera. “Even if we don’t worry about ourselves, we worry about our children’s future.”

A businessman said he believed military confrontation was eventually inevitable “because what the Americans want is surrender, and the Iranian state won’t accept that”………………………………………………………….

Trump issued new threats of military action in January following a deadly Iranian crackdown on antigovernment protesters. Tehran responded by threatening to strike US military bases in the region and warning that it could close the Strait of Hormuz, a vital waterway for oil exports for the Gulf Arab states.

Greatest air power since 2003

According to the US media, the airpower Washington is amassing in the region is the greatest since its invasion of Iraq in 2003. In the past few days, Washington has deployed more than 120 aircraft to the Middle East, while the world’s largest aircraft carrier, the USS Gerald R Ford, is on its way to join the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group already positioned in the Arabian Sea…………………………………………………………………. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/2/22/iran-will-not-bow-down-to-us-pressure-in-nuclear-talks-pezeshkian-says

February 25, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Iran, politics international | Leave a comment

Lies Of Omission As Fresh American War Crimes Loom

The US has been at war for 222 out of 239 years since 1776. The country is hardly going to stop now, especially not with the stars aligning for a project the US-Israel-Zionist axis has been desperate to undertake for nearly 50 years.

And despite the fact that a nation at almost constant war is going to attack a country that last initiated a war nearly 300 years ago, the US and Israel are going to pose as the saviours and pacifiers.

Do not panic, February 22, 2026 , Nate Bear

The US has amassed the largest military force in the Middle East since the invasion of Iraq almost 23 years ago and is poised once again to commit mass murder and gleefully perpetrate an astonishing amount of war crimes.

Yesterday a huge number of planes, from fighter jets to air-to-air refuelling tankers to command and control planes, left the US en route to the Middle East. The planes had stop-overs on US military bases in England and Germany, because no imperial war crime is ever complete without the involvement of Europe.

A US attack on Iran, a flagrant violation of international law, if such a thing is even worth mentioning any more, appears imminent.

Why? For Israel, for oil, for power projection, for Trump’s legacy. Because the logic of the military-industrial complex demands that $1 trillion dollars a year and an astonishing array of killing machinery doesn’t just sit idle.

Because this is what empires do.

Because the US is violence.

And there is no more stunning display of American violence than a big war.

The leaders of these countries will self-anoint themselves as such, while western media will subject their readers and viewers to a dizzying display of propaganda to enable the murders and wash the crimes.

The groundwork

But the propaganda won’t start from the day of the attack.

The truth is, we wouldn’t be in this situation without the groundwork laid by the media over the years.

We wouldn’t be on the verge of another major US war without the often subtle lies of omission that have characterised western reporting on Iran for decades, and have been especially evident in recent months.

Let’s go through some of them.

Shifting narratives

Firstly, and importantly, the premise for an attack.

Last June Trump said the US had ‘obliterated’ Iran’s nuclear sites.

But now, eight months later, the US apparently needs to do a much bigger war to take out Iran’s nuclear programme.

No one will ask the obvious question.

The premise, that Iran’s nuclear programme is a threat, will stand tall and uninterrogated in the mind of the propagandised western media consumer who just eight months ago was told it had all been destroyed.

Loaded terms

“Iran’s nuclear programme.”

The words themselves are loaded with an intent that is rarely examined or explained.

They never come with any context and are purposefully designed to shut down any critical thinking, as I’ve written about before.

Western media never explains that Iran is one of the world’s biggest producers of radiopharmaceuticals used for cancer diagnostics and treatments. And to diagnose cancer and make cancer drugs, you need medical isotopes. And you can’t make medical isotopes without enriching uranium. Iran is in the top five global exporters of radioactive drugs, supplying fifteen countries, including European countries, with nuclear medicines. And sanctions on Iran prohibit the import of radiopharmaceuticals.

So without its deliberately misrepresented “nuclear programme” Iran would find it hard, if not impossible, to diagnose and treat people with cancer and other illnesses.

The nuclear deal

Media never explains this and also never explains the background to US threats towards Iran over this programme. Amid all the coverage of talks and possible deals, Western media never mentions the fact that in 2018 Trump himself ripped up a deal, signed in 2016, that was working just fine.

That agreement, ratified by the UN Security Council, facilitated regular site inspections and allowed Iran to manufacture nuclear material for medicine and energy. The media will never remind us of this, nor that the last inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency reported Iran to be in full compliance with their obligations.

We are never told that Trump, under pressure from his Zionist backers to manufacture a crisis which could move the US and Israel towards war, and eager to undo a rare Obama success, deliberately created a problem to solve.

And as we’re about to find out, there was never any intention of solving it peacefully.

But media will keep up the pretence that these were good faith negotiations that broke down because of Iran’s demands. And they won’t tell us those demands included being able to diagnose and treat cancer.

Unilateralism

The fact of the US unilaterally withdrawing from the previous deal is also a key omission in the coverage……………………………………………………..

Israel’s nukes

Talking of rogue states, the media will never examine the foundational premise underlying the whole issue of Iranian nuclear capability.

They’ll never question why Israel is allowed to have a nuclear weapon but Iran isn’t. They’ll never lead readers or viewers to question why the region’s preeminent aggressor, a perpetrator of genocide and a constant violator of laws and norms, is the one trusted with the most destructive weapon in human history.

Because then they’d have to frame Israel as the aggressor.

Then they’d have to explain how empire works.

Then they’d have to examine glaring double standards and hypocrisies and introduce people to critical thinking which doesn’t lead to reflexive cheerleading for empire.

And that is a big no-no.

It is, after all, much easier to manufacture consent for war if a large chunk of the population thinks you’re the good guys doing freedom and peace things.

New pretexts

If you’ve been following the news, you might be aware that the latest talks go beyond the nuclear programme and introduce new pretexts for war, one of which is Iran’s ballistic missile programme.

Israel, having been shocked at Iran’s ability to strike its territory last June, wants the new deal to include the elimination of all Iran’s long-range missiles.

When the US and Israel attack, we’ll be told that it’s Iran’s fault. We’ll be told that wanting to retain defensive capability in the face of an expansionist, genocidal enemy loudly committed to your destruction is an irrational position.

The Guardian among others have already started pushing this line.

By contrast, we won’t be asked to think about why Israel can have any weapon it likes.

We won’t be asked to think about why the US would go to war to stop a country being able to defend itself from Israel.

This will just be presented as the natural order of things.

American violence

The coming war on Iran will be a completely illegal war of unprovoked aggression committed by the US against a country 4500 miles away which poses zero threat………………………………………………………………………………………………… https://www.donotpanic.news/p/lies-of-omission-as-fresh-american

February 25, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Iran, spinbuster, USA | Leave a comment

Israel and American Hawks are pushing US to Iran War with Catastrophic Consequences.

Hugh J. Curran, INFORMED COMMENT, 02/22/2026

Orono, Maine – It seems clear that Israeli proponents of conflict in the Middle East, as well as supporters in the US media and politics, are determined to take America to war with Iran. This observation was forcefully stated by the global affairs analyst, Patrick Henningsen, who has recently returned from Iran.

The causes of the protests have not so much to do with the regime itself but with economic conditions, including an inflation rate of 42% in December, 2025 while food prices rose by 72% and medical costs increased by 50%. The Iranian Rial has suffered sharp depreciation with poor fiscal policies and mismanagement being causes, although numerous sanctions have been taking a serious toll on Iran’s economy and its people.

Israel and the U.S. claim that Iran “poses an existential threat and therefore must give up its ballistic missile program, which is its primary deterrent”. In addition, Trump has renewed a claim that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon although they are not planning such a program according to Iran sources and U.S. intelligence assessments.

An additional justification for war is that thousands of protestors were injured or killed in recent demonstrations in Iran. Mai Sato, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Iran has cited “around 5000 deaths” while the “Human Rights Activists News Agency” states that there were 7,015 deaths. The Iran state media reports that 3117 died, including over 100 officers. Others report a “spiral of disinformation”, promoted by supporters of the former Shah’s son, Reza Pahlavi, who have grossly inflated the numbers.

Former CIA director, Mike Pompeo was quoted in the Jerusalem Post as saying that “every Mossad agent walks beside them [Iranian demonstrators] Mossad encouraged the anti-regime protestors: “Go out together into the streets. The time has come, “Mossad operatives are with the protestors “not only from a distance. We are with [them] in the field.”

Other extreme conservative views that have gained recent attention include those of Sen. Lindsey Graham: “The best answer to all the problems created by Iran is regime change ………………………

Israel’s Netanyahu has been, for some time, promoting conflict with Iran and is once again attempting to persuade American leaders to engage in an attack in order to bring about regime change in the Islamic Republic.

A writer for Israel’s Haaretz News has warned that the U.S. ”is approaching the precipice without articulating a vision as to what will follow …[and is] plunging toward a large-scale war against the Islamic Republic of Iran”

Iran is receiving support from China which has become dependent upon the 1.5 million barrels of oil being shipped daily. Henningsen noted that “Iran possesses advanced missile technology, including newer hypersonic generations not yet deployed, improved targeting systems capable of hitting moving naval targets, proprietary guidance systems, and Chinese-assisted navigation technology”. Despite these defenses, “it’s… clear that the Neocons and Israeli operatives in US media and politics seem determined to take America,…to war.” And this, in spite of the dire consequences, which are likely to be devastating, not only to Iran but also to Israel itself.

Former U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Chas Freeman, observes in an on-line interview, that “to be hated means that one does hateful things” and Israel’s leaders are behaving badly”.He noted that what Netanyahu means by peace is pacification [of Arab nations]. It is delusional and [shows] a complete lack of understanding of one’s enemies”. Ambassador Freeman observes that: “Israel is an apartheid state and is enabling dictatorial decisions that are not the “will of the people”. The leaders believe in their own propaganda, but they are not hated because they are Jews but because of their behavior in the destruction of Gaza as well as their targeted assassinations. https://www.juancole.com/2026/02/american-catastrophic-consequences.html

February 25, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Iran, Israel, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Beijing moves to contain Mossad’s expanding reach in Iran

Israeli intelligence operations inside Iran have alarmed Beijing, which saw them as a new model of intelligence warfare, prompting deeper technological, security, and strategic cooperation with Tehran.

Nadia Helmy, The Cradle, FEB 17, 2026

Chinese military experts and intelligence agencies increasingly describe Mossad’s deep infiltration into Iran as opening a “Pandora’s box” of global security risks.

From Beijing’s perspective, Israeli and US intelligence operations – particularly those expanding after 2015 and accelerating through 2025–2026 – mark the evolution of a new battlespace. Mossad’s ability to embed agents, compromise sensitive databases, disable radar networks, and facilitate precision strikes from inside Iranian territory is interpreted as a shift toward what Chinese analysts call ‘Informationized and Intelligent’ Warfare.

This represents the convergence of cyber sabotage, internal recruitment, technological penetration, and operational coordination – a hybrid model in which intelligence operations hollow out defensive infrastructure before kinetic action begins.

For China, the implications extend well beyond Iran.

Intelligence warfare as a precursor

Within Chinese security discourse, Israel’s operations in Iran are frequently cited as evidence that intelligence warfare now precedes kinetic engagement.

Military expert Fu Qianshao, a former analyst in the Chinese Air Force, characterized Mossad’s success in planting agents and disabling Iranian radar and air defense systems from within as a “new pattern of intelligence warfare.” The June 2025 Israeli strikes on the Islamic Republic, which reportedly faced minimal resistance due to compromised systems, reinforced this assessment.

Fu argued that such tactics transcend traditional battlefield engagement. Instead of confronting air defenses externally, Mossad undermined them internally – neutralizing deterrence before aircraft entered contested airspace.

Another Chinese military expert, Yan Wei, echoed this concern, emphasizing that the penetration of sensitive Iranian facilities exposed structural weaknesses rather than merely technological gaps. Legal safeguards and routine security protocols, he suggested, are insufficient against intelligence operations that exploit bureaucratic vulnerabilities and internal access points.

Professor Li Li, a Chinese expert on West Asian affairs, has pointed to Israeli cyber operations targeting research centers and infrastructure as evidence of intelligence warfare functioning as a force multiplier. Unlike conventional attacks, these operations blur the line between espionage and sabotage, complicating retaliation.

Tian Wenlin, director of the Institute of Middle Eastern Studies at Renmin University, warned that sustained intelligence incursions could pressure Tehran to accelerate its nuclear capabilities as a defensive countermeasure……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….https://thecradle.co/articles/beijing-moves-to-contain-mossads-expanding-reach-in-iran

February 20, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Iran, Israel, secrets,lies and civil liberties | Leave a comment

Trump buildup for war with Iran mimics George W. Bush’s buildup for 2003 Iraq war.

Walt Zlotow West Suburban Peace Coalition Glen Ellyn IL, 17 Feb 26

Back in 2002 the US demanded Iraq give up its WMD, weapons of mass destruction, ostensibly to prevent another 911 attack a year earlier. To back up its demand the US threatened attacking the Iraqi regime to safeguard the Homeland.

Along with most Americans, I fell for the line that the US would stand down due to the weapons inspectors and intelligence resources in Iraq concluding Iraq had no WMD and was not a threat to America whatsoever.

Then in August 2002, I read a report buried deep in the Chicago Tribune describing America’s massive military buildup, concluding with the strong implication that such a buildup made attack on Iraq inevitable with nothing Iraq could do to prevent it.

At that moment I knew everything the Bush administration said about the Iraqi danger was a vicious lie in service of ousting Saddam Hussein and conquering Iraq. Seven months later, contrary to all the evidence, Bush did precisely that.

I’m getting the same ominous feeling when I hear Trump bragging out his massive buildup of air and naval forces near Iran poised to attack should Iran not capitulate to Trump’s non-negotiable demands that Iran give up its missile defense resources and cease supporting its regional allies.

Trump frames the ongoing negotiations as designed to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. This despite Trump’s bragging that he completely destroyed their nuclear program with his one-off bombing last June in support of Israel’s 12 day war on Iran that utterly failed to topple the Iranian regime.

The current negotiations in Geneva have nothing to do with Iran’s nuclear weapons program since, like Iraq’s imaginary WMD program in 2002, Iran has none. Indeed, for verification Iran is willing to negotiate limited nuclear enrichment for peaceful domestic purposes; even allow inspections to verify compliance But they will never negotiate away their missile program which is their only defense against further Israeli, US attacks such as they incurred last June.

Another similarity to Bush’s illegal invasion of Iraq 23 year ago? It had nothing to do with vital US national interests. It had to do with Israeli demands that successive US administrations, bought up with Israel Lobby money, take out any Israeli rivals for Middle East hegemony.

Trump’s fealty to Israeli demands, encouraged by their near quarter billion in campaign support, fueled Trump’s blowing up Obama’s sensible 2015 Iran nuclear agreement in 2018. He lied to us then how the deal favored Iran by not ending its nuclear bomb program that did not exist. Trump is lying to us now on the urgency of destroying Iranian sovereignty which includes the right to self-defense.

But there is one huge difference between Trump’s trumped up Iranian threat likely presaging all out war today and George W. Bush’s falsified Iraqi threat in 2002. Unlike Iraq which had no defensive military means and no powerful allies to assist his defense, Iran has both.

They have thousands of missiles scattered thruout their large country capable of inflicting massive damage on US and Israeli forces. In addition they are getting defensive support from Russia and especially China in the form of intelligence resources to track approaching US bombers and provide accurate targeting information in retaliation.

History shows that sending a military armada near a pretend enemy never gets recalled. Its sole purpose is to attack and destroy based on a tissue of lies. And any lie and any ludicrous demand to negotiate an impossible deal in furtherance of war will be used to justify attack.

George W. Bush got 4,497 soldiers and 1,487 civilian contractors killed for nothing in his made up Iraq war. Trump’s march to war with Iran may make Bush’s folly pale in comparison.

February 19, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Iran, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

The right to have nukes

February 11, 2026 by beyondnuclearinternational, https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2026/02/11/the-right-to-have-nukes/

No country should have nuclear weapons, but the ones that do should disarm first before telling others they can’t have them, writes Linda Pentz Gunter

The trouble with telling Iran it can’t have nuclear weapons is, look who’s doing the talking. The United States, which, with more than 5,000 nuclear weapons, has the second largest inventory in the world behind Russia. And Israel, an undeclared nuclear weapons nation with anywhere from 80 to 200 bombs. Israel is actually allowed to maintain the disingenuous position of “nuclear opacity” within the UN, neither confirming nor denying its nuclear arsenal.

This is despite the fact that the UN General Assembly adopts a resolution every year calling on Israel to renounce possession of nuclear weapons and to place its nuclear facilities under international supervision, something the Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs, equally disingenuously describes as “the annual three-month ‘Israel-bashing’ festival”.

Since we know that US President Trump doesn’t actually care whether or not the Iran government is shooting demonstrators in the streets, especially given he is quite happy for his own Homeland Security to do it here —albeit in not nearly as high numbers, or not yet — we must reckon with the other motivations for continuing to threaten Iran. And one of those is absolutely about stopping Iran from developing the bomb.

There is further irony here, because, unlike nuclear-armed Israel, non-nuclear armed Iran is a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). And unlike the US, Iran so far appears to have abided by its terms. Article IV — one of the major flaws of the treaty as Iran perfectly exemplifies — gives signatories the “inalienable right” to develop nuclear power as long as they don’t transition to nuclear weapons development. Article VI demands that the nuclear-armed nations pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament.

Iran could argue that it is abiding by Article IV. The US clearly cannot make the case that it is abiding in any way by Article VI. On the contrary, with the collapse last week of the New START Treaty, the last surviving nuclear arms reduction treaty between the US and Russia, both countries could now significantly ramp up their respective arsenals.

According to a statement put out last week by International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, which won the Nobel Peace Prize back in 1985, these increases could happen by uploading additional warheads on each country’s existing long-range missiles. This would mark the first increase in the sizes of their deployed nuclear arsenals in more than 35 years. According to independent estimates, Moscow and Washington could double the number of strategic deployed warheads without New START.

Iran’s nuclear facilities were seemingly pulverized by the provocative bombing raids carried out by Israel and the US last June. But they were no means completely “obliterated”, as Trump claimed. New satellite imagery suggests there is currently considerable activity at the Iranian nuclear sites, but some of these appear to be simple repairs such as the rebuilding of roofs and other structures destroyed in the attacks. There is more activity, according to analysis of the satellite images by the New York Times, at conventional missile sites, presumably in anticipation of another attack by Israel and/or the US.

Iran has and may well continue to insist it is developing its uranium enrichment capabilities for a civil nuclear program. And that could be true. Or not. The level to which it has lately been enriching uranium — to at least 60 percent and possible higher — before first Israel and then the US bombed its nuclear facilities, puts it in that gray area of weapons-usable rather than weapons-grade uranium enrichment. All this points once again the flaw in the NPT that continues to hand back the keys to the nuclear weapons lab by encouraging the development of nuclear power.

A delegation from the White House went to Oman last Friday to negotiate a new nuclear deal with Iran, even though it was Trump’s own regime back in 2018 that destroyed the perfectly workable Iran nuclear deal — known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action — that had been in place up until then.

The negotiating team was led by Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner. Witkoff is Trump’s Middle East Envoy but Kushner has no official position within the US government and no actual qualifications, other than an unsavory and predatory zeal about beachfront property — Iran has 5,800 km of coastline along the Caspian Sea, the Persian Gulf and Sea of Oman.

Should Iran have nuclear weapons? Of course not. But that also goes for the nine nations who do. And they should be the first to disarm before any demands are made elsewhere.

Linda Pentz Gunter is the founder of Beyond Nuclear and serves as its international specialist. Her book, No To Nuclear. Why Nuclear Power Destroys Lives, Derails Climate Progress and Provokes War, can be pre-ordered now from Pluto Press

February 15, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Iran, politics international | Leave a comment

Leading Papers Call for Destroying Iran to Save It

Gregory Shupak, February 10, 2026, https://fair.org/home/leading-papers-call-for-destroying-iran-to-save-it/

The United States has no right to wage war on Iran, or to have a say who governs the country. The opinion pages of the New York Times and Washington Post, however, are offering facile humanitarian arguments for the US to escalate its attacks on Iran. These are based on the nonsensical assumption that the US wants to help brighten Iranians’ futures.

In two editorials addressing the possibility of the US undertaking a bombing and shooting war on Iran, the Washington Post expressed no opposition to such policies and endorsed economic warfare as well.

Crediting Trump with “the wisdom of distinguishing between an authoritarian regime and the people who suffer under its rule,” the first Post editorial (1/2/26) approvingly quoted Trump’s Truth Social promise (1/2/26) to Iranian protesters that the US “will come to their rescue…. We are locked and loaded and ready to go.”

For the Post, the problem was not that Trump was threatening to bomb a sovereign state, but that “airstrikes are, at best, a temporary solution”:

If the administration wants this time to be different, it will need to oversee a patient, sustained campaign of maximum pressure against the government…. The optimal strategy is to economically squeeze the regime as hard as possible at this moment of maximum vulnerability. More stringent enforcement of existing oil sanctions would go a long way…. Western financial controls are actually working quite well.

Thus, the paper offers advice on how to integrate bombing Iran into a broader effort to overthrow the country’s government in a hybrid war. Central to that project are the sanctions with which the Post is so thoroughly impressed. Such measures have “squeeze[d] the regime” by, for example, decimating “the government’s primary source of revenue, oil exports, limiting the state’s ability to provide for millions of impoverished Iranians through social safety nets” (CNN, 10/19/25).

That the US continues to apply the sanctions, knowing that they have these effects, demonstrates that it has no interest in, as the Post put it, “free[ing]” Iranians “from bondage.”

‘Always more room for sanctions’

The second Washington Post editorial (1/23/26) expressed disappointment that, despite “mass killings” and the “most repressive crackdown in decades,” “Trump has ratcheted back his earlier rhetoric.” It emphasized that “the regime is now mocking Trump for backing down.” The paper offered advice for the president:

Airstrikes alone won’t bring down the regime—or make it behave like a normal country. But Israel and the US have shown in recent years that bombing can cause significant tactical setbacks. And there is always more room for sanctions pressure….

The president cannot maintain effective deterrence by turning the other cheek [in response to Iranians who have taunted him]. How he responds is just as important as how quickly he does it.

The implication is that, to deter Iran’s government from killing Iranians, the US needs to kill Iranians. After all, bombing campaigns come with “mass killings” of their own: The US/Israeli aggression against Iran last June killed more than 1,000 Iranians, most of them civilians.

Meanwhile, those sanctions the paper wants to use to deter the Iranian government from “harm[ing] its own people” do quite a bit of damage in their own right, often causing “low-income citizens’ food consumption” to “deteriorate due to sanctions”—a rather novel approach to harm reduction.

Bombing other countries, depriving them of food—is this what it means to “behave like a normal country”?

‘Too depraved’ for reform

Over its own pro–regime change piece, the New York Times editorial board headline (1/14/26) declared: “Iran’s Murderous Regime Is Irredeemable.”

“The Khamenei regime is too depraved to be reformed,” the editors wrote, spending the majority of the piece building its case to that effect before turning to solutions. For the Times, these start “with a unified expression of solidarity with the protesters,” and quickly move to punitive measures against the Iranian government:

The world can also extend the sanctions it has imposed on Iran. The Trump administration this week announced new tariffs on any countries that do business with Iran, and other democracies should impose their own economic penalties.

For the authors, “deprav[ity]” needs to be resisted by Washington and its partners, who have demonstrated their moral superiority with their presumably depravity-free sanctions. These have, as Germany’s DW (11/23/25) reported, “caused medical shortages that hit [Iran’s] most vulnerable citizens hardest,” preventing the country from being able “to purchase special medicines—like those required by cancer patients.”

The Times also supported US military violence against Iran—if with somewhat more restraint than the Post, asking Trump to “move much more judiciously than he typically does.” The Times wants him to seek “approval from Congress before any military operation,” and make “clear its limitations and goals.” The paper warned Trump not to attack “without adequate preparation and resources”:

Above all, he should avoid the lack of strategic discipline and illegal actions that have defined the Venezuela campaign. He should ask which policies have the best chance of undermining the regime’s violent repression and creating the conditions for a democratic transition.

One glaring problem with suggesting that a US “military operation” should be based on “policies [that] have the best chance of…creating the conditions for a democratic transition” is that very recent precedents show that US wars don’t bring about democracy, and are not intended to do so; instead, such wars bring about social collapse.

Consider, for example, US interventions in Libya and Syria. In both cases, the US backed decidedly nondemocratic forces (Jacobin, 9/2/13; Harper’s, 1/16) and, as one might expect, neither war resulted in democracy. In Libya’s case, the outcome has been slavery and state collapse (In These Times, 8/18/20). In Syria, the new, unelected government is implicated in sectarian mass murder (FAIR.org, 6/2/25).

If DHS killed Pretti, why not bomb Iran?

There are no grounds for believing that the US would chart a different course if it bombs Iran again. But that hasn’t stopped other Times contributors from suggesting that the US should conduct a war in Iran—for the good of Iranians, of course.

Times columnist Bret Stephens (1/27/26) worried about the “risk” posed by “the example of a US president who urged protesters to go in the streets and said help was on the way, only to betray them through inaction.”

Invoking the DHS’s killing of Minneapolis resident Alex Pretti, Stephens urged “thoughtful Americans” to encourage the same administration that killed him to exercise “the military option” in Iran:

But if Pretti’s death is a tragedy, what do we say or do in the face of the murder of thousands of Iranians? Are they, as Stalin might have said, just another statistic?

Stephens is citing people’s outrage against the US government killing a protester as a reason they should support the US government inflicting more violence against Iran. The logical corollary to that would be that if you’re opposed to Iran suppressing anti-government forces, you should therefore be in favor of Tehran launching armed attacks to defend protesters in the US.

Masih Alinejad, a US-government-funded Iranian-American journalist, wrote in the Times (1/27/26) that Trump

encouraged Iranians to intensify their mass protests, writing, “HELP IS ON ITS WAY.” That help never came, and many protesters now feel betrayed. Still, the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier strike group has recently arrived in the Middle East. Mr. Trump has not said what he plans to do now that it is there, but it does give him the option of striking a blow against government repression.

Policy of pain

Both Stephens and Alinejad present their calls for the US to assault Iran in moral terms, suggesting that the US should demonstrate loyalty to Iranian protestors by “help[ing]” them through an armed attack on the country in which they live. Their premise is that the US is interested in enabling the Iranian population to flourish, an assertion contradicted by more than 70 years of Washington’s policy of inflicting pain on Iranians in an effort to dominate them.

That US policy has included overthrowing Iran’s democratically elected government in 1953 (NPR, 2/7/19), propping up the Shah’s brutal dictatorship for the next 26 years (BBC, 6/3/16; AP, 2/6/19), sponsoring Saddam Hussein’s invasion of the country and use of chemical weapons against it (Foreign Policy, 8/26/13), partnering with Israel in a years-long campaign of murdering Iranian scientists (Responsible Statecraft, 12/21/20), and currently maintaining—along with its allies—a sanctions regime that is associated with a substantial drop in Iranian life expectancy (Al Jazeera, 1/13/26).

If Stephens or Alinejad had evidence that the US is so radically re-orienting its conduct in the international arena, one imagines that they would want to share with their readers the proof that the Trump administration’s magnanimity is so profound that it overrides the UN Charter, and justifies America carrying out a war to “help” a country it has terrorized for decades.

February 14, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Iran, media, USA | Leave a comment

Iran offers to dilute enriched uranium in exchange for full sanctions relief

By Euronews, 09/02/2026

Iran says it could dilute its 60% uranium stockpile if “all sanctions” end, amid renewed Oman talks and uncertainty over missing nuclear material.

Tehran is prepared to dilute its stockpile of highly enriched uranium if sanctions against Iran are lifted, the head of its atomic energy agency said on Monday following indirect talks with Washington.

Mohammad Eslami, head of the Atomic Energy Organisation of Iran, said the possibility of diluting 60% enriched uranium “depends on whether all sanctions would be lifted in return”, according to the official IRNA news agency.

The statement did not specify whether Eslami was referring to all international sanctions on Iran or only those imposed by the United States.

The offer comes as the whereabouts of more than 400 kilograms of highly enriched uranium Iran possessed before last year’s conflict with Israel and the US remains unknown……………………………………………………………………………………………….

Indirect talks to resume after Oman meeting

Eslami’s statement followed indirect talks between Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and US Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff in Oman last Friday, the first negotiations since the June conflict.

Both sides agreed to continue negotiations. However, Araghchi warned that “the mistrust that has developed is a serious challenge”.

US President Donald Trump has repeatedly called for Iran to accept a total ban on uranium enrichment, a condition unacceptable to Tehran and far less favourable than the 2015 agreement.

Iran maintains it has a right to a civilian nuclear programme under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which 191 countries are signatories.

Western countries, led by the US, suspect the Islamic Republic is seeking to develop nuclear weapons, a claim Iran has consistently denied. https://www.euronews.com/2026/02/09/iran-offers-to-dilute-enriched-uranium-in-exchange-for-full-sanctions-relief

February 14, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Iran, politics international | Leave a comment

Iran’s mysterious Pickaxe Mountain a ‘candidate’ for new nuclear activities

By Annika Burgess, ABC, 7 Feb 26

Hidden among the mountains in central Iran, work has been continuing on a mysterious underground facility believed to be buried beyond the range of US “bunker buster” bombs.

The site, known as Pickaxe Mountain, or Kuh-e Kolang Gaz La, has never been accessed by international nuclear inspectors, and its exact purpose remains unclear.

Analysts monitoring its development via satellite imagery have witnessed security walls growing, spoil piles expanding and tunnel entrances being reinforced as engineers dig deeper into the mountain.

“We don’t have internal schematics to really judge what the inside will look like,” says Spencer Faragasso, a senior research fellow at the US Institute for Science and International Security.

“But given the size of the spoil piles, the amount of construction they’re doing, it wouldn’t be incomprehensible to see them establish an enrichment facility inside it.”

Located near the peak of the Zagros Mountains, the site is just 1.6 kilometres south of Natanz, which was Iran’s main uranium enrichment facility.

But Pickaxe Mountain was not affected when Natanz and two other key Iranian nuclear facilities — Fordow and Isfahan — were targeted in US strikes that aimed to disrupt Tehran from potentially developing nuclear bombs.

US President Donald Trump said the three sites were “obliterated” in the June 2025 attacks, but has renewed demands for Iran to make a deal over its nuclear program or face fresh strikes that would be “far worse”.

Negotiators from both countries held indirect talks in Oman on Friday, with Iran’s top diplomat striking a cautiously optimistic note after their conclusion.

However, the US delegation, led by special envoy Steve Witkoff and Mr Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, did not offer any immediate comment.

Recent assessments show Tehran’s nuclear program was severely damaged by the US during the 12-day war between Iran and Israel, but it could be built up again.

And satellite imagery revealed Pickaxe Mountain could be a “potential candidate” for new uranium enrichment activities………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Where are the uranium stockpiles?

Iran’s stockpiles of 60 per cent enriched uranium remain missing.

Trucks observed outside Fordow and Isfahan before and after the US strikes suggested Iran may have moved the material.

But the IAEA director said there was a “general understanding” the enriched uranium was likely still buried under the damaged facilities.

“We need to go back there and to confirm that the material is there and it’s not being diverted to any other use,” Mr Grossi said in October…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-02-07/iran-nuclear-sites-program-us-strikes-pickaxe-mountain-uranium/106288446

February 13, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Iran, technology | Leave a comment

Iran’s Comprehensive Peace Proposal to the United States

The Middle East stands at a crossroads between endless war and comprehensive peace. A framework for peace does exist. Will the US finally seize it?

Jeffrey D. Sachs , Sybil Fares, Common Dreams, Feb 09, 2026

History occasionally presents moments when the truth about a conflict is stated plainly enough that it becomes impossible to ignore. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi’s February 7 address in Doha, Qatar (transcript here) should prove to be such a moment. His important and constructive remarks responded to the US call for comprehensive negotiations, and he laid out a sound proposal for peace across the Middle East.

Last week, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio called for comprehensive negotiations: “If the Iranians want to meet, we’re ready.” He proposed for talks to include the nuclear issue, Iran’s military capabilities, and its support for proxy groups around the region. On its surface, this sounds like a serious and constructive proposal. The Middle East’s security crises are interconnected, and diplomacy that isolates nuclear issues from broader regional dynamics is unlikely to endure.

On February 7, Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi’s responded to the United States’ proposal for a comprehensive peace. In his speech at the Al Jazeera Forum, the foreign minister addressed the root cause of regional instability – “Palestine… is the defining question of justice in West Asia and beyond” and he proposed a path forward.

The Foreign Minister’s statement is correct. The failure to resolve the issue of Palestinian statehood has indeed fueled every major regional conflict since 1948. The Arab-Israeli wars, the rise of anti-Israel militancy, the regional polarization, and the repeated cycles of violence, all derive from the failure to create a State of Palestine alongside the State of Israel. Gaza represents the most devastating chapter in this conflict, where Israel’s brutal occupation of Palestine was followed by Hamas’s attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, and then by Israel’s genocide against the people of Gaza.

In his speech, Araghchi condemned Israel’s expansionist project “pursued under the banner of security.” He warned of the annexation of the West Bank, which Israeli government officials, as National Security Minister Ben Gvir, continually call for, and for which the Knesset has already passed a motion.

Araghchi also highlighted another fundamental dimension of Israeli strategy which is the pursuit of permanent military supremacy across the region. He said that Israel’s expansionist project requires that “neighboring countries be weakened—militarily, technologically, economically, and socially—so that the Israeli regime permanently enjoys the upper hand.” This is indeed the Clean Break doctrine of Prime Minister Netanyahu, dating back 30 years. It has been avidly supported by the US through 100 billion dollars in military assistance to Israel since 2000, diplomatic cover at the UN via repeated vetoes, and the consistent US rejection of accountability measures for Israel’s violations of international humanitarian law.

Israel’s impunity has destabilized the region, fueling arms races, proxy wars, and cycles of revenge. It has also corroded what remains of the international legal order. The abuse of international law by the US and Israel with much of Europe remaining silent, has gravely weakened the UN Charter, leaving the UN close to collapse.

In the concluding remarks of his speech, he offered the US a political solution and path forward. “The path to stability is clear: justice for Palestine, accountability for crimes, an end to occupation and apartheid, and a regional order built on sovereignty, equality, and cooperation. If the world wants peace, it must stop rewarding aggression. If the world wants stability, it must stop enabling expansionism.”

This is a valid and constructive response to Rubio’s call for comprehensive diplomacy…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/comprehensive-peace-plan-middle-east

February 12, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Iran, politics international, USA | Leave a comment

Trump is not threatening war on Iran over its nuclear program, but because it challenges U.S. dominance.

In short, it is about removing Iran from the strategic playing field, as it is the sole actor in the region that is powerful, influential, and beyond the United States’ direct control. The U.S. and Israel desperately want to remove that oppositional force.

So Trump is buying time by agreeing to talks that cannot succeed on the terms he and Rubio have laid down. He is likely to use that time to magnify the threat against the Iranian leadership in the vain hope that they will acquiesce to his demands.

The U.S. is once again threatening a war on Iran that could devastate the region. Trump knows Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons, but that has never been the point. It is about removing Iran as the only actor in the region beyond U.S. control.

By Mitchell Plitnick February 6, 2026, https://mondoweiss.net/2026/02/trump-is-not-threatening-war-on-iran-over-its-nuclear-program-but-because-it-challenges-u-s-dominance/

American and Iranian negotiators are meeting in Muscat to see if they can come to an agreement and avoid an American attack on Iran. The chances don’t look good.

There was some initial hope because Donald Trump agreed to hold talks at all. The buildup of American forces in the region and the frequent planning meetings with Israeli political and military officials gave the appearance of an unstoppable buildup to war.

But American allies Türkiye, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Oman have been working hard to convince Trump not to attack Iran. They fear the potential backlash of an American attack on the Islamic Republic, believing that Iran is not likely to respond to an attack with the restraint they have shown in the past.

Israel is urging Trump to attack, as the government of Benjamin Netanyahu is the one entity that stands to benefit from the chaos that an attack on Iran could bring.

Indeed, Iran has warned that an attack this time will be met with a very different response than previous ones. Yet, paradoxically, it is the very fact that Iran is capable of a more damaging response than it has taken in the past that creates the impasse that is likely to derail negotiations.

What each side wants

Iran’s desires from any talks with the U.S. are straightforward: they want the U.S. to stop threatening to attack, and to lift the sanctions that have helped to cripple Iran’s economy.

But the United States has more complicated demands.

The United States wants Iran to completely abandon nuclear power. This demand is not just about weaponry, but includes all civilian nuclear power under Iran’s control. No uranium at all can be enriched by Iran, regardless of whether it is for civilian or military purposes, and all enriched uranium Iran has must be handed over.
The U.S. is demanding that Iran agree to limits dictated by Washington on the range and number of ballistic missiles it can possess.
The U.S. is demanding that Iran end its support of any and all armed resistance groups in the region.

All of these demands are unreasonable. But the United States is holding a loaded gun to Iran’s head. The U.S. has moved a large carrier group into the waters near Iran, and between American and Israeli intelligence, they surely have a very clear map of where they want to strike to go along with the technical capability to essentially ignore Iran’s defenses.

But while Iran can do very little to shield itself from an American or Israeli attack, it is capable of responding to one. That is what the last two American demands are focused on, and it’s really the reason all of this is happening.

If the U.S. or Israel attacks Iran and Iran elects to respond with all of its capabilities—which it has not done in previous attacks—it has the ability to kill many American soldiers, severely disrupt oil production in the Gulf, or cause significant damage to Israel.

Iran can do this because it has a large battery of long-range ballistic missiles. It has already shown, last June, that it can hurt Israel, and that was an attack largely meant to be a warning.

Iran also backs various militias in the region, some large, like Ansar Allah in Yemen, others smaller. That means it can launch guerrilla attacks on American bases or other key sites in places like Iraq and Syria.

Iran can also target oil fields throughout the region, either with missiles or drones or with militia attacks. That’s a major reason Trump’s friends in the Gulf are reluctant to see him start a war.

The ability to do all of that gives Washington pause. Donald Trump likes it when he can do quick operations with little or no pushback, as he did recently in Venezuela or last year in Iran. Trump has carefully avoided situations where American soldiers might be killed. Iran might not let the U.S. off so easily this time around.

The reality behind U.S. demands

That brings us to why talks are so unlikely to succeed.

Iran has already made it clear it has no intention to negotiate on their support for groups throughout the region or on their ballistic missile arsenal. They understand that the reason the United States is trying to force them to agree to such measures is that it would leave Iran defenseless. Giving in to these demands would be tantamount to national suicide.

The Iranian leadership is more than happy to discuss the issue of nuclear power. As unfair as the terms might be, they might even be willing to reach a compromise that allows them to use nuclear power without enriching uranium themselves. That’s far from ideal, but Iran is facing a considerable threat.

But this holds little interest for the Trump administration. Despite American chest-thumping, they know that Iran is not pursuing a nuclear weapon, nor were they before the U.S. damaged so much of their nuclear infrastructure last year. Trump’s own intelligence corps confirmed that Iran was not actively seeking a nuclear weapon, just as it had affirmed that finding every year since 2007.

But none of this has ever been about an Iranian nuclear weapon. Rather, it has always been about pressuring the Islamic Republic either to fall or to radically change its behavior in the region. It has always been about getting Iran to stop supporting the Palestinian cause rhetorically and to stop arming Palestinian factions. It has always been about stopping Iran from supporting militias in the region that act outside of the American-run system, unlike those that are backed by Saudi Arabia, the UAE, or other states in the region that are on good terms with Washington.

Trump weighs the consequences of attacking Iran

Does Trump really want a war? That concern with Iran is a long-term U.S.-Israeli policy goal. What Donald Trump personally wants is always difficult to know. It can change from day to day, and is often based on a less-than-full understanding of the real world.

From all appearances, Trump felt emboldened by the American success in Venezuela. He kidnapped the head of state and his wife, and suffered no American casualties in doing so. The short-term political backlash, both in Latin America and in the U.S., was brief and minimal.

No doubt, he envisioned a similar success in Iran, when the protests there and the Iranian government’s brutal response helped to create what might have looked superficially like similar circumstances. Trump began issuing one threat after another, and while their frequency has been intermittent, they have not stopped.

But his friends in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Türkiye, and elsewhere in the Mideast explained to Trump that the outcome in Iran would be very different from that in Venezuela. Iran has the capabilities we’ve already discussed here, but there are other key differences.

For one, Iran has a deep governmental infrastructure, and there is no one in it who is both capable of taking over from Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and willing to compromise with Trump in the way Delcy Rodriguez has in Caracas. Despite the occasional protester in Iran calling out the name of Reza Pahlavi, the son of the last Shah of Iran, who was deposed in 1979, there is no infrastructure of support for him in Iran, and it would likely be impossible to simply install him without a full-scale invasion of the country.

But the primary purpose of that time is to continue to position American and Israeli forces to counter what they can anticipate of an Iranian response. That would mean not just the stationing of ships in striking distance of Iran, but also positioning whatever military assets they might have in countries like Iraq and Syria, as well as in other Gulf states, to counter guerrilla attacks by Iran-aligned militias and getting friendly states to agree to help with shooting down Iranian missiles and drones, as they did last year.

With Rubio and Benjamin Netanyahu pushing Trump toward a regime change war with Iran, and given the amount of bluster he has already put out there, it is hard to see Trump backing away from a war if Iran will not agree to compromise on its missiles and the militias it supports. And Iran is not about to do that.

The war that will ensue stands a good chance of toppling the Iranian government, but with nothing to replace it, the power vacuum that will surely follow will mean chaos not only for Iran but for the whole region. That isn’t really in Trump’s interests, and it certainly does not benefit his Gulf Arab allies.

Netanyahu, on the other hand, will have made the “neighborhood” that much more dangerous just as Israel’s election season begins to ramp up. While many Israelis have lost faith that “Mr. Security” can protect them after October 7, a heightened sense of danger to Israelis remains the atmosphere that is most favorable to Netanyahu electorally. It’s therefore no surprise that Israel is the one actor in the region that is pressing for this regime change war.

Averting that war will mean the Trump administration climbing down from its maximalist demands. There are indications that the U.S. is looking, at least,for an option that allows it to do that without appearing to have shied away from Iranian retaliation. But that remains an unlikely outcome, as hawks in Israel, Washington, and among the anti-regime exile Iranian community continue to urge an attack.

February 11, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Iran, politics international, USA | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries Next Entries »