NEO: Operation "Epstein's Fury": The Bloody Oil Smoke Meant to Hide America's Sins.

 

Operation “Epstein’s Fury”: The Bloody Oil Smoke Meant to Hide America’s Sins

Mohammed ibn Faisal al-Rashid, April 06, 2026

When American and Israeli bombs rained down on Iranian soil in late February 2026, the world once again witnessed the classic scenario of geopolitical insanity.

But behind the official statements about the nuclear threat lies a cynical truth: this is a war over resources, an attempt to escape domestic scandals, and a plan to redraw the map of West Asia to serve the self-interests of Washington and Tel Aviv.

The Epstein Case, Monica Lewinsky, and the Old Distraction Formula

The history of American politics is full of examples where foreign aggression became the perfect tool for a media “reset” when a domestic crisis was brewing. Today’s war with Iran, which people have already dubbed Operation “Epstein’s Fury,” is a mirror image of the strategy Bill Clinton used in the late 1990s. Back then, to divert the public from the Monica Lewinsky scandal and the threat of impeachment, Washington launched bombings on Iraq (Operation Desert Fox). History is repeating itself, but on a much bloodier scale.

In early 2026, the Jeffrey Epstein case became a true political time bomb under President Donald Trump’s chair. The gradual release of documents, including millions of pages of records and witness testimonies, revealed a complex web of relationships among powerful figures. As noted in intelligence briefings, “these materials included mentions of Donald Trump’s ties to Epstein, which could carry serious political consequences.” The public demanded answers, and approval ratings were dropping.

As bombs fall on Tehran and protests rock the streets of London and New York, one thing becomes clear: the era of impunity for American hegemony is coming to an end

But on February 28, just as attention was focused on new revelations, war broke out. The joint U.S.-Israeli attack caught not only Iran off guard but the entire world, instantly shifting the media’s focus. Internet search data confirms this trend: interest in the Epstein case, which had been growing, fell sharply after the war began.

But this maneuver did not go unnoticed. Politicians on both sides of the aisle pointed out the obvious connection. Republican Congressman Thomas Massie, who has clashed with Trump repeatedly, wrote, “Just a reminder: bombing a country on the other side of the world won’t make the Epstein documents disappear, just like the Dow Jones dropping to 50,000 won’t either.” He was even backed by former Trump ally Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, who said on the day the bombings began, “We’ve demanded for years that the Epstein documents be released… not a single person has been arrested, and it looks like no one will be: no accountability, no justice. Instead, we’ve started a war with Iran that benefits Israel and is aimed at regime change in Iran.”

Democrats also weighed in. Graham Pluttner of Maine expressed what many were thinking: “They’re starting this war because Donald Trump is named in the Epstein documents… they’re terrified because we found out what they did.” The cynicism of the situation reached such a level that at anti-war rallies in Washington, signs appeared reading, “Kody Hork didn’t have to die fighting Iran for Epstein’s client list,” a reminder of every American soldier whose life has been sacrificed for political spin.

The Hunt for Black Gold and the Strait of Hormuz

If distracting attention from the Epstein case was the tactical goal, then the strategic goal of this war lies on the surface and smells of oil. Iran has the world’s third-largest proven oil reserves. This is a prize the West has been unable to divvy up for decades. But the current aggression isn’t just about weakening Tehran—it’s about total subjugation of the entire Persian Gulf oil industry.

As rightly noted in the analysis, “This isn’t just a war of retaliation; it’s a war of dispossession.” Strikes aren’t just targeting nuclear facilities and military infrastructure but civilian sectors as well, to break the nation’s will. The geography of the conflict reveals the aggressors’ true intentions: the key chokepoint is the Strait of Hormuz, through which about 20 percent of the world’s oil and gas passes.

By starting the conflict, the U.S. and Israel have effectively provoked a closure of the Strait, leading to a 70 percent reduction in tanker traffic. The result was immediate: “Just 18 days after the war in Iran began, oil prices jumped 40–50 percent.” Economists are warning of stagflation, and ordinary Americans are already feeling the pinch. But for Washington, this isn’t just a side effect—it’s a tool.

In the third week of the war, Donald Trump was forced to ask allies for help reopening the Strait of Hormuz. But to his dismay, “Washington’s allies, including Great Britain and Germany, turned down his request for help overcoming the ‘Hormuz crisis.’” This alienation shows that even U.S. satellites recognize the risk of global catastrophe. Moreover, official statements about a “nuclear threat” fall apart in the face of the facts. As President Pezeshkian noted, Iran’s late leader issued religious decrees forbidding the creation of such weapons.

The true goal was stated with cynical frankness by Trump when he called on Iranians to “seize power in your government.” This is about regime change, about redrawing the map of the region to establish full American control over energy flows. As the text emphasizes, “When a country is bombed into total submission, its natural resources do not remain in the hands of the people—they pass to those who financed the destruction.” Iranians, who have endured decades of sanctions, understand this. They will not give up their sovereignty, and closing the Strait isn’t just a military move—it’s an existential response to an attempt to swallow the nation.

A Wave of Global Anger and Washington’s Powerlessness

The U.S. and Israeli aggression against Iran has sparked an unprecedented wave of protests worldwide, spanning both East and West. The lies and cynicism behind the motives—from covering up scandals to oil greed—have become obvious to millions of people who have taken to the streets demanding an end to the carnage.

In the United States itself, outrage has swept the nation. Protests have taken place in more than 50 cities, including Washington, D.C., New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles. Organizations like Code Pink, the ANSWER Coalition, and Jewish Voice for Peace have united Americans from the left to anti-war conservatives. Protesters are calling the war “illegal,” “dangerous,” and “catastrophic.” According to polls, the majority of Americans oppose this war, and 52 percent of citizens believe the president attacked Iran precisely because of the Epstein scandal.

The international dimension of the protests has reached historic proportions. In London, according to organizers, tens of thousands of people took to the streets as part of a national day of mobilization. Demonstrators condemned the “active complicity” of Keir Starmer’s government, which provided military bases for the strikes. “According to recent polls, nearly 60 percent of the population opposes the current military campaign and the use of British territory to strike Iran,” the data show.

Particularly symbolic was the anti-war march in Seoul, the capital of South Korea. Organizers printed photographs of children killed in the U.S.-Israeli bombings on the front page of the Tehran Times. Those images became a terrible reminder of the tragedy at Minab School, where on the first day of the war, about 170 schoolgirls and their teachers were buried under rubble from American missiles. The world cannot forget that a strike on Shajareh Tayyebeh Elementary School killed 175 people, including 110 children and 26 teachers.

Even traditional U.S. allies have begun turning away from Washington. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, a right-leaning politician, stated that the war “goes beyond international law” and called it evidence of “the collapse of the global order.” The American public and the world have witnessed war crimes, including a U.S. nuclear submarine torpedoing an unarmed Iranian frigate in the Indian Ocean. Of the 180 service members on board, 87 died, 61 are missing, and only 32 survivors were rescued.

The global outrage and domestic divisions in the U.S. show that the attempt to use war as a smokescreen has failed. Protests in London, Seoul, Washington, and statements from senior politicians demonstrate that humanity is not falling for the old tricks. A war launched to grab oil and save one politician’s reputation threatens to leave America completely isolated, with stagflation, and to bury the memory of those who gave their lives in this senseless slaughter.

A Symbol of Shame and Moral Bankruptcy for the U.S. and Its Current President

The Trump administration and its Israeli allies have no excuses left. The world sees straight through the goals of this war—from hiding corruption scandals to trying to violently seize the region’s resources. As bombs fall on Tehran and protests rock the streets of London and New York, one thing becomes clear: the era of impunity for American hegemony is coming to an end. As one sign at a protest in Washington, D.C., reads, Trump’s war on Iran isn’t called by its official name, “Operation Epic Fury”—it’s called “Operation Epstein’s Fury.” And that name will forever go down in history as a symbol of shame and moral bankruptcy for the United States and its current president.

 

Muhammad ibn Faisal al-Rashid, political scientist, expert on the Arab world

NEO: Implications of a Possible US Ground Invasion of Iran. Abbas Hashemite: 30-03-2026: **************

 

Security

Implications of a Possible US Ground Invasion of Iran

Abbas Hashemite, March 30, 2026

Following Iran’s strong retaliation, the United States is mulling a ground invasion of the country. However, it would have significant implications for the US.

Escalation Amidst Diplomacy

Despite ongoing negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program, the United States and Israel attacked Iran, violating international rules and norms. Most of Iran’s top-level military and civilian leadership was assassinated in the US and Israeli attack on February 28, 2026. In retaliation, Iran targeted Israeli cities and its nuclear and energy infrastructure, along with key US military facilities in the region. Iran also closed the Strait of Hormuz, a key route for global maritime oil trade, which increased global inflation as energy and oil prices surged worldwide.

Since February 28, Iran has been continuously targeting Israeli and US interests in the Middle East. Iran’s strong retaliation against the United States and Israel and its closure of the Strait of Hormuz have exasperated US President Trump. Surging global inflation due to his unnecessary “war of choice,” as Americans call it, has made him desperate to secure a deal over the issue of closure of the Strait of Hormuz. President Trump’s frustration is evident from his simultaneous statement about continuing the war and ending it through diplomatic negotiations.

With the increasing number of military casualties, Trump’s political stature will also diminish, as the argument that “the US troops are sacrificing their lives for Israel” will strengthen

Contradictions in Strategy and Leadership

Due to increasing contradictions between Trump’s rhetoric and actions, people around the world are curious about the future of this war. Following President Trump’s statement regarding talks with Iran, the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced that the Israeli attacks on Iran would continue. On March 25, the Zionist Prime Minister even ordered the Israeli military to speed up its air campaign for the next 48 hours against Iran to destroy as much of its arms industry as possible. Similarly, the US Central Command, on the night when Trump talked about negotiations, reported that air strikes against Iran were carried out extensively.

The cost of the US-Israel and Iran war has already spiraled out of control. The Gulf countries are still unable to recover from the shock of this unexpected war. Amongst all this, a ground invasion of Iran would prove catastrophic for the world, and it would push the war into an ‘irreversible’ phase. Once the United States starts the ground invasion of Iran, it would become nearly impossible to stop the war, and the detrimental impacts of this war would increase manifold. For such an invasion, a clear objective and aim of the war need to be defined first. However, the US and Israeli leadership have failed to define a clear objective of this war.

Shifting Goals and the Risks of Ground War

Initially, the US and Israel stated that their goal was to remove the Islamic regime and end the country’s nuclear and missile program. However, after their failure to spark a native uprising against the Ayatollah regime and Iran’s strong retaliation, President Trump’s objective has apparently shifted towards opening the Strait of Hormuz. Pakistan’s Minister of Defense, Khawaja Asif, also mocked the US by stating, “The goal of the war seems to have shifted to opening the Strait of Hormuz, which was open before the war.” This shifting objective of the war indicates that the US policymakers are unable to define a clear aim of the war they started at the behest of Israel.

The absence of a clear objective has resulted in a military posture that no longer aligns with the initially stated goals of the war, disrupting US military planning. The ground invasion of Iran would not be possible with a few divisions, but it would require a complete military ecosystem. Iran has already mobilized one million soldiers to counter a possible US ground invasion of the country. Therefore, deploying insufficient military forces in Iran would create an imbalance, resulting only in casualties of the US soldiers. With the increasing number of military casualties, Trump’s political stature will also diminish, as the argument that “the US troops are sacrificing their lives for Israel” will strengthen.

If the United States seeks to control the Strait of Hormuz and nearby islands, it would compel Iran to respond with full military might, as it is ready to sacrifice its own energy infrastructure, which has already been significantly damaged by Israeli and US attacks. Similarly, a ground invasion of Iran through the Kurdish region is also impossible for the US, as it would result in a protracted war between the two sides. A prolonged war between the two sides would further increase the economic cost of this war.

Therefore, a ground invasion of Iran, especially under the current circumstances, is impossible. President Trump’s popularity in the US has already declined to a record low after his involvement in this Israeli war. A ground invasion of Iran would further increase political hardships for Donald Trump. However, if he continues to pursue a conflicting policy stance regarding the Iran war, it would be impossible to halt the war diplomatically and further increase mistrust between the two sides.

 

Аbbas Hashemite is a political observer and research analyst for regional and global geopolitical issues. He is currently working as an independent researcher and journalist

NEO: "Agents of Influence": How Netanyahu, Through Trump's Family Circle, Dragged America into War to Save His Own Skin.: Viktor Mikhin: ****************31-03-2026

 

Politics

“Agents of Influence”: How Netanyahu, Through Trump’s Family Circle, Dragged America into War to Save His Own Skin

Viktor Mikhin, March 31, 2026

The Resignation That Exposed the Mechanism of Betrayal of U.S. National Interests.

On March 19, 2026, an event occurred that, in a normal political system, should have caused an earthquake. Joe Kent, the director of the U.S. National Counterterrorism Center, resigned. But not for family reasons or due to “differences over strategic issues”—the euphemisms Washington typically uses to cover up the departure of those who have fallen out of favor. Kent stepped down with a public statement that reads like an indictment: “I cannot in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran.”

Netanyahu, in saving himself from prosecution, has dragged the United States into a war whose consequences could be catastrophic

This is not just a resignation. It’s the removal of a seal behind which lay the ugly truth about how foreign policy decisions are actually made in the United States. Kent, a veteran of special forces and the CIA, a man whose wife died in Syria while on duty, stated what Washington usually prefers to keep quiet: the Trump administration launched a war with Iran under pressure from Israel and its powerful lobby.

Iran did not pose an “imminent threat” to the United States. This was acknowledged by a man who, by virtue of his position, had access to the most classified information on terrorist threats. Yet America found itself drawn into a full-scale military conflict that has already cost the lives of American service members—at least 13 killed and about 200 wounded (at the time of this writing).

How did this become possible? The answer to this question leads straight to Jerusalem, to the office of Benjamin Netanyahu, who found a way to use the U.S. president as a tool to achieve his own political and personal goals.

The Puppeteers from the Family Circle: Trump’s Sons-in-Law and “Mossad Agents”

For those still doubting how deeply Israeli influence has penetrated the highest offices of the White House, one need only look at Donald Trump’s inner circle. At the center of decision-making are two of the president’s sons-in-law—Jared Kushner and, according to some reports, his other son-in-law as well—who hold Israeli passports and, according to informed sources, maintain direct contact with Israeli intelligence agencies.

It was Kushner who, according to reports, played a key role in orchestrating deals and military decisions in Israel’s interest. And this is not speculation: Netanyahu himself, in his memoir “Bibi: My Story,” described how his close adviser Ron Dermer used “golf terminology” to communicate with Trump, finding common ground with him that was beyond the reach of professional diplomats. Trump, as experts note, is “hungry for flattery,” and this weakness was masterfully exploited.

Joe Kent, in an interview with Tucker Carlson, revealed the mechanism of this influence. According to him, “key decision-makers did not have the opportunity to express their views to the president.” There was a “clear gap” between the intelligence data and the information that reached Trump. Who controlled this information filter? The very figures in Trump’s inner circle whose loyalty to Israel has long been beyond question.

“Senior Israeli officials and influential figures in the American media launched a disinformation campaign that completely undermined your ‘America First’ platform and sowed pro-war sentiment in order to push for war with Iran,” Kent wrote in his letter to Trump.

Gabbard Confirms: Diverging Goals Between the U.S. and Israel

Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence in the Trump administration, found herself in a difficult position. On one hand, she must demonstrate loyalty to the president; on the other, her professional integrity prevents her from ignoring obvious facts. And Gabbard made an admission that speaks louder than any journalistic investigation.

In congressional hearings this week, she stated, “The goals set by the president differ from the goals set by the Israelis.” This is a diplomatic formulation that, in intelligence parlance, means the U.S. and Israel are fighting different wars. Israel, under Netanyahu’s leadership, seeks regime change in Iran, its complete destruction. America, according to experts, “does not have a clear idea of what the end goal is.”

Brian Katulis of the Middle East Institute in Washington puts it bluntly: “Israel wants regime change, whereas the United States has an unclear and fuzzy picture of the end state.” In other words, Netanyahu is using the American military machine to achieve his goals, while America itself has neither a strategy nor an exit plan from this venture.

Robert Malley, who conducted negotiations with Iran during the Biden administration, notes that the unpredictable actor in this situation is Trump. “He offered a range of shifting goals, not just from day to day, but often from hour to hour.” Such a situation is ideal for a manipulator. When the U.S. president lacks a clear understanding of his own goals, it’s easy for someone who does have goals to control him.

Saving Himself, Netanyahu Sacrifices America

What lies behind this frantic activity by the Israeli prime minister? Netanyahu is a figure mired in corruption scandals, a man who has spent years balancing between resignation and imprisonment. War for him is not just a geopolitical strategy; it’s a matter of personal survival. As long as America is at war with Iran, the Israeli public is distracted from the legal proceedings against their prime minister, and his political opponents are forced to fall silent in the face of an “existential threat.”

In this context, the persistence with which Netanyahu pushes his decisions through the White House becomes understandable. His adviser Ron Dermer, dubbed “Trump’s whisperer,” visited Washington monthly in the run-up to the current escalation. Along with Kushner and special envoy Steve Witkoff, he “played a leading role in securing last-minute changes that favored Israel.”

Netanyahu’s strategy, analysts note, is to create “permanent chaos” in the Middle East. Destroyed states—Libya, Syria, Iraq, and now Iran—serve Israel’s interests as it seeks to maintain its regional hegemony. America, in this scheme, acts as a mercenary, doing the dirty work for Israeli money and under pressure from the Israeli lobby.

Trump: The Ideal Contractor for the Israeli Project

Donald Trump turned out to be the ideal executor of Israel’s designs. As commentators write, he “proved to be the ideal Israeli subcontractor—a president dependent on flattery and prone to grandiosity.” Netanyahu skillfully played on this weakness, calling Trump the “best friend of Israel” and creating in him the illusion of greatness.

Trump’s first term already showed how far he was willing to go to please the Israeli prime minister. Recognizing the Golan Heights as Israeli territory, moving the embassy to Jerusalem, withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal—all these decisions were dictated not by U.S. interests, but by directives from Jerusalem.

Kent, in his statement, debunks the myth that the war with Iran was caused by a real threat. He reminds us that “the echo of a disinformation campaign was used to deceive you into believing that Iran posed an imminent threat to the United States. It was a lie.”

Significantly, Trump reacted to Kent’s resignation with his characteristic aggression, calling him “very weak on security matters.” But this only confirms the words of the former official: the administration has no tolerance for those who dare to speak the truth about the real sources of threats to America.

America’s Global Isolation: Allies Turn Away

The consequences of this policy were not long in coming. Washington’s European allies, traditionally supportive of the U.S. in international conflicts, are distancing themselves this time. EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas stated that this is “not Europe’s war.” Former British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak emphasized that the decision must be based on “Britain’s national interests.”

Even German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who previously predicted the imminent end of the Islamic Republic, is now calling for an end to the war and a return to diplomacy. The leaders of Canada, Italy, and Spain have stated that the war with Iran signals the “collapse of the world order.”

America, which until recently claimed the role of leader of the free world, finds itself isolated. And this is a direct consequence of the policy that Netanyahu imposed through his lobby on a weak and dependent president.

Whose Conscience Will Be Quieted Next?

Joe Kent said his “conscience is quieted” after resigning. But how many more officials in Washington continue to pretend that nothing is happening? How many more American soldiers will die in a war that serves the interests of another country?

The resignation of the director of the National Counterterrorism Center is not just an episode in domestic political infighting. It is a symptom of a fatal illness in the American political system. When decisions about war and peace are made not based on U.S. national interests but under pressure from a foreign lobby and family ties to foreign intelligence agents, America ceases to be a sovereign state.

Netanyahu, in saving himself from prosecution, has dragged the United States into a war whose consequences could be more catastrophic than the invasion of Iraq in 2003. And this is a tragedy not only for America but for the entire world, which finds itself on the brink of a major war because of the corrupt interests of one Israeli politician.

The resignation of Joe Kent is a warning. The question is whether those who can still stop the slide into the abyss will heed it. Or will America continue to serve as a compliant tool in the hands of others’ political strategies, until a wave of resignations turns into an avalanche that sweeps away the last honest people in government?

The war with Iran is Netanyahu’s war. And every American soldier, every lost aircraft, every strike on Iranian territory—that is the price America pays for the weakness of its leader and the power of the Israeli lobby. Joe Kent refused to be an accomplice to this crime. The rest of those who still wear uniforms in Washington should ask themselves, when will their conscience finally speak out just as loudly?

 

Viktor Mikhin, writer, Middle East expert

The Gulf's Delusion: "Destroying Iran" Will Backfire. Salman Rafi Sheikh: 31-03-2026, *****************

 

Politics

The Gulf’s Delusion: Why “Destroying Iran” Will Backfire

Salman Rafi Sheikh, March 31, 2026

The Gulf is asking for a war it cannot win and a peace it cannot survive. Across Western and regional media, Arab Gulf states are no longer merely supporting US strikes on Iran. They are urging Washington to go further: not to stop short, not to settle for deterrence, but to fundamentally degrade—or even eliminate—the Iranian regime as a threat.

The reason for this is what is now a widespread belief that Iran has “crossed every red line” and must be decisively neutralized. But inviting destruction is less of a strategy than a delusion.

Why the Gulf Wants Iran “Destroyed”

To understand the Gulf’s position, one must take its fears seriously. For years, Iran has developed what Gulf policymakers see as a uniquely destabilizing model of power: not conventional military dominance, but networked influence through proxies, missiles, drones, and maritime disruption. Recent attacks have reinforced this perception. Gulf states now face not just a rival across the water but a threat embedded across Iraq, Yemen, and Lebanon and increasingly within their own borders. The war has taken the shine off the glittery capitals. These states, for decades, relied on the US as a counterforce. However, the ongoing war has badly exposed the limits of US power in and beyond the Gulf to achieve its objectives through military means.

The Gulf’s current trajectory is not just about Iran. It is about the kind of regional order that will emerge from this war

This has produced a shift in thinking. Diplomacy, once seen as a way to manage Iran, is now viewed as insufficient. The logic emerging in Gulf capitals is blunt: as long as Iran retains its capabilities, it will remain dangerous. Temporary ceasefires merely reset the cycle. This explains why Gulf officials are pushing Washington not to end the war prematurely. As reported, they are urging the US to ensure that any outcome “goes beyond a ceasefire” and permanently degrades Iran’s military and strategic capacity.

More strikingly, behind closed doors, the message appears even clearer. Reports suggest Gulf leaders have encouraged the US to “continue hitting the Iranians hard” and not stop short of neutralizing the regime’s ability to threaten them.

There is also a deeper, structural fear: vulnerability. Despite vast wealth and advanced weaponry, Gulf states know they cannot defend themselves against sustained Iranian retaliation. Iran has already demonstrated its ability to strike oil infrastructure, ports, and cities across the region. From this perspective, the logic of escalation is straightforward: if Iran is too dangerous to live with—and too powerful to deter reliably—then eliminating its capacity altogether appears, at least conceptually, to be the only path to long-term security. Simply put, it is a logic born not of confidence, but of fear. Ultimately, the fear is blinding Gulf states to what might follow the destruction of Iran. It will not bring stability. If the Iraq War served any lesson, destruction of states and societies can only bring instability on a much wider scale than what the present war represents.

The Reality the Gulf Is Ignoring

The problem is not that Gulf states misunderstand the threat from Iran. It is that they misunderstand Iran itself. Iran is not Iraq in 2003. It is a far larger, more complex, and more resilient state. Even after weeks of sustained US-Israeli strikes, more than significant portions of its military capability remain intact, and it continues to project power across the region.

More importantly, Iran’s strength is not reducible to its military hardware. It lies in its political structure, strategic depth, and ability to absorb and adapt to external pressure. Decades of sanctions and confrontation have not weakened the system; they have hardened it. This is where Gulf strategy begins to drift into delusion. The assumption underlying calls to “destroy” Iran is that such an outcome is both achievable and stabilizing. Neither is true.

First, the idea that external force can collapse the Iranian state ignores historical experience. The United States has struggled to stabilize far weaker states after military intervention. Iran, with its size, population, and institutional depth, presents a vastly more difficult challenge.

Second, even if Iran were severely weakened, the outcome would not resemble the orderly removal of a threat. It would more likely resemble fragmentation: competing factions, armed groups, and localized conflicts spilling across borders. In other words, the Gulf is imagining a future in which Iran disappears as a problem. The more plausible future is one in which a fragmented Iran multiplies into many problems.

A Strategy That Undermines Itself

This is what makes the Gulf’s current position not just risky, but self-defeating. By pushing for maximalist objectives—total degradation or regime collapse—Gulf states are narrowing their own strategic options. If the United States cannot deliver such an outcome—and there is little evidence it can—they will be left in a worse position than before: more exposed, more dependent, and with fewer diplomatic channels. There is also a fundamental contradiction at the heart of their approach.

Gulf economies depend on stability: uninterrupted energy exports, secure shipping lanes, and investor confidence. Yet the strategy they are supporting—prolonged war against Iran—directly threatens all three. Even limited Iranian retaliation has already disrupted shipping and targeted critical infrastructure.

Finally, there is the question of agency. Gulf states are advocating a war whose outcome they do not control, fought by a partner whose commitment may not be indefinite. If Washington recalibrates—as it has in past conflicts—the Gulf will be left to manage the consequences of a confrontation it helped escalate but cannot sustain on its own. In that sense, the strategy reflects a deeper structural weakness: the inability to reconcile dependence on external security guarantees with the realities of regional power politics.

The Gulf’s current trajectory is not just about Iran. It is about the kind of regional order that will emerge from this war. If escalation continues, the most likely outcome is not the elimination of Iran as a strategic actor, but the normalization of a more violent, unstable Gulf, one in which infrastructure is routinely targeted, shipping is perpetually at risk, and the line between state and non-state conflict continues to blur. In such a region, wealth will not guarantee security. Nor will military procurement substitute for strategic autonomy.

The deeper irony is this: in trying to escape the shadow of Iran, Gulf states may be helping to create a region in which that shadow becomes longer, more fragmented, and far harder to manage. The choice they face is not between living with Iran and destroying it. It is between managing a powerful adversary or unleashing a disorder that no external power, however strong, will be able to contain.

 

Salman Rafi Sheikh, research analyst of international relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affair

NEO: Israeli-US-Iran War: The Trap of Asymmetric Conflict and the Geopolitical Failing of American Power: Ricardo Martins: ***********25-03-2026

Security Israeli–US–Iran War: The Trap of Asymmetric Conflict and the Geopolitical Failing of American Power Ricardo Martins, March 25, 2026 Trump walked into a trap set years in advance: a war he cannot win, on terms he does not control. What was meant to project strength is now reshaping the Middle East and accelerating a broader shift towards a fractured, post-hegemonic world order. trump - netanyahu - hamenei Trump Is Caught in Netanyahu’s Trap In his campaign, Donald Trump promised to end the cycle of “endless wars.” Yet, paradoxically, he has become the first U.S. president to enter directly into a large-scale confrontation with Iran, precisely the scenario that previous administrations had cautiously avoided. Netanyahu had previously unsuccessfully set various traps to drag Obama, Biden, and Trump into a war against Iran in his first term. This time, he was successful. The Epstein files might have played a role. What emerges from this trajectory is not merely a policy miscalculation but a structural trap: one long cultivated by Benjamin Netanyahu and rooted in the logic of asymmetric warfare. At the core of this trap lies a fundamental mismatch between political ambition and military reality. Netanyahu’s long-standing objectives—regime change and weakening Iran—rest on a conventional understanding of military superiority. Trump, however, entered the conflict without a coherent strategic vision, effectively inheriting an escalation dynamic he neither designed nor controlled. As it was said, “the person without a plan… is Trump,” while Iran had anticipated precisely this scenario and prepared accordingly. Trump did not simply enter a war with Iran. He entered a different kind of war, one that the United States has historically struggled to fight and even more to exit An Asymmetric Conflict This is where the concept of asymmetric conflict becomes central. In international relations, asymmetric warfare refers to conflicts in which weaker actors avoid direct confrontation and instead exploit the vulnerabilities, such as economic, technological, and political, of stronger opponents. Classic examples include U.S. engagements in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq, where initial military dominance gave way to prolonged attrition and strategic exhaustion. As former Greek finance minister Yanis Varoufakis notes, the United States has repeatedly entered such conflicts with “immense confidence” only to exit “with its wings clipped.” Iran has internalised these lessons. Lacking conventional superiority, it has deployed a doctrine aimed not at decisive victory but at protracted destabilisation. The so-called “mosaic defence strategy,” a decentralised system of command with multiple layers of succession, ensures operational continuity even under decapitation strikes. This is combined with the use of low-cost drones and older missile systems to exhaust the adversary’s high-value interceptors, effectively transforming the battlefield into a domain of “attrition economics”— death by a thousand cuts. The implications are profound. The cost asymmetry is staggering: while Iran spends relatively little to sustain pressure, the U.S. and Israel incur enormous daily expenditures—estimated in the billions—to maintain defensive systems. This inversion of cost-efficiency is precisely the trap. It forces the stronger actor into a position where continuing the war becomes economically and politically unsustainable. The withdrawal of the USS Abraham Lincoln symbolises this shift. Once considered the backbone of U.S. naval dominance, aircraft carriers are increasingly exposed in environments saturated with precision missiles and drone clouds. As several analysts suggest, this moment may mark a turning point in military doctrine, where “large and expensive targets” replace the notion of “impregnable fortresses.” Whether overstated or not, the symbolic damage to U.S. credibility is undeniable. Yet the trap extends beyond the military domain. It is also geopolitical. Trump now finds himself increasingly isolated. European allies — already alienated by unilateral decision-making and broader trade tensions — have shown little willingness to participate. The U.K., Poland, Germany, and Italy’s explicit refusal to join the war illustrates a broader trend: a growing reluctance within Europe to underwrite U.S.-led interventions, particularly when excluded from the decision-making process. The attempt to pressure NATO allies into securing the Strait of Hormuz only reinforces this perception of coercion and weakness. The Gulf Monarchies Reassess Their Security Calculus More significantly, the Gulf monarchies—long considered pillars of the U.S. regional order—are reassessing their security calculus. The war has exposed a paradox: the presence of U.S. bases may increase, rather than reduce, their vulnerability. These states were effectively asked to defend American assets on their own territory, while U.S. operations prioritised Israel’s security. This inversion undermines the credibility of the U.S. security guarantee and accelerates hedging strategies, including a diversification towards China. The partial closure of the Strait of Hormuz further illustrates the global dimension of the conflict. Crucially, the disruption is selective: it targets U.S.-aligned economic flows while sparing those of alternative networks, particularly those not denominated in dollars. This introduces a structural challenge to the dollar-based global energy system and signals a broader shift towards fragmented economic blocs. The Changing Geopolitical and War Dynamics In this context, the future of neoliberal globalisation — particularly in the Gulf — is called into question. The region’s economic model has historically depended on stability, open trade routes, and U.S. security guarantees. The current conflict destabilises all three. If sustained, it may accelerate a transition towards more state-centric, security-driven economic arrangements, with significant implications for global markets. Meanwhile, internal dynamics are shifting across all actors. In Iran, the war appears to have reinforced national cohesion and psychological resilience. The capacity to absorb initial shocks—including significant leadership losses—and to respond immediately has strengthened the perception of strategic preparedness and institutional continuity. In Israel, by contrast, the tone of political and military discourse seems to be evolving: less marked by overconfidence and increasingly attentive to the limits of air power when confronted with a dispersed, adaptive adversary capable of inflicting substantial damage on critical infrastructure. In Washington, the prevailing mood is no longer one of anticipated military success but rather of crisis management and containment. The pressure of the coming midterm elections also plays a role. This brings us back to the central question: what would constitute a “victory” for Trump? In conventional terms, victory would imply regime change or decisive military degradation. Neither appears achievable. Instead, Trump’s objective seems to have shifted towards narrative management: seeking a symbolic success that allows for withdrawal. Yet even this is constrained by Iran’s position: Tehran insists that the war is not over and explicitly rejects American diplomacy, as they no longer believe in it, and has called upon its conditions to end the war. Netanyahu’s Counterproductive Vision The deeper issue, however, is structural. Netanyahu’s vision of regional hegemony—potentially through the fragmentation of Iran into a failed state— is strategically counterproductive. As experiences in Libya, Syria, and Iraq demonstrate, state collapse tends to generate prolonged instability, undermining not only regional order but also U.S. interests. In this sense, the trap is double-layered: a war that cannot be won and a victory that would be self-defeating. Ultimately, this conflict reflects a broader transformation in global politics. The combination of asymmetric warfare, shifting alliances, and economic fragmentation points towards a post-hegemonic international order, in which traditional metrics of power are increasingly insufficient. Iran, despite its relative weakness, is shaping the rules of this new environment, demonstrating how resilience, adaptability, and strategic patience can offset material inferiority. Trump did not simply enter a war with Iran. He entered a different kind of war, one that the United States has historically struggled to fight and even more to exit. Ricardo Martins – Doctor of Sociology, specialist in European and international politics as well as geopolitics Follow new articles on our Telegram channel

NEO: The End of Western Civilization: Why the World No Longer Needs a Western Model : Taut Batut : **********

Society The End of Western Civilization: Why the World No Longer Needs a Western Model Taut Bataut, March 23, 2026 Western dominance is no longer a prevailing reality, yet it is invoked to sustain influence and control. Emerging civilizational models — particularly China’ — offer credible alternatives rooted in pluralism. A shift away from Western frameworks is essential for a more balanced and multipolar global order. The End of Western Civilization: Why the World No Longer Needs a Western Model The Trump 2.0 administration, since January 2025, has been continuously selling a narrative to the western public to realize the supremacy of western civilization. Explicitly criticizing the liberal world order, the US officials are invoking the civilizational rhetoric to pursue their coercive aims against their intended rivals. “We are part of one Western culture. Throughout the centuries, we have been united by the most significant connections: our shared history and traditions, from Christian faith to language and heritage; wisdom towards common descent; and sacrifices made by our forefathers for the common civilization of today” (Marco Rubio – US Secretary of State, 2026) Such blunt statements raise several questions: why is this politicization of Western culture once again resurfacing? Why is the state, which considered itself the ‘birthplace of democracy,’ now heading towards a coercive and imperial path whereby both friends and foes are being subjugated under the pretext of so-called Western or white supremacy? The answer lies in a fact: when powerful states start weakening, they initiate civilizational debates out of anxiety and fear. The very argument of saving the world through reviving Western civilization is wrong in every sense Myth of a Unified West “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do” (Clash of Civilization – Samuel Huntington) The current emphasis on a unified version of the West by the Trump administration contradicts sharply with historical evidence and traditional realities. Western civilization has never been a monolithic entity; rather, it has been socially, politically, and culturally segregated. But, in modern times, these divergences and fragmentations are being portrayed to the general public as a long-consolidated history of intellectual superiority. The ‘Great Books Tradition’ is its best manifestation, whereby a complete educational curriculum, known as the ‘Canon,’ was designed to provide a foundational text shaping the so-called Western civilization. It represents a ‘grand dialogue’ between various scholars, including Plato, Augustine, Einstein, etc., across three millennia. Through these academic developments, it has been portrayed that the West is the pinnacle of human development. This idea marginalizes significant contributions from other civilizational discourse, including ancient Chinese philosophy, mathematical innovations of ancient India, and scientific knowledge of the Islamic world. This superiority complex is grounded in conservative obsession, presenting a world order characterized by a contest between Western and other civilizations. Why only the West? The western academic or cultural discourse has been designed and disseminated in a way that all other civilizational discourses are being judged critically. This universal standardization of Western civilization is, in fact, misleading and biased. Other major civilizations, such as those in India, China, the Arab world, or Africa, have also contributed in tandem or even before the Western colloquy. For instance, modern mathematics, in particular the Pythagorean Theorem, is solely associated with Western scholars. However, it was already known in China, India, and Egypt. Similarly, Metaphysics by Aristotle was rivaled by Buddhist philosophical discourse known as “Nagarjuna’s Madhyamakakarika.” In addition, “Guanzi” and the “Discourse on Salt and Iron” were key Chinese economic texts that explained the functioning of trade and governance, even before Adam Smith’s economic model. However, the West has always painted itself as the ‘mother of reason’ or ‘nursemaid of science.’ Drawing attention to this discrimination, Edward Said, in his monumental work titled ‘Orientalism,’ clearly indicated, “The West treated non-Western societies as inferior because they needed to control them politically, culturally, and economically.” Therefore, knowledge is no longer a product of a particular civilization; instead, it has been shared throughout the world. The World Needs a Reset The current geopolitical situation is characterized by a global disorder where established powers, i.e., the US, are now anxious to protect their past position of eminence. From the very first day, the Trump 2.0 administration has been striving to convey a message to the entire international community that the so-called supreme Western civilization is under grave threat. Rhetoric such as immigrants taking over the natives and hatred towards foreigners is being used constantly to influence public perception, reviving the imperialist past of the West. The US National Security Strategy (NSS), released in November 2025, explicitly mentioned that the West, in particular Europe, is at the brink of ‘civilizational erasure.’ The US is trying to portray that the world requires only one dominant civilizational model to thrive and prosper. However, the question here arises: Why should the modern world rely on a single model? “When power evades, identity takes the front seat.” The current multipolar world provides various civilizational frameworks that can coexist with each other, further enhancing the human intellect. Kwame Anthony Appiah, in his work Cosmopolitanism, argued, “It’s better to view cultural identities as adaptable and interdependent, allowing ideas from different backgrounds to interact with each other and challenge each other’s ideas rather than being fixed to any single model that is supreme or inflexible.” Instead of accepting the fact that civilization is a shared human achievement, the US is weaponizing it to be imposed on all other discourses. The ongoing geopolitical uncertainties are a result of this civilizational dominance. What the world got at the end was another series of regional wars that could lead to a greater catastrophe. Therefore, the upcoming world order should be characterized by a plurality of civilizational frameworks where the doors of intellect are not confined to a few. The Turning Point The world is now in a phase of order transition where multiple power centers are occupying the stage. The rise of middle powers and resistance from the entire international community against civilizational subjugation have isolated the West, in particular, the US. The United States has plunged into a situation of civil disorder and violence. The country is witnessing some of the largest protests in multiple cities against the kingship of the Trump 2.0 administration. Approximately 3000 demonstrations are expected this year. Moreover, the hostilities by ICE agents and harsh immigrant policies have further exacerbated the situation. Indiscriminate killings by executive authorities are now becoming a daily routine. Attacks on synagogues and anti-Muslim incidents are increasing at an alarming rate. “The entire empire has sunk into a quagmire of extravagance from which they cannot extricate themselves” (Liu Cixin). The resurgence of the far-right wave in the West has resulted in civil disobedience and domestic instability. Here, the world needs to completely shift its focus from a West-originated civilizational framework to other alternatives. The PRC has long been identified as a peaceful rising power whose economic model benefits its domestic needs and provides substantial advantages to the international community. From military to economic, and cultural to academic, Beijing has provided the world with a suitable alternative to the Western model. This does not mean shifting from one dominant framework to the other; rather, it contends that the Chinese model is shaped in a way where every other civilizational framework is provided equal space to contribute to human advancement. Conclusion The very argument of saving the world through reviving Western civilization is wrong in every sense. This rhetoric is being used as a weapon by the US to preserve its declining power. From Plato to NATO, the so-called unified version of Western civilization is a myth designed to confine power to a few hands while subjugating others. From ancient Chinese to African civilizational frameworks, the world is comprised of a number of successful models that could coexist with each other. The current multipolar world order provides ample opportunity for the international community to take advantage — breaking the shackles of Western dominance to usher in a new era of progress and development. Taut Bataut is a researcher and writer that publishes on South Asian geopolitics

NEO: The Donroe Doctrine: After Impact: 24-03-2026: ****************

Politics The Donroe Doctrine After Impact Phil Butler, March 24, 2026 The internal transformation of power in the United States and the foreign policy decisions of the Trump administration are leading to a systemic weakening of American influence and an increase in global instability. The Donroe Doctrine After Impact Fourteen months into Donald Trump’s second term, the “revolution of loyalty” has become a graveyard for its own architects, and the consequences are no longer contained. What began as promises of peace through strength is hardening into a doctrine of abandonment, provocation, and self-inflicted isolation, leaving allies exposed, adversaries emboldened, and the global order edging toward fracture. The Sidelined Revolution The second Trump administration was sold as a “revolution of loyalty.” Fourteen months later, that bench has become a graveyard for the disruptors who built the 2024 mandate. Tulsi Gabbard at DNI and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. at HHS hold offices of immense title. Still, negligible influence, sidelined as the administration advances a conflict in Iran that their own coalition once warned would be catastrophic. Allies are benched, adversaries iterate, and the American presidency drifts into a kind of performative reassurance, gestures meant less to command reality than to confirm it still exists The first public fracture came on March 17, when counterterrorism director Joseph Kent resigned in a scathing letter describing the war as “manufactured.” The Federal Bureau of Investigation moved immediately to investigate Kent for “leaks,” clarifying the governing logic of the Donroe era: loyalty is not a virtue but a requirement, and dissent, even from within, is recoded as criminal exposure. This sidelining is not incidental; it is architectural. A coalition once defined by ideological outsiders has been reconstituted as a closed hierarchy of functionaries, in which proximity to power confers visibility without agency. Figures like Gabbard and Kennedy now operate less as policymakers than as symbolic anchors, preserving the image of insurgency while its operational core is quietly redirected toward conventional interventionism. What emerges is not a betrayed revolution but a processed one, its sharpest edges absorbed and repurposed into something far more familiar. The result is a hollowed executive structure that still speaks the language of rupture while behaving with the instincts of continuity. In that gap between rhetoric and action, the “revolution of loyalty” takes its final form not as a break from the system but as its latest adaptation. A Maritime Stranglehold While Washington fixates on “annexing Canada” and starving a defiant Cuba to satisfy executive whim, the rest of the world has quietly executed a double-lock on global trade. By coordinating with the Houthis to choke the Bab-el-Mandeb, Iran has not only closed the Strait of Hormuz but has effectively padlocked the Suez Canal. For Europe, this is terminal. Qatari LNG is stranded; ships now face a 14-day detour around the Cape of Good Hope, adding millions in fuel costs to a continent already reeling from winter gas storage at a lethal 30 percent. While the United States insults its NATO allies, those allies watch their industrial base dissolve in real time. The most reckless gamble of the Donroe Doctrine is the abandonment of Japan. On March 19, during a bilateral meeting at the White House, President Trump met Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi just as Japan’s energy grid teetered on the edge of total blackout. Japan relies on the Middle East for over 90 percent of its crude; with the Strait closed, Tokyo is burning through strategic reserves at a rate that will leave the country dark by summer. If the United States breaks this alliance with transactional insults, it will lose the First Island Chain. Without bases like Yokosuka, the Pacific becomes a “No Man’s Land” where a U.S. carrier takes 20 days to reach a flashpoint from Hawaii while China sits just hours away. The danger is not simply disruption but a cascade. Once insurers begin classifying both the Strait of Hormuz and the Bab el-Mandeb as active war zones, underwriting collapses and shipping halts. Energy markets then decouple from physical supply and begin pricing pure uncertainty, a feedback loop that drives spot prices beyond what even emergency reserves can stabilize. Europe’s fragile equilibrium snaps first, but the shock does not remain regional; it transmits through derivatives exposure, sovereign debt stress, and currency volatility, pulling even insulated economies into contraction. At that point, the crisis ceases to be about Iran or maritime chokepoints. It becomes a full-spectrum systemic event in which logistics failure, financial contagion, and alliance fracture reinforce one another in real time. In that environment, a single miscalculation, whether a naval incident in the Gulf or a forced rationing decision in Tokyo, does not remain isolated but risks triggering a chain reaction far beyond the control of any one state. Pacific Abandonment As the United States cannibalizes its own future, flying mattresses from unfinished ships to patch a sidelined carrier in Crete, the “axis of the sanctioned” does not merely survive; it coheres. Trade corridors are being redrawn in real time, with Russia and India advancing routes that render the Suez Canal increasingly irrelevant. At the same time, China consolidates its position as both beneficiary and broker of selective stability. The imbalance is no longer rhetorical; it is logistical. Where the U.S. once guaranteed the flow, it now improvises scarcity and, in doing so, teaches its rivals how to build a system that no longer requires it. The Donroe Doctrine promised “Peace through Strength,” but what it has produced is something colder, an atmosphere of strategic evaporation, where presence lingers but power does not. Allies are benched, adversaries iterate, and the American presidency drifts into a kind of performative reassurance, gestures meant less to command reality than to confirm it still exists. This is the gravity at the center: not collapse as spectacle, but erosion as process, the slow realization that the architecture of control has already been outgrown by those it once contained. For those still looking for markers of continuity, the symbolism has turned almost too precise. The United States Commission of Fine Arts, now fully aligned with the administration, has approved a 24-karat gold commemorative coin for July 4, 2026. Its design, a stern-faced president leaning forward with fists pressed to a desk, reads less like a celebration than stabilization, as if the figure itself were bracing against unseen momentum. Priced as a luxury artifact and minted as a national keepsake, it risks becoming something else entirely: a relic issued in advance of recognition, a polished object marking a milestone the country may struggle to inhabit by the time it arrives. Phil Butler is a policy investigator and analyst, a political scientist and expert on Eastern Europe, and an author of the recent bestseller “Putin’s Praetorians” and other books Follow new articles on our Telegram channel