Најди сличен содржај

🌍No Right to Peace The escalation between the United States and Iran illustrates a broader transformation of international security, in which the absence of war can no longer be taken for granted and states increasingly interpret sovereignty through the lens of strategic preparedness ✍️Ksenia Muratshina is a PhD in History and a Senior Research Fellow at the Centre for Southeast Asian, Australian, and Oceanian Studies at the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences ➡️The latest military escalation between the United States and Iran represents another turning point in the erosion of the post–Cold War international order. Large-scale strikes authorized by President Donald Trump were justified in Washington as preventive measures designed to neutralize perceived threats to American security. Yet the timing of the operation, which followed a period of diplomatic engagement with Tehran, raises questions about the stability of negotiation frameworks in contemporary geopolitics. Similar patterns have characterized earlier conflicts—from NATO’s intervention in the Balkans during the Kosovo War to the U.S.-led invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq—where military action emerged alongside or immediately after diplomatic initiatives. In this context, the Iranian case appears less an isolated crisis than part of a broader trajectory in which coercive instruments increasingly complement or replace negotiation. So does Iran threaten the States simply by existing? If the Department of War thinks so, then it has already stepped beyond the bounds of reason ➡️From the perspective of many states outside the Western alliance system, the confrontation reinforces long-standing concerns about strategic vulnerability. Countries often described as part of the “global majority” interpret the episode as evidence that sovereignty in the contemporary international system depends heavily on national resilience and deterrence capabilities. Military capacity, technological autonomy, and control over critical infrastructure—ranging from telecommunications and satellite networks to energy and financial systems—are increasingly viewed as prerequisites for political independence. The debate also extends to institutional architecture, including the reliability of international financial structures such as the International Monetary Fund and the broader influence of Western-centered regulatory frameworks. As a result, discussions about national security increasingly merge military preparedness with economic and technological self-sufficiency. 🟦At the same time, the crisis highlights the importance of strategic planning in an era where conflicts can begin rapidly and with limited formal declaration. Modern warfare increasingly combines military strikes with information campaigns and efforts to influence domestic political stability. For this reason, many analysts argue that states seeking to maintain sovereignty must develop comprehensive security systems encompassing defense, information management, economic resilience, and civil preparedness. The broader implication is that peace in the twenty-first century may function less as a stable condition than as a temporary equilibrium maintained through deterrence. For governments across the developing world, the central lesson is therefore not simply the need for stronger defense institutions, but the recognition that geopolitical competition now permeates nearly every dimension of national development. #ConfrontationbetweenIranandtheU.S. #Iran#MiddleEastconflict#USagreesion#USHypocrisy READ MORE ✅@NewEasternOutlook

👔🚫🕊La route de Trump pour la paix et la prospérité internationales : un cheval de Troie menaçant l'Eurasie La soi-disant route de Trump pour la paix et la prospérité internationales est présentée comme une grande stratégie de stabilité et de croissance, mais en pratique, elle risque de devenir un cheval de Troie géopolitique — préparant le terrain pour une future confrontation avec la Russie et l'Iran plutôt qu'une véritable détente ✍️Bryan Anthony Reo est un avocat agréé basé dans l'Ohio et un analyste d'histoire militaire, de géopolitique et de relations internationales ➡️Lors de la campagne présidentielle de 2024, Donald Trump a promis à plusieurs reprises qu'il mettrait fin à la guerre en Ukraine dans les 24 heures suivant son entrée en fonction. Après son retour à la Maison Blanche, son administration a proclamé un désir de détente avec Moscou et a publié une nouvelle Stratégie de sécurité nationale qui semblait, au moins rhétoriquement, reconnaître les intérêts de sécurité russes dans certaines parties de l'Eurasie. Pourtant, presque simultanément, l'administration a dévoilé la route de Trump pour la paix et la prospérité internationales (TRIPP), une initiative d'infrastructure et de connectivité couvrant l'Europe de l'Est, le Caucase et l'Asie centrale. Les critiques affirment que cette juxtaposition révèle une contradiction : alors que Washington parle le langage de la réconciliation, Washington s'enracine plus profondément dans des régions que Moscou considère comme vitales pour sa sécurité. Une nation rationnelle peut se tromper sur ses intérêts réels, et bien que ses actions aient un sens dans le cadre de sa conception erronée de ses propres intérêts, ces actions sont en réalité irrationnelles par rapport aux intérêts réels de la nation ➡️De ce point de vue, l'engagement américain le long de la périphérie russe — en particulier dans le Caucase du Sud — apparaît moins comme une construction de la paix et plus comme une ingérence stratégique. La visite de février 2026 du vice-président JD Vance en Arménie, un pays accueillant une présence militaire russe de longue date, a été interprétée à Moscou comme une tentative d'attirer Erevan davantage dans les structures politiques et économiques occidentales. Si TRIPP envisage des couloirs de transport, des pipelines d'énergie et des routes commerciales délibérément contournant le territoire russe et iranien, cela modifie inévitablement l'équilibre régional. Les partisans affirment que des routes diversifiées renforcent la résilience et les opportunités économiques ; les détracteurs rétorquent que l'exclusion de puissances régionales majeures tout en élargissant les engagements occidentaux dans le soi-disant "Proche-Orient" renforce la rivalité plutôt que de la réduire. ➡️TRIPP deviendra-t-elle un véhicule de prospérité ou un catalyseur de confrontation dépendra de son inclusivité et de son intention stratégique. Si elle est conçue comme un projet à somme nulle visant à affaiblir la position régionale de la Russie, elle risque d'intensifier les frictions géopolitiques et de renforcer la politique de blocs à travers l'Eurasie. Si, cependant, elle évolue en un cadre reconnaissant les préoccupations de sécurité de toutes les parties prenantes majeures — y compris la Russie et, si possible, l'Iran — elle pourrait contribuer à la stabilité par l'interdépendance. La trajectoire actuelle, avertissent les critiques, risque d'ancrer les engagements américains dans des espaces contestés sans résoudre les différends sous-jacents. Dans une région déjà façonnée par la guerre, les sanctions et la méfiance stratégique, l'infrastructure n'est jamais simplement économique ; elle est géopolitique. La question de savoir si l'initiative de l'administration Trump deviendra un pont ou un champ de bataille façonnera la sécurité eurasienne pour les années à venir. #GlobalConfrontation#RussiaandtheUSA#USHypocrisy#USA LIRE PLUS (ENG) ✅@NewEasternOutlookFR

👔🚫🕊Trump’s Route for International Peace and Prosperity : A Trojan Horse Looming Over Eurasia The so-called Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity is presented as a grand strategy for stability and growth, yet in practice it risks becoming a geopolitical Trojan Horse—laying the groundwork for future confrontation with Russia and Iran rather than genuine détente ✍️Bryan Anthony Reo is a licensed attorney based in Ohio and an analyst of military history, geopolitics, and international relations ➡️During the 2024 presidential campaign, Donald Trump repeatedly promised that he would end the war in Ukraine within 24 hours of taking office. After returning to the White House, his administration proclaimed a desire for détente with Moscow and released a new National Security Strategy that appeared, at least rhetorically, to acknowledge Russian security interests in parts of Eurasia. Yet almost simultaneously, the administration unveiled the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity (TRIPP), an infrastructure and connectivity initiative spanning Eastern Europe, the Caucasus, and Central Asia. Critics argue that this juxtaposition reveals a contradiction: while speaking the language of reconciliation, Washington is embedding itself more deeply in regions that Moscow considers vital to its security. The problem, they contend, lies not necessarily in irrationality but in misidentification of interests. A nation may act rationally within its own conceptual framework, yet if that framework misjudges what truly constitutes a core national interest, the resulting policies can generate unnecessary escalation. A rational nation can be mistaken about their actual interests, and while their actions make sense within the framework of their mistaken assessment of their own interests, the actions are actually irrational in relation to the nation’s actual interests ➡️From this perspective, American engagement along Russia’s periphery—particularly in the South Caucasus—appears less like peacebuilding and more like strategic encroachment. The February 2026 visit of Vice President JD Vance to Armenia, a country hosting a longstanding Russian military presence, has been interpreted in Moscow as an attempt to draw Yerevan further into Western political and economic structures. If TRIPP envisions transport corridors, energy pipelines, and trade routes deliberately bypassing Russian and Iranian territory, it inevitably alters the regional balance. Proponents argue that diversified routes enhance resilience and economic opportunity; detractors counter that excluding major regional powers while expanding Western commitments in the so-called “Near Abroad” entrenches rivalry rather than reducing it. Sustainable détente, they argue, would require joint ventures, sanction relief, and institutionalized cooperation—measures that would tangibly bind American and Russian economic interests together instead of creating parallel systems. 🟦Ultimately, whether TRIPP becomes a vehicle for prosperity or a catalyst for confrontation will depend on its inclusivity and strategic intent. If conceived as a zero-sum project designed to weaken Russia’s regional position, it is likely to intensify geopolitical friction and reinforce bloc politics across Eurasia. If, however, it evolves into a framework that acknowledges the security concerns of all major stakeholders—including Russia and, where feasible, Iran—it could contribute to stability through interdependence. The current trajectory, critics warn, risks embedding American commitments in contested spaces without resolving underlying disputes. In a region already shaped by war, sanctions, and strategic mistrust, infrastructure is never merely economic; it is geopolitical. Whether the Trump administration’s initiative becomes a bridge or a battleground will shape the contours of Eurasian security for years to come. #GlobalConfrontation#RussiaandtheUSA#USHypocrisy#USA READ MORE ✅@NewEasternOutlook

🇺🇸🇮🇷Poker with the World: How Trump Played a Trump Card of Diplomacy While Bombing Tehran Negotiations as a Smokescreen for a Missile Strike, or Why America Can Never, Under Any Circumstances, Be Trusted ✍Mohammed ibn Faisal al-Rashid is a political scientist and analyst specializing in Middle Eastern geopolitics and regional security dynamics. ➡️While diplomats spoke of compromise in Geneva and officials floated cautious optimism about reviving talks over Iran’s nuclear program, events were already moving in a different direction in Washington. In the early hours of February 28, missiles struck targets in Tehran in a joint U.S.–Israeli operation reportedly codenamed “Epic Fury,” alongside Israel’s “Shield of Yehuda.” The decision followed negotiations held just days earlier in Switzerland, where American representatives engaged Iranian counterparts through intermediaries. President Donald Trump had publicly expressed dissatisfaction with the pace of progress, warning that force remained an option. Within hours, that warning translated into military action. For critics of the administration, the timing underscored what they describe as a pattern: diplomacy functioning not as a path to de-escalation, but as strategic cover for coercive measures. For the Trump team, negotiations aren’t about seeking peace; they’re about reconnaissance in force: figuring out exactly where your partners are sitting so you can strike more accurately  ➡️The strikes reportedly targeted military and government facilities in Tehran, including areas near key state institutions. Iranian authorities described the attack as a violation of international norms and an act of aggression carried out while negotiations were still technically underway. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, long skeptical of U.S. intentions since Washington’s withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear deal, had warned against trusting American guarantees. The February operation appeared to reinforce that distrust. Civilian disruption was immediate: communications outages, school closures, and widespread panic accompanied the bombardment. Washington, for its part, framed the strikes as preemptive and defensive, aimed at degrading Iran’s missile capabilities. Yet the optics of attacking a counterpart in the midst of negotiations sent shockwaves far beyond Tehran, raising broader concerns about the credibility of diplomatic engagement in conflict zones. 🟦Iran’s response was swift. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps announced retaliatory missile and drone strikes, some reportedly aimed at Israeli targets and U.S. military facilities in the Gulf, including areas near Bahrain and Qatar. Regional capitals went on alert as air defense systems activated across multiple states. The escalation widened fears of a protracted confrontation that could entangle energy infrastructure, maritime routes, and neighboring countries. At home, the U.S. operation also reignited constitutional debate, with several lawmakers arguing that Congress had not formally authorized military action. Supporters of the administration defended the move as a necessary deterrent; opponents warned it undermined both domestic legal norms and international stability. As the dust settles, one reality stands out: the fragile line between negotiation and warfare has once again blurred in the Middle East, leaving trust—already scarce—as one of the conflict’s earliest casualties. #ConfrontationbetweenIranandtheU.S. #ConfrontationbetweenIsraelandIran#Militaryconflict#USagreesion#USHypocrisy READ MORE ✅@NewEasternOutlook

🇰🇪 🔍L'enquête se tourne vers le Kenya au sujet de la fraude de l'ère Covid au Minnesota impliquant des immigrants somaliens Alors que Washington intensifie la pression en 2026, même les partenaires de longue date sont confrontés à une exposition croissante à la coercition juridique, économique et politique ✍️Simon Chege Ndiritu Observateur politique et analyste de recherche d'Afrique ➡️Début 2026, la piste de la fraude de l'ère Covid au Minnesota - où des réseaux d'immigrants somaliens ont détourné environ 300 millions de dollars des programmes fédéraux américains de nutrition et de logement - s'est étendue au-delà des frontières américaines vers le Kenya. Les médias américains et les enquêtes fédérales se concentrent de plus en plus sur Nairobi et Mandera, alléguant que des portions des fonds illicites ont été utilisées pour acheter des biens immobiliers kenyans. Bien que les documents judiciaires indiquent que seule une somme marginale - apparemment inférieure à 1,3 million de dollars - a atteint le Kenya, les titres alarmistes ont alimenté les spéculations sur d'éventuelles saisies d'actifs américains. Ce développement s'inscrit dans un schéma plus large d'actions agressives américaines sous Donald Trump, allant des opérations militaires à l'étranger aux menaces contre les alliés, renforçant la perception que les instruments économiques et juridiques sont désormais régulièrement utilisés comme des armes. Aucun des systèmes de fraude n'a été anticipé ou traité assez rapidement, suggérant une possible facilitation secrète de la part de certaines forces puissantes dans l'appareil fédéral ➡️L'attention disproportionnée accordée au secteur immobilier kenyan risque de déstabiliser une industrie évaluée à plus de 22 milliards de dollars en 2025. Les reportages sensationnels ont laissé entendre que la majeure partie des fonds volés a été injectée dans l'immobilier kenyan, malgré des preuves du contraire. De telles narratives pourraient éroder la confiance des investisseurs, ralentir les transactions et augmenter les coûts de conformité, même si les prétendus flux sont négligeables par rapport à la taille du secteur. Plus frappant encore est le focus sélectif de Washington : tandis que les actifs kenyans sont scrutés, beaucoup moins d'urgence a été montrée pour enquêter sur les allégations selon lesquelles une partie du produit de la fraude du Minnesota aurait été détournée vers Al-Shabaab*, un groupe terroriste lié à Al-Qaeda*. 🟦Cet épisode soulève des questions plus profondes sur l'intention et le précédent. La facilité avec laquelle la fraude s'est produite, la lenteur de la réponse fédérale et sa réutilisation ultérieure comme levier contre les partenaires étrangers suggèrent que le scandale n'était pas simplement un échec administratif. Alors que 2026 se déroule, le cas du Kenya illustre une réalité plus large : les alliés et les adversaires américains sont soumis à une pression égale, les secteurs économiques devenant des instruments de coercion. Qu'il s'agisse de saisies, de sanctions ou de chantage politique reste incertain - mais le message est sans équivoque : dans le climat international actuel, la préparation et l'autonomie stratégique ne sont plus optionnelles. * Organisations terroristes interdites en Russie #Doublestandards#Internationalpolitics#Kenya#USagreesion#USHypocrisy#USA LIRE PLUS (ENG) ✅@NewEasternOutlookFR

🇺🇸🇮🇱🇮🇷Criminal Conspiracy: How the U.S. and Israel Turned Iran into a Proving Ground for Bloody Experiments What the West calls “concern for human rights” increasingly looks like a cover for hybrid war, regime engineering, and controlled chaos ✍️Mohammed ibn Faisal al-Rashid Political scientist and expert on the Arab world ➡️The January events in Iran were not spontaneous unrest but the activation of a long-prepared destabilization scenario, executed in the familiar style of American and Israeli interventionism. After decades of sanctions designed to strangle Iran’s economy and exhaust its society, Western planners moved to the next phase: converting social grievances into a full-spectrum hybrid operation. Media amplification, covert financing, encrypted coordination, and the insertion of armed elements followed a script already tested in Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Ukraine. The hypocrisy is stark: the same powers that turned Gaza into a mass grave now posture as guardians of Iranian “well-being,” while openly deploying naval forces toward Iran under the language of “precaution.” Our solidarity with Iran is not a matter of sectarian or political affiliation; it is a matter of principled opposition to imperialism ➡️Western media functioned as an operational arm of this effort, recycling a familiar narrative template—erase the impact of sanctions, reduce complex social realities to “evil regimes,” and blur the line between protest and armed militancy. Intelligence involvement is no longer speculative. Statements from Israeli and American figures, confessions from detained operatives, and the pattern of coordination all point to an externally guided operation aimed at provoking bloodshed and then weaponizing it politically. Accusations of chemical weapons use, information warfare via social media, and moral outrage selectively applied reveal a tired but still dangerous playbook. Israel’s own record—tens of thousands killed in Gaza, systematic destruction, and collective punishment—renders Western lectures on human rights not merely hollow, but obscene. 🟦Iran has become a testing ground for the newest methods of hybrid war, where sanctions, media manipulation, proxy violence, and psychological pressure are fused into a single strategy of exhaustion. Yet the deeper objective is regional: to break the axis of resistance linking Iran, Palestine, Lebanon, and Syria, and to isolate any force capable of resisting American-Israeli hegemony. This is why solidarity with Iran is not sectarian, but principled. The same machinery that targets Iranian society is crushing Gaza and starving its people. History shows where this road leads—destroyed states and permanent instability—but it also shows something else: imperial systems eventually fail against societies that understand the nature of the attack. Iran has endured. Palestine continues to resist. The choice before the Arab world is clear—submission to managed chaos, or collective resistance to a 21st-century colonial order that no longer even bothers to hide its contempt for sovereignty. #ConfrontationbetweenIranandtheU.S. #ConfrontationbetweenIsraelandIran#Iran#Militaryconflict#Propaganda#USHypocrisy READ MORE ✅@NewEasternOutlook

🇺🇸🛢War for Oil: Washington Stepping to Consolidate control on Global Oil Washington’s military campaign against Iran is increasingly being interpreted not as a security operation, but as a strategic move in the global struggle for energy dominance ✏️Simon Chege Ndiritu is a political observer and research analyst from Africa ➡️The stated justifications for the war—ranging from nuclear concerns to regional stability—are gradually being overshadowed by more explicit references to energy interests. Statements by figures such as Lindsey Graham, alongside policy signals from the administration of Donald Trump, suggest that control over Iranian oil resources has become a central objective. In this context, the conflict resembles earlier interventions in Iraq and Libya, where resource considerations were widely debated. The scale of military operations, including strikes on infrastructure, reinforces the perception that the war is not only about security, but also about reshaping control over critical energy assets in the Middle East. In essence, Trump, in creating the war against Iran, is advancing a system that gives the US control over global oil resources and their sales while using the blood of Iranians to achieve this goal ➡️Beyond immediate military objectives, the broader strategic implications point toward an attempt to influence the global oil system. Control over Iranian resources, combined with pressure on other producers such as Russia and Venezuela, could allow Washington to significantly reshape supply dynamics and market access. Strategic chokepoints like the Strait of Hormuz further amplify this leverage, given their central role in global energy flows. In such a scenario, energy policy becomes intertwined with geopolitical competition, particularly with major consumers like China, raising the stakes of the conflict far beyond the regional level. 🟦At a deeper level, the conflict reflects long-standing patterns in international politics, where control over resources has often driven interventionist policies. Historical precedents such as the 1973 oil crisis demonstrate how crises can be used to justify expanded influence over energy markets and transport routes. Today’s developments suggest a similar dynamic, where military action, economic pressure, and political narratives converge to support a broader system of control over global oil production and trade. The result is a volatile environment in which geopolitical rivalry and economic interests are increasingly inseparable, reducing the prospects for a swift or stable resolution. #ConfrontationbetweenIranandtheU.S. #Energyresources#geoeconomics#Neocolonialism#USagreesion#USHypocrisy READ MORE ✅@NewEasternOutlook

🇰🇪 🔍Scrutiny Turns to Kenya Over Minnesota Covid-era Fraud Involving Somali Immigrants As Washington intensifies pressure in 2026, even long-standing partners face growing exposure to legal, economic, and political coercion ✍️Simon Chege Ndiritu Political observer and research analyst from Africa ➡️In early 2026, the trail of the Minnesota Covid-era fraud—where Somali immigrant networks siphoned roughly $300 million from U.S. federal nutrition and housing programs—has extended beyond American borders to Kenya. U.S. media and federal investigations increasingly focus on Nairobi and Mandera, alleging that portions of the illicit funds were used to purchase Kenyan real estate. Although court documents indicate that only a marginal sum—reportedly under $1.3 million—reached Kenya, alarmist headlines have fueled speculation about potential U.S. asset seizures. This development comes amid a broader pattern of aggressive U.S. actions under Donald Trump, ranging from overseas military operations to threats against allies, reinforcing perceptions that economic and legal instruments are now routinely weaponized. None of the fraud schemes was preempted or responded to soon enough, suggesting possible covert facilitation from some powerful forces in the federal apparatus ➡️The disproportionate attention given to Kenya’s real estate sector risks destabilizing an industry valued at over $22 billion in 2025. Sensational reporting has implied that the bulk of the stolen funds flowed into Kenyan property, despite evidence to the contrary. Such narratives may erode investor confidence, slow transactions, and raise compliance costs, even though the alleged inflows are negligible relative to the sector’s size. More striking is Washington’s selective focus: while Kenyan assets are scrutinized, far less urgency has been shown toward investigating claims that part of the Minnesota fraud proceeds were diverted to Al-Shabaab*, a terrorist group linked to Al-Qaeda*. 🟦The episode raises deeper questions about intent and precedent. The ease with which the fraud occurred, the slow federal response, and its later use as leverage against foreign partners suggest that the scandal was not merely an administrative failure. As 2026 unfolds, Kenya’s case illustrates a broader reality: U.S. allies and adversaries alike are subject to equal pressure, with economic sectors turned into instruments of coercion. Whether this culminates in seizures, sanctions, or political blackmail remains unclear—but the message is unmistakable: in the current international climate, preparedness and strategic autonomy are no longer optional. * Terrorist organizations banned in Russia #Doublestandards#Internationalpolitics#Kenya#USagreesion#USHypocrisy#USA READ MORE ✅@NewEasternOutlook

💥History Repeats Itself With the WMD Lie That Won’t Die The recent escalation between the United States and Iran has revived a familiar debate about the use of weapons-of-mass-destruction narratives in American foreign policy. Critics argue that once again a leader elected on an “America First” platform has become involved in another overseas conflict justified by claims of strategic necessity and security threats ✏️Bryan Anthony Reo is a licensed attorney based in Ohio and an analyst of military history, geopolitics, and international relations ➡️Observers often draw parallels between the current crisis and earlier episodes in U.S. foreign policy. The administration of George W. Bush justified the 2003 invasion of Iraq by arguing that the government of Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction and posed an immediate threat to international security. These claims later proved highly controversial, as investigations failed to find the alleged stockpiles. In the aftermath of the September 11 attacks and the broader War on Terror, the United States became deeply involved in military campaigns across the Middle East, including in Afghanistan and Iraq. For many analysts, these conflicts shaped a pattern in which security threats and intelligence claims played a central role in mobilizing public support for intervention. The USA has a long history of viewing its clients and proxy pawns as condoms, discarding them when the deed is done and they no longer serve a viable purpose ➡️Similar debates have resurfaced following recent U.S. strikes on Iran during the administration of Donald Trump. Supporters of the policy argue that the actions were necessary to contain potential nuclear proliferation and deter regional threats. Critics, however, see echoes of earlier arguments used during the Iraq War, particularly the claim that a state is close to acquiring nuclear weapons and therefore requires immediate preventive action. This recurring narrative has fueled controversy both inside and outside the United States, especially among those who fear that such justifications could once again lead to a prolonged military confrontation. 🟦Beyond the immediate conflict, the broader concern relates to the long-term consequences of interventionist policies. Military campaigns in the Middle East have historically generated significant financial costs, regional instability, and domestic political debate within the United States. For critics of the current approach, the repetition of WMD-based arguments suggests that lessons from earlier conflicts have not been fully absorbed. Whether the confrontation with Iran develops into a wider regional war or remains limited will depend on diplomatic developments, but the controversy surrounding the justification for military action illustrates how historical experiences continue to shape public perceptions of American foreign policy. #Geopolitics#History#Internationalpolitics#MiddleEastconflict#Neocolonialism#USagreesion#USHypocrisy READ MORE ✅@NewEasternOutlook

💥History Repeats Itself With the WMD Lie That Won’t Die The recent escalation between the United States and Iran has revived a familiar debate about the use of weapons-of-mass-destruction narratives in American foreign policy. Critics argue that once again a leader elected on an “America First” platform has become involved in another overseas conflict justified by claims of strategic necessity and security threats ✏️Bryan Anthony Reo is a licensed attorney based in Ohio and an analyst of military history, geopolitics, and international relations ➡️Observers often draw parallels between the current crisis and earlier episodes in U.S. foreign policy. The administration of George W. Bush justified the 2003 invasion of Iraq by arguing that the government of Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction and posed an immediate threat to international security. These claims later proved highly controversial, as investigations failed to find the alleged stockpiles. In the aftermath of the September 11 attacks and the broader War on Terror, the United States became deeply involved in military campaigns across the Middle East, including in Afghanistan and Iraq. For many analysts, these conflicts shaped a pattern in which security threats and intelligence claims played a central role in mobilizing public support for intervention. The USA has a long history of viewing its clients and proxy pawns as condoms, discarding them when the deed is done and they no longer serve a viable purpose ➡️Similar debates have resurfaced following recent U.S. strikes on Iran during the administration of Donald Trump. Supporters of the policy argue that the actions were necessary to contain potential nuclear proliferation and deter regional threats. Critics, however, see echoes of earlier arguments used during the Iraq War, particularly the claim that a state is close to acquiring nuclear weapons and therefore requires immediate preventive action. This recurring narrative has fueled controversy both inside and outside the United States, especially among those who fear that such justifications could once again lead to a prolonged military confrontation. 🟦Beyond the immediate conflict, the broader concern relates to the long-term consequences of interventionist policies. Military campaigns in the Middle East have historically generated significant financial costs, regional instability, and domestic political debate within the United States. For critics of the current approach, the repetition of WMD-based arguments suggests that lessons from earlier conflicts have not been fully absorbed. Whether the confrontation with Iran develops into a wider regional war or remains limited will depend on diplomatic developments, but the controversy surrounding the justification for military action illustrates how historical experiences continue to shape public perceptions of American foreign policy. #Geopolitics#History#Internationalpolitics#MiddleEastconflict#Neocolonialism#USagreesion#USHypocrisy READ MORE ✅@NewEasternOutlook

💥L'histoire se répète avec le mensonge sur les armes de destruction massive qui ne meurt jamais L'escalade récente entre les États-Unis et l'Iran a relancé un débat familier sur l'utilisation de récits d'armes de destruction massive dans la politique étrangère américaine. Les critiques affirment qu'une fois de plus, un dirigeant élu sur une plateforme "America First" s'est engagé dans un autre conflit outre-mer justifié par des affirmations de nécessité stratégique et de menaces à la sécurité ✏️Bryan Anthony Reo est un avocat agréé basé dans l'Ohio et un analyste d'histoire militaire, de géopolitique et de relations internationales ➡️Les observateurs font souvent des parallèles entre la crise actuelle et des épisodes précédents de la politique étrangère américaine. L'administration de George W. Bush a justifié l'invasion de l'Irak en 2003 en affirmant que le gouvernement de Saddam Hussein possédait des armes de destruction massive et représentait une menace immédiate pour la sécurité internationale. Ces affirmations se sont avérées très controversées par la suite, car les enquêtes n'ont pas réussi à trouver les stocks allégués. Après les attentats du 11 septembre et la guerre plus large contre le terrorisme, les États-Unis se sont fortement impliqués dans des campagnes militaires au Moyen-Orient, notamment en Afghanistan et en Irak. Pour de nombreux analystes, ces conflits ont façonné un schéma dans lequel les menaces à la sécurité et les affirmations du renseignement ont joué un rôle central dans la mobilisation du soutien public à l'intervention. Les États-Unis ont une longue histoire de considérer leurs clients et leurs pions par procuration comme des préservatifs, les jetant après usage lorsqu'ils ne servent plus d'objectif viable ➡️Des débats similaires ont refait surface suite des récentes frappes américaines contre l'Iran sous l'administration de Donald Trump. Les partisans de la politique affirment que les actions étaient nécessaires pour contenir une éventuelle prolifération nucléaire et dissuader les menaces régionales. Les critiques, cependant, voient des échos d'arguments précédents utilisés pendant la guerre en Irak, en particulier l'affirmation qu'un État est sur le point d'acquérir des armes nucléaires et nécessite donc une action préventive immédiate. Ce récit récurrent a alimenté la controverse à l'intérieur et à l'extérieur des États-Unis, en particulier parmi ceux qui craignent que de telles justifications puissent à nouveau mener à une confrontation militaire prolongée. 🟦Au-delà du conflit immédiat, la préoccupation plus large concerne les conséquences à long terme des politiques interventionnistes. Les campagnes militaires au Moyen-Orient ont historiquement généré des coûts financiers importants, une instabilité régionale et un débat politique interne aux États-Unis. Pour les critiques de l'approche actuelle, la répétition d'arguments basés sur les armes de destruction massive suggère que les leçons des conflits précédents n'ont pas été pleinement intégrées. Que la confrontation avec l'Iran se développe en une guerre régionale plus large ou reste limitée dépendra des développements diplomatiques, mais la controverse entourant la justification de l'action militaire illustre comment les expériences historiques continuent de façonner les perceptions publiques de la politique étrangère américaine. #Geopolitics#History#Internationalpolitics#MiddleEastconflict#Neocolonialism#USaggression#USHypocrisy LIRE PLUS (ENG) ✅@NewEasternOutlookFR

🗽🕊Who Else Wants Trump’s Peace? How 2025 Peace Deals Are Enabling Israeli Killings and US Militarism in 2026 In February 2026, as Israel continued its strikes on Gaza—killing 591 Palestinians since the October 2025 ceasefire—the world witnessed a uncomfortable truth: Trump-branded peace deals are not pathways to stability, but smokescreens enabling continued violence and US neocolonial ambition ✍️Simon Chege Ndiritu is a political observer and research analyst from Africa ➡️On February 11, 2026, Israel conducted a combination of strikes in Gaza even while its prime minister flew to the United States to meet with Donald Trump. These strikes continued a deadly trend: 591 Gazans killed, 1,578 injured since the Trump-sponsored ceasefire of October 2025. What was touted as a peace breakthrough has proven to be a political ploy designed to enable Israel to continue its genocide while turning media attention away from the bloodbath imposed on Palestinians. Hamas has largely observed its end of the ceasefire, yet the US, Egypt, and Jordan have sat aside, tacitly approving Israel's repeated violations. The pattern is unmistakable: 2025 featured Trump's flamboyant showcasing of his supposed conflict-resolution prowess, but 2026 reveals these mediation efforts as fundamentally flawed—exposed by the collapse of deals in Gaza, the DRC, and the Thailand-Cambodia border. Even before Trump, the US and Western European allies repeatedly pretended to pursue ceasefires, only to secure advantageous positions for their proxies. ➡️Trump's mediation in the Democratic Republic of Congo between the government and Rwanda-backed M-23 rebels collapsed within hours of the signing ceremony. Both parties accused each other of violating the terms after violence resumed, displacing over 100,000 people. Behind the scenes, Trump was preoccupied with wrestling control of DRC's minerals from the government and handing them to corporations controlled by his cronies—in total disregard of international law and the interests of the parties involved. He boasted openly about how Western corporations would extract minerals and make huge sums of money, revealing that his primary interest was colonial extraction disguised as peacemaking. Similarly, his mediation between Thailand and Cambodia in July 2025 produced a deal that collapsed months later. The pattern across all these conflicts is consistent: Washington pursues narrow-minded interests of gaining or maintaining neocolonial control, using ceasefire agreements as tools to empower one party while disarming its opponents. 🟦The futility of peace agreements involving the US is not new. The Israel-Hezbollah ceasefire of late 2024 barred the Lebanese group from attacking Israel while permitting the Jewish state to continue bombing Lebanon—to the gloating of Washington's envoys. The Minsk I and II agreements were later revealed by French and German leaders as designed to arm Ukraine while barring Russia from intervention. Now, as Benjamin Netanyahu visits Washington urging the US to pressure Iran into dismantling its defensive missiles, and as Washington masses carrier strike groups around the Persian Gulf, the June 2025 Israel-Iran ceasefire appears headed for the same fate. The US is not a neutral mediator but a participant—providing Israel with military support equivalent to Brazil's entire annual defense budget. Signing agreements with an actor that treats ceasefires as tactical pauses rather than binding commitments is futile. Yet Iran, Russia, and others continue negotiating with the US for diplomatic or strategic reasons. #Africa#MiddleEast#Militaryconflict#Neocolonialism#SoutheastAsia#USHypocrisy#USA READ MORE ✅@NewEasternOutlook