In the world of “independent” podcast media on the American right, there’s a noticeable shift in narrative. But when your intentions are not pure, or when they aim to increase your wealth and promote political views you care deeply about, like American isolationism, then it takes so little of going back to factory settings and showing who you are. Truly.

The Reinvention

After months of talk about changing perspectives on Israel, Palestine, and genocide, it only took one Supreme Court decision for Megyn Kelly to remind us of who she really is and what she stands for. Just hours after Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. government has the legal authority to terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for nationals from Haiti and Syria, Kelly showed up and without blinking sent this message to Haitians currently living in the U.S under TPS:

“And look, this has been going on for about a dozen years. Go home! Get out! We know our country is better than yours, because we built it with our work ethic, and our culture, and our values. You’ve been here only to live off of us—to those who built it and live it. And half of you people, more than half, you don’t want to assimilate, we don’t want you, we don’t care if you are offended. Get out! Go home! Go back to fucking Haiti!

Sorry. I’m thinking about our friends in Ohio who have been dealing with these Haitians for years now. Who are drunk driving all over towns and killing people... this is all a ‘dogs and cats’ thing. Like, they don’t want to live like Americans live. And it was supposed to be temporary help, but it turned into another backdoor way of allowing someone permanent residency here. And they take advantage of our public services.”

First, according to official data from the Ohio State Highway Patrol and the Department of Public Safety for last year, there are about 14 to 16,000 cases of OVI - Operating a Vehicle Impaired traffic accidents in Ohio. The average of fatal outcomes remains stable at around 300 to 350 deaths per year where alcohol is the primary or partial cause. Driving under the influence of alcohol and drugs is involved in as many as 54% of all fatal traffic accidents in Ohio. By far the largest percentage are young Americans between the ages of 21 and 34, over 55% of all OVI accidents. In the accidents where the data is recorded, about 80% of the drivers under the influence are white.

This rant is not so much about the correct or incorrect statistics, but because it puts under scrutiny the somersaults she has made on the issue of Palestine and Israel. This whole dance has nothing to do with a fundamental change in her worldview, but with the fact that she, like many others from the same media scene, is convinced that Israel is the biggest culprit for President Trump entering the war against Iran. Thereby directly contradicting his own campaign promises about ending all “endless” wars. And what Kelly and the others hoped for is isolationism in foreign policy, and the expulsion of all migrants on the domestic stage, envisioning a United States based on white culture and legacy.

Along with a couple hundred thousand additional clicks from those on the left of the political spectrum who will watch and listen to anyone who criticizes the Israeli government, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and “cares” about the Palestinian issue, especially those in Gaza, that make a nice addition to the bank account.

But who was she before she experienced a “vision” and became one of the greatest defenders of Muslims and Palestinians, and one of the loudest critics of Israel?

On her independent program, Kelly argued that the fundamental tenets of Islam are fundamentally incompatible with Western democratic values, using highly provocative language to describe Muslim population growth:

“The Muslims, let’s be honest, they’re breeding like rabbits. That’s like part of their mission is to have kids... and win by multiplication... Islam is not consistent with the values of America, of the West. They should stay in countries that don’t care about keeping church and state separated. They should stay in countries that don’t care about protecting free speech, that don’t care about women’s rights. That’s where Islam can fester and grow.”

During her tenure at Fox News, particularly following the 2015 Paris terror attacks, Kelly frequently hosted segments defending the profiling of Muslims and questioning whether mosques should be shut down or monitored.

In a November 2015 broadcast of The Kelly File, she pushed back against Saba Ahmed, the founder of the Republican Muslim Coalition, who argued that mosques are simply houses of worship. Kelly framed them as potential national security threats:

“The question is what to do about the mosques that have a history of radicalization, where people have been radicalized, or where leaders are preaching a form of Islam that is dangerous to the United United States.”

Kelly has historically given significant airtime to commentators who argue that anti-Muslim bias is an exaggerated concept designed to shut down valid criticism of religious extremism. In a May 2017 interview with conservative activist Steven Goldstein, she allowed him to argue unchallenged that:

“Islamophobia... is a contrived term that was invented by the Muslim Brotherhood with the sole purpose of stigmatizing those who are engaged in dialogue about militant Islam.”

Kelly’s pivot has cost her a portion of her conservative audience, but it has gained her something else: attention from the left. Her anti-Netanyahu segments are shared by people who would never have listened to her a decade ago. The calculation is cynical, but it works. In the attention economy, consistency is a luxury; controversy is currency.

Subscribe now

Carlson Effect

But she is not the only one. From his fancy barn in Maine, Tucker Carlson has been convincing us for months that he is a changed man. Someone who has abandoned all his views and prejudices about Islam, Muslims, Israel, religious and civilizational wars, all those topics that were his priority when he was the voice and face of Fox News evening line-up. In a way, Carlson is more dangerous because he is more journalistically skilled. He has a clear flow of thought, avoids ranting, does not hesitate to ask provocative questions, entering into a reasoned debate and to speak in language that will be understandable to everyone. He is quite comfortable appearing on Israeli television and directly criticizing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

In an interview with Israeli Channel 13 News, Carlson stated:

“Netanyahu is leading to destruction, Israel dragged us into war... Nothing justifies genocide.”

On his independent digital network, he has repeatedly argued that Netanyahu’s political survival depends on perpetual conflict, which risks dragging American troops into a wider regional war with Iran.

One of Carlson’s most controversial analytical arguments involves a speech Netanyahu gave to the Israeli public shortly after the October 7 attacks. In that speech, the Israeli prime minister invoked the biblical story of Amalek.

Carlson has pointed to this specific rhetoric on his show, arguing that because the biblical text commands the total eradication of the Amalekite people, Netanyahu was explicitly using religious text to justify or lay the groundwork for genocide against the entire Palestinian population in Gaza.

In April 2024, Carlson released a highly controversial episode interviewing Rev. Dr. Munther Isaac, a Palestinian Lutheran pastor from Bethlehem. Carlson used his platform to attack American Evangelical politicians who unconditionally fund Israel:

“A consistent but almost never noted theme of American foreign policy is that it is always the Christians who suffer... If you wake up in the morning and decide that your Christian faith requires you to support a foreign government that is blowing up churches and killing Christians, you should rethink your faith.”

Critics fiercely pushed back on this episode, pointing out that Carlson ignored the systemic persecution of Christians by Islamic extremist groups in the broader Middle East and falsely blamed Israel entirely for the dwindling Christian population in the region.

In early 2026, Carlson traveled to Jordan/Israel to interview U.S. Ambassador Mike Huckabee. During the intense exchange, Carlson aggressively pressed Huckabee on why U.S. taxpayers are sending billions to Israel while neglecting American border security and domestic issues.

When Huckabee argued that Israel’s military is more careful and “humane” about avoiding civilian casualties than even the U.S. military, Carlson publicly rebuked the logic, bringing the underlying conservative tension to the forefront by asking why an American official seemed to exhibit more loyalty to a foreign military than to America’s own armed forces.

Once one of the main poster faces of the MAGA movement, Carlson seems to have made a clear turn. He even announced that he has officially left and will no longer support the Republican Party. The question is how genuine. Like Kelly, Carlson is an American isolationist, who wants to see America turned towards itself and not as an eternal world policeman in eternal “just” wars. And there would be nothing controversial about that, if he did not use his newly discovered righteousness about Israel, Gaza, the Palestinians, and Islam for these purposes…

Carlson wasn’t always so politically correct and caring.

In 2006 while discussing the ongoing war in Iraq and the U.S. military presence there, Carlson said:

“Iraq is a crappy place filled with a bunch of, you know, semiliterate, primitive monkeys. But I just have zero sympathy for them or their culture, a culture where people just don’t use toilet paper or forks.”

In the same year he also generalized his frustration with the Middle East during the same period, commenting:

“I think if we are at war with people, we ought to make them behave... they’re people who need to be overseen, basically.”

In another segment of the radio show in 2008, he expressed a lack of sympathy for the Iraqi population, stating:

“I don’t know, they can’t govern themselves... they’re not a civilized people.”

When these audio clips were leaked in March 2019, they sparked widespread outrage, leading to calls for his termination and major advertiser boycotts of his Fox News show, Tucker Carlson Tonight.

Carlson refused to apologize for the remarks. He addressed the situation on his television show by framing the backlash as an attack by the “outrage machine” and political correctness, stating that he had said many things on the radio over the years to be provocative or funny, and urged people to judge him by his current nightly show rather than old radio clips. He hasn’t apologized to date about any of the above statements.

Subscribe now

What did they get?

By flipping completely from standard “MAGA” talking heads to active GOP defectors, Tucker Carlson and Megyn Kelly stand to gain an entirely new kind of political currency: complete editorial independence, immense leverage as “kingmakers,” and a massive market share of politically homeless anti-war conservatives.

By stepping outside of the Republican tent, they aren’t losing their audiences; they are redefining what it means to be on the populist Right. Here is a breakdown of what they actually gain from this hard turn.

1. Becoming sweethearts of prominent think-tanks and famous lefties: Same as Carlson and Kelly, the left-oriented spectrum has their own fights, goals and political agendas. To promote them they are ready to sit with Carlson or Kelly, especially when they have common topics like “evil Netanyahu”, genocide in Gaza, and anti-Iran war stances, just to mention a few. By doing so, they give them the complete legitimacy of new converts and indirectly whitewash their biographies. But who cares, as long as the agenda can be pushed through.

2. Massive Audience Trust through “Authenticity”: By explicitly calling out Donald Trump and the Republican Party over the war in Iran, Carlson and Kelly gain ultimate credibility with their core followers. They can look at their audience and say, “I am not a partisan hack. I care more about your sons and daughters not dying in foreign wars than I do about carrying water for politicians.” In a media landscape where trust is bottoming out, admitting they “misled” people in the past builds an incredibly strong, cult-like bond with listeners who feel similarly betrayed by the current administration. And no one asks the question: if they misled the audience once, what are the guarantees that they won’t do the same in the future, or are doing it already?

3. Market Share of the “Politically Homeless”: A massive chunk of the “America First” movement is intensely isolationist and furious about foreign intervention. By abandoning the GOP, Carlson and Kelly position themselves as the sole media titans representing this faction. They effectively capture the entire market of anti-interventionist, anti-establishment right-wingers, alongside independent and libertarian voters who are anti-war but hate the cultural Left.

4. Ultimate “Kingmaker” Leverage for 2028: Carlson has explicitly stated he has zero desire to run for office himself (joking he’d only run on the “pro-patriarchy ticket”), and Kelly enjoys the freedom of her independent broadcasting empire too much to enter government. Therefore, they gain the power of uncompromised leverage. Instead of being bound to support whoever the GOP nominates in 2028 (like JD Vance or Marco Rubio), they hold all the cards. Carlson is actively talking about helping build a third party alongside other defectors like Marjorie Taylor Greene. Any 2028 candidate who wants the populist vote will have to grovel to Carlson and Kelly for an endorsement, giving them immense puppet-master control over the future of American populism without the headaches of running an actual campaign.

5. Financial Insulation and Freedom: Both Carlson and Kelly operate on independent subscription and digital models. Carlson’s TCN is currently self-funded, and Kelly’s independent deal with SiriusXM/digital spaces is a massive multi-year deal with the satellite radio giant to host The Megyn Kelly Show live.

What did they lose?

Not much - primarily a portion of their hardcore, ride-or-die Trump audience and the mainstream conservative base.

By clashing so viciously with establishment heavyweights like Ben Shapiro and Mark Levin, Carlson and Kelly lost millions of standard, everyday Republican viewers. For voters who believe a strong national defense and confronting foreign adversaries (like Iran) are core conservative principles, Carlson’s sudden renunciation of the party was viewed as a flat-out betrayal.

They lost direct access to Institutional GOP Power, and maybe that is the biggest loss. When Tucker Carlson was working tightly within the MAGA ecosystem, he had a massive hand in shaping the actual executive branch, most notably by aggressively lobbying Donald Trump to select JD Vance as his vice presidential running mate.

Lastly, they lost the safety net of the Corporate GOP Machine, because operating within the traditional Fox News or Republican donor ecosystem provides a massive financial and legal safety net.

Bottom line

Flipping into a rogue, anti-establishment stance generates endless controversy, viral clips, and headlines, which directly translates into premium subscriptions, direct-to-consumer revenue, and total financial insulation from the traditional media apparatus.

As with similar left-leaning media outlets, the Carlson and Kelly audience sits at home, sends money and cheers, in vain hoping that their favorite talking heads will bring change. They won’t. Because neither one nor the other is there for change, but for their own promotion, the promotion of personal political views and agendas, with enormous profits. Viral clips and likes have never brought change. But they have brought influence and money to those who produce viral clips and collect likes.

To the audience that follows them almost religiously, they have brought confirmation of their own views, and when your views are confirmed and validated, then you are not ready to change much.

The tragedy is not that Carlson and Kelly changed their minds. People change their minds. The tragedy is that they didn’t change their minds at all — they simply changed the target audience. The woman who once said Islam is ‘incompatible with Western values’ now defends Palestinians. They haven’t become more compassionate. They have become more marketable. That is not transformation. That is rebranding. And in the attention economy, rebranding is always more profitable than principle.

The European Parliament passed the Return Regulation on June 17, 2026. The bill creates offshore detention centers, extends detention to 24 months, and grants police ICE-style search powers. It also establishes a three-tier system of human worth — and a permanent new normal for Europe’s asylum regime.

Once the law was approved, it was accompanied by standing ovations from MEPs chanting “Send them back.” A minority of some left MEPs tried to over shout them with “Shame on you”.

While I was watching this shameful spectacle from “bearers of the torch of freedom, democracy, human rights, dignity and moral values”, I remembered what US President Ronald Reagan said in 1967, when he was sworn in as Governor of California:

“Perhaps you and I have lived with this miracle too long to be properly appreciative. Freedom is a fragile thing and it’s never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by way of inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people. And those in world history who have known freedom and then lost it have never known it again.”

Miracle of the European Union, it looks like being kidnapped in front of our eyes, because we were not appreciative enough, loud enough about things that do matter. Values enshrined in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union:

Respect for Human Dignity

Freedom

Democracy

Equality

Rule of Law

Respect for Human Rights.

Or as Italian MEP Ilaria Salis put it sharply:

“The human depravity of a certain political faction truly seems to know no bounds: rejoicing over the deportation of innocent people. Rejoicing not because someone’s life is improving, but because someone else’s considered different, inferior, less deserving of rights, this is getting worse.

Today, migrants and racialized people are primarily in the crosshair – the quintessential scapegoats of the right wing’s vulgar propaganda. But tomorrow if we continue at this pace, it will be the return of more and more people. It will be the working class, activists, and dissidents – and eventually anyone who does not confirm to the order they seek to impose.

Fascism is creeping into the fold of democracy, at the expense of migrants.”

Subscribe now

The Law in Three Pillars

The Return Regulation was passed on June 17, 2026, after years of negotiation and fierce opposition from human rights groups, left-wing MEPs, and UN experts.

Its architecture rests on three concrete changes:

1. Offshore “Return Hubs”
The bill allows EU member states to transfer rejected asylum seekers and undocumented migrants to detention centers in non-EU third countries while they await deportation. These hubs are to be established through bilateral agreements with host nations.

2. Detention Extended to 24 Months
To prevent migrants from “absconding” before deportation, the law allows national authorities to detain individuals for up to 24 months based on an individual assessment — a vague standard that can include “security risk” or “lack of cooperation.”

3. ICE-Style Investigative Powers
Police and immigration authorities are granted powers to search residences, seize personal belongings, and confiscate electronic devices to verify identities and tracking data. The model is explicitly inspired by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

This creates three-tier groups of people. The first class will send the third-class people, from India, Bangladesh, and beyond, to the second-class countries, like Albania, Tunisia, Mauritania, or Kosovo.

They will be paid by the EU to host “return hubs” where rejected asylum seekers and undocumented migrants are held until deportation. They have no say in the arrangement, only the power to accept EU funds or lose them.

This is not a migration policy. This is institutionalized inequality, the policy of new European neo-colonialism encoded into law. Instead of fixing the slow, bureaucratic asylum system inside the EU, the strategy puts the burden on the Global South and non-EU Eastern European states.

The Target Populations

The law applies broadly to any “third-country national” without a legal right to remain. In practice, it targets three groups:

Rejected Asylum Seekers: Those who applied for protection and were denied. The law now automates deportation orders at the moment of rejection, with expedited procedures for nationals of countries with asylum acceptance rates below 20% — including India, Bangladesh, Morocco, and Tunisia.

Undocumented Migrants: Anyone residing in the EU without valid paperwork — whether they entered clandestinely or overstayed a tourist or student visa.

“Non-Cooperative” Migrants: Those who resist deportation by refusing to hand over passports, hiding their identity, or destroying documents. They face immediate detention and a maximum 24-month term.

Exemptions: Unaccompanied minors and those facing direct persecution — where deportation would violate the principle of non-refoulement — are technically protected. But these exemptions are narrow, and human rights groups have already warned that they will be exploited.

The Three-Tier System of Human Worth

The law is not merely punitive. It creates a permanent structural hierarchy:

Tier One (The Core): Wealthy EU nations. They pass the laws, sign the agreements, and physically remove migrants from their soil. Their voters see fewer migrants on the streets. Their politicians claim victory. Their courts remain untroubled by conditions in centers that exist beyond their jurisdiction.

Tier Two (The Hosts): Non-EU countries like Albania, Tunisia, Mauritania, Montenegro, and Kosovo. They receive EU funds, development aid, and promises of visa liberalization in exchange for hosting detention centers. They lack the leverage to refuse. They are paid to become Europe’s border guards.

Tier Three (The Displaced): Migrants from South Asia, North Africa, and beyond. Stripped of access to European legal protections, they are held in countries where they have no ties, no rights, and no institutional oversight. Their misery is the price of Europe’s political convenience.

The Irony: Outsourcing Human Rights

This is textbook “externalization” — powerful nations using financial and diplomatic leverage to push their most difficult problems onto weaker neighbors.

The irony is almost too obvious to state, but it must be stated:

The EU, which built its post-war identity on human rights and the European Convention on Human Rights, has now created a system in which those rights are systematically excluded — simply because the violations occur outside EU territory.

Sixteen UN experts have warned that these offshore centers risk becoming “human rights black holes.” Human Rights Watch has pointed out that many of the countries on the EU’s negotiation list — Uzbekistan, Libya, Uganda — have severe domestic rights violations of their own. If the EU signs deals with such states, European courts are highly likely to strike them down as illegal under the Convention.

But that is a future battle. For now, the law has been passed. The centers will be built. The transfers will begin.

And the principle is clear: Out of sight, out of mind.

Subscribe now

Two Messages in One Law

The Return Regulation sends two simultaneous messages:

To Europe’s voters: We are securing the borders. We are tough on migration. We will not be overwhelmed.

To the rest of the world: If you are from a country we deem “unsafe” or “uncooperative,” you are not entitled to the protections that define Europe. Your rights end where our borders begin.

The law is a victory for the political right in Europe. Not just the far right, but the conservative center that has absorbed its rhetoric. It signals that the post-war consensus on refugee protection has shifted permanently. The “right to asylum” now means “right to a deportation process.”

The Real Political Driver: Europe’s Rightward Lurch

This law did not emerge out of nowhere. It is the product of a continent that has spent the last decade absorbing the political consequences of the 2015 migration crisis, the COVID pandemic, the war in Ukraine, and inflation.

In every major European election since 2020, migration has been the central axis of political competition. The far right has gained ground. The center has moved right to compete. And the left has been reduced to defending a status quo that voters increasingly reject.

Look at Germany and the rise of AfD. Or even better, Chega party in Portugal, the one who build its own existence on the premise that all problems in Portugal will be resolved once all migrants are sent home. In 2019, Chega had one deputy in Portugal’s parliament. After the elections in 2022, 12 deputies, in 2024, 50 deputies, and after the last snap elections in 2025, 60 deputies. Let that sink. From 1 to 60 in 6 years, on one subject, migrants.

The Return Regulation is the legislative embodiment of this shift. It is not a compromise. It is a capitulation to the politics of fear, to the logic of deterrence, to the belief that migration can be “solved” by making it invisible.

What Comes Next

The bilateral agreements are being negotiated now. The 19-member coalition led by Italy and Denmark aims to sign the first official deals by the end of 2026, with centers operational by 2027.

The target countries include:

· Europe: Albania, Kosovo, Montenegro, Armenia

· North & East Africa: Mauritania, Libya, Tunisia, Senegal, Ghana, Uganda, Ethiopia

· Asia: Bangladesh, India, Uzbekistan

Some of these countries are already on the EU’s “safe list” — a designation that means their nationals face expedited asylum procedures. Others are being courted with financial incentives and diplomatic pressure.

Legal challenges will follow. European courts will test the limits of the law. Human rights organizations will document abuses. The UN will issue reports.

But none of that will stop the machinery from moving. Because the machinery is now law.

Coda

The EU has declared itself a fortress. The fortress has three walls: one for citizens, one for guests, one for those who must be removed.

The Return Regulation is not a departure from European values. It is their logical conclusion - when values collide with voter preferences, and voters win.

“Send them back” is no longer a chant. It is a directive. Echo from the past that should be heard very well by arguably the worst trio that befell the EU in its history, Costa, von der Leyen, and Kallas, one who doesn’t see, one who doesn’t hear, and one who doesn’t want to talk.

Before spin doctors and talking heads hijack the media narrative to wrap this diplomatic jargon in cellophane, here is the Memorandum of Understanding completely unpacked and stripped bare. We analysed the most important paragraphs and this is what is hidden behind the diplomatic language.

Paragraph One - Who’s Holding Who?

“The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran and their allies in the current war, by signing the MOU, declare the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon, and undertake from now on not to initiate any war or any military operation against each other and to refrain from the threat or use of force against each other and ensuring the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon. The final deal will confirm the permanent termination of the war on all fronts, including in Lebanon and other provisions of this paragraph.”

The very first sentence delivers a massive blow to Washington and Jerusalem. Pay close attention to the word “allies”. Who are Iran’s allies in this war? Hezbollah, the Houthis, and the Shiite militias in Iraq and Syria. By embedding this wording into an official document, Washington has effectively recognized the Axis of Resistance as a legitimate negotiating and military actor rather than merely a collection of “terrorist proxies” as they are labeled in the media.

Another key point: “...including in Lebanon”. Why is Lebanon explicitly mentioned? Because Israel has been trying to destroy Hezbollah in the south of the country for months. With this signature, America, on behalf of its allies, capitulates on the Lebanese front. It says “immediately and permanently”. This means that Israel must stop all operations, regardless of the fact that Hezbollah has not been destroyed or disarmed.

This effectively ties Israel’s hands behind America’s back. Since Israel is completely dependent on American weapons, logistics, and intelligence, Trump’s signature on “refraining from the threat or use of force” means Israel is prohibited from ever attacking Iran or Hezbollah again. The phrase “ensuring the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon” is a diplomatic euphemism telling Israel to forget about any buffer zones south of the Litani River and immediately retreat. Hezbollah remains on Israel’s border, alive and well, protected by the American signature.

Subscribe now

Paragraph 2: The Official Burial of the “Regime Change” Doctrine

“The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran undertake to respect each other’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and to refrain from interfering in each other’s internal affairs.”

To the average casual reader, this sounds like the most boring phrase lifted straight from the UN Charter. But in the context of Washington-Tehran relations, this is a historic geopolitical shake-up.

Since the Islamic Revolution of 1979, the official or unofficial pillar of American foreign policy has been Regime Change. Every strategy—from CIA operations and funding opposition media to supporting internal unrest and Donald Trump’s previous “maximum pressure” campaign—had one ultimate goal: to break and overthrow the theocratic government in Tehran.

With this signature, America officially capitulates to the idea of a change of government in Iran. The White House has committed to two things that cement the ayatollah’s survival:

1. Recognition of legitimacy: Washington signs that it “respects the sovereignty and territorial integrity” of the Islamic Republic. There is no more questioning who is sitting in Tehran.

2. Hands off internal affairs: The sentence “to refrain from interfering in each other’s internal affairs” in practice means that the US is legally obligated to stop supporting Kurdish, Baluch, or internal secular dissident movements. No more calculated fanning of protests like “Women, Life, Freedom” from a safe distance from Washington.

Israel’s Loss: Israel built its security strategy on the assumption that sooner or later America will have to do the “dirty work” and topple the regime in Tehran that threatens Israel with destruction. With this paragraph, Trump signed the political acceptance of that regime’s survival. Washington tells Jerusalem: “We are done with the idea of overthrowing Iran. From today, they are a legitimate country for us and we do not touch their inner courtyard.”

This is the point where the “Art of the Deal” becomes a comedy – the negotiator who wanted to bring Iran to its knees signed a document guaranteeing Tehran eternal immunity from US interference.

Paragraph 4: Packing the Bags and Evacuating US Military Power

“Immediately upon the signing of this MOU, the United States of America will begin the removal of its naval blockade and any disturbances or impediments against the Islamic Republic of Iran, and will fully end the naval blockade within 30 days. During this period, the traffic of vessels will be in proportion to the numbers of pre-war traffic being restored by the Islamic Republic of Iran. The United States of America further undertakes to remove its forces from the proximity of the Islamic Republic of Iran within 30 days after the final deal.”

In this article, the diplomatic facade cracks and we move to the field of pure military capitulation. The first word is key: “Immediately”. The US is not lifting the blockade after a final deal is reached, or as a reward for Iran’s good behavior during the negotiations. No, America must begin withdrawing its warships the second this paper is signed, with only 30 days to end the blockade completely.

The wording “any disturbances or impediments” in translation means that the US Navy is no longer allowed to even glance at an Iranian tanker, let alone carry out inspections, interceptions, or electronic jamming of communications.

Furthermore, the clause regarding the restoration of pre-war traffic is direct Iranian dictation of free navigation conditions. Iran hereby ensures that already during these 30 days, while the negotiations are still ongoing, their economy will flourish and return to the pre-war level of trade. America has been blackmailed: you must return all pre-war traffic to us immediately, with no right to control anything.

The final sentence is an absolute knockout for American power: the US undertakes to remove its forces from the proximity of Iran within 30 days after the final deal. This means packing up aircraft carriers, submarines, and warships from the Persian Gulf and the Sea of Oman. Washington is voluntarily dismantling its strategic chokehold over Tehran.

Paragraph 5: Iran Takes the Keys to the World Economy and the Strait of Hormuz

“Upon the signing of this MOU, the Islamic Republic of Iran will make arrangements using its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels with no charge for 60 days only from the Persian Gulf to the Sea of Oman and vice versa. The traffic of commercial vessels will immediately start, and considering the need for removing the technical and military obstacles and demining by the Islamic Republic of Iran will be instituted within 30 days. The Islamic Republic of Iran will conduct dialogue with the Sultanate of Oman to define the future administration and maritime services and the Strait of Hormuz in discussion with other Persian Gulf rhetorical states in line with the applicable international law and the sovereign rights of coastal states of the Strait of Hormuz.”

Pay close attention to the wording “for 60 days only.” Iran is sending brutal, undisguised blackmail wrapped in diplomatic vocabulary. They say, “Okay, we’ll let the tankers pass free and safe, but that luxury lasts exactly as long as the deadline for the final agreement.” If America does not sign everything that Tehran is asking for in those 60 days, the faucet turns off again, and the world economy plunges into the abyss. The phrase “using its best efforts” is a legal loophole—if a tanker hits a mine, Iran can simply shrug and say, “Well, we tried, but you didn’t sign the final deal.”

Furthermore, who laid the mines and built the “military obstacles” in the Gulf? Iran. And now, who alone has the right to clear the field and manage the process? Iran again. With this passage, America officially recognizes Iran’s role as the chief policeman and manager in the Gulf, completely opting the US Navy out of security protocols.

Finally, the text states that Iran and Oman will define the future administration and maritime services in the Strait of Hormuz. For more than half a century, freedom of navigation through this chokepoint depended on the threat of American military power (the Vance and Carter Doctrine). Now, that architecture is officially being dismantled. America and its Western allies are completely out of the equation. The fate of the world energy market is now decided by Tehran and Muscat, leaving Saudi Arabia and the UAE as silent observers of their own backyard.

Why is Israel right to be angry? Because Hormuz is the artery of the world economy. Relinquishing control of the strait to Iran means giving Tehran a red button to trigger global economic collapse at any moment, automatically neutralizing any future attempt by the West to punish or sanction Iran.

Paragraph 6: American Defeat Tax - War Reparations

“The United States of America undertakes with regional partners to develop a definitive, mutually agreed plan with at least USD 300 billion for the reconstruction and economic development of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The mechanism for the implementation of this plan will be finalized as part of a final deal within 60 days. All required licenses, waivers, and permissions needed for the relevant financial transactions will be granted by the United States of America.”

This is a historical precedent and political suicide for Washington. The word “reconstruction” is used in international relations exclusively for countries that have been destroyed by war or for losers who pay reparations. Since Iran is not militarily occupied, this signature means that America is taking the responsability for the economic damage caused by sanctions and war, and agreeing to pay $300 billion!

With a special “with regional partners” twist—Trump plans to force Saudi Arabia and the UAE to spit out most of that money to finance the reconstruction of their worst enemy.

Meanwhile, OFAC (the Office of Foreign Assets Control) and the State Department are hereby transformed into Tehran’s service department. America signs that it will issue all permits, licenses, and exemptions in order to pump those hundreds of billions directly into the Iranian banking system. No checks, no blocking on Western accounts, no administration. The cash must lie clean.

Paragraph 8: Legalization of Nuclear Power at the Threshold - Threshold State

“The Islamic Republic of Iran reaffirms that it shall not procure or develop nuclear weapons. The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran have agreed to resolve the disposition of stockpiled enriched material pursuant to a mechanism that will be mutually agreed upon in accordance with the schedule mentioned in paragraph seven, with the minimum methodology to be down blending on site under the supervision of the IAEA. The two parties also agreed to discuss the issue of enrichment and other mutually agreed matters related to the Islamic Republic of Iran’s nuclear needs, based on a satisfactory framework being agreed upon in the final deal. The final deal will confirm the provisions of the paragraph. The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran acknowledge the critical importance of the nuclear issues above mentioned and express their attention to immediately address these issues in the negotiations in order to achieve mutual agreement on them.”

The opening sentence is a purely declarative phrase that Iran has been repeating since 1970 when it signed the NPT, serving only as domestic PR for Washington. The true capitulation lies in what follows.

The entire Western and Israeli nuclear strategy officially goes into the dustbin. For decades, the ultimatum read: Iran must dismantle the centrifuges and permanently close its underground facilities (Fordo, Natanz). See what Trump actually signed:

1. No destruction of infrastructure: The term “down-blending on site” means that Iran will only technically “dilute” highly enriched uranium to a lower percentage under the supervision of the IAEA. But the centrifuges remain intact. The technology, knowledge, and facilities buried in the mountains remain 100% functional. If negotiations break down, Iran only needs a few weeks or months to raise its enrichment level again.

2. Recognition of the right to enrichment: The sentence stating they will discuss “Iran’s nuclear needs and the issue of enrichment” is a diplomatic capitulation by America. Washington officially recognized Iran’s right to continue enriching uranium in the future. There is no longer a negotiation on the abolition of the program, but on a loose framework within which the program will take place.

For Jerusalem, this is the crossing of the red line of all red lines. Israel’s military doctrine (the Begin Doctrine) explicitly states that no enemy in the region must be allowed to acquire nuclear capabilities. Trump has recognized Iran’s nuclear infrastructure as legal and permanent, turning Iran into a permanent nuclear threshold state.

Subscribe now

Paragraph 11: Unlocking Safes and a Blank Check for Iranian Cash

“The United States of America undertakes to make fully available for use the frozen uncertain funds and assets of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Upon the implementation of this MOU, the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran will mutually agree on the procedures related to the release of these funds during negotiations. Such funds, whether retained in the original account or transferred, shall be made fully usable for payment to any ultimate beneficiary designed by the Central Bank, ultimate beneficiary designated by the Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The United States of America undertakes to issue all necessary licenses and authorizations accordingly.”

If previous points were an infusion for the economy, this is a direct opening of the safe and handing over sacks of money. The United States is committed to fully unfreezing all of Iran’s seized assets blocked in banks across South Korea, Iraq, Japan, and Europe for years.

This is where Washington’s absolute negotiation breakdown lies: in the wording “to any ultimate beneficiary designated by the Central Bank of Iran.” When the Biden administration previously unblocked $6 billion, it was strictly conditional—the money was allowed to go exclusively for humanitarian purposes, food, and medicine.

With this stance, Trump signed a blank check. The phrase “any ultimate beneficiary” means that the Central Bank of Iran can transfer those tens of billions of dollars to whoever it wants: directly to the Ministry of Defense for ballistic programs, or straight to the funding of Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Shiite militias, completely free of outside oversight. OFAC must immediately sign off on all permits so that banks around the world can transfer those billions without fear.

Paragraph 13: Iran’s Nailing of Negotiations - Cashing Out Upfront

“After signing this MOU, and subject to the beginning of the implementation of paragraphs 1, 4, 5, 10, and 11 of this MOU, and the continuing implementation of these measures, the United States of America and Islamic Republic of Iran will start negotiations regarding the final deal exclusively on the other paragraphs.”

If until now there was any doubt about who dictates the rules of the game, this paragraph is an absolute negotiating triumph for Tehran. Iran applied a hardline principle: “First give us everything we ask for, and only then can we talk about the details.”

Look at what Iran sets as a prerequisite to even start negotiating a final deal:

• Paragraph 1: Cessation of all military operations (Hezbollah remains intact).

• Paragraph 4: America removes the naval blockade and withdraws troops.

• Paragraph 5: Iran takes control of demining and the Strait of Hormuz.

• Paragraph 10: OFAC issues permits and Iran legally sells oil at full price.

• Paragraph 11: America unblocks all frozen funds without conditions or controls.

In translation: America must physically withdraw, hand over control of Hormuz, unlock the safes, release Iranian oil to the market, and guarantee the security of the Axis of Resistance before they even sit down to discuss the final text of the nuclear agreement! And the word “exclusively” at the end means that once these points are met, they are no longer negotiable. They are carved in stone.

The West’s standard negotiating logic has always been: “We ease the sanctions gradually, step by step, only when you prove on the ground that you fulfill your obligations.” Here, Trump signed a completely reversed matrix, giving away all geopolitical trump cards in advance and leaving America completely bare and without leverage.

Conclusion: The International-Legal Concrete Wall Around Iran’s Victory

(Analysis of Paragraphs 3, 7, 9, 10, 12, and 14)

To ensure that a future US administration cannot change its mind, Iranian diplomacy turned the remaining procedural, monitoring, and transitional clauses into a seamless trap.

Through a temporary status quo (Paragraph 9) and immediate oil and financial waivers (Paragraphs 7 and 10), Iran ensures its economy breathes fully while its nuclear program remains frozen at a historic all-time high. Concurrently, the Pentagon is barred from deploying any military reinforcements to the region. The tight 60-day deadline (Paragraph 3) induces panic in Washington, forcing further concessions in the photo-finish.

Furthermore, the creation of a joint “executive mechanism” (Paragraph 12) strips America of its unilateral veto. Washington can no longer declare on its own that Iran is cheating; all disputes must navigate a body where Tehran holds an equal vote and veto power.

The final nail in the coffin is Paragraph 14: “The final deal will be endorsed by a binding UNSC resolution.”

Iranian diplomacy learned its lesson from 2018 when Trump unilaterally tore up the original JCPOA. This time, by anchoring the final deal in a binding UN Security Council resolution under Chapter VII, the agreement becomes part of international law, sitting above American domestic law. To ever alter or revoke this resolution, a new vote in the Security Council is required—where Russia and China hold absolute veto power. Iran has ensured that Moscow and Beijing are the permanent, institutional guardians of its victory.

For Israel, this is a legal prison. If Jerusalem decides to launch a unilateral strike on Iran after this resolution passes, it will not be attacking a “rogue state,” but an actor operating within a binding international framework guaranteed by the world’s superpowers. Doing so would trigger the complete diplomatic and political isolation of Israel. The “Art of the Deal” has officially become the unconditional capitulation of the entire Western architecture in the Middle East.

Tonight we are all very close to the final version of the “Memorandum of Understanding” between the United States and Iran. Is it a final, measurable agreement? No, it is not. The most contentious elements remain to be resolved within 60 days of the signing of the Memorandum.

The draft text of the Memorandum aims to stabilize the region after months of severe tension and maritime conflict by focusing on immediate, tangible de-escalation.

• A ceasefire first and foremost, all hostilities will cease. Whether Lebanon will be included in that part of the Memorandum, as Iran insists, is not yet known.

• The Naval Blockade & Strait of Hormuz: The U.S. would lift its maritime blockade on Iranian ports, and Iran would reopen the crucial Strait of Hormuz to global shipping and clear sea mines.

• Asset Freeze & Oil Penalties: The U.S. would temporarily suspend certain oil sanctions and release a portion of Iran’s frozen financial assets to kickstart formal diplomacy.

The opening of the Strait of Hormuz is not even close. Because from the moment the Memorandum is signed, it will take weeks if not months for the Gulf to return to approximately pre-war maritime traffic. It is also unclear how Iran will demine the Gulf if all ships, including minelayers, are at the bottom of the Gulf, as the US President Trump has been claiming for weeks.

A large number of media outlets and panicked supporters of Israel are also disputing the part of the Memorandum on the release of some of Iran’s frozen assets. Media outlets not averse to President Trump are using this still unclear point for the general public as an argument that after weeks of criticism directed at former President Barack Obama, he is giving Iran exactly the same. The latter are ready to criticize everything because Iran did not end up as they wanted and planned, defeated, humiliated, on its knees and with a changed regime.

Of course, Iran will receive certain financial resources, but in what way and to what extent is not yet known. What this could really look like, perhaps the best explanation was given by US Vice President J.D. Vance in his post on social networks:

“First, the Iranians are not receiving any cash, and no funds are being released for simply signing a deal or attending a meeting. The deal is structured to ensure that the US and its allies concerns are prioritized, and that if the Islamic Republic of Iran meets its obligations, then economic benefits will flow to them and to the entire region. This deal has the potential to remake the region and lead to lasting peace.”

Subscribe now

WHAT IS REMAINING UNRESOLVED?

The Nuclear Program The Memorandum of Understanding does not establish final nuclear limits. Instead, it creates a 60-day negotiating window to figure out the technical details of inspections and the fate of Iran’s highly enriched uranium stockpile. Hardliners in the U.S. and Israel worry a temporary deal gives Iran a “free pass” without permanent dismantling, while Iranian hardliners view any nuclear retreat as unacceptable.

Iran’s Regional Allied/Proxy Networks Iran’s support for its “Axis of Resistance” (Hezbollah, Houthis, and various militias) is not restricted by this text, and Iran is unlikely to agree to any significant concessions from its regional allies, especially Hezbollah in Lebanon. On the contrary, Iran will almost certainly demand that the final peace agreement include some solution for Lebanon. The U.S. and its regional allies see these networks as a primary security threat, but Tehran views them as non-negotiable core pillars of its national defense strategy.

Ballistic Missile & Drone Programs Iran’s conventional military and missile development capabilities are for now completely left off the negotiation table. Anyone who believes that Iran will give up the only weapon capable of responding to aggression is mistaken, because missiles and drones were the only deterrents in the not-yet-over war. It is possible and likely that Iran will have to agree to some restrictions, but the chances of completely giving up its missile and drone programs are slim, almost nonexistent. Washington remains highly concerned over Iran’s advanced long-range precision weapons, but Iran refuses to negotiate on its conventional military deterrence.

ISRAEL’S REACTION

According to reliable sources, President Trump has already had a phone conversation with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. So far, there have been three similar phone calls, after which Netanyahu has done the exact opposite of what was requested. The memorandum of understanding and the 60 days of negotiations that will follow will be the best test of President Trump’s power over Benjamin Netanyahu.

Iran has repeatedly said that bombing Beirut, especially the southern suburbs, is a red line for Tehran. No one from the Iranian establishment has said so far that it has abandoned these red lines. And that is actually the only leverage that Netanyahu has at the moment. The possible investigation into the security lapses of October 7, 2023, the continuation of the corruption trial, and no achieved goal in Iran before this year’s Knesset elections are sufficient reasons to believe that Netanyahu will somehow try to obstruct both the agreed Memorandum of Understanding and the final peace agreement.

Finally, the price of Netanyahu’s discontent could once again be paid by Gaza. Despite the ceasefire agreement, Israel currently controls 60% of Gaza’s territory instead of 53%, with Netanyahu’s order to the IDF to expand that territory to 70%. Gaza is already a forgotten case for most of the world’s media. All existing ceasefires have passed without any condemnation or punishment. The Peace Board is no longer mentioned. Taking over all of Gaza cannot be ruled out. Because that is one of the few remaining arenas where Netanyahu could still claim a visible political achievement that he can present to the voters. Europe has been silent so far, so there is no reason to believe that it will change anything in its approach towards Israel. The Gulf countries have not exactly been shy about loudly and specifically condemning Israel for its past violations of the ceasefire agreement.

BOTTOM LINE

Iran, Israel, deployed US soldiers, governments and residents of the Gulf countries will certainly sleep better tonight. But the crisis and war are far from a fait accompli.

Subscribe now

Sunday, 14 June at 20:00 GMT, Frontlines & Backrooms welcomes Professor Timothy J. Lynch. As Washington and Tehran move closer to an agreement, we step back from the headlines to examine a bigger question: is the United States still shaping the international order—or simply reacting to it? From Trump and Netanyahu to China, the Middle East, and the future of American power, this is a conversation about the world that may emerge after the current crisis.

Subscribe to our Substack and receive the episode directly in your inbox.

Fight for land, pride, heritage, and the environment. These are not things that Jared Kushner, his “Affinity Partners,” and Ivanka Trump accounted for when they tried to acquire land and an island in Albania, and a city plot block in Belgrade, Serbia, for their developments. Above all, they failed to calculate the local determination to stand up to the rich and ruthless who are accustomed to ultimate privileges.

Such concepts are completely unfamiliar to those who have been conditioned for generations to privilege and the unshakeable belief that money can buy everything. And that’s perfectly fine if you do it at home, just like Ivanka’s dad and Jared’s father-in-law, the President of the United States, Donald Trump, does in Washington. Just look at the South Lawn of the White House, where the president erected a huge steel structure that will host UFC fighters at an event called the “Freedom 250” fight, scheduled for June 14.

Workers assembled the octagonal ring that will stage a seven-fight event to mark Trump’s 80th birthday and the 250th anniversary of US independence. The 90ft, “Claw”-like steel arches have dozens of cameras attached, featuring overlaying patterns of the American flag and flashy lighting for a reality-style light show.

President Trump floated the idea of keeping it permanently, comparing the UFC ring to the Eiffel Tower in Paris:

“People don’t know that in Paris, France, the Eiffel Tower, 1889 it was built. It was supposed to be taken down immediately after the World’s fair, and then they said, ‘You know we sort of like it, let’s leave it up a little bit longer’, and then they said, ‘Let’s leave it up longer and longer and longer... You know we’re building something in front of the White House that’s quite attractive to a lot of people... and I’m looking at it, and maybe we’ll never ever take it down.”

And that is fine. You can do whatever you please in your own home. You can even call it the “National Monument of the Circus.” But when you go abroad, the dynamic changes. Especially when you don’t take into account what kind of reaction sheer arrogance can provoke.

Subscribe now

CASE OF ALBANIA

Albania is currently being swept by massive, country-wide demonstrations. Tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of people, are on the streets. And they are angry.

Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump’s real estate firm finalized a €1.4 billion deal with the Albanian government, acquiring the island of Sazan in the Adriatic Sea, near the coast of Albania. Rather than buying the land outright in a traditional private sale, the transaction was structured as a long-term redevelopment and lease agreement under “Strategic Investor” status.

On paper, it is an investment. And not just that, but a luxury mega-resort project investment that promises to bring jobs. So what could possibly be the problem?

Sazan Island was a military exclusion zone, holding a highly strategic position between the Strait of Otranto and the mouth of the Bay of Vlorë. It is Albania’s biggest island. Interestingly, the island doesn’t have any built civilian infrastructure—there are no roads, running water, or electricity. However, it is home to rare marine life like monk seals and sea turtles.

Additionally, Kushner and Ivanka bundled the purchase of the island with a massive mainland development in Zvërnec. This coastal wetland and lagoon ecosystem is one of the most important bird sanctuaries in the Balkans. It serves as a critical nesting ground and stopover for thousands of migratory birds, most notably flocks of protected pink flamingos.

And everything might have gone exactly as planned in the backrooms if Ivanka Trump hadn’t decided to speak about the purchase on a podcast. Between reminiscences and philosophical-psychological self-examinations, she managed to showcase a distinct brand of colonial, touch-and-go tourism. According to her, they were simply swimming around, decided to hike to the top, and instantly fell in love with this “beautiful private island in the middle of the Mediterranean.” In a display of supreme detachment from reality, she casually shared this:

“It is an unbelievable, beautiful 1400-hectare private island in the middle of the Mediterranean… You know it’s not even a business for me, despite the scale of it… We have five miles of beachfront directly across the island. This beautiful peninsula has a lagoon on one side, the ocean on the other, and beautiful white sand beaches. For me, it feels more like a challenge than anything else. The culmination of all of my experience in real estate, all of my travel, a lot of reflection on how I want to live, how I think people increasingly are wanting to live…”

Jared Kushner gave an even better glimpse into how he views and perfectly fits this colonial-style, “buy-and-go” tourism:

“I was on a vacation after we left the government… We were on our friend Nat Rothschild’s boat. We got picked up in Montenegro, and then we started sailing over to Corfu, and we spent a couple days in Albania. And about a year later, we started to look for opportunities in the Balkans...”

The reaction was instant. Albanians didn’t just get annoyed; they went absolutely furious. The sheer arrogance of treating their national territory as a real estate jackpot sparked a firestorm of local rage.

Not only that, over 40 environmental organizations warn that the heavy infrastructure, yacht traffic, and sewage runoff will utterly decimate the fragile ecosystem of the island and the mainland across from it. Citizens are also furious that the government quietly passed laws allowing commercial construction in protected areas without public consultation. Albanians fiercely oppose the privatization of sovereign land for the exclusive pleasure of the “super-elite.” Furthermore, because Sazan was a secretive Cold War naval base, the island and surrounding seabed remain heavily littered with unexploded munitions, artillery shells, and sea mines that pose a severe safety hazard. The backlash has reached the highest legal levels: Albania’s special anti-corruption prosecutor’s office (SPAK) has launched a formal investigation into the project’s land acquisition and funding.

This is the fundamental blind spot of the Kushner-Trump empire and their “Affinity Partners.” They are used to dealing in the Backrooms. They operate under the delusion that money can easily buy the peace of any country. They see the Balkans through a patronizing lens—as a collection of desperate, post-communist enclaves where rulers are eager to trade sovereign land for a corporate photo-op and a slice of profit.

But they completely miscalculated the human element. They forgot that while you can easily rent a politician, you cannot buy the soil beneath the people’s feet.

While Albanians are still fighting their fight on the streets, the Serbs have already wrapped up theirs and firmly told Jared Kushner: “Goodbye.”

Subscribe now

CASE OF SERBIA

In Belgrade, “Affinity Partners” tried to do business with a bit more superficial respect. The Serbian government wanted to develop a land plot in the city centre, where the bombed-out building of the Yugoslav Army General Staff headquarters (Generalštab) had been standing in ruins since the end of the war with NATO in 1999.

“Affinity Partners” were interested in building a complex of luxury towers branded under the “TRUMP” name. The Serbian government planned to give the plot to “Affinity Global Development” for a 99-year lease at no charge. In exchange, Kushner’s company promised an investment between $500 million and $750 million.

This brutalist architectural site holds massive historical and emotional weight for locals because it was bombed by NATO forces in 1999 and has been preserved as a cultural heritage monument and memorial.

To fast-track Kushner’s project, the Serbian government stripped the ruins of their protected cultural status and passed emergency laws to override heritage protections, triggering widespread street protests.

The pushback culminated when Serbia’s Organized Crime Prosecutor’s Office filed formal criminal charges against four high-ranking government officials, including the Serbian Minister of Culture. The officials were indicted for abuse of office and document forgery after investigators discovered they had illegally falsified documents to strip the bombed army headquarters of its protected heritage status.

Hours after the criminal indictments were announced, Affinity Partners released a statement confirming they were completely withdrawing their application. The firm stated that “major projects should unite rather than divide” and that they would no longer pursue the development out of respect for Belgrade’s citizens. The story was over.

THE LESSON

So, what is the ultimate lesson here? The Balkans need investments, and the people are not fundamentally against it. Look at “Belgrade Waterfront.” After years of fierce local opposition, it has evolved into one of the favourite leisure spots for the people of Belgrade.

The developers, “Eagle Hills,” understood one crucial thing from the very beginning: you cannot take without giving something back to ordinary citizens. The Belgrade Waterfront project provided kilometres of open public promenade, with even more to be built. It brought the biggest shopping centre in that part of Europe, alongside galleries, museums, and theatres. Furthermore, “Eagle Hills” is currently rebuilding the historic “Old Post Office” that was destroyed in the Second World War—a masterpiece by Serbian architect Momir Korunović built in the modern Serb-Byzantine style. In the very same area, an old paper factory from 1924 will be renovated, modernised, and introduced as the new “Museum of Nikola Tesla.”

This proves there is a respectful, sustainable way to approach local populations and establish a highly successful investment. You cannot just roll corporate bulldozers into Sazan or destroy a protected lagoon ecosystem. History has shown time and again that when it comes to ancestral land and national pride, the Balkan peoples will completely disregard any official agreement signed behind closed doors.

Push them too far, and they will resist with a determination that few foreign investors seem prepared to understand.

In a pre-recorded address to the "Rededicate 250" forum, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio articulated a worldview that underpins the entire intellectual framework of modern Washington:

"It is no coincidence that America, from the very beginning, has occupied a unique and exceptional place in world history. Before the Christian West, most societies and civilizations, for that matter, thought in stagnant cycles. The flooding of the Nile, the return of the rains, the cycle of the harvest. History to them was a wheel to nowhere. It turned and turned only to end up backward, where it began. But our faith calls us outwards, into the limitless darkness of the unknown. It tells us to go forth and preach the gospel to the world as a witness, and to all nations unto the ends of the earth. From that command came America. Our nation, more than any other in history, was shaped by this Christian idea..."

This passage is far more profound than standard political rhetoric. While it was explicitly designed to defend American exceptionalism, it simultaneously codifies a deep, subconscious Western belief: the assumption that history has a definitive direction, that it moves linearly forward, and that this trajectory is an exclusive civilizational privilege.

By contrasting the ancient "wheel to nowhere" with a faith that "calls us outward," the statement establishes a powerful metaphor of vertical ascent. The idea that time is a ladder.

Critics have pointed out that this perspective oversimplifies historical facts by drawing a direct, exclusive line between Christianity and the founding of America, while downgrading ancient, nature-dependent cultures as inherently stagnant. It is precisely in these distortions that we find the roots of Washington's modern strategic blindness.

Subscribe now

Where Marco Rubio Was Right

The state secretary correctly noted the theological and cultural shift that changed the world’s perception of time.

• The Abrahamic Shift: Before Judaism and Christianity, most major worldviews did orient themselves around cosmic cycles. The seasons, reincarnation, the destruction and recreation of the universe. Judeo-Christian theology fundamentally broke away from this by introducing a strictly linear timeline. Creation - The Fall - Redemption - The Last Judgment. Time had a starting point and a finish line.

• The “Upward” Arrow of Progress: This linear worldview was later inherited by the European Enlightenment and Western political thought. It birthed the concept of historical “progress”. The idea that humanity can continuously improve, innovate, and move forward rather than just surviving the next winter. The American founders built the nation on this exact ethos of purposeful, forward-looking creation, forming a “more perfect union”.

The Simplification of Historical Facts

Aztecs, Mayans, Egyptians, Macedonians, and others indeed had cyclical-minded civilisations, but it is so far from the truth that they were stagnant and going nowhere.

They didn’t view cycles as a trap or as failure. They viewed them as harmony. To the Egyptians, the annual flooding of the Nile wasn’t a wheel to nowhere – it was life itself.

Their world was divided between cyclical, when they waited for the rain, and linear, when they looked at the state. Is there a better example than expanding the territory of their own states?

Pyramids didn’t fall from the sky. Egyptians started with the Step Pyramid of Djoser, then they got the Bent Pyramid, because they did math wrong. Finally, they mastered engineering and they build Red Pyramid and the Great Pyramids of Giza. That is not “while to nowhere”, that is linear progress.

The Aztecs started as a weak, migrant tribe forced to live in a swampy marsh because no one else wanted the land. Through military alliances and strategic conquests, they expanded outward year after year, forcing neighbouring city-states to pay tribute.

Tenochtitlan grew larger, wealthier, and more dominant over time. Once they conquered a city, the political reality of Mesoamerica changed permanently. They were actively moving forward to accumulate power, resources, and land.

These are not examples of a loop, but of linear progress.

The Geopolitical Reality Washington Ignores

The straight line is not necessarily flawed; the danger is that Washington has forgotten that any other way of thinking exists. In a multipolar world, you cannot outmanoeuvre rivals who think in centuries when your own strategic horizon ends at the next mid-term election.

China: Calculating by the Century

While Washington remains focused on the next political cycle, Beijing calculates using an entirely different set of rules.

China does not view itself as just a modern country; it acts as a civilization-state. To them, foreign invasions, civil wars, and imperial collapses are not historical anomalies; they are predictable phases in a civilizational life spanning thousands of years.

Major projects like the Belt and Road Initiative or their economic targets for 2049 are not temporary policy papers. They are multi-generational scripts passed down from leader to leader.

If Beijing determines that the tactical balance of power regarding Taiwan or the Pacific does not favor them today, they will not force a conflict for a quick headline. They will back off, quietly build their industries, accumulate financial leverage, and wait for the Western system to hit its next internal crisis.

The West asks: “What do we do next year?” China asks: “Where will our civilization stand in fifty years?”

Subscribe now

Russia: Bending the Line Through Endurance

Russia offers another clear example of why the straight-line myth fails. Russian history is defined by massive geographic vulnerability and the collective trauma of repeated invasions. This has created a political culture that measures success not by speed or elegance, but by the sheer ability to take a punch and endure.

Western military strategy is linear: you start a war, use superior technology to hit fast, get immediate leverage, and sign a treaty. It is a quick arc.

The Russian model is based on a slow, grinding wrestling match:

• Moscow knows that in a long war of attrition, the winner is usually not the side with the flashiest technology at the start, but the side that can absorb the highest human and economic cost without breaking.

• Russia is content to park its economy in a long-term war footing. They are betting on a historical certainty: that democratic societies, constrained by short election cycles and public impatience, will eventually get tired of funding distant conflicts and turn inward.

Iran: Strategic Patience and the Art of Survival

Western analysts frequently misread Iran as an unstable, fanatical actor. But strip away the rhetoric, and Tehran’s strategy is incredibly cold, calculated, and logical, built on surviving two existential fears: external invasion and internal collapse.

Iran is an invasion-tested survivor. It outlasted the Mongols, the Arabs, and the British and Russian empires. When the West hit Iran with massive economic sanctions, Washington expected a straight-line result: economic pain would equal instant regime collapse.

Instead, Iran used a strategy of deep patience.

Iran knows it cannot match the conventional military power of the US. So, it built a messy, decentralized network of allies across the region. This shield is designed to absorb blows and ensure that if a war happens, it is fought thousands of miles away from Iran’s actual borders.

Tehran knows Western political pressure changes with every election and every shift in oil prices. Their goal is not to defeat a superpower in a direct fight; their goal is simply to be standing on the board on the day Washington gets tired and goes home.

The Imperial Blind Spot

The basic lesson that modern superpowers must confront is clear:

Empires rarely collapse because they stop moving forward. They collapse when they convince themselves that history itself moves only in their direction.

The vulnerability is not that a global superpower believes in progress, technological innovation, and structural advancement. These convictions are the vital engines of its internal dynamism. The tragedy occurs when this conviction hardens into an intellectual arrogance that assumes no other entity on the global chessboard possesses an alternative strategy, a distinct concept of time, or the right to an independent historical rhythm.

While the United States, as a linear superpower, celebrates the illusion of its permanent vertical ascent, the civilizations that view history as a series of enduring cycles do not despair over temporary imbalances of power. They do not rush. They methodically consolidate their resources, fortify their institutional cores, monitor the structural fractures appearing within the dominant global order, and wait patiently for the wheel of history to complete its turn.

And we are sure that State Secretary Marco Rubio understands this better than anyone else in the current US Administration.

The guns on the front lines fell silent for 72 hours. For the first time since the full-scale invasion began, a fragile ceasefire - mediated by the White House - paused the artillery barrages long enough for Russia to hold its annual Victory Day parade. But on the ground in Moscow, something strange happened: the tanks didn’t roll. The missiles stayed in their garages.

Under the grey sky of Red Square, Vladimir Putin watched columns of soldier’s march past empty space where nuclear-capable launchers usually stood. It was the first time in 36 years that Russia held a parade without heavy military equipment. The reason wasn’t a lack of hardware. It was a lack of safety. Moscow was afraid of being hit by its own party.

Subscribe now

The Parade of Absence

For decades, the Victory Day parade was Russia’s ultimate flex, a choreographed spectacle of imperial might broadcast to a global audience of billions. But on May 9, 2026, the Kremlin made a calculated retreat.

Instead of military might, giant screens were mounted along the parade route to show footage of military hardware fighting in Ukraine. The message was clear: fear not the show of force in Moscow; the real force is already engaged in battle. That is also what president Putin stated as the only reason for missing military hardware.

If they were security concerns, they were justified. In the weeks leading up to the parade, deep strikes by Ukrainian drones turned the “special military operation” into a two-way range. The Yaroslavl oil refinery, critical for jet fuel, was burning. A high-rise apartment in an upscale Moscow neighborhood was struck. This year’s parade showed that Russia’s air defense umbrella, once touted as impenetrable, now has too many holes to risk concentrating precious assets because of PR.

The “Game” of Ceasefire

In his post-parade press conference, Putin struck a tone of weariness, but also of legalistic rigidity. He claimed the conflict is “moving toward an end”. Yet, his definition of “end” looks very different from the Western ideal of peace.

Putin confirmed he is willing to meet Volodymyr Zelensky, but only to sing the “final peace agreement”, not to negotiate. This is not a leader looking for a compromise. It is a manager looking to close a file.

He also revealed the internal Kremlin perception of the recent 72-hour truce, which Moscow requested to mark the Soviet Union’s victory over Nazism. According to Putin, Ukraine tried to turn the ceasefire into a “comedy show with keyboard instruments,” refusing to play by Moscow’s rigid script. It is a revealing complaint: Putin wants the war frozen in a specific frame, while Ukraine is rewriting the rules on the fly.

The Anatomy of Deep Fear

The reason the parade was so “scaled down” lies not in Moscow, but in Yaroslavl, Tuapse, and the skies over Crimea.

The Economic Jugular: While the world debates frontline advances, Ukraine has shifted to a war of industrial attrition. In the days before the parade, Ukrainian drones struck the Yaroslavl Oil Refinery over 700 kilometers from the border. This wasn’t a random hit. Yaroslavl is a strategic node in Russia’s logistics chain, processing roughly 15 million tons of oil annually for jet fuel and diesel.

The Air Defense Dilemma: Russia possesses some of the most sophisticated air defense systems in the world. Yet, as analysts from the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) point out, Russia has “so many potential targets” that its air defenses have become diluted. To defend every refinery and military airfield from the Baltic to the Pacific, the air defense umbrella has stretched thin.

The Cost of the “Special Operation”: Putin had to explain to the Russian public why there were no tanks in Red Square.

His answer:

“The armed forces must concentrate their attention on the final defeat of the enemy”.

This implies the military is too busy dying and fighting to spare crews for a photo op. It is a tacit admission that the war is not a distant “special operation,” but an all-consuming pressure cooker taxing every corner of the Russian state.

The Three Paths to the “End”

The military experts are divided on how this “end” arrives. Yet the trajectory of the war suggests three distinct possibilities, all of which hinge on factors outside the Kremlin’s control.

1. The Tomahawk Threshold (Heightened Escalation):
If the US or UK supplies Ukraine with long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles (range 1,500km), capable of striking deep into the Russian heartland while evading radar, the calculus changes . Currently, Ukraine can harass Russia. With Tomahawks, it could paralyze Russia’s command and control.

2. The Internal Meltdown (Economic Collapse):
Russia’s war economy is resilient but not invincible. Oil revenues are at historic lows, and interest rates are crippling domestic business. While the Russian public has normalized the “permanent wartime economy,” the constant strikes on oil refineries are driving up domestic fuel prices—the most sensitive political commodity in Russia.

3. The “Korean Scenario” (Frozen Conflict):
The most likely outcome, and perhaps the one Putin is angling for, is not a “win” but a freeze. Russia secures the land bridge to Crimea and holds parts of Donbas. Ukraine, battered but unbowed, joins NATO without a formal security guarantee, while the US “turns off the taps” on intelligence sharing. In this scenario, the “end” is not a peace treaty, but a lack of resources to continue the fight.

The Unplayable Hand

Putin began the day of the parade with a phone call to Donald Trump, where the American president reportedly tried to convince him to move from “operation” to “negotiation”. He ended the day with a statement that he is open to a meeting with Zelensky.

But the context has changed. The Kremlin can no longer guarantee the safety of its own capital. The “red lines” have been crossed so many times they have faded into the background. The parade was a metaphor for the current state of the Kremlin: the soldiers are still marching in perfect formation, but the heavy weapons are missing.

If the war is truly “coming to an end,” it is coming to an end as a controlled burn, not a surrender. Russia is not ready to retreat, but it is realizing it cannot advance. In this limbo, Ukraine continues to strike deeper, the West continues to supply just enough to bleed Russia, and the “end” remains a weapon wielded by both sides to justify the next phase of the grind.

For the citizen on the Moscow street watching the slimmed-down parade, the feeling is no longer one of imperial pride, but of anxious relief that the holiday is over without a drone strike. That shift in psychology — from aggression to survival — is perhaps the most significant victory Ukraine has won yet.

Subscribe now

WHAT TO FOLLOW THIS WEEK

1. IRAN’S RESPONSE: TRUMP SAYS HE’S NOT HAPPY - BUT WILL HE ACT?

Iran has formally responded to the U.S. proposal to end the war. President Trump called the response “not acceptable” and expressed public displeasure.

But here is the catch. Trump’s official visit to China is approaching. Beijing is the real prize. A new military escalation with Iran would complicate that trip, and Trump does not like complications before a summit.

Expect tough rhetoric. Do not expect immediate action.

The calculation in Tehran is simple: wait. Wait for the China visit. Wait for the midterm elections. Wait for the U.S. to lose interest.

What to watch: Any movement of US naval assets. If the carriers stay put, Trump is bluffing. If they start moving toward the Gulf again, the war is not over.

2. LEBANON CEASEFIRE: 51 KILLED IN THE LATEST ATTACKS

The ceasefire that was supposed to hold is not holding.

Israeli strikes killed at least 51 people in Lebanon over the past week. The targets were not just Hezbollah positions. Entire villages are being leveled. The Lebanese health system is collapsing under the weight of the wounded and health professionals are targeted as well.

Israel’s message is clear: they do not care about the ceasefire. They do not care about the US-brokered truce. They do not care about international condemnation.

Hezbollah has responded with rocket barrages into northern Israel — not enough to trigger a full Israeli ground invasion, but enough to remind everyone that the second front is still burning.

The US broke the ceasefire when it failed to enforce it. Israel is now acting with impunity.

What to watch: The death toll in Lebanon. If it continues to rise, Hezbollah will face increasing pressure from within Lebanon to escalate — and a cornered Hezbollah is a dangerous Hezbollah.

3. UK POLITICS: KEIR STARMER FIGHTS FOR SURVIVAL

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer is in serious trouble.

The local elections on May 7 were a disaster for Labour. The big winner was not the Conservatives — they were already in the wilderness. The big winner was the Reform Party, which made sweeping gains across traditional Labour strongholds in the North and the Midlands.

Starmer’s strategy of “responsible opposition followed by cautious governance” has failed. His base is alienated. The working-class voters who abandoned the Conservatives for Labour in 2024 are now abandoning Labour for Reform.

The Reform Party tapped into the same veins of discontent that delivered Brexit: immigration, housing, NHS waiting lists, and a deep sense that the political class does not care.

Starmer is now facing a potential no-confidence vote from his own MPs. The Labour left, never comfortable with Starmer’s leadership, is sharpening its knives. The centrists are panicking. The party is in open warfare.

A change in Downing Street would have immediate implications for Ukraine policy and the UK’s relationship with the United States. Reform is skeptical of further military aid to Kyiv. A Reform surge could pressure Starmer to shift rightward — or replace him with a leader willing to accommodate the new political reality.

What to watch: The number of Labour MPs publicly calling for Starmer’s resignation. If Reform wins a parliamentary by-election in a safe Labour seat, the panic will become a rout.

“Under international law, transit through waterways like the Strait of Hormuz must remain open and free of charge.”

She was correct. International law does require that. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea guarantees transit passage through straits used for international navigation. No state has the right to block them.

But here is the problem.

When it comes to other places - other crises, other violations, other victims - the European Union has nothing to say. The phrase “international law” is nowhere to be found.

This is the problem with cherry-picking international law. You either respect it, or you do not. There is no third option.

Subscribe now

THE ARCHITECTURE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

Let us recall what international law actually is - and why it exists.

The modern international legal order was built from the ashes of the Second World War. In 1945, the United Nations Charter established a framework for peace, security, and human rights. The preamble begins with words that still carry weight: “We the peoples of the United Nations, determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.”

Three years later, in 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted. It is often called the “Global Bill of Rights.” It affirms the inherent dignity of all members of the human family. It declares that “no one shall be subjected to torture” and that “everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of person.”

That same year, the Genocide Convention was adopted - the world’s response to the Holocaust. It defined genocide and made it a crime under international law, binding all states to prevent and punish it.

In 1949, the Geneva Conventions were signed. They established the rules of war: the protection of civilians, the treatment of prisoners, and the prohibition of attacks on medical facilities. They are among the most universally ratified treaties in history.

These are not suggestions. They are binding legal obligations. They apply to all states, at all times, regardless of political convenience.

The European Union claims to be its guardian. But its actions tell a different story.

AZERBAIJAN

While Kallas spoke about international law in Brussels, she was preparing for a different kind of engagement.

She travelled in Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan. Her message could not have been more different.

“Azerbaijan is a valued and reliable energy partner for the European Union,” Kallas said.

She did not mention the political prisoners languishing in Azerbaijani jails. She did not mention the prosecution of government critics. She did not mention the torture documented by human rights organizations. She did not mention the absence of freedom of expression, the suppression of independent media, or the denial of freedom of assembly. She did not mention the persecution of LGBT people. She did not mention the conflict-related abuses documented by UN monitors.

Nothing about the topics so dear to EU officials when they speak about other countries. Nothing about the international law, agreements, and conventions that Azerbaijan has violated.

Because, in this case, gas is more important.

Subscribe now

THE SILENT CRISES

The pattern is not new.

There is no talk of international law in Gaza, where the International Court of Justice has found it “plausible” that genocide is being committed. Silence from Brussels on Venezuela, where the Maduro regime has crushed dissent and manufactured an election. Nothing on Lebanon, where the population is being displaced, infrastructure destroyed, and territory occupied. Radio silence on the West Bank, where settlement expansion continues in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

But when oil flows through the Strait of Hormuz? Suddenly, the EU remembers the law.

When President Trump threatens to annex Greenland? The EU is quick to invoke international law.

The pattern is clear. International law is not a constraint on EU foreign policy. It is a tool — deployed when convenient, ignored when not.

In March this year, after the United States and Israel started a war against Iran, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz famously said that Iran should not be protected by international law. The argument was that such rules lose their meaning when countries repeatedly violate them.

THE FUTURE TEST

Will Madam Kallas call for international law when, eventually, Cuba is invaded?

Do not hold your breath.

This is not about the nature of these regimes. You can like or dislike the Cuban communist regime, the regime in Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, or anyone else. That is not the point.

The point is: you cannot cherry-pick international law.

The law does not say “apply only when politically convenient.” It does not say “apply only to adversaries.” It does not say “apply only when oil is not involved.”

It says: all states. All times. All people.

THE STAKE

The European Union claims moral superiority. It speaks of “European values” and “democratic principles.” It presents itself as the guardian of the rules-based international order.

But selective application is not guardianship. It is hypocrisy.

And hypocrisy has a cost.

When the EU invokes international law for Hormuz but stays silent on Gaza, it tells the world that Palestinian lives do not matter. When it cites the UN Charter to defend Greenland but ignores the West Bank, it tells the world that European territory is protected and Palestinian territory is not.

That is not a rules-based order. That is power dressed in legal language.

If the EU continues down this path, it can kiss goodbye to its “moral superiority” and “democratic values.” Because those values are not sustainable when they are applied selectively. The world is watching. And the world has noticed.

THE HISTORY LESSON

International law is not a slogan to be used when convenient.

It is a set of rules painstakingly built after the most destructive war in human history. It has kept us, more or less, out of World War III. It prevented a repetition of the madness and crimes against humanity of the Second World War.

The architects of the post-1945 order understood something that seems to have been forgotten: law without enforcement is merely advice. And selective enforcement is not justice. It is politics.

So, Madam Kallas, next time you use the term “international law,” please have some substance.

Do not say it just because it sounds good. Do not use it as a rhetorical weapon against your adversaries while shielding your allies. Do not invoke it when oil flows and ignore it when children die.

International law is not a slogan. It is a promise.

And promises that are applied selectively are not promises at all. They are performances.

Here is what happened in the last 24 hours.

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth announced that “Epic Fury” is finished. Secretary of State Marco Rubio confirmed it, adding that the US is moving on to “Project Freedom” - a defensive operation to create a “bubble” for commercial ships in the Strait of Hormuz.

Then, during the night, President Trump posted on Truth Social that “Project Freedom” is also paused. Not because the war is over. Because Pakistan asked nicely and Iran might, possibly, be ready for a deal.

Subscribe now

IS THE WAR OVER?

The war is over when both sides stop fighting. Or when both sides claim victory. Or when a peace deal is signed.

Right now, the Strait of Hormuz is still contested. Iranian oil exports are still blocked. The naval blockade continues. Iran has not surrendered. The regime has not collapsed. The nuclear program — the stated reason for this war — is, according to US intelligence agencies, no further from a bomb than it was before the war began.

“Epic Fury” is finished. But “Epic Fury” was never the whole war.

WHO WON?

The honest answer: no one. The strategic answer: everyone will claim they did.

Iran will claim survival as victory. The regime is still standing. The IRGC has, if anything, consolidated power. Analysts note that the war has “cemented the IRGC’s grip on Iran”, pushing the country toward “a military-run state with clerical cover”. The IRGC is no longer a guardian of the system. It is the system.

Since 1979, the Islamic Republic has revolved around a supreme leader. It was he who held ultimate authority on all key matters of state. But the killing of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, opened the door for even more power for IRGC. They played a crucial role in the elevation of Mojtaba Ali Khamenei to the supreme leader position. Choice was obvious. Mojtaba Ali Khamenei was seen as reliable guardian of IRGC hardline agenda. With economic power that they already had, this added IRGC power over foreign policy and tighter domestic repression.

The IRGC now combines ideological authority, economic influence, and military power — with direct influence over the Supreme Leader. They now have decision-making firmly in their hands.

One of the consequence of this war is that inside of Iran, choice is no more between moderates and hardliners. It is now a choice between hardliners and even more hardliners.

President Trump is absolutely right, the regime in Iran changed, but not in the way he portrays it or what he wishes to believe. It is change to more rigid system, at least co-ruled and heavily influenced by military junta.

There is no spin from Mark Levin, Shawn Hannity or Senator Lindsay Graham that will be able to turn this facts upside down.

The United States will claim victory. Trump already has. On Newsmax, he said: “We’ve already won, but I want to win by a bigger margin”. The administration will point to destroyed Iranian air defenses, degraded military infrastructure, and the elimination of several senior commanders.

At the end, in this war, and in the words of the President, The United States obliterated Iran nuclear capabilities at least 6 times and won a war at least 9 times.

Israel will claim alignment. Netanyahu said the US and Israel have “identical goals” on Iran and that Israel is “ready for any scenario” if the war resumes.

For Netanyahu, this may become the war he waited decades for — only to discover that its ending was never really under his control.

But here is the uncomfortable truth: the IRGC has more power now than before the war. Iran’s nuclear timeline has not been pushed back. The Strait of Hormuz is still closed. And the region is more fractured than ever - with the UAE leaving OPEC, Saudi Arabia drifting toward Pakistan and Turkey, and the Gulf’s collective security architecture in tatters.

HOW WILL TRUMP SPIN THIS AS A VICTORY?

He will do that in the most Trumpian way. This is what he already told to Newmax:

“We have destroyed their navy, destroyed their air force, destroyed all of their anti-aircraft equipment, their radar equipment, their leadership. If we leave right now, it would take them 20 years to rebuild if they ever could rebuild”.

Notice what he did not say. He did not say Iran has surrendered. He did not say the regime has collapsed. He did not say the Strait is open. He said: we destroyed things. We killed people. We are leaving.

That is not a victory. That is an exit.

The spin will be simple: Trump will claim he ended the war, that Iran is “begging for a deal,” that the US military “degraded” the threat, and that “Project Freedom” is just a pause. His base will believe it. The rest of the world will not. Republicans in Congress will applaud and pray that prices, especially at gas stations, go down as soon as possible. The president will, most certainly, offer some new spectacle to occupy public attention, hoping this war becomes distant history by the time midterm elections arrive. The media machine — at least the part aligned with the president — will help, but not before portraying him as a strategic genius.

THE COST OF THE WAR

Human cost: Thousands dead on all sides. Iranian civilians. American soldiers. Israeli troops. Lebanese bystanders. The numbers will be argued for years.

Economic cost: The US manufacturing sector is bleeding. The ISM Prices Index surged to 84.6 in April — its highest level since April 2022. Factory inflation is at a four-year high. The war was mentioned in 47 percent of manufacturer comments, far outpacing concerns about tariffs (18 percent).

India’s manufacturing PMI, while showing mild recovery, recorded the fastest input cost inflation in 44 months, with firms citing the war as the primary driver.

Global oil prices jumped more than 50 percent since the war began. The Strait of Hormuz, carrying roughly 25 percent of global seaborne oil, remains contested.

The price tag for the world: trillions. The price tag for the vanity of one man: incalculable.

WHY DID TRUMP NEED THIS WAR?

The official reason: to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.

But US intelligence agencies assess that Iran is no closer to a nuclear weapon than it was before the war. The timeline — about a year to produce enough bomb-grade material — has not changed since June 2025.

The real reason? Look at the structure, not the headlines.

Netanyahu wanted it. He sold Trump a “quick victory.” He promised a decapitation strike, a regime in chaos, a war that would end in days. Trump bought it.

The IRGC is stronger now. The war eliminated competitors within the Iranian system. The IRGC has hollowed out the civilian presidency, tightened control over negotiations, and expanded its role from “guardian of the system to operator of the system”.

The region is fractured. The UAE left OPEC. The Gulf states are aligning into competing blocs. The US is less influential than it was before the war.

Trump needed this war for the same reason he needs everything: to look strong, to claim victory, to distract from the midterms, to satisfy his ego. The rest of us pay the price.

HOW WILL BIBI REACT?

Netanyahu is already positioning himself. He has publicly aligned Israel’s goals with the US - removal of enriched material, elimination of enrichment capability, reopening of the straits.

But privately? He knows that the war has not achieved its stated objectives. He knows that Iran is still standing. He knows that the IRGC is stronger.

Netanyahu will smile, shake Trump’s hand, and quietly prepare for the next round.

In the meantime, Lebanon will pay the price. Someone must. And Lebanon is perfect. Internally divided, military weak, with huge influence of Hezbollah on politics, Lebanon can do almost nothing. And the ceasefire agreed to and sponsored by Washington is in tatters. Which tells you enough how deep and big is Netanyahu respect is for United States.

WHAT IS NEXT FOR THE REGION?

The war is not over. It is just entering a new phase.

The Strait of Hormuz remains contested. Iran has not reopened it. The US blockade continues. “Project Freedom” is paused, not cancelled. The moment talks fail, the bombing could resume.

The IRGC will continue consolidating power. Iran is moving toward a “military-run state with clerical cover”. The new supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, is increasingly dependent on the Guards. That means a more aggressive, more unpredictable Iran in the long term.

The Gulf is fragmenting. The UAE is aligning with Israel. Saudi Arabia is drifting toward Pakistan and Turkey. The old US-centric security architecture is crumbling.

Israel is preparing for the next war. Netanyahu said Israel is “ready for any scenario”. The ceasefire with Lebanon is fragile. The next round is only a matter of time.

The nuclear threat has not been eliminated. US intelligence says Iran’s timeline is unchanged. The material is still there. The knowledge is still there. The next administration will inherit the same problem — only worse.

THE BOTTOM LINE

“Epic Fury” ended as “Epic failure”. “Project Freedom” is paused. Trump will claim victory, Iran survival.

The world is trillions of dollars poorer. The price of this war will ultimately be paid by ordinary people.

The war did not end. It just rebranded.

President Trump again floated the idea to reduce or to withdraw US troops from Germany. Any president of any sovereign country should be able to make decisions of military deployment and how it will spend tax money.

But this is not a policy decision. This is President Trump’s social media reaction. The reason for the latest outburst was the statement from German Chancellor Friedrich Merz criticizing Trump’s approach to the war in Iran, suggesting that the US had been “humiliated” by Iranian negotiators.

And this is starting to get tiring for allies around the world. The policy of the world’s strongest power shouldn’t be a question of a president’s mood, posts on social media and threats.

So, what did Merz say that made the President rethink the deployment of US troops in Germany?

*“The Iranians are obviously very skilled at negotiating, or rather, very skillful at not negotiating, letting the Americans travel to Islamabad and then leave again without any result. The entire nation was being humiliated by the Iranian leadership.” *

Not polite. Not that prime ministers should do the work of political analysts. For sure, this is something you shouldn’t say in public about a stronger partner on whose military support your safety depends.

But the talk between European allies and the US has long passed any diplomatic lines and entered the public domain, leaving people on both sides of the Atlantic wondering what is happening and what is wrong with all of you.

Subscribe now

WHAT TRUMP AND PUTIN ACTUALLY TALKED ABOUT?

After a 90-minute phone call on April 29, 2026, President Trump told reporters that a resolution to the Russia-Ukraine war could come “relatively quickly.”

“I think he’d like to see a solution,” Trump said. “And that’s good.”

Both leaders are under pressure. Russian troops are stalled in Ukraine’s Donbas region. Ukrainian drones are striking Russian energy infrastructure. Even the Victory Day parade on May 9 appears scaled back, with fewer visible displays of military strength.

Trump, meanwhile, faces rising energy prices and approaching midterm elections, without a clear strategy for the Iran war.

WHAT PUTIN WANTED

Putin made two requests during the call.

First, he proposed a temporary ceasefire around Victory Day on May 9. Trump confirmed the idea, suggesting it might happen. If implemented, the pause would likely be brief — symbolic rather than strategic.

Second, Putin signaled interest in playing a role in Iran’s nuclear file, particularly uranium enrichment. Trump rejected the idea.

“He told me he’d like to be involved with the enrichment if he can help us get it,” Trump said. “I said, I’d much rather have you be involved with ending the war with Ukraine.”

The implication is clear: Moscow is seeking a role in shaping the future nuclear order in the Middle East.

Trump also suggested that the Iran war could wind down on a similar timeline as the war in Ukraine — now entering its fourth year. The tone of the conversation was described as “upbeat.” The substance remains uncertain.

THE BOTTOM LINE

Putin wants a ceasefire to mark Victory Day.
Trump wants stability before the midterms.

Both need something.
Neither has a clear plan.

The call produced no breakthrough.
But it revealed something else: the Kremlin is looking for an off-ramp — and Washington is willing to listen.

THE NUCLEAR THREAT ON NATO’S EASTERN FLANK

While the leaders talked, the military reality moved ahead.

Belarus is no longer a buffer. It is a forward base.

The deployment of Iskander-M systems shortens strike distances across NATO’s eastern flank. Warning time is no longer measured in hours, but in minutes.

The most dangerous moment for NATO’s eastern flank is not in the future.
It is now.

THE WARNINGS BELARUS DIDN’T HIDE

Belarus has formally incorporated nuclear weapons into its military doctrine. The stated target: Poland.

Belarusian Security Council Secretary Alexander Volfovich described the deployment as a deterrent against aggression from a NATO member.

Days earlier, Russian Security Council Secretary Sergei Shoigu issued a warning to Finland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. Moscow invoked Article 51 of the UN Charter — the legal basis for self-defense.

The message was direct: if Ukrainian drones cross NATO airspace, those states could be treated as participants in the conflict.

US intelligence now describes Belarus as a “functional extension of Russia’s military architecture.”

THE SUWALKI GAP: ACHILLES’ HEEL OF THE ALLIANCE

The Suwalki Gap - a 65-kilometer stretch between Belarus and the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad - remains NATO’s most vulnerable point.

It connects the Baltic states to Poland and the rest of the alliance. A rapid seizure could isolate Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia from ground reinforcement.

At the same time, Kaliningrad itself would become exposed in a conflict. NATO’s apparent weakness is balanced by Russia’s vulnerability.

Both sides hold limited advantages.
The margin for miscalculation is thin.

THE 68,000 TROOPS: PAPER TIGER OR BACKBONE?

The United States maintains roughly 68,000 troops in Europe, providing the backbone of NATO’s military capabilities — intelligence, logistics, missile defense, and nuclear deterrence.

Article 5 of the Washington Treaty states that an attack on one is an attack on all. It has been invoked only once, after 9/11.

European leaders are beginning to question how that commitment would function in practice.

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk has raised concerns about reliability. Finnish President Alexander Stubb has urged caution, while warning that Russia will continue to test NATO through hybrid methods — cyberattacks, sabotage, and border provocations.

NATO itself acknowledges that Article 5 is not automatic.
It is a political decision.

WHAT COMES NEXT

The EU is preparing its first “tabletop” exercises to simulate a response to a member state attack. Defense spending is rising across the region.

But the political question remains unresolved.

If Russia believes the United States may step back, it may test the alliance with a limited move — not to win a war, but to test a commitment.

Indispensable is not the same as guaranteed.
And guarantees only exist if someone is willing to enforce them.

Between €42 billion and political pressure. Between unity and fundamentally different political cultures. The EU once again fails to act on Israel.

On April 21, European Union foreign ministers met in Luxembourg for a meeting that was supposed to decide the future of the EU-Israel Association Agreement. Spain, Ireland, Slovenia, and Belgium pushed for a partial suspension. Their argument was simple: Israel is in breach of Article 2 of the agreement, which requires respect for human rights and democratic principles.

Germany and Italy led the opposition. Their argument was equally simple: suspension would be “inappropriate” and would reduce the EU’s diplomatic leverage over Israel.

The result, as it has been for years, was a stalemate. No decision. No action. Just another meeting where the EU talked about doing something and then did nothing.

But this time, something is different. The absence of a unified decision is already shifting the dynamic. A bottom-up approach is beginning to replace collective policy. And the credibility the EU has built over decades is now at risk.

THE CASE FOR ACTION: WHY SPAIN, IRELAND, SLOVENIA, AND BELGIUM PUSHED FOR SUSPENSION

On paper, the case looks simple.

Since October 7, 2023, tens of thousands of Palestinians have been killed in Gaza. The International Court of Justice has found it “plausible” that Israel is committing genocide. Violence in the West Bank has reached levels not seen in two decades. Civilian casualties in Lebanon have mounted since Israel expanded its operations northward. And journalists have been killed in unprecedented numbers. At least 262 since the war began, the deadliest period for journalists since the Committee to Protect Journalists began collecting data in 1992.

Any other country would face EU sanctions. Any other country would see its trade agreement suspended. Any other country would be condemned.

So why not Israel?

The countries pushing for suspension point to Article 2 of the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement, which states that relations between the EU and Israel must be “based on respect for human rights and democratic principles.” They argue that Israel’s conduct in Gaza, the West Bank, and Lebanon constitutes a clear and sustained violation of this clause, triggering the option of suspension.

The European Commission itself has concluded that Israel is violating Article 2. In a formal assessment, the Commission found “serious and persistent” human rights violations and recommended that member states consider suspending certain provisions of the agreement.

But the Commission can only recommend. It cannot decide. That power rests with the 27 member states, acting unanimously.

And unanimity, in this case, is nowhere in sight.

Subscribe now

THE CASE FOR INACTION: WHY GERMANY AND ITALY BLOCKED SUSPENSION AND WHY IRELAND DID

Germany and Italy led the opposition to suspension. Their arguments were not about human rights. They were about leverage, pragmatism, and historical responsibility.

First, the leverage argument. German officials argued that suspending the Association Agreement would reduce the EU’s diplomatic influence over Israel. “If we cut ties, we lose our voice,” one German diplomat told POLITICO. “We can’t pressure Israel if we’re not in the room.”

Second, the pragmatism argument. In 2024, EU-Israel trade in goods reached €42.6 billion. The EU is Israel’s largest trading partner — ahead of the United States in goods. Even a partial suspension would directly affect billions in trade. German and Italian officials warned that suspension would harm European businesses, disrupt supply chains, and push Israel toward other trading partners, particularly China.

Foreign policy decisions require unanimity across 27 member states. And member states do not share a single political culture and historical remembrance. Unspoken but ever-present.

Germany’s position on Israel is shaped by the Holocaust. Six million European Jews were murdered in Nazi Germany’s concentration camps. The principle of Staatsräson - the unconditional defense of Israel as a state - has guided German foreign policy for decades. For Germany to support sanctions against Israel is, for many in Berlin, unthinkable.

Italy’s position is shaped by different historical currents: strategic economic interests in the Eastern Mediterranean, energy cooperation with Israel, and a domestic political landscape where support for Israel remains strong across much of the political spectrum.

Ireland, in their unconditional support of the Palestinian question and Israel as a state, is shaped by their own historical experience. 700-year cycle of conquest, resistance, and eventual independence. After Ireland gained independence in 1922, the question of Northern Ireland remained open. 30-year period of civil unrest, IRA and UK paramilitary violence that ended with the Good Friday Agreement. Irish people in 7 century passed from freedom fighters to terrorists. Over time, actors once seen as freedom fighters were also widely designated as terrorists — a duality that shapes how many in Ireland view the Palestinian question today. That experience informs a sense of identification with the Palestinian case.

The result is a bloc that talks about human rights in Brussels and then, when faced with a concrete decision, defers to national interests. The EU is a union — but not a unified political actor. Same issue. Different lenses. No decision.

THE DOUBLE STANDARD: WHAT FAILURE TO ACT COSTS THE EU

The EU has spent decades building its credibility as a defender of international law and human rights. It has sanctioned Russia for its war in Ukraine. It has sanctioned Belarus for its repression of dissent. It has sanctioned Myanmar for its coup. It has sanctioned Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Iran.

But when it comes to Israel, the calculus changes.

This double standard is not lost on the rest of the world. Global South nations have long accused the EU of selective morality - of applying human rights standards to its adversaries while granting impunity to its allies. The EU’s failure to act on Israel only reinforces that perception. And by failing to act jointly in this matter, the EU is rightfully accused of double standards.

The credibility cost is already visible. In late 2025, the EU’s top diplomat, Kaja Kallas, warned that the bloc’s influence in the Middle East was “eroding by the day.” European officials admitted that the EU had been “outmaneuvered” by the United States and China, both of which have maintained direct channels to Israel while Europe debated procedural questions.

In early 2026, a leaked internal EU memo warned that the bloc’s “normative power” - its ability to shape global norms through persuasion rather than coercion - was “at risk of terminal decline” if the EU failed to respond decisively to Israel’s conduct.

The memo was circulated in February. The EU foreign ministers met in April. And they did nothing.

Subscribe now

THE LONELY APPROACH: SPAIN AND ITALY GO THEIR OWN WAY

When the EU cannot act, individual member states are beginning to act alone.

Spain has been the most assertive. On April 10, Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez called for a common European army — “not in ten years, not in two, but tomorrow” — because Europe cannot depend on the electoral cycles of the United States. Spain has also imposed a total arms embargo on Israel, closed its airspace to US warplanes involved in the Iran conflict, and withdrawn its ambassador from Jerusalem while restoring diplomatic presence in Tehran.

Italy, meanwhile, has taken a different but equally significant step. On March 23, Italy formally announced it would not renew its long-standing defence agreement with Israel, first signed in 2005. The agreement had been automatically renewed every five years. This time, Italy said no.

The Dutch parliament has backed a motion urging the government to push for suspension of the trade component of the EU-Israel Association Agreement. The Netherlands will formally raise the issue at the next EU foreign ministers’ meeting.

And beyond governments, civil society is moving. A European Citizens’ Initiative calling for the full suspension of the EU-Israel Association Agreement has gathered over 1 million signatures across all 27 member states — one of the fastest campaigns since the mechanism was introduced. The European Commission must now formally respond.

This is what “bottom-up” looks like. When the center cannot hold, the periphery begins to move.

THE ECONOMICS: WHAT SUSPENSION WOULD ACTUALLY DO

To understand why Germany and Italy oppose suspension, you have to understand the numbers.

In 2024, EU-Israel trade in goods reached €42.6 billion. The EU is Israel’s largest trading partner — ahead of the United States in goods. Some 32% of Israel’s global trade flows to or through Europe.

The Association Agreement allows Israeli goods to enter the EU market tariff-free. If suspended, Israel would face standard World Trade Organization tariffs. Estimates suggest Israeli exporters would face roughly €220 million in additional tariffs per year - a significant but not crippling sum.

But the EU would also lose. European exports to Israel totaled roughly €17.4 billion in 2024. Suspension would not directly affect these exports, but a full suspension would likely lead to Israeli retaliation.

The real cost, however, is not to trade. It is to influence. As one senior EU official put it, “If we suspend the agreement, we lose the only leverage we have.”

But that argument assumes the EU has leverage in the first place. And after months of threatening action and then doing nothing, the EU’s leverage is already gone.

WHAT COMES NEXT

The April 21 meeting ended in a stalemate. But the issue is not going away.

The European Citizens’ Initiative will force a formal response from the European Commission. The Dutch will raise the issue again at the next foreign ministers’ meeting. Spain and Italy will continue to act unilaterally. And the credibility cost of EU inaction will only grow.

The EU faces a choice. It can continue to debate procedure while the world moves on. Or it can finally act.

After April 21, it is clear which path the EU is choosing.

Last night, the ultimatum deadline was extended by two more weeks.
For the fifth time.

In a war that the President of the United States has “won” eight times since March.

A ceasefire from both sides is expected to follow this extension. Negotiations are scheduled for Friday in Islamabad.

Some are celebrating victory. Others are still figuring out how to explain the latest reversal from the President himself.

The real questions are no longer about victory - but about credibility, and what this war was actually for.

Subscribe now

From Ultimatums to a “Good Base”

What was “unacceptable” for weeks is now a “good base” for negotiations.

Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif reportedly convinced the president that negotiations are a better option than “wiping out a whole civilization, never to come back.”

Not only that — Iran’s 10-point plan, which for weeks was nowhere near the table, is now being treated as a good base for talks.

So what are the main Iranian points:

– guarantees that Iran will not be attacked again
– a permanent end to the war
– lifting of all U.S. sanctions
– Iranian control over the Strait of Hormuz, including a $2M transit fee partly used for reconstruction
– an end to Israeli strikes in Lebanon

According to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the last point will not be at the negotiating table on Friday.

The Spin Machine

Iranians took to the streets to celebrate the victory — and in part, victory it is.

U.S. media, especially those leaning toward the president, are still figuring out how to spin this.

They now need to explain to their viewers what happened with existential threat, nuclear weapons in reach in a couple of weeks, regime change that didn’t happen, obliteration, extensions, language inciting war crimes, and gas prices at the gas station.

How does Monday’s “existential threat” become Wednesday’s “negotiating partner”?

Spins are already flying from the source — the White House.

Spokesperson Karoline Leavitt said that the plan that was yesterday a “good base for negotiations” is today a “wish list thrown in the garbage” by President Trump and his negotiating team. She also said that Iranians submitted a new plan.

Really? How can we be sure after all the reversals?

The negotiating team will be led by Vice President JD Vance.

As Joseph Cirincione told us in an interview for Frontlines & Backrooms, Iranians are refusing to talk with the president’s chief negotiator, Steven Witkoff, and the man from the shadows, Jared Kushner.

The Cost of War (That No One Is Explaining)

The financial and military costs of this war are still not being explained.

The war is estimated at around $2.5 billion per day, according to Brown University’s Costs of War Project.

The initial “Infrastructure Wave” used over 2,000 cruise missiles and precision-guided munitions. Replacing them is projected to cost around $45 billion.

Maintaining three Carrier Strike Groups in the region is costing approximately $1.2 billion per week.

These are not abstract numbers. These are choices.

Credibility Is the Battlefield Now

Starting the war without informing the allies.
Insulting them when they refused to join the war that took them by surprise.
Threatening to leave NATO because some allies refused to give their air bases.
Provoking inflation, price spikes, and uncertainty across allied economies.
Interrupting the flow of 20% of the world’s oil and gas.

Just look at the flip-flops in the last week and a half:

March 21 — 48-hour “final” ultimatum: open the Strait or be obliterated.
March 23 — Extended to 5 days: “productive conversations.”
March 26 — Extended to 10 days: Iran is “begging for a deal.”
March 30 — Back to obliteration threats: “Power Plant Day and Bridge Day.”
April 5 — Deadline extended to April 8, with F-bombs on Truth Social.
April 8 — Two more weeks. Pakistan asked nicely.

As Joseph Cirincione told us in our last interview:

“If Russians were paying an agent to do all of this, it wouldn’t do a better job.”

Rebuilding Trust

Rebuilding trust among allies will be the toughest job.

No matter what Europeans, Japan, or South Korea say publicly, all of them are wondering the same thing:

Can this administration be trusted?

Victory, at a Cost

From their perspective, Iran stayed both defiant and undefeated — but at a staggering cost.

According to UN OCHA / ReliefWeb, more than 2,100 civilians were killed.
An additional 6,500 people were killed by IRGC forces during internal unrest that preceded the war.

Infrastructure has been heavily damaged — oil, gas, and cities.

At the same time, Iran has suffered significant depletion of missile systems, launchers, naval assets, and aircraft.

What Comes Next

If negotiations go well, Iran may attempt to impose a $2M transit fee through the Strait of Hormuz — a direct violation of Article 44 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

If negotiations end in peace, it will take months - maybe years - for the world to stabilize.

Not because of an imminent threat.
Not because of nuclear weapons.
Not because of strategic necessity.

But because of decisions.
And because of one man’s need to win a war, again and again.

You can listen to the full conversation with Joseph Cirincione and Oona Hathaway on Frontlines & Backrooms.

For full conversations and analysis, subscribe on Substack.

Subscribe now

The headline:

President Trump has extended his ultimatum to Iran by 10 days — pushing the deadline for strikes on energy infrastructure to April 6.

Publicly, the message is simple:

Iran is “begging” for a deal.

The reality:

Don’t watch the diplomacy. Watch the logistics.

This is not a delay. It is a synchronization window.

The timeline:

The USS Tripoli (31st MEU) is approximately 2,000 miles out. At operational speed, it needs 4 to 5 days to enter the Persian Gulf.

The USS Boxer (11th MEU) - the heavy element - left San Diego on March 19.

By April 6, its forward elements will be in position.

Not for signaling.

For a potential amphibious operation targeting Kharg Island - Iran’s primary oil export terminal.

The ground component:

The 82nd Airborne is already staged. It can seize an airstrip within hours. But it cannot hold it.

That requires Marines. That requires the Boxer.

The Lebanon pivot:

While the “negotiator” buys time in Washington, the “bulldozer” is reshaping the map in Lebanon.

With all five bridges over the Litani River destroyed, southern Lebanon is no longer connected.

This is not a raid.

It is territorial restructuring.

The conclusion:

April 6 is not a diplomatic deadline. It is a readiness deadline.

The “peace process” is not running parallel to military planning.

It is aligned with it.

The full picture - from Iran to Lebanon - is in tomorrow’s Brief.

Subscribe now

Earlier this week, the geopolitical world hit the panic button. Reports surfaced that Iran had fired Intermediate-Range Ballistic Missiles (IRBMs) at the joint US-UK base at Diego Garcia.

If true, the implications are tectonic. Diego Garcia sits in the heart of the Indian Ocean, roughly 4,000 km from Iranian shores. For decades, Iran has claimed a self-imposed 2,000 km limit on its missile range. A 4,000 km strike wouldn’t just be a regional escalation; it would be a “black swan” event that effectively puts London, Paris, and Berlin in the crosshairs.

But as the dust settles, a different story is emerging. This wasn’t just a potential kinetic strike; it was a masterclass in Narrative Warfare.

The “Verification Crisis”

When the news broke, analysts scrambled. Technically, Iran’s arsenal features the Khorramshahr-4 or various space launch vehicles (SLVs). While these could theoretically be modified to reach such distances, they are notorious for being “one-off” tests. Not reliable, mass-producible military capabilities.

Something wasn’t adding up. The timeline of the “information launch” tells us why:

1. The Accelerators: The news didn’t start with Pentagon radar tracks. It started on IDF social media pages, followed quickly by Israeli Ambassador to the U.S., Yechiel Leiter.

2. The Media Pipeline: The Wall Street Journal followed, citing “multiple U.S. officials and people familiar with the matter.”

3. The Missing Link: Notably absent from the choir? The Pentagon. No official CENTCOM confirmation. No declassified satellite imagery.

The 3,000km Narrative Leap

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu eventually stepped forward, more blunt than the rest:

“I’ve been warning for a long time... They already fired on a European country, Cyprus…And it is time to see the leaders of the rest of the countries join up... Some are moving in that direction, but more is needed.”

Here is the “Backroom” reality check: Cyprus is 1,000 km from Iran. Diego Garcia is 4,000 km. In ballistics, that isn’t a “leap”. It’s an entirely different species of physics. By conflating the two, the narrative bypasses the science to get straight to the fear.

For a leader who has claimed for 34 years that Iran is “months away” from a nuclear bomb, Mr. Netanyahu is playing a familiar chord. But this time, the audience is pushing back.

The NATO Dissent

In a rare public split, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte stated clearly that the alliance cannot confirm the Israeli claims. The UK Secretary of State went further, noting there is no assessment to substantiate the claim that Iran can hit London.

Even the Iranians joined the fray, labelling the reports as an “Israeli false flag.”

Subscribe now

Who Fired the “Ghost Missiles”?

In the “Backroom,” we recognize that a “Ghost Missile” is one that hits the headlines but never touches the ground. All sides are currently engaged in a total propaganda war where the objective isn’t to destroy a base, but to destroy an opponent’s resolve, or force an ally’s hand.

The Iranian Ghost: Just days ago, we saw a false story about Netanyahu’s death circulated to demoralize Israelis.

The Israeli Ghost: By circulating maps showing a 4,000 km reach, the IDF is firing a “psychological missile” at European capitals.

Why now?

President Trump is increasingly transactional. Everything becomes “Art of the Deal”. Where the biggest part of the deal is to satisfy the President’s vanity. The Rubio Doctrine suggests that if Europe wants security, it must pay for it or fight for it. By “proving” Iran can hit Berlin, the narrative architects are trying to kill European hesitation and force them into a war they have stubbornly refused to join.

In 2026, you don’t need to launch a rocket to change the world. You only need to launch a map that no one can disprove in time.

While Cuba went dark, Washington didn’t whisper.

It spoke clearly.

Not through policy papers.
Not through diplomatic language.

But through a sentence that sounded less like strategy — and more like ownership.

While the world was watching at the Strait of Hormuz, the 20th century died in the Oval Office on Monday.

With a single sentence -“I think I can do anything I want with it” - President Trump didn’t just threaten a Caribbean island. He tore up the 1962 Kennedy-Khrushchev Pact, the foundational “No-Invasion” pledge that lived for sixty-four years and a commitment that prevented nuclear war for twenty-seven.

But to understand why Cuba is the next target, we have to look at what just happened in Caracas.

The “Delcy Model” vs. Regime Change

At least part of the Venezuelan people and the whole opposition were hoping for regime change. The reality was more surgical. The U.S. didn’t install a puppet from the outside; they captured Maduro in Operation Absolute Resolve (January 3rd) and allowed Delcy Rodríguez to take the reins.

Why Delcy? Because she is a pragmatist who “obeys” the new reality. By January 15th, she was already proposing oil reforms to facilitate U.S. investment. It wasn’t about bringing “democracy”; it was about bringing predictability. Trump doesn’t want to manage Venezuela; he wants the oil flowing under a manager who knows who the boss is.

President Trump on Sunday: “I think we will pretty soon either make a deal or do whatever we have to do”.

The “whatever we have to do” part is doing heavy lifting.

Venezuela showed what “whatever” looks like. Iran is showing it now. Cuba is preparing and watching

The Cuban Question: If Not Oil, Then What?

Critics ask: “Why Cuba? They have no oil.” They are missing the point. Cuba is a Vanity Satisfaction and a Strategic Clearing.

· The Trophy: For decades, Cuba has been the “one that got away” for Republican hardliners. Taking Cuba “in some form” is the ultimate flex - a way to finish what JFK couldn’t at the Bay of Pigs.

· The Real Estate of Power: Trump himself hinted at it: “They have good land. They have beautiful views.” In the 2026 mindset, Cuba isn’t a country; it’s a 40,000-square-mile piece of strategic “waterfront property” that Russia and China are currently using as a listening post.

The 64-Year Hold: Why Now?

For decades, Cuba held on through “The Special Period” and endless sanctions because it had a lifeline. First, the USSR. Then China, a crucial economic lifeline for Cuba. Providing hundreds of millions in loans, debt restructuring, and humanitarian aid. And until recently, Venezuela’s oil-for-doctors swap.

Those lifelines are dead. With the U.S. blockade of Venezuelan crude and the “Total Disconnection” of the Cuban grid on Monday, the island is literally in the dark. The “1962 Pledge” only worked as long as the U.S. respected the “Spheres of Influence” model. Trump has signaled that the Western Hemisphere is no longer a shared space. It is an American lake.

Will Moscow and Beijing Stay Silent?

The “Old World” analysts expect a Cuban Missile Crisis 2.0. They are likely wrong.

· Moscow: Lavrov is talking tough, but Russia is bogged down in the post-Ukraine security architecture. They’ll protest at the UN, but they won’t sail a fleet into a 2026 U.S. blockade.

· Beijing: China is playing the long game. They’ve dismissed Trump’s demands to police the Gulf as a “trap.” They won’t fight for Havana; they’ll use the U.S. aggression in Cuba as a diplomatic lever to justify their own “Sphere of Influence” in the South China Sea.

The Death of Diplomatic Language

Perhaps the most “scandalous” part isn’t the threat - it’s the Brutal Honesty. For 70 years, the U.S. spoke the language of “Human Rights,” “Democracy,” and “International Law.” American soft power was equally important as the military might. That was the “Cloak.” Today, the cloak is gone. Trump is speaking the language of the 19th-century Empires in plain sight.

When he says, “I can do anything I want with it,” he is inviting the public into the “Backroom” where raw power has always lived. He is betting that in 2026, the American public prefers a “Winner” to a “Diplomat.” Was his bet correct, first checkpoint – midterm elections?

For now, we know that that bet didn’t work with the rest of the world. Especially with European partners. The United States is more visibly alone on the world stage. Loneliness can be hard. More importantly, without the United States, the current world order is in serious trouble. Or as Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen ominously put it: “The old world order is gone, and probably it will not come back.”

The Cuban question is not about Havana.

It is about the moment when power stops pretending.
When agreements stop being constraints.
And when a single sentence reveals more than decades of diplomacy ever did.

Subscribe if you want to see where this is going — before it becomes consensus.

Subscribe now

The collapse of the Hormuz coalition was not a diplomatic accident.
It was a signal that even America’s closest allies are no longer willing to follow Washington into another legal grey zone.

The proposed “Hormuz Coalition” collapsed before it was even formally announced.

In a historic shift, major European powers - Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Italy, and as of today, Portugal - have all issued a firm “NO” to President Trump’s demands for a naval mission in the Persian Gulf. In response, President Trump has issued his gravest warning yet, declaring a “very bad future for NATO.”

What we are witnessing is not a mere diplomatic spat. It is the end of the Transatlantic Bargain.

The Dominoes Fall: “Not Our War”

Just two weeks ago, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez attempted to project unity, stating: “We are not going to be alone, we are going to be the first.”

He was correct, but not in the way he intended. Spain became the first to refuse the use of its military bases for the operation, and the dominoes fell rapidly across the continent. One by one, NATO allies have made it clear they will not send their ships or risk their sailors in the Strait of Hormuz.

The refusal was not limited to Europe. Key Asian partners like Japan and Australia also declined, while China - the primary economic beneficiary of Gulf oil stability - issued its signature “silent no,” repeatedly calling for de-escalation rather than engagement.

Trump’s Trap: The “Logic” of Freedom

President Trump’s primary logic is simple, powerful, and undeniably appealing to his base. He argues that the U.S. should not be the world’s “free security guard.”

His message to allies is clear: “If you want to keep paying $2 a gallon, send your own ships to protect your own fuel. Why should American taxpayers pay to protect China’s oil supply?”

This is the central “trap” of the administration’s narrative. No reasonable analyst could argue against that logic on its surface.

The “Backroom” Reality: A Pre-emptive War

The critical flaw in Trump’s logic, however, lies in how we arrived at this crisis.

The Strait of Hormuz was open and operational before the U.S. and Israel launched pre-emptive strikes on Iranian missile batteries and naval facilities on February 28th. Crucially, they did so without informing or consulting a single one of their NATO or Asian allies.

The allies are now refusing to help manage a crisis they had no hand in starting. Trump’s “coalition of the willing” has become a “coalition of the blindsided.”

The Language of Collapse: Blackmail and Bureaucrats

For the first time in years, major European powers refused to participate in a U.S.-led security operation in the Persian Gulf.
Not because the threat disappeared — but because the legal and political foundation simply was not there.

The resulting diplomatic spat has been brutal, with neither side sparing any words.

German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius provided a blunt, public rebuff, questioning the very military utility of the European contribution:

“What does Donald Trump expect a handful or two handfuls of European frigates to do in the Strait of Hormuz that the powerful US Navy cannot do?”

From Brussels, Xavier Bettel, Deputy Prime Minister of Luxembourg, used even sharper language:

“We will not give in to blackmail from the US to join this war... our soldiers are not for hire.”

This blunt defiance triggered an equally aggressive response from Washington. Secretary of State Marco Rubio established a new American doctrine by directly attacking the authority of the European Union:

“The European Union does NOT get to decide what international law is, and they certainly don’t get to tell us how to defend our national security. We aren’t going to let our survival be dictated by bureaucrats in Brussels who hide behind legal technicalities...“

The Ultimatum: “We Will Remember”

President Trump is now aiming directly at the future of NATO itself, framing this as a loyalty test. He has explicitly linked U.S. support for Ukraine (a European priority) to European support in Hormuz:

“We didn’t have to help them with Ukraine... Now we’ll see if they help us. If there’s no response or if it’s a negative response, I think it will be very bad for the future of NATO.”

Trump even suggested that the refusal was predicted, telling the Financial Times that the entire initiative was designed as a “test”:

“I’ve been saying for years that if we ever did need them, they won’t be there... I’m almost doing this initiative because I want to find out how they’ll react.”

His final warning? A ominous, transactional promise: “We will remember.”

Analysis: The New Age of Strategic Isolation

We are witnessing the immediate, explosive consequences of a rash decision to initiate war. Will NATO disappear tomorrow? No. But the era of the unconditional American defense umbrella is officially over.

As Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen so grimly summarized:

“The old world order is gone, and probably it will not come back.”

Europe will certainly no longer be able to count on America’s unconditional support. From Berlin to Tokyo, the defining strategic question of 2026 is no longer, “How do we work with Washington?” but rather, “How do we defend ourselves by ourselves?”

The Western Alliance didn’t collapse because of a lack of ships. It collapsed because of a total failure of trust.

The Hormuz coalition did not collapse because the threat vanished.
It collapsed because the legitimacy to respond to it never existed.

The full analysis of the Rubio–Pistorius clash and what it means for NATO is in this week’s Brief.

Subscribe to receive the Brief and future strategic notes directly in your inbox.

You can also listen to my conversation with Mona Ali Khalil — former UN Senior Legal Officer — on how international law has been reshaped by great power politics.

Mona Ali Khalil spent 25 years inside the United Nations legal office.
When she calls Tony Blair a war criminal - “as much as Putin” - it is not rhetorical provocation. It is a legal and political diagnosis.

Here is what she means.

• Iraq, 2003. Blair helped launch a war that killed over a million Iraqis. No tribunal. No prosecution. No legal reckoning. Today he sits on the Board of Peace, advising on Gaza’s future. Impunity does not only erase the past - it authorizes the future.

• The ICC dilemma. The International Criminal Court issued warrants for both Vladimir Putin and Benjamin Netanyahu. One decision was widely celebrated. The other widely condemned. The law itself does not contain double standards - but the states enforcing it often do.

• The backlash against law. South Africa and The Gambia are defending the UN Charter at the International Court of Justice. Instead of support, they face political and economic pressure. The message is clear: defend international law, and you may pay a price for it.

The conclusion is uncomfortable.

The international legal system is not collapsing.
It is being selectively enforced.

And as long as that continues, the law will constrain the weak while accommodating the powerful.

The full conversation with Mona Ali Khalil is now live.

Subscribe now