sexta-feira, 17 de abril de 2026

US Suffered Major Strategic Defeat in Failed Isfahan Operation



Information obtained by Press TV regarding the recent operation by the US-Israeli coalition in the central Isfahan province reveals a major strategic defeat for the enemy.

 

Press TV
April 7, 2026 

US President Donald Trump’s frantic threats in the past few days to target Iran’s civilian infrastructure, including power plants and bridges, are a direct consequence of the heavy defeat suffered by the US forces in the Isfahan operation.

The failed raid was carried out after the enemy conducted extensive aerial reconnaissance operations in the days leading up to the attack, according to the exclusive information.

During those initial infiltration and reconnaissance missions, the US and possibly the Zionist regime lost a significant number of aircraft, including at least one A-10 Thunderbolt II and two Black Hawk helicopters.

The information obtained by Press TV reveals that “zero hour” for the failed Isfahan operation was set during a secret meeting at the White House under the direct supervision of the US president himself.

It has now become clear that this operation had no connection to the claimed rescue of a downed F-15 fighter pilot, a narrative initially pushed by American officials. Instead, evidence examined and confirmed by Press TV  indicates that the real objective was to infiltrate and attack one of Iran’s nuclear facilities in Isfahan.

The landing site for C-130 transport aircraft, chosen based on previous reconnaissance, was an abandoned airstrip located dangerously close to one of these nuclear sites.

 

The Americans miscalculated, believing that Iran’s air defense would be unable to confront the aircraft involved in the operation. However, Press TV learned that the deployment of numerous US aircraft occurred while the Iranian Armed Forces were in full alert, waiting for them. In fact, American special forces fell directly into a trap set by Iranian forces.

The Iranian Armed Forces, including the Army, Law Enforcement (Faraja), the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC), and local popular forces, initially did not show a serious reaction to the landing of the first C-130, which was carrying dozens of special forces commandos. Evidence shows this aircraft veered somewhat off the runway while landing at the abandoned dirt airstrip.

Minutes later, a second C-130 aircraft approached, carrying specialized vehicles, several MH-6 Little Bird helicopters, and other support equipment. At that moment, Iranian forces on the scene targeted the second aircraft before it could land, turning its normal landing into an emergency one. Two Black Hawk helicopters also arrived shortly after.

It was at this moment that the aircraft, helicopters, and commandos who had disembarked from the first plane became perfect targets for the Iranian Armed Forces.

After the special forces realized they had fallen into the trap, the White House situation room made a critical decision: the main operation to infiltrate the nuclear site was changed into a desperate rescue operation for the dozens of US commandos trapped under Iranian fire.

The Americans immediately sent several smaller aircraft to extract their forces, barely managing to gather the individuals and withdraw them from the deadly situation.

The rescue operation was conducted so hastily that some soldiers and officers abandoned their equipment, including, according to the evidence possessed by Press TV, the identification document of an American officer left behind in the area, to save their lives.

After the commandos were evacuated, American fighter jets established a line of fire with a 5-kilometer radius to prevent Iranian forces from approaching the abandoned C-130s at the airstrip. The jets also carried out heavy bombing of their own equipment to prevent it from falling into Iranian hands.

In this failed operation, US special forces did not even have the chance to fly the special Little Bird helicopters; some were destroyed on the ground, while others were destroyed inside the second C-130 aircraft.

Following this disgraceful and heavy defeat, Trump hastily and chaotically held multiple press conferences to cover up the failure and falsely portray it as a pilot rescue operation.

The information obtained by Press TV describes these propaganda shows, led by Trump and his Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, as reminiscent of Hollywood films – lies that have not even been accepted by many American audiences.

The information available notes that Trump will continue to fabricate other “Hollywood-style” operations to falsely claim achievements and appease public opinion in the US.

However, his and Hegseth’s repeated storytelling and lying, which have reduced public confidence in him both in the US and across the world to the lowest possible level, have made his “Goebbels-style lies” very difficult to believe.

People in the US and across the world are asking a pointed question: “How is it that a country which supposedly has neither air defense left nor an army or armed forces has managed to shoot down and destroy so many fighter jets and various aircraft, and continues to add to its album of different types of destroyed fighter jets, planes, helicopters, and drones,” a highly-placed source in Tehran told Press TV.

The heavy defeat of the Isfahan operation, he noted, could be recorded in history as the worst and most disgraceful failure of the US military, even worse than the failed Tabas operation of 1980, which saw a botched rescue attempt end in disaster for Washington.

The information obtained by Press TV notes that the heavy aftershocks of this “great debacle” for Trump will affect not only the fate of the ongoing war against the Islamic Republic of Iran but also the political future of “America’s gambling and ignorant president,” his Republican party, and the American political scene for years to come.

How Iran defeated the Isfahan operation:  


Source: https://libya360.wordpress.com/2026/04/07/us-suffered-major-strategic-defeat-in-failed-isfahan-operation/

Postado por às Nenhum comentário:

What actually is ‘civilisation’? The dark and loaded history behind Trump’s threat against Iran

 


Bruce Buchan
April 10th, 2026 

In the midst of a war of his own choosing, the president of the United States, Donald Trump, recently tried to threaten his way out of it. On April 7, he posted on Truth Social that unless Iran buckled to his will, “a whole civilization will die tonight”.

He presumably meant to amplify his earlier claim that he intended to bomb Iran back to “the stone age”.

Trump’s words are rarely to be taken at face value. Yet his recent incitement to war crimes proved shocking, even by his standards.

But what actually is “civilisation”? And why has Trump’s threat struck a nerve in even his most ardent loyalists?

Coined in an age of conquest and enslavement

The word “civilisation” is a creation of the age of Enlightenment in the 18th century. It was coined to describe a social order that European philosophers and writers then believed was coming into being in parts of Western Europe.

The word derived from older terms in Europe’s lexicon. To be “civil” denoted politeness, and “civility” a code of peaceful conduct essential to city life.

One of the first people to use the word was French political economist Victor de Riqueti, Marquis de Mirabeau (1715–89). In his work L'ami des Hommes, ou, TraitĂ© de la Population (The Friend of Man, or Treatise on Population) (1756), civilisation implied three things.

Mirabeau described the historical role of Christianity as the “primary driving force of civilisation”. What he meant was Christianity curbed human violence and turned Europeans by slow degrees over time toward amity and friendship. In other words, the civilised knew God and acted with divine purpose – or at the very least, were less violent and cruel than the “uncivilised”.

Mirabeau also employed the word to describe the “natural cycle of barbarism and […] civilisation”. Here, he implied all peoples were located somewhere along a pathway in time between the condition of mere barbarians, and the exalted heights occupied by the civilised. Not all may scale the heights, but those who do must take care to avoid falling.

The civilised could see more, know more and have more. That “more”, Mirabeau suggested, was the evidence of their civilisation. The barbarian by contrast, simply lacks.

Finally, Mirabeau used the word to warn of a “return of barbarism and oppression” that would destroy “civilisation and liberty”, endangering “humanity in general”. Civilisation needed defence, especially from the so-called “barbarians”, who he warned may be among us, rather than threatening hordes beyond the city gates.

Here then, at the very origin of the word, lies a deep-laid curse.

Civilisation’s curse is the monumental presumption of separation, of imagining oneself as different from all others, and privileged by that difference. That privilege has so often been expressed in the disdain for, or fear of, “the barbarians” who must be “civilised” – turned away from their presumed savagery, heathenism or mere animality.

A term wrapped up in identity

These connotations still reverberate in contemporary use of the term. It echoes in plural references to particular civilisations in time, such as the Romans, Babylonians, Inca or Mexica.

Although different in language and laws, these civilisations were capable of providing a reasonably refined way of life in flourishing cities, such as with running water, sanitation, roads and bridges. Useful as a teaching aid, this “bricks and mortar” approach reduced civilisation to something like a checklist.

In 1996 the American political scientist Samuel P. Huntington invoked this “bricks and mortar” view in The Clash of Civilisations and the Remaking of World Order. In the post-Cold War era, he argued, global order would be riven not by ideological division so much as by conflicts between distinct civilisations. Huntington’s thesis has been widely discredited, but the idea of plural civilisations remains.

Today, however, the most potent meaning of the word is what we might call the civilisation of capital letters. Western Civilisation, for example, is still regularly invoked to convey a certain history that links Britain and Western Europe with their far-flung colonial offshoots (such as Australia).

Much more than just history, Western Civilisation also implies identity; as if the appellation encompasses who we are as a nation. In this identification lies that deeper curse.

Rarely is Western Civilisation invoked except in warnings that it is in imminent peril, careening toward the end.

Arrogant assumptions

Too frequently has the curse of civilisation inspired this recurrent nightmare. In his 1899 novel, Heart of Darkness, Joseph Conrad presented civilisation as a kind of madness – a derangement of humanity expressed in a nightmarish will to “exterminate all the brutes”.

Thanks to Trump’s threats, this is where we find ourselves now: on the cusp of that persistent curse. As long ago as 1767, one of the earliest adopters of the word, Scots philosopher Adam Ferguson (1723–1816), sought to trace humanity’s path “from rudeness to civilisation”.

Yet Ferguson also questioned the obtuse presumption spawned by the word, that “we are ourselves the supposed standards of politeness and civilisation”. From there it was but a short step to the arrogant assumption that “where our own features do not appear […] that there is nothing which deserves to be known”.

When President Trump says that Iran’s “civilisation” will be “taken out in one night”, we hear echoes of that presumption. His words have made barbarians of us all, equally at the mercy of a madman’s curse.

 

Source: https://theconversation.com/what-actually-is-civilisation-the-dark-and-loaded-history-behind-trumps-threat-against-iran-280268?utm_source=firefox-newtab-en-gb

Postado por às Nenhum comentário:

Israeli Army Takes Heaviest Tank Losses in Over 40 Years as Hezbollah Ambushes Destroy 21 Merkavas in One Day

 

 

Military Watch Magazine Editorial Staff
March-26th-2026 

The Lebanese paramilitary group Hezbollah has reported on the results of multiple ambushes launched against Israeli forces in southern Lebanon, with 21 Israeli Merkava main battle tanks reported on March 26 to have been destroyed within a 24 hour period. Other consequences of engagements have included the firing of over 60 rockets at targets in the Galilee region that day, complementing much longer range strikes against Israeli targets launched by Hezbollah’s close strategic partner Iran. Hezbollah artillery units also targeted Israeli command positions in the Taybeh region, Rab Thalathin and Oudaiseh, while also firing on Israeli reinforcements that were dispatched to evacuate casualties. The paramilitary group reports regarding further strikes: “the headquarters of the Israeli Ministry of War (Kyria) in the center of Tel Aviv, and the Dolphin barracks belonging to the Military Intelligence Division north of Tel Aviv, with a number of special missiles.” 

 
Israeli Army Merkava IV Tank Near the Lebanese Border

The bulk of Israeli armour losses occurred in a single engagement between the towns of Taybeh and Qantara, after Israeli units reportedly “advanced to carry out a manoeuvre aiming to seize control of the area.” Hezbollah’s official statement observed that its personnel “monitored them and prepared to lure the enemy into a well-planned ambush,” with the result that its forces “succeeded in thwarting the enemy’s manoeuvre, inflicting losses including 10 Merkava tanks and D9 bulldozers.” The results of the successes reported to have been achieved by Hezbollah units represent the most extreme losses Israeli armour has suffered in over 40 years since the early stages of the Lebanon War when Merkavas and older U.S.-supplied tanks engaged newly operationalised Syrian Army T-72 tanks and anti-tank guided weapons. 

 
Hezbollah Radwan Force Personnel

After Israel and the United States initiated a full scale military assault against Iran on February 28, Hezbollah the following day opened a second front against Israel, to which Israel responded by launching a ground invasion of Southern Lebanon on March 2. Footage has from early March shown multiple strikes on Israeli tanks by Hezbollah units. While Israel armour has taken significant losses during engagements with Hezbollah in the past, most notably during a failed attempt to invade Southern Lebanon and forcefully disarm the paramilitary group in 2006, the intensity of current hostilities and losses remains wholly unprecedented. The fact that this is the first time Israel has launched an invasion while being at war with Iran, which raises the stakes for Hezbollah as it relies on Iranian support, may have been a factor ensuring it does not hold back from full counter-escalation. 

 
Destruction of Merkava Tank By Palestinian Paramilitary Groups in the Gaza Strip

The latest setbacks to Israeli operations follow reports that Hezbollah had deployed its Radwan special forces for counteroffensives against Israeli units. These forces were not previously deployed for engagements with Israeli forces, but observations of their counterinsurgency operations in Syria have led analysts to conclude that they are very considerably more capable than Hezbollah’s regular units. The presence of Radwan forces on the frontlines may be a primary contributor to the more intensive losses which Israeli armour has taken from mid-March. Merkava tanks notably previously took a number of losses during Israeli Army operations against Palestinian paramiltiary groups in the Gaza Strip from late 2023, although the much lower quantities of equipment, poorer fortifications, and inferior training standards in the theatre meant that losses were negligible by comparison to those seen during engagements with Hezbollah. 

 

Source: https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/israel-largest-tank-losses-40yrs-ambushes-21-merkava

Postado por às Nenhum comentário:

quinta-feira, 19 de março de 2026

Meningitis Fear Grips UK But What Is Really Known About This Deadly Disease

 


 
John O'Sullivan CEO Principia Scientific 
March 18, 2026

An outbreak of meningitis in the UK is focusing public attention on one of the most feared medical emergencies: inflammation of the membranes surrounding the brain and spinal cord. But what is the cause?

On March 17, 2026 the BBC reported that UK Health Secretary Wes Streeting has announced new measures to tackle what he calls the “unprecedented outbreak” of meningitis in Kent.

The BBC reports:

“Four of the meningitis cases have been confirmed as Meningitis B, or MenB – a serious bacterial form of the illness. Routine vaccination of babies for MenB was only rolled out in 2015, meaning teenagers and young adults are unlikely to have had a jab.

A targeted vaccination programme will be rolled out for students in halls of residence at the University of Kent – where one of those who died was a student – Streeting told the House of Commons.”

While health authorities emphasise infection (as per Germ Theory) as the primary cause, alternative perspectives—such as Terrain Theory—are gaining traction among independent experts, raising questions about how we understand disease itself.

As confidence in mainstream medicine has dropped since government mishandling of the COVID19 pandemic, serious questions have arisen about the true nature of such illnesses.

Below is a highly-informative video from Dr Sam Bailey, advocating for a fresh perspective on meningitis:


What Is Meningitis?

Meningitis refers to inflammation of the meninges, the protective layers around the brain and spinal cord. Symptoms can escalate rapidly and may include:

  • Severe headache

  • Neck stiffness

  • Sensitivity to light

  • Fever and confusion

  • In severe cases, seizures or death

Mainstream medicine classifies meningitis into several types, most commonly:

  • Bacterial meningitis (often linked to Neisseria meningitidis)

  • Viral meningitis

  • Less commonly, fungal or parasitic forms

Public health bodies such as the UK Health Security Agency and the World Health Organization stress that bacterial meningitis, though rare, can be life-threatening and requires urgent treatment.


Why the Current Concern?

Seasonal fluctuations, close-contact environments (schools, universities), and sporadic clusters can trigger heightened awareness. While overall case numbers remain relatively low in the UK, even isolated outbreaks receive significant attention due to the severity of the condition.

Health agencies continue to recommend:

  • Early recognition of symptoms

  • Rapid medical treatment

  • Vaccination for high-risk groups

The Terrain Theory Perspective

An alternative framework—often referred to as Terrain Theory—offers a very different interpretation.

Advocates argue that:

  • Meningitis is not a disease caused by microbes, but a response of the body to internal imbalance or toxicity

  • Microorganisms found in patients are secondary effects, not primary causes

  • Factors such as environmental toxins, pharmaceuticals, stress, or nutrition may be the true drivers of inflammation

This view challenges long-standing assumptions of germ theory, which links specific pathogens to specific diseases.


Points of Contention

The divide between these perspectives centres on several key issues:

1. Causation vs Association

Terrain Theory proponents argue that finding bacteria in patients does not prove causation.
Mainstream science responds that multiple lines of evidence—including epidemiology, laboratory studies, and treatment outcomes—support a causal role for pathogens.

2. Asymptomatic Carriers

It is well established that some people carry Neisseria meningitidis without illness.

  • Terrain view: This suggests microbes are harmless or opportunistic

  • Medical view: Carriage is normal, but under certain conditions bacteria can invade the bloodstream and cause disease

3. Effectiveness of Treatments

  • Conventional medicine: Antibiotics and supportive care reduce mortality in bacterial meningitis

  • Terrain perspective: Improvements may stem from anti-inflammatory effects rather than antimicrobial action

4. Vaccination

Health authorities state vaccines significantly reduce incidence of certain forms of meningitis.
Terrain advocates question both their necessity and underlying assumptions about causation.

What Does the Evidence Say?

The scientific consensus—supports the role of infectious agents in many cases of meningitis. This includes:

  • Identification of pathogens in cerebrospinal fluid

  • Reproducible disease patterns during outbreaks

  • Reduced incidence following vaccination programs

However, it is also true that:

  • Not all cases have a clearly identified pathogen

  • Individual susceptibility varies

  • Inflammation is central to disease severity

These points leave room for ongoing discussion about host factors, immune response, and environmental influences—areas where Terrain Theory places its emphasis.

A Broader View: Host and Environment

A more integrative perspective recognises that:

  • Disease often arises from interaction between pathogen and host condition

  • Factors such as nutrition, stress, co-existing illness, and environment can influence outcomes

  • Prevention may involve both public health measures and individual health resilience

Conclusion

Meningitis remains a serious but relatively rare condition in the UK. While mainstream medicine focuses on infectious causes and preventive strategies like vaccination, alternative viewpoints such as Terrain Theory highlight the role of internal health and environmental stressors. From my own perspective as a seasoned science writer who has grown cynical of mainstream science, which failed us all during the COVID19 pandemic, my analysis is better explained in the book, ‘Slaying the Virus and Vaccine Dragon’which broadens PSI’s critiques of mainstream medical group think and junk science. But for the general public looking for informed guidance, the key takeaway is practical rather than ideological:

  • Recognise symptoms early

  • Seek urgent medical care when needed

  • Stay informed—but also critically evaluate sources and claims

     

                                An example of the current hysterical coverage in the UK  

References

  1. UK Health Security Agency — Meningitis guidance and surveillance reports

  2. World Health Organization — Defeating Meningitis by 2030: Global Road Map

  3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) — Bacterial meningitis overview and transmission data

  4. van Deuren M, Brandtzaeg P, van der Meer JWM. (2000). Update on meningococcal disease with emphasis on pathogenesis and clinical management. Clinical Microbiology Reviews

  5. Stephens DS. (2007). Conquering the meningococcus. FEMS Microbiology Reviews

  6. Caugant DA, Maiden MCJ. (2009). Meningococcal carriage and disease—population biology and evolution. Vaccine

  7. World Health Organization (2019). Meningitis factsheets and global burden data

  8. Bailey S. — Public video commentary presenting Terrain Theory interpretation of meningitis (YouTube transcript provided)

About the author:  John O’Sullivan is CEO and co-founder (with Dr Tim Ball among 45 scientists) of Principia Scientific International (PSI).  He is a seasoned science writer, retired teacher and legal analyst who assisted skeptic climatologist Dr Ball in defeating UN climate expert, Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann in the multi-million-dollar ‘science trial of the century‘. From 2010 O’Sullivan led the original ‘Slayers’ group of scientists who compiled the book ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory’ debunking alarmist lies about carbon dioxide plus their follow-up climate book. His most recent publication, ‘Slaying the Virus and Vaccine Dragon’ broadens PSI’s critiques of mainstream medical group think and junk science.

 

Source: https://principia-scientific.com/meningitis-fear-grips-uk-but-what-is-really-known-about-this-deadly-disease/

Postado por às Nenhum comentário:

The assassination of Ali Larijani and the logic of strategic martyrdom

 


The assassination of Ali Larijani, like that of Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei before him, must be understood within a pattern that could be called strategic martyrdom.
 

Xavier Villar
March 18th, 2026 (leer en castellano)

This dynamic highlights the limitations of Israel and the United States' reliance on decapitation strategies, particularly in the face of recurring historical failures. The decapitation-attrition-invasion playbook that Washington and Tel Aviv seem to follow reveals systems anchored in a repertoire of violence that fails to adapt to the logic of actors with different political-strategic structures. Even Donald Trump implicitly acknowledged this limitation when he admitted that the United States attacked Iran out of "habit."

The basic premise of decapitation holds that by eliminating high-ranking leaders, the system they uphold will weaken or fragment. However, this assumption reflects a narrow instrumental rationality, where the survival of the leadership is considered the primary strategic objective and the threat of death is presumed to function as effective coercion. Iran, in contrast, operates under a value-strategic rationale in which martyrdom can play a political role and produce strategic effects that not only resist but reverse the intended effects of the decapitation.

Larijani's attendance at mass rallies and his issuance of statements acknowledging the possibility of his death demonstrate that this logic is consciously adopted by leaders who understand its implications. This perspective had already been expressed by Khamenei, who stated that "either we are martyred on this path, whose honor is eternal, or we achieve victory; both are victories for us." The underlying logic is not epic, but strategic: it transforms the elimination of a leader into a vector of political resilience and institutional cohesion.

By turning assassinated figures into symbols of justice and resistance, following the historical tradition of Imam Hussein at Karbala, martyrdom redefines the intended effects of the decapitation strategy. This mechanism of internal mobilization legitimizes the political order, reinforces institutional continuity, and amplifies social resilience. The death of a high-ranking official does not indicate a failure of the system; it reflects that its structure rests on principles that transcend the mere physical survival of its leaders. This understanding eludes those who conceive of assassination campaigns as instruments of direct pressure.

The logic of strategic martyrdom is clearly embodied in Larijani. The disappearance of a figure who operated at the intersection of security, politics, and diplomacy does not paralyze the system; it activates its internal mechanisms of adaptation, integrating it into the leadership of Mukhta Khamenei and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. What in a Western analysis might be interpreted as a loss of internal diversity confirms, for the Iranian system, that its survival depends on adhering to a political logic where sacrifice and continuity are mutually reinforcing. The question is not who will fill Larijani's shoes, but how his example will strengthen the resolve of those who continue the institutional work. 

Larijani cannot be simplistically classified as a hawk or a dove, categories of Western convenience. He was a first-rate political operator, capable of translating the logic of the battlefield into a language understandable to both orthodox sectors and pragmatic factions. His value lay not only in the information he possessed or the international contacts he maintained, but also in his ability to build internal consensus within a system that, under extreme pressure, needs to articulate coordinated responses. He represented a bridge between military logic and the strategic projection of the state. His absence implies that future political articulation will absorb his experience and integrate it into a narrative of continuity where each martyr adds legitimacy to the common cause.

The timing of his death underscores this interpretation. The attack occurred when the US- and Israeli-led coalition had accumulated tactical successes: bombings of Iranian military infrastructure, pressure in the Gulf, and ground operations in southern Lebanon. However, the adversary's strategic collapse has not yet materialized. The Islamic Republic maintains a military response capability, employing missiles and drones against Israeli command centers and through proxies in Iraq, Syria, and the Red Sea. The Strait of Hormuz remains under Iran's effective control, regulating the global flow of energy with far-reaching political and economic implications. The war, now in its eighteenth day, is taking on the characteristics of a war of attrition where political resistance and institutional organization are as crucial as firepower.

In this context, the elimination of Larijani serves a broader purpose: if the system cannot be subdued militarily, the aim is to reduce its capacity to formulate strategic responses. The coalition seeks to prolong the war to wear down the adversary. This strategy, however, underestimates the Iranian logic: each blow becomes an institutional reinforcement that consolidates the very structures it was intended to weaken. Iran has reiterated that it will not seek a ceasefire until the balance of deterrence is altered, and every action against its leaders strengthens internal cohesion and strategic resolve. The more the coalition insists on decapitation, the more evident it becomes that martyrdom constitutes a central axis of resistance.

The opposing side shows signs of attrition that transcend the military sphere and affect domestic politics. Dissension within the US security apparatus, with the departure of officials like Joe Kent, reflects a profound debate about the direction and coherence of the war. These are not minor tactical disagreements, but rather a fracture in the understanding of strategic objectives. More tangible is the operational attrition: the withdrawal of the USS Gerald Ford to the Mediterranean and the redeployment of the USS Abraham Lincoln limit the capacity for immediate power projection in the Gulf and the Red Sea. The degradation of radar and surveillance coverage, damaged by sustained Iranian attacks, reduces the coalition's flexibility. The war machine shows signs of fatigue with clear political and strategic implications.

Internationally, the US administration's efforts to present the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz as a central objective are met with a lukewarm response from European and Asian allies. Reluctant to bear the direct costs of a conflict whose economic consequences they are already facing, and with the Gulf states under increasing pressure on their energy infrastructure, the coalition is holding together on a narrower political base than anticipated. The gap between stated objectives and actual readiness limits both operational capacity and political cohesion. Each day without a resolution erodes this base, while Iran watches as time favors those who exercise strategic patience with discipline.

The trajectory of the conflict indicates a strategic stalemate. The US-Israeli coalition is accumulating tactical victories, but none have broken Iran's will or capacity for resistance. The assassination of Larijani illustrates this dynamic: a blow that deprives Iran of one of its most experienced operatives, but which simultaneously activates internal cohesion mechanisms, making the resolution of the conflict more complex. Larijani, who built bridges throughout his life, becomes a symbol of unity. His example will be a guiding light in times of uncertainty, and his memory will reinforce the strategic determination to continue the resistance.In Tehran, the political response focuses on institutional continuity. Far from fragmenting, the country's leadership is unified around the shared experience of aggression and the need for coherent responses that incorporate the sacrifice of the martyrs. This is not a naive belief in military victory, but rather a political analysis of the balance of power: as long as external pressure does not produce internal fractures, and as long as each blow can be transformed into a pillar of legitimacy through the logic of strategic martyrdom, the capacity for resistance remains the Islamic Republic's principal asset. The war is entering a phase where politics, understood as a system's capacity to endure and transform adversity into cohesion, outweighs any blow on the ground. Larijani's death, while silencing a voice with a distinct character, does not alter the fundamental equation: the system's survival is the central objective, and the capacity to absorb pain and translate it into symbolism constitutes a strategic resource that no campaign of decapitation can neutralize.

The paradox that war planners fail to grasp is clear: the more blows they strike, the stronger the adversary becomes. The logic of strategic martyrdom transforms each assassination into a political boost for the victim. Larijani, like Khamenei before him, will not be remembered as a victim, but as a figure whose disappearance strengthens the system's cohesion. As long as this logic persists, the war cannot be resolved solely through military means. The US-led coalition, in its instrumental rationality, clings to a playbook that empirical evidence proves inadequate. The question is not whether there will be more attacks, but whether those who carry them out understand that each martyrdom strengthens what they intended to weaken. Events suggest they do not. This limited understanding defines the true strategic dimension of the conflict.

Source:  https://www.hispantv.com/noticias/opinion/641757/asesinato-ali-larijani-logica-martirio-estrategico

Postado por às Nenhum comentário:

quarta-feira, 18 de março de 2026

A Chokepoint for Modern Medicine: The Strait of Hormuz and the Hidden Fragility of Global Health Supply Chains



How the world’s most critical energy corridor underpins—and endangers—the flow of pharmaceutical ingredients and medical materials worldwide


Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH
Mar 09, 2026  

Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH

With the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz, I wondered how much the medical field could be impacted. Alter AI assisted with this inquiry.

The closure of the Strait of Hormuz in early 2026 has exposed the fragility of global health supply chains by highlighting how deeply key pharmaceutical and medical manufacturing inputs depend on this narrow maritime corridor. The Strait handles about 20% of global petroleum and liquefied natural gas flows, which serve as the chemical and energy backbone for pharmaceutical and medical supply manufacturing worldwide. Crude-derived intermediates such as naphtha, methanol, and other petrochemical feedstocks are refined into solvents, reagents, and packaging materials used to manufacture active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs), excipients, and sterilization agents. With much of this petrochemical traffic now halted, production costs and logistics bottlenecks have surged across Asia and beyond.

India—responsible for nearly 40% of global generic drug supply—is acutely exposed: over six percent of its pharmaceutical exports traverse Hormuz-bound routes, and many of its key starting materials rely on petrochemical derivatives originating in the Gulf. Furthermore, the U.S. Pharmacopeia has reported that over 58% of key starting materials for U.S.-approved APIs are sole-sourced from one country, primarily China or India, magnifying upstream vulnerability when Gulf energy inputs are disrupted. In parallel, Asian chemical producers dependent on Gulf naphtha report 70–80% feedstock exposure through Hormuz, and several have declared force majeure. Even non-pharmaceutical healthcare goods—like sterile packaging, medical plastics, and lab reagents—are affected, as polymers and resins used in their manufacture rely on Gulf-origin hydrocarbons.

Collectively, analysts estimate that roughly one-fifth to one-quarter of the world’s pharmaceutical and healthcare manufacturing ingredients are functionally dependent on feedstocks, energy, or shipping routes linked to the Strait of Hormuz. This concentration of critical inputs in a geopolitically volatile region underscores a deeper structural hazard: that modern medicine’s material foundations still flow through a single chokepoint.

 

 

Now is a good time to take stock of your prescription drugs, supplements, and preparedness in the case of domestic emergency such as a storm or flood. Many are considering the comprehensive Field Kit from The Wellness Company as an important resource to have on hand in times of uncertainty.

Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH

Chief Scientific Officer, The Wellness Company

https://www.twc.health/pages/focal-points

References:

  • Logistics Middle East (2026) Measuring Global Supply Chain Reliance on Hormuz

  • Upstox Originals (2026) Hormuz Crisis: Will Indian Pharma Exports Suffer?

  • PharmaSource Global (2025) Iran and Strait of Hormuz Crisis – Impact on Pharmaceutical Supply Chain

  • ChemAnalyst (2026) Asia’s Chemical Industry Faces Feedstock Crisis After Strait of Hormuz Shipping Disruption

  • U.S. Pharmacopeia (2025) Concentrated Origins, Widespread Risk

 

Source: https://www.thefocalpoints.com/p/a-chokepoint-for-modern-medicine

Postado por às Nenhum comentário:

Iran's strikes inside UAE fuel 'rapid collapse' of genocidal RSF militia in Sudan



Drone attacks in Sudan launched by both sides of the conflict – the Sudanese army and the RSF – have killed 200 civilians so far this month 

Iran's retaliatory strikes on Israel and the UAE are contributing to a quick collapse of the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), a UAE-backed paramilitary group fighting in Sudan's civil war, The Canary reported on 13 March.

With weapons and funding from the UAE and Israel, the RSF has been fighting the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) since April 2023 in a war that has killed tens of thousands and forced 11 million people to flee their homes.

But the UAE and Israel are seeing their supply lines to the RSF disrupted amid Iranian missile and drone strikes since the start of the US-Israeli war on the Islamic Republic, starting on 28 February.

Iranian attacks have closed the Strait of Hormuz, cutting off the UAE's shipping and oil export routes, and causing severe economic losses.

According to The Canary, the RSF had been making strong gains until February; “However, Sudanese government forces have achieved a string of military victories that appear to be turning into a rout.”

The Sudanese army is successfully targeting RSF arms and supply depots, and cutting off frontline RSF troops from the ammunition, fuel, and supplies needed to fight.

In the context, the Sudanese army announced on Thursday it had captured two areas in the Blue Nile region – the southeastern province that has seen heavy fighting since January.

The 4th Infantry Division, the army's primary command in the region, said in a statement that its troops and allied forces “cleared” Jort East and the Ballamo Camp following battles against the RSF and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement-North (SPLM-N) led by Joseph Touka.

Military officials stated the operation was part of a broader campaign to secure strategic locations in the southern sector.

The Sudanese army's advance has come amid an escalation in drone attacks targeting civilians by both sides in the conflict.


UN rights chief Volker Turk stated on Thursday he was “appalled” at reports that drone attacks had killed more than 200 civilians in Sudan since 4 March.

Turk said Sudanese army drone strikes in West Kordofan had killed at least 152 civilians. Among them were at least 50 who were killed when a drone targeted a market and a hospital on 4 March in the town of Muglad.

On 7 March, Sudanese army drone attacks on two separate markets in RSF-controlled Abu Zabad and Wad Banda left at least 40 civilians dead.

Another Sudanese army drone targeted a truck carrying civilians in Al-Sunut on 10 March, reportedly killing at least 50 civilians, Volker added.

Meanwhile, the White Nile region has come under heavy attack by RSF drones since 4 March.

Volker also said that an RSF drone targeted a secondary school and a health clinic in Shukeiri village on 11 March, killing at least 17 civilians.


Fighting has also escalated in South Sudan, as a 2018 power-sharing deal between the current President of South Sudan, Salva Kiir, and his long-time rival, the detained South Sudanese former vice president Riek Machar, has been unravelling in the past year.

South Sudanese government forces announced on Thursday the recapture of the opposition-held town of Akobo following a major military offensive.

“Akobo is safe, the surrounding areas are safe,” says General Lul Ruai Koang, a spokesperson for the South Sudan People's Defense Forces (SSPDF).

Before the offensive, the army had issued an evacuation order for civilians, causing some 200,000 people to flee to neighboring Ethiopia as a result.

Akobo was one of the last remaining strongholds of the Sudan People's Liberation Movement-in-Opposition (SPLM-IO) – the armed movement loyal to Riek Machar.

South Sudan gained independence in 2011 but soon descended into civil war and remains mired in extreme poverty and corruption.

 

Source: https://thecradle.co/articles-id/36461 

Postado por às Nenhum comentário:
Assinar: Comentários (Atom)