Why the US-Israel war on Iran failed

Why the US-Israel war on Iran failed

RT

The war waged by the United States and Israel against Iran deserves a place in contemporary international relations textbooks. Not because it overturns everything we know about power, but because it shows how the use of power is changing.

Classical approaches to relations between states still matter and the balance of power hasn’t disappeared. Military superiority still counts, but the consequences of using force have become less predictable than before because coercion no longer produces linear outcomes. This applies not only to direct military intervention, as in the case of Iran, but also to sanctions and other forms of pressure.

If one strips away the rhetoric, which all sides require for domestic reasons, the picture is straightforward. A coalition that was clearly stronger, consisting of the US, Israel, and the Arab Gulf states, failed to achieve the objectives it set for itself when it launched a military campaign against a clearly weaker adversary: Iran and its allied groups in the region, with likely limited support from Russia and China.

The aim was to deliver a swift, crushing blow to a regime considered weakened by external pressure and internal divisions. Donald Trump’s demand for “unconditional surrender” captured the mood perfectly as the assumption was that Tehran would buckle under the pressure.

The opposite happened and the attacking side’s superior forces were met with unexpectedly high resilience. Iran didn’t collapse after the initial decapitation strike and instead it reorganized, mobilized and, most importantly, cast aside many of the constraints that had previously limited its response

This is where one of the defining features of the new era came into view as asymmetrical counter-action. Iran couldn’t match the US and Israel in conventional strength, but it didn’t need to because it used the tools available to it in ways that offset many of the enemy’s advantages.

First, it moved to close the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz, something it had long threatened but never before dared to do. Second, it struck not only American targets in the region, but also the assets of key US partners. Third, it relied on large weapons stockpiles which, although inferior to those of the US and Israel, were sufficient to inflict serious damage on countries unused to absorbing such blows. Fourth, Iran demonstrated a tolerance for damage substantially higher than that of its enemies.

The current outcome speaks for itself as none of the issues over which the US and Israel went to war has been resolved. Everything has once again been deferred to future negotiations and everyone understands that negotiations in the tradition of Persian diplomacy mean tenacity and patience.

In essence, after an intense armed conflict that threw the whole world into turmoil, the status quo that had been destroyed at the beginning of the war has simply been restored. The Strait of Hormuz is to be reopened to shipping, although even the conditions for that remain unclear as both sides interpret them differently.

It is too early to say what this will mean in the medium term, but the entire Middle Eastern framework, the construction of which began during Trump’s first term, has been shaken. That framework was based on the gradual reconciliation of Israel with its Arab neighbors, especially the wealthy Gulf states and it rested on financial interdependence, technological cooperation and the marginalization of Iran and its allied groups.

More...

Africa CDC Says This Could Be The Worst Ebola Outbreak In History

Africa CDC Says This Could Be The WORST Ebola Outbreak In History

Mac Slavo

Africa’s Center for Disease Control and Prevention has said that the current Ebola outbreak of the Bundibugyo strain could be the worst one in the Democratic Republic of Congo’s (DRC or DR Congo) history. So far, more than 830 cases of the rare strain have been confirmed, and right now, there is no proven treatment or vaccine.

Of those cases, 196 proved fatal. This outbreak is likely to be more widespread than reported cases, as conflicts and displacement make it difficult for healthcare officials to track and trace.

“If we don’t stop the outbreak very soon, it will be worse than what we had in West Africa and eastern DRC,” Africa CDC Director-General Jean Kaseya told a virtual meeting of African heads of state and donors in Burundi.

The United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) agrees with Kaseya’s assessment. It referred to the outbreak that affected Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone from 2014 to 2016, which killed more than 11,000 people, and a less deadly 2018 outbreak in Congo.

According to a CNN report, Africa CDC’s Kaseya warned that the total funding needs would surge if the initial plan did not get sufficient support. “If we don’t have it in the next four weeks, we will not ask again for $500 million; we’ll be asking about $1.5 billion. If we delay that, it will be $7.5 billion,” he said.

Kaseya is making the claim that the longer this outbreak goes, the worse it’s going to get; therefore, the more money they will need to track, trace, and treat the infected. Quarantine measures will get more difficult as more people contract the disease too.

A Red Cross official said that this outbreak has not yet peaked either.  “We are afraid that this could last one year to end this disease,” Bruno Michon, operations manager for the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, told reporters by video link from eastern Congo.

If this outbreak is the worst in history, officials are correct that it has only just begun, and has far from peaked.

A Social Media Ban For Minors Requires Data From Everyone

A Social Media Ban For Minors Requires Data From Everyone

Luke Nelson 

Mike Campbell

In debating a social media ban for minors, it appears we face a choice between two perceived harms.

One is the reported damage that social media is doing to the mental health of children and adolescents. 

The other is the normalization of mass age verification systems—most likely involving biometrics—that would apply to everyone, not just minors. 

This carries real risks of privacy invasion, data breaches, and future mission creep.

Whatever steps we take, resorting to broad government-mandated bans and mass surveillance should not be one of them.

its under-16 social media ban took effect on Dec. 10, 2025, platforms operating in the country, including Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Threads, TikTok, X, YouTube, Reddit, Twitch, and Kick, have been required to take “reasonable steps” to prevent users under 16 from creating or maintaining accounts. Platforms guilty of breaching this new law can reach up to AU$49.5 million.

Australia’s legislation “specifically prohibits platforms from compelling Australians to provide a government-issued ID or use an Australian Government accredited digital ID service to prove their age.” To comply with the law, platforms have implemented widespread use of behavioural analysis, device signals, and facial age estimation scans. By mid-December 2025, platforms had already removed access to approximately 4.7 million suspected under-16 accounts.

But large numbers of teenagers quickly found workarounds.Surveys conducted in early 2026 show that more than 60 percent of under-16s who had accounts before the ban continue to access at least one restricted platform. Common methods include using borrowed phones or parents’ ID, fake age declarations, VPNs, and printed mesh masks to fool facial recognition.

Without robust age verification systems, therefore, a meaningful ban doesn’t exist.

It might initially remove under 16s, but millions of ineligible minors will find a way to return to these platforms, as has taken place in Australia.

This begs an important question: What is the point of an age verification system that is only half effective?

This would create a new set of problems including the loss of privacy rights for everyone, without actually solving the underlying problem the legalization is reportedly designed to fix.

Canada is aware of this conundrum. What would Canada do, then, to both kick minors off the platforms and keep them off the platforms? There is no reason to think that parental oversight or enforcement will be any different here than across the Pacific.

One possibility is social media users must submit verification of identity every time they log in to the platform. The most obvious way to do this would be a government-mediated login system. This would essentially grant government an immense amount of metadata about who logs in to what, how often, etc.

More...

"Zero Hormuz Dependency": UAE Races To Rewire Energy Flows, Bypassing Chokepoint Chaos

"Zero Hormuz Dependency": UAE Races To Rewire Energy Flows, Bypassing Chokepoint Chaos

TYLER DURDEN

The shuttered Strait of Hormuz is expected to reopen within days, though conflicting reports suggest the US-Iran memorandum of understanding could be formally signed as early as today, Thursday, or Friday. Either way, the interim peace deal appears likely to be signed within the next 48 hours, setting the stage for energy flows through the critical maritime chokepoint to begin normalizing, a process that could take many months.

The broader takeaway is that buyers of crude, refined products, and LNG now have to rethink their sourcing stack after the US-Iran conflict effectively shut Hormuz for several months. 

That means diversifying supply chains and reducing exposure to single-point maritime chokepoints. 

For Gulf energy producers, the Hormuz disruption will accelerate a massive push toward alternative export channels that bypass Hormuz entirely, potentially reducing Tehran's ability to use the strait as a lever in future conflicts.

In the first month of the conflict, Saudi Arabia's Hormuz-bypassing East-West pipeline ramped up to its full capacity of 7 million barrels a day, allowing the Kingdom to divert flows from Persian Gulf loading terminals to those at Yanbu on the Red Sea.

Separately, there has been a rush across other Gulf states to identify alternatives to Hormuz, and major plans to begin building new pipeline routes may soon be approaching.

Earlier this month, Sheikh Khaled Ahmad Al-Sabah, managing director of international marketing at Kuwait Petroleum, said Kuwait is among the countries that have reportedly held talks with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates about potential cross-border pipelines that could connect Gulf oil production to buyers without relying on tanker transits through Hormuz.

New signals from Gulf states seeking to rewire energy flows emerged on Wednesday in a new note citing a top UAE official who said the energy exporter is preparing to have "zero dependence" on Hormuz.

"We're moving toward having zero Hormuz dependency and that's regardless of whether it's open or not," UAE's Minister of Foreign Trade Thani Al Zeyoudi told Bloomberg in an interview. "It's going to open and we hope that will happen quickly, but we will not stop the new plan."

The plan includes major investments in pipelines, rail, and road links from UAE ports in the Persian Gulf to Dibba, Fujairah, Khor Fakkan and at least one new harbor on the Gulf of Oman coast.

Abu Dhabi has already announced plans to fast-track a second crude pipeline to Fujairah by 2027 and is now reviewing a third petroleum pipeline, as well as ways to export petrochemicals, LNG, and other energy products without relying on Hormuz.

The UAE can reroute more crude through pipelines to eastern ports, but LNG, aluminum, container imports, and other commodities are harder to shift. Dubai's Jebel Ali remains the world's largest container hub outside Asia, and moving more cargo through eastern ports would raise inland transport costs and boost shipping times.

In recent weeks, the Iraqi cabinet approved plans to accelerate crude exports through the Kurdistan-Turkey pipeline network, which would more than triple its existing shipments from 220,000 barrels per day to 770,000.

"Iraq is in a much more complicated situation because we know that most, if not all, of its oil transits through Hormuz," Alan Lemangnen, senior economist at QuantCube, told CNBC in an interview.

What is becoming increasingly clear is that the Hormuz squeeze is rewiring the Persian Gulf's energy map. Over time, that shift could render Iran's leverage over the Hormuz chokepoint far less effective, if not obsolete.

Perhaps Tehran has already read the writing on the wall. That may help explain why Iranian officials are now willing to play ball with the Trump administration through an MoU to reopen Hormuz and eventually enter talks over the country's nuclear ambitions.

Kremlin condemns Ukrainian ‘terrorist attack’ targeting Belarusian children

Kremlin condemns Ukrainian ‘terrorist attack’ targeting Belarusian children

RT

The Kremlin has condemned as terrorism a Ukrainian drone strike on a bus carrying a Belarusian youth sports team. One woman was killed and several passengers wounded, including children, in the attack in Russia’s Bryansk Region on Wednesday.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has instructed Health Minister Mikhail Murashko to ensure that all those injured “in the terrorist attack by the Kiev regime” receive the necessary medical assistance, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said.

The attack on the bus, which was carrying 44 people, 28 of them children, was first reported by Bryansk Region’s acting governor, Egor Kovalchuk. Belarusian Deputy Health Minister Aleksandr Khodzhaev later said eight people, including six children, had been hospitalized.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova also condemned the strike, accusing Kiev of targeting civilians and saying it was “hunting” children. She claimed Kiev puts minors in danger “without hesitation” and compared the latest case with a drone raid on a school dormitory in Starobelsk, which killed 21 people last month.

Commenting on the incident, Belarusian lawmaker Oleg Gaidukevich, deputy chairman of the parliament’s international affairs committee, said the attack was part of an increasing number of “extremist” actions by the Ukrainian military and regime.

“Both Russia and Belarus are capable of fighting terrorism and extremism. They... will always respond firmly and in accordance with the law,” he wrote on Telegram.

Russia’s human rights commissioner, Yana Lantratova, said the attack was a war crime under international humanitarian law, noting that “defenseless people... children” had been targeted.

Criminal investigations into the incident have been opened in both Russia and Belarus, with the authorities treating the attack as an act of terrorism.