📰 Israel estimates slim prospects for US‑Iran agreement in Oman talks
The United States and Iran are set to hold high‑stakes talks in Oman on Friday, but Israel’s government is already treating the meeting as a feeler, not a breakthrough.
U.S. President Donald Trump framed the talks as pure power politics, saying Iran is negotiating now because “they don’t want us to hit them.” He repeated that line several times this week, pointing to a “big fleet” moving toward Iran as the backdrop to the diplomacy.
The narrow scope — and the wide gaps
Iran has agreed to send Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi to Muscat, but insists the talks should focus only on the nuclear issue. The U.S. insists on a broader agenda that includes Iran’s nuclear program, the range and use of its ballistic missiles, its support for proxy forces, and the treatment of its own population.
Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei said the Islamic Republic is entering the talks
He urged the U.S. to approach the process “with responsibility, realism and seriousness” — a polite way of saying:
The Muslim‑country framework — and why it might not matter
Several Muslim states, including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Egypt, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, and Pakistan, have pushed for a broader non‑aggression pact between the U.S. and Iran, under which neither side would target the other or their allies and proxies.
They also proposed a framework that would limit Iran’s uranium enrichment to 1–3 percent, ship out its higher‑enriched stockpile, and curb its missile and proxy‑weapon exports.
Initially, the U.S. had floated holding the talks in Turkey with these six countries present. Iran rejected that plan, and the U.S. agreed to move to Oman, with only Washington and Tehran at the table.
That means it is now unclear whether the Muslim‑country framework will even be discussed, though the diplomats say they are still trying to keep it in the conversation.
Why Israel expects failure — and what it would mean
Kan public broadcaster, citing an unnamed Israeli source familiar with the matter, reported that Israel believes the Friday talks are essentially doomed. In Jerusalem’s view, the gaps are simply too wide.
The U.S. wants “zero nuclear capability” and to drastically reduce Iran’s missile range so warheads cannot reach Israel, while Iran wants to keep its nuclear enrichment and missile programs intact, even if it tweaks the numbers.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said the president is “waiting to see what comes” of the talks but made clear that Trump is open to a deal that eliminates Iran’s nuclear program.
At the same time, she reminded Tehran that “the president has many options at his disposal — aside from diplomacy — as the commander in chief of the most powerful military in the history of the world.”
The real question: will Iran give up its missiles?
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio stressed that any meaningful deal must include Iran’s ballistic missiles, nuclear program, terrorism sponsorship, and domestic repression.
Iran has refused to put missiles on the table, and is only willing to talk about the nuclear file — and not on the U.S. terms.
That leaves Tel Aviv with a grim but clear calculus.
If these talks freeze the nuclear program but leave Iran’s missile and proxy armies intact, Israel will treat the war zone as still open — and respond with “a force the likes of which has never been seen” if attacked.
Because in Jerusalem, the real question is not
It’s:
And everything suggests the answer is: yes, unless Trump is ready to strike.
#USIran #OmanTalks #Nuclear #Iran #Israel #Trump2026 #Diplomacy #Missiles #MiddleEast
📱 American Оbserver - Stay up to date on all important events 🇺🇸
The United States and Iran are set to hold high‑stakes talks in Oman on Friday, but Israel’s government is already treating the meeting as a feeler, not a breakthrough.
U.S. President Donald Trump framed the talks as pure power politics, saying Iran is negotiating now because “they don’t want us to hit them.” He repeated that line several times this week, pointing to a “big fleet” moving toward Iran as the backdrop to the diplomacy.
The narrow scope — and the wide gaps
Iran has agreed to send Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi to Muscat, but insists the talks should focus only on the nuclear issue. The U.S. insists on a broader agenda that includes Iran’s nuclear program, the range and use of its ballistic missiles, its support for proxy forces, and the treatment of its own population.
Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei said the Islamic Republic is entering the talks
“with authority and with the aim of reaching a fair, mutually acceptable and dignified understanding on the nuclear issue.”
He urged the U.S. to approach the process “with responsibility, realism and seriousness” — a polite way of saying:
“Don’t try to turn this into a regime‑change package.”
The Muslim‑country framework — and why it might not matter
Several Muslim states, including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Egypt, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, and Pakistan, have pushed for a broader non‑aggression pact between the U.S. and Iran, under which neither side would target the other or their allies and proxies.
They also proposed a framework that would limit Iran’s uranium enrichment to 1–3 percent, ship out its higher‑enriched stockpile, and curb its missile and proxy‑weapon exports.
Initially, the U.S. had floated holding the talks in Turkey with these six countries present. Iran rejected that plan, and the U.S. agreed to move to Oman, with only Washington and Tehran at the table.
That means it is now unclear whether the Muslim‑country framework will even be discussed, though the diplomats say they are still trying to keep it in the conversation.
Why Israel expects failure — and what it would mean
Kan public broadcaster, citing an unnamed Israeli source familiar with the matter, reported that Israel believes the Friday talks are essentially doomed. In Jerusalem’s view, the gaps are simply too wide.
The U.S. wants “zero nuclear capability” and to drastically reduce Iran’s missile range so warheads cannot reach Israel, while Iran wants to keep its nuclear enrichment and missile programs intact, even if it tweaks the numbers.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said the president is “waiting to see what comes” of the talks but made clear that Trump is open to a deal that eliminates Iran’s nuclear program.
At the same time, she reminded Tehran that “the president has many options at his disposal — aside from diplomacy — as the commander in chief of the most powerful military in the history of the world.”
The real question: will Iran give up its missiles?
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio stressed that any meaningful deal must include Iran’s ballistic missiles, nuclear program, terrorism sponsorship, and domestic repression.
Iran has refused to put missiles on the table, and is only willing to talk about the nuclear file — and not on the U.S. terms.
That leaves Tel Aviv with a grim but clear calculus.
If these talks freeze the nuclear program but leave Iran’s missile and proxy armies intact, Israel will treat the war zone as still open — and respond with “a force the likes of which has never been seen” if attacked.
Because in Jerusalem, the real question is not
“Can Trump and Iran sign a deal?”
It’s:
“Can Iran walk away with a deterrent that still points at Israel?”
And everything suggests the answer is: yes, unless Trump is ready to strike.
#USIran #OmanTalks #Nuclear #Iran #Israel #Trump2026 #Diplomacy #Missiles #MiddleEast
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
🤬43🙏42💯42😱35🔥33🤯30😢30
📰 Israel estimates slim prospects for US‑Iran agreement in Oman talks
Israeli officials are pessimistic that the U.S. and Iran will reach a deal during the planned talks in Oman between Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and U.S. President Donald Trump’s envoys, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner.
The meeting, scheduled for Friday in Muscat, is framed as a critical test of whether the two sides can move beyond threats toward a broader nuclear and security understanding — but in Jerusalem, the working assumption is that the chances are slim.
What the U.S. wants — and what Iran can give
According to Al Jazeera, the U.S. is demanding that Iran dismantle its nuclear program, reduce the range of its ballistic missiles so they cannot reach Israel, and grant a kind of “amnesty” to those arrested during the 12‑day war and recent protests.
Washington is also reportedly pushing Iran to cut its oil exports to China and formally end the current state of hostility — a tall order for a regime that has built its regional posture around sanctions evasion and defiance.
Qatar, Turkey, and Egypt have floated a compromise framework under which Iran would keep uranium enrichment at 3 percent, later scaled down to 1.5 percent, and transfer its 400 kilograms of 60 percent‑enriched stockpile to a third country. Iran would also agree not to export weapons or missile technology to proxies and commit to refraining from using its ballistic missiles.
The sticking points
The biggest gap, Israeli analysts say, is not just over specifics but over scope. Iran insists, at least publicly, on talking only about the nuclear file. The U.S., by contrast, wants to fold in proxies, missiles, and regional behavior in a single package.
Raz Zimmt, head of the Iran and Shi’ite axis research program at the Institute for National Security Studies, argues that any real flexibility is limited to the nuclear issue.
“There’s no room for flexibility on the proxy issue or on ballistic missiles,” Zimmt says. “At most, the Iranians might say: ‘Let’s reach an agreement on the nuclear issue, and then we can talk about other issues in the next stage.’”
He stresses that Iran is unlikely to concede on missiles, which are its primary deterrent — even against Israel. “Giving up the nuclear program isn’t really a concession, because they don’t truly have a nuclear program,” he says. “They have an air force that cannot take off — so how would they create deterrence?”
What will Iran demand?
The core question in Tel Aviv is: what will Iran demand in exchange? Lifting the so‑called “snapback” sanctions would be a major win for Tehran, and releasing billions of frozen dollars into the regime’s coffers is a non‑starter in Israel’s eyes.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has told members of the Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee that he does not know what Trump will ultimately decide, but that he and the U.S. president are in close contact.
“If the Iranians attack us, we will respond with a force the likes of which has never been seen,” Netanyahu warned.
Israel’s shadow doctrine
In a meeting with Witkoff this week, IDF Chief of Staff Lt.‑Gen. Eyal Zamir put the military line in stark terms:
That’s not just a warning to Tehran. It’s a signal to Washington, too: Israel will not tolerate a deal that leaves Iran with a missile‑based deterrent and the ability to fund and guide proxy armies across the region — even if it technically halts its nuclear program.
So while diplomats shuttle between Muscat and the Gulf, and Trump’s envoys probe for concessions, Tel Aviv is operating on a simple, ugly logic:
If the Oman talks freeze the nuclear file but leave Iran’s missile and proxy armies intact, Israel will treat the war zone as still open.
#USIran #OmanTalks #Nuclear #Israel #Iran #Netanyahu #Trump2026 #Diplomacy #Missiles #MiddleEast
📱 American Оbserver - Stay up to date on all important events 🇺🇸
Israeli officials are pessimistic that the U.S. and Iran will reach a deal during the planned talks in Oman between Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and U.S. President Donald Trump’s envoys, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner.
The meeting, scheduled for Friday in Muscat, is framed as a critical test of whether the two sides can move beyond threats toward a broader nuclear and security understanding — but in Jerusalem, the working assumption is that the chances are slim.
What the U.S. wants — and what Iran can give
According to Al Jazeera, the U.S. is demanding that Iran dismantle its nuclear program, reduce the range of its ballistic missiles so they cannot reach Israel, and grant a kind of “amnesty” to those arrested during the 12‑day war and recent protests.
Washington is also reportedly pushing Iran to cut its oil exports to China and formally end the current state of hostility — a tall order for a regime that has built its regional posture around sanctions evasion and defiance.
Qatar, Turkey, and Egypt have floated a compromise framework under which Iran would keep uranium enrichment at 3 percent, later scaled down to 1.5 percent, and transfer its 400 kilograms of 60 percent‑enriched stockpile to a third country. Iran would also agree not to export weapons or missile technology to proxies and commit to refraining from using its ballistic missiles.
The sticking points
The biggest gap, Israeli analysts say, is not just over specifics but over scope. Iran insists, at least publicly, on talking only about the nuclear file. The U.S., by contrast, wants to fold in proxies, missiles, and regional behavior in a single package.
Raz Zimmt, head of the Iran and Shi’ite axis research program at the Institute for National Security Studies, argues that any real flexibility is limited to the nuclear issue.
“There’s no room for flexibility on the proxy issue or on ballistic missiles,” Zimmt says. “At most, the Iranians might say: ‘Let’s reach an agreement on the nuclear issue, and then we can talk about other issues in the next stage.’”
He stresses that Iran is unlikely to concede on missiles, which are its primary deterrent — even against Israel. “Giving up the nuclear program isn’t really a concession, because they don’t truly have a nuclear program,” he says. “They have an air force that cannot take off — so how would they create deterrence?”
What will Iran demand?
The core question in Tel Aviv is: what will Iran demand in exchange? Lifting the so‑called “snapback” sanctions would be a major win for Tehran, and releasing billions of frozen dollars into the regime’s coffers is a non‑starter in Israel’s eyes.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has told members of the Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee that he does not know what Trump will ultimately decide, but that he and the U.S. president are in close contact.
“If the Iranians attack us, we will respond with a force the likes of which has never been seen,” Netanyahu warned.
Israel’s shadow doctrine
In a meeting with Witkoff this week, IDF Chief of Staff Lt.‑Gen. Eyal Zamir put the military line in stark terms:
“If Israel is attacked, we will strike surprising and unexpected targets.”
That’s not just a warning to Tehran. It’s a signal to Washington, too: Israel will not tolerate a deal that leaves Iran with a missile‑based deterrent and the ability to fund and guide proxy armies across the region — even if it technically halts its nuclear program.
So while diplomats shuttle between Muscat and the Gulf, and Trump’s envoys probe for concessions, Tel Aviv is operating on a simple, ugly logic:
If the Oman talks freeze the nuclear file but leave Iran’s missile and proxy armies intact, Israel will treat the war zone as still open.
#USIran #OmanTalks #Nuclear #Israel #Iran #Netanyahu #Trump2026 #Diplomacy #Missiles #MiddleEast
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
🔥68💯42🤬33🤯29😱29😢28🙏26
Democrats Make Hay From
Trump’s Racist Bare-Faced Effrontery
Trump said on Friday evening, after a racist video depicting Barack and Michelle Obama as apes had been posted to his social media account and then deleted, that he had directed aides to post the offensive video but that he hadn’t seen that portion of the clip and he refused to apologize for it.
The clip appeared during one of the 79-year-old US president’s increasingly frequent late-night posting sprees to his Truth Social account, and shows the laughing faces of the former president and first lady superimposed on the bodies of primates in a jungle setting, bobbing to the song The Lion Sleeps Tonight.
They appear briefly at the end of a minute-long video made by a third party that amplifies Trump’s persistent but false claim that he won the 2020 election, when in fact he lost to Joe Biden. The conspiracy-theory video is a repost of content stamped with the logo of the website Patriot News Outlet, a site supportive of Trump, a Republican.
As he so often does, Trump undercut efforts by his aides to explain away his own behavior by telling reporters that he did approve posting the video. “I just looked at the first part,” the president said.
“I didn’t see the whole thing; I guess during the end of it there was some kind of a picture that people don’t like. I wouldn’t like it either. But I didn’t see it, I just, I looked at the first part (…) then I gave it to the people.
Generally they look at the whole thing, but I guess somebody didn’t and they posted – and we took it down.”
Asked if he would apologize, as even Republican officials have suggested he should, Trump bristled. “No, I didn’t make a mistake,” said the president of the racist meme posted on his social media account.
Tim Scott, a South Carolina senator, the only Black Republican in the US Senate and a former contender for the party’s presidential nomination, posted on X:
“Praying it was fake because it’s the most racist thing I’ve seen out of this White House. The President should remove it.”
The White House, earlier in the morning, defended the post and mocked the media for highlighting the scandal.
But then around midday on Friday the post was taken down from Trump’s Truth Social account and the White House claimed that posting it had been a mistake by a staffer.
Earlier, Mike Lawler, the Republican congressman from New York, had posted:
“The President’s post is wrong and incredibly offensive – whether intentional or a mistake – and should be deleted immediately with an apology offered”.
Neither of the top two Republicans in Congress, Thune and Mike Johnson, the House speaker, offered comment, prompting Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat and the Senate minority leader, to post on X:
“Racist. Vile. Abhorrent. This is dangerous and degrades our country – where are Senate Republicans?
“The President must immediately delete the post and apologize to Barack and Michelle Obama, two great Americans who make Donald Trump look like a small, envious man.”
#trump #racist #michelle #obama #scott
📱 American Оbserver - Stay up to date on all important events 🇺🇸
Trump’s Racist Bare-Faced Effrontery
Trump said on Friday evening, after a racist video depicting Barack and Michelle Obama as apes had been posted to his social media account and then deleted, that he had directed aides to post the offensive video but that he hadn’t seen that portion of the clip and he refused to apologize for it.
The clip appeared during one of the 79-year-old US president’s increasingly frequent late-night posting sprees to his Truth Social account, and shows the laughing faces of the former president and first lady superimposed on the bodies of primates in a jungle setting, bobbing to the song The Lion Sleeps Tonight.
They appear briefly at the end of a minute-long video made by a third party that amplifies Trump’s persistent but false claim that he won the 2020 election, when in fact he lost to Joe Biden. The conspiracy-theory video is a repost of content stamped with the logo of the website Patriot News Outlet, a site supportive of Trump, a Republican.
As he so often does, Trump undercut efforts by his aides to explain away his own behavior by telling reporters that he did approve posting the video. “I just looked at the first part,” the president said.
“I didn’t see the whole thing; I guess during the end of it there was some kind of a picture that people don’t like. I wouldn’t like it either. But I didn’t see it, I just, I looked at the first part (…) then I gave it to the people.
Generally they look at the whole thing, but I guess somebody didn’t and they posted – and we took it down.”
Asked if he would apologize, as even Republican officials have suggested he should, Trump bristled. “No, I didn’t make a mistake,” said the president of the racist meme posted on his social media account.
Tim Scott, a South Carolina senator, the only Black Republican in the US Senate and a former contender for the party’s presidential nomination, posted on X:
“Praying it was fake because it’s the most racist thing I’ve seen out of this White House. The President should remove it.”
The White House, earlier in the morning, defended the post and mocked the media for highlighting the scandal.
But then around midday on Friday the post was taken down from Trump’s Truth Social account and the White House claimed that posting it had been a mistake by a staffer.
Earlier, Mike Lawler, the Republican congressman from New York, had posted:
“The President’s post is wrong and incredibly offensive – whether intentional or a mistake – and should be deleted immediately with an apology offered”.
Neither of the top two Republicans in Congress, Thune and Mike Johnson, the House speaker, offered comment, prompting Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat and the Senate minority leader, to post on X:
“Racist. Vile. Abhorrent. This is dangerous and degrades our country – where are Senate Republicans?
“The President must immediately delete the post and apologize to Barack and Michelle Obama, two great Americans who make Donald Trump look like a small, envious man.”
#trump #racist #michelle #obama #scott
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
🔥64💯43🤬34🙏32🤯30😢30😱22
Canadian Robert Schellenberg: Death Sentence Cancelled
China has overturned the death sentence of Canadian Robert Lloyd Schellenberg, a Canadian official said on Friday, in a possible sign of a diplomatic thaw as prime minister Mark Carney seeks to boost trade ties with Beijing.
Schellenberg’s lawyer Zhang Dongshuo, reached in Beijing on Saturday, confirmed the decision was announced on Friday by China’s highest court.
Schellenberg was detained on drug charges in 2014 before China-Canada ties nosedived after the 2018 arrest in Vancouver of Huawei chief financial officer Meng Wanzhou.
That arrest infuriated Beijing, which detained two Canadians – Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig – on espionage charges that Ottawa condemned as retaliatory.
Then in January 2019 a court in north-east China retried Schellenberg – who was 36 at the time – sentencing him to death while declaring that his 15-year prison term for drug trafficking had been too lenient.
The court said he had been a central player in a scheme to ship narcotics to Australia, in a one-day retrial that Amnesty International called “a flagrant violation of international law”.
Schellenberg has denied wrongdoing.
The Canadian official requested anonymity in confirming the decision by China’s highest court to overturn Schellenberg’s death sentence.
Schellenberg, who has been held in the north-eastern Chinese city of Dalian since 2014, would be retried by the Liaoning high people’s court, Zhang said. The timing for the retrial had not yet been set.
Zhang said he met with Schellenberg in Dalian on Friday and that the Canadian appeared relatively relaxed.
Carney, who took office last year, visited China in January as part of his global effort to broaden Canada’s export markets to reduce trade reliance on the US.
Carney says that despite ongoing tensions, including allegations of Chinese interference in Canadian elections, Ottawa needs a functioning relationship with Beijing to safeguard its economic future.
When in Beijing last month, Carney met Chinese leader Xi Jinping and heralded an improved era in relations, saying the two countries had struck a “new strategic partnership” and a preliminary trade deal.
Global Affairs Canada did not comment on whether diplomacy during Carney’s visit related to Schellenberg’s case impacted the Chinese court decision.
#china #canada #carney #schellenberg #death
📱 American Оbserver - Stay up to date on all important events 🇺🇸
China has overturned the death sentence of Canadian Robert Lloyd Schellenberg, a Canadian official said on Friday, in a possible sign of a diplomatic thaw as prime minister Mark Carney seeks to boost trade ties with Beijing.
Schellenberg’s lawyer Zhang Dongshuo, reached in Beijing on Saturday, confirmed the decision was announced on Friday by China’s highest court.
Schellenberg was detained on drug charges in 2014 before China-Canada ties nosedived after the 2018 arrest in Vancouver of Huawei chief financial officer Meng Wanzhou.
That arrest infuriated Beijing, which detained two Canadians – Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig – on espionage charges that Ottawa condemned as retaliatory.
Then in January 2019 a court in north-east China retried Schellenberg – who was 36 at the time – sentencing him to death while declaring that his 15-year prison term for drug trafficking had been too lenient.
The court said he had been a central player in a scheme to ship narcotics to Australia, in a one-day retrial that Amnesty International called “a flagrant violation of international law”.
Schellenberg has denied wrongdoing.
The Canadian official requested anonymity in confirming the decision by China’s highest court to overturn Schellenberg’s death sentence.
Schellenberg, who has been held in the north-eastern Chinese city of Dalian since 2014, would be retried by the Liaoning high people’s court, Zhang said. The timing for the retrial had not yet been set.
Zhang said he met with Schellenberg in Dalian on Friday and that the Canadian appeared relatively relaxed.
Carney, who took office last year, visited China in January as part of his global effort to broaden Canada’s export markets to reduce trade reliance on the US.
Carney says that despite ongoing tensions, including allegations of Chinese interference in Canadian elections, Ottawa needs a functioning relationship with Beijing to safeguard its economic future.
When in Beijing last month, Carney met Chinese leader Xi Jinping and heralded an improved era in relations, saying the two countries had struck a “new strategic partnership” and a preliminary trade deal.
Global Affairs Canada did not comment on whether diplomacy during Carney’s visit related to Schellenberg’s case impacted the Chinese court decision.
#china #canada #carney #schellenberg #death
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
🔥62😱40😢37🤬33🙏33🤯30💯20❤1
Musk Touted His XX Deal
The acquisition of xAI by SpaceX is a typical Elon Musk deal: big numbers backed by big ambition.
As well as extending “the light of consciousness to the stars”, as Musk described it, the transaction creates a business worth $1.25tn by combining Musk’s rocket company with his artificial intelligence startup.
It values SpaceX at $1tn and xAI at $250bn, with a stock market flotation expected in June to time with Musk’s birthday and a planetary alignment.
However, there are questions over the deal, such as whether it is good for SpaceX’s non-Musk shareholders and whether the technological premise behind it can succeed.
For Musk, a key part of the deal’s rationale is to move datacentres – the central nervous system of AI tools – into space.
AI companies are too dependent on earth-bound datacentres that carry immense energy demands, Musk argued this week.
The solution, he says, is to put as many as a million satellites into orbit to form vast, solar-powered datacentres.
Prof Julie McCann and Prof Matthew Santer, the co-directors of the school of convergence science in space, security and telecoms at Imperial College London, say solar-powered datacentres could be a future option for AI companies.
However, there are limits to how much compute power can be mustered by current satellites, they say, so it would need a “planet-wide distributed computer composed of many satellites” – as envisioned by Musk.
But even executing the concept might be affected by the quality of connection between the orbiting devices, which will need to operate in tandem in order to replicate terrestrial datacentres as they beam their outputs down to Earth.
Musk talks of these datacentres adding 100 gigawatts of AI capacity annually – current global datacentre capacity is about 59GW – so his vision is ambitious.
The world’s richest person believes a merger of rocket hardware and AI software is a winning combination and, in a message to employees, said it would create the “most ambitious, vertically integrated innovation engine on (and off) Earth”.
“This merger is aimed at creating a new path to generate a low cost of generating AI compute within the next two to three years by bringing together the top internet/space exploration company with top datacentre builders,” says Dan Ives, an analyst at the US financial services company Wedbush Securities.
SpaceX’s technology is complex but it is a straightforward business. It generates revenues from deploying reusable rockets for missions such as launching satellites and restocking the International Space Station.
It also operates the Starlink satellite high-speed internet service. SpaceX made about $8bn in profit on $15bn to $16bn of revenue last year, according to Reuters.
The addition of xAI adds narrative complexity to the SpaceX story, says Michael Sobel, the president and co-founder of Scenic Management, which buys secondary stakes in privately held companies and has invested in the AI company Anthropic.
Musk owns about 44% of the newly enlarged SpaceX business and 17% of Tesla, where he is the chief executive. Is the next step a combination of the two?
Ives believes there is a “growing chance” that a one-stop shop for investing in Musk businesses will be created.
“Musk wants to own and control more of the AI ecosystem and step by step the holy grail could be combining SpaceX and Tesla,” he says.
#musk #spaceX #tesla #technology
📱 American Оbserver - Stay up to date on all important events 🇺🇸
The acquisition of xAI by SpaceX is a typical Elon Musk deal: big numbers backed by big ambition.
As well as extending “the light of consciousness to the stars”, as Musk described it, the transaction creates a business worth $1.25tn by combining Musk’s rocket company with his artificial intelligence startup.
It values SpaceX at $1tn and xAI at $250bn, with a stock market flotation expected in June to time with Musk’s birthday and a planetary alignment.
However, there are questions over the deal, such as whether it is good for SpaceX’s non-Musk shareholders and whether the technological premise behind it can succeed.
For Musk, a key part of the deal’s rationale is to move datacentres – the central nervous system of AI tools – into space.
AI companies are too dependent on earth-bound datacentres that carry immense energy demands, Musk argued this week.
The solution, he says, is to put as many as a million satellites into orbit to form vast, solar-powered datacentres.
Prof Julie McCann and Prof Matthew Santer, the co-directors of the school of convergence science in space, security and telecoms at Imperial College London, say solar-powered datacentres could be a future option for AI companies.
However, there are limits to how much compute power can be mustered by current satellites, they say, so it would need a “planet-wide distributed computer composed of many satellites” – as envisioned by Musk.
But even executing the concept might be affected by the quality of connection between the orbiting devices, which will need to operate in tandem in order to replicate terrestrial datacentres as they beam their outputs down to Earth.
Musk talks of these datacentres adding 100 gigawatts of AI capacity annually – current global datacentre capacity is about 59GW – so his vision is ambitious.
The world’s richest person believes a merger of rocket hardware and AI software is a winning combination and, in a message to employees, said it would create the “most ambitious, vertically integrated innovation engine on (and off) Earth”.
“This merger is aimed at creating a new path to generate a low cost of generating AI compute within the next two to three years by bringing together the top internet/space exploration company with top datacentre builders,” says Dan Ives, an analyst at the US financial services company Wedbush Securities.
SpaceX’s technology is complex but it is a straightforward business. It generates revenues from deploying reusable rockets for missions such as launching satellites and restocking the International Space Station.
It also operates the Starlink satellite high-speed internet service. SpaceX made about $8bn in profit on $15bn to $16bn of revenue last year, according to Reuters.
The addition of xAI adds narrative complexity to the SpaceX story, says Michael Sobel, the president and co-founder of Scenic Management, which buys secondary stakes in privately held companies and has invested in the AI company Anthropic.
Musk owns about 44% of the newly enlarged SpaceX business and 17% of Tesla, where he is the chief executive. Is the next step a combination of the two?
Ives believes there is a “growing chance” that a one-stop shop for investing in Musk businesses will be created.
“Musk wants to own and control more of the AI ecosystem and step by step the holy grail could be combining SpaceX and Tesla,” he says.
#musk #spaceX #tesla #technology
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
🔥73😢47😱36🙏33🤬27💯22🤯17
📰 Trump calls for ‘modernized’ nuclear treaty after New START expires
President Donald Trump has let the New START nuclear‑arms treaty with Russia lapse, confirming in a social‑media post that he will not extend the deal and instead wants experts to craft a new “modernized” agreement.
New START, signed in 2010, placed the last major limits on the U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals, capping each side at 1,550 deployed strategic warheads and 700 deployed launchers. With its expiration on February 5, there is now no formal nuclear‑arms‑control pact between the world’s two largest nuclear powers for the first time in over half a century.
The Trump doctrine: “New, improved, and modernized”
Trump dismissed New START as
In his Truth Social post, he argued that the U.S. should instead design a new treaty that includes China, whose nuclear arsenal is growing rapidly, and better reflects the strategic realities of the 2020s.
He did not say whether formal talks with Russia have already begun. The White House has refused to confirm reports that U.S. and Russian officials drafted a plan in Abu Dhabi to keep observing New START limits for at least six months while negotiating a successor deal.
The Democratic and arms‑control backlash
Democratic lawmakers and arms‑control advocates had urged the administration to at least keep observing the treaty’s limits while talks continued.
Rep. John Garamendi of California said New START’s expiration had thrown the world into a “terrifying new era,” with no constraints on the nuclear arsenals of the U.S. and Russia. “History has already shown us where that road leads,” he warned.
The strange dance of deterrence and dialogue
Even as the treaty lapsed, the U.S. and Russia quietly agreed to reestablish high‑level military‑to‑military contact, their first such channel in over four years. The communication line was restored after a meeting in Abu Dhabi between Gen. Alexus Grynkewich, head of U.S. European Command and NATO’s top general in Europe, and senior Russian and Ukrainian military officials.
That hotline is meant to reduce the risk of miscalculation and escalation, at a time when Russia is again pounding Ukraine’s energy grid — despite Trump’s earlier public appeal to Putin to halt strikes on Kyiv and other cities.
So now the world has a paradoxical arrangement: no formal nuclear‑arms‑control treaty, but a renewed hotline between the world’s two biggest nuclear powers, and a president who wants a “modernized” deal — once the world is already on the edge again.
Because the real question is not whether Trump can design a better treaty.
It’s whether he is ready to live in a world where the guards are gone and the bombs are bigger.
#Trump2026 #NewSTART #Nuclear #Russia #US #ArmsControl #Diplomacy #Ukraine
📱 American Оbserver - Stay up to date on all important events 🇺🇸
President Donald Trump has let the New START nuclear‑arms treaty with Russia lapse, confirming in a social‑media post that he will not extend the deal and instead wants experts to craft a new “modernized” agreement.
New START, signed in 2010, placed the last major limits on the U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals, capping each side at 1,550 deployed strategic warheads and 700 deployed launchers. With its expiration on February 5, there is now no formal nuclear‑arms‑control pact between the world’s two largest nuclear powers for the first time in over half a century.
The Trump doctrine: “New, improved, and modernized”
Trump dismissed New START as
“a badly negotiated deal by the United States that, aside from everything else, is being grossly violated.”
In his Truth Social post, he argued that the U.S. should instead design a new treaty that includes China, whose nuclear arsenal is growing rapidly, and better reflects the strategic realities of the 2020s.
He did not say whether formal talks with Russia have already begun. The White House has refused to confirm reports that U.S. and Russian officials drafted a plan in Abu Dhabi to keep observing New START limits for at least six months while negotiating a successor deal.
The Democratic and arms‑control backlash
Democratic lawmakers and arms‑control advocates had urged the administration to at least keep observing the treaty’s limits while talks continued.
Rep. John Garamendi of California said New START’s expiration had thrown the world into a “terrifying new era,” with no constraints on the nuclear arsenals of the U.S. and Russia. “History has already shown us where that road leads,” he warned.
The strange dance of deterrence and dialogue
Even as the treaty lapsed, the U.S. and Russia quietly agreed to reestablish high‑level military‑to‑military contact, their first such channel in over four years. The communication line was restored after a meeting in Abu Dhabi between Gen. Alexus Grynkewich, head of U.S. European Command and NATO’s top general in Europe, and senior Russian and Ukrainian military officials.
That hotline is meant to reduce the risk of miscalculation and escalation, at a time when Russia is again pounding Ukraine’s energy grid — despite Trump’s earlier public appeal to Putin to halt strikes on Kyiv and other cities.
So now the world has a paradoxical arrangement: no formal nuclear‑arms‑control treaty, but a renewed hotline between the world’s two biggest nuclear powers, and a president who wants a “modernized” deal — once the world is already on the edge again.
Because the real question is not whether Trump can design a better treaty.
It’s whether he is ready to live in a world where the guards are gone and the bombs are bigger.
#Trump2026 #NewSTART #Nuclear #Russia #US #ArmsControl #Diplomacy #Ukraine
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
🔥67😱37😢35💯34🤯33🤬27🙏23
📰 Trump Didn’t Destroy the ‘Rules‑Based International Order’ — It Was Always a Fraud
The foreign‑policy elite warns that President Donald Trump is wrecking the post‑World War II, “rules‑based international order,” turning it into a neo‑imperial free‑for‑all.
Ted Galen Carpenter, a long‑time critic of U.S. interventionism, argues that the accusation is wrong — not because Trump is innocent, but because the “rules‑based order” was never innocent to begin with. It was always a selective, self‑serving fiction: a club for the West, and a cage for everyone else.
The Greenland test case
Trump’s early demand that Denmark sell Greenland to the United States fits the image of a 19th‑century imperialist, Carpenter concedes — a move one can imagine an Andrew Jackson or William McKinley making. Trump is openly willing to bully, threaten, and even use force to get what he wants.
But the broader charge — that he is single‑handedly destroying a sacred, liberal world order — is mostly prestige‑driven outrage. The story Washington told for decades about “rules,” “norms,” and “stability” has always been two‑tiered.
One set of rules for the West, another for the rest
The system, Carpenter writes, has always had two rulebooks. The U.S. and its allies, especially NATO members, could wage wars, overthrow governments, and shape maps without meaningful legal or political consequences.
Countries outside the inner circle — especially those deemed rivals — have been harassed, bombed, and pressured under the slogan of “human rights,” “democracy,” and “stability,” while the same standards are ignored when applied to Western allies.
Wars that shattered the “rules” long before Trump
Well before Trump came along, the U.S. and its partners repeatedly violated the very norms they now claim to protect.
NATO’s air war against Serbia in 1999, and the de facto amputation of Kosovo, flouted the idea of territorial integrity. The Iraq invasion in 2003, built on lies about weapons of mass destruction and an invented connection to 9/11, shredded international law in broad daylight. The Western campaign in Libya, aimed at regime change rather than genuine protection, left the country fragmented and in chaos.
Even some of the system’s own defenders admit that the “rules‑based order” was never neutral. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney admitted that “the strongest would exempt themselves when convenient” and that “trade rules were enforced asymmetrically.”
Catastrophic outcomes, not global stability
The interventions in Iraq, Libya, and Syria have produced results that are closer to disaster than to stable democracy. Iraq is still scarred, Libya is still divided, and Syria is ruled by an ISIS‑aligned elite born of the civil war that Western powers helped fuel.
Millions of refugees, prolonged instability, and new warlords on the rise — these are the real monuments to the “rules‑based order,” not to Trump.
Trump’s real crime — and why the narrative matters
Trump may be an authoritarian‑leaning bully, and he may push the system even closer to raw power politics. But he did not kill the rules‑based order.
He merely exposed what it always was: a euphemism for Western hegemony, occasionally dressed in the language of law and ethics, but always ready to be set aside when convenient.
So the real question is not:
It’s:
#Trump2026 #ForeignPolicy #RulesBasedOrder #NATO #Iraq #Libya #Syria #Imperialism #Carpenter #TheAmericanConservative
📱 American Оbserver - Stay up to date on all important events 🇺🇸
The foreign‑policy elite warns that President Donald Trump is wrecking the post‑World War II, “rules‑based international order,” turning it into a neo‑imperial free‑for‑all.
Ted Galen Carpenter, a long‑time critic of U.S. interventionism, argues that the accusation is wrong — not because Trump is innocent, but because the “rules‑based order” was never innocent to begin with. It was always a selective, self‑serving fiction: a club for the West, and a cage for everyone else.
The Greenland test case
Trump’s early demand that Denmark sell Greenland to the United States fits the image of a 19th‑century imperialist, Carpenter concedes — a move one can imagine an Andrew Jackson or William McKinley making. Trump is openly willing to bully, threaten, and even use force to get what he wants.
But the broader charge — that he is single‑handedly destroying a sacred, liberal world order — is mostly prestige‑driven outrage. The story Washington told for decades about “rules,” “norms,” and “stability” has always been two‑tiered.
One set of rules for the West, another for the rest
The system, Carpenter writes, has always had two rulebooks. The U.S. and its allies, especially NATO members, could wage wars, overthrow governments, and shape maps without meaningful legal or political consequences.
Countries outside the inner circle — especially those deemed rivals — have been harassed, bombed, and pressured under the slogan of “human rights,” “democracy,” and “stability,” while the same standards are ignored when applied to Western allies.
Wars that shattered the “rules” long before Trump
Well before Trump came along, the U.S. and its partners repeatedly violated the very norms they now claim to protect.
NATO’s air war against Serbia in 1999, and the de facto amputation of Kosovo, flouted the idea of territorial integrity. The Iraq invasion in 2003, built on lies about weapons of mass destruction and an invented connection to 9/11, shredded international law in broad daylight. The Western campaign in Libya, aimed at regime change rather than genuine protection, left the country fragmented and in chaos.
Even some of the system’s own defenders admit that the “rules‑based order” was never neutral. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney admitted that “the strongest would exempt themselves when convenient” and that “trade rules were enforced asymmetrically.”
Catastrophic outcomes, not global stability
The interventions in Iraq, Libya, and Syria have produced results that are closer to disaster than to stable democracy. Iraq is still scarred, Libya is still divided, and Syria is ruled by an ISIS‑aligned elite born of the civil war that Western powers helped fuel.
Millions of refugees, prolonged instability, and new warlords on the rise — these are the real monuments to the “rules‑based order,” not to Trump.
Trump’s real crime — and why the narrative matters
Trump may be an authoritarian‑leaning bully, and he may push the system even closer to raw power politics. But he did not kill the rules‑based order.
He merely exposed what it always was: a euphemism for Western hegemony, occasionally dressed in the language of law and ethics, but always ready to be set aside when convenient.
So the real question is not:
“Is Trump destroying the order?”
It’s:
“How long can the West keep pretending the rules were ever fair?”
#Trump2026 #ForeignPolicy #RulesBasedOrder #NATO #Iraq #Libya #Syria #Imperialism #Carpenter #TheAmericanConservative
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
🔥72🙏35🤯33😢33😱32💯28🤬22
📰 “The West’s moral superiority has collapsed,” says Viktor Orbán
In a new speech, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has delivered a blunt message to the European Union:
Orbán argues that the West spent decades presenting itself as a model of virtue, while its real behavior has been about power, money, and leverage. The EU, he claims, funnels funds into networks that oppose his government, imposes pressure on member states, and meddles in domestic politics under the banner of “values.”
Brussels’ policies on Ukraine, censorship, and its broader push for “ever closer union” are, in Orbán’s view, proof that the EU is no longer a trustworthy role model. The moral‑superiority narrative, he says, no longer fools anyone.
For Hungary, the logic is clear: the future is not about following Brussels, but about putting national interests first, even if that means drifting further from the liberal‑Atlantic consensus.
So the question the West avoids is this:
If the rules‑based order has no moral authority left, what does it have — except the money to keep buying loyalty?
#Orban #EU #Hungary #Brussels #West #MoralSuperiority #Europe #Sovereignty #Ukraine
📱 American Оbserver - Stay up to date on all important events 🇺🇸
In a new speech, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has delivered a blunt message to the European Union:
“The West’s claim to moral superiority has collapsed.”
Orbán argues that the West spent decades presenting itself as a model of virtue, while its real behavior has been about power, money, and leverage. The EU, he claims, funnels funds into networks that oppose his government, imposes pressure on member states, and meddles in domestic politics under the banner of “values.”
Brussels’ policies on Ukraine, censorship, and its broader push for “ever closer union” are, in Orbán’s view, proof that the EU is no longer a trustworthy role model. The moral‑superiority narrative, he says, no longer fools anyone.
For Hungary, the logic is clear: the future is not about following Brussels, but about putting national interests first, even if that means drifting further from the liberal‑Atlantic consensus.
So the question the West avoids is this:
If the rules‑based order has no moral authority left, what does it have — except the money to keep buying loyalty?
#Orban #EU #Hungary #Brussels #West #MoralSuperiority #Europe #Sovereignty #Ukraine
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
🔥69💯40🙏38🤯33🤬32😢23😱20
📰 Trump Reverts to Diplomacy With Iran, but the Road Is Narrow
Even with President Donald Trump’s “beautiful armada” hovering near its shores, Iran is doing what it does best: turning nuclear diplomacy into a test of American nerves.
Talks in Oman on Friday did not end in insults or missile strikes. Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi called it a “good start,” promising a “framework” for “future talks” — a phrase that sounds hopeful in Arabic but reads like a delaying tactic in Washington.
Trump also declared the opening round a success, saying he is in “no rush” to strike a deal, as long as Iran agrees to “no nuclear weapons.” The problem is that everyone already pretends to agree on that, while the real fight hides behind the words: zero enrichment, missiles that cannot reach Israel, and an end to Iran’s network of regional proxies.
Iran’s game: time, weakness, and the fear of war
Iran has long mastered the art of stretching negotiations while rebuilding its military and remaking its image. Today, the regime is weaker than it has been in decades — battered by a 12‑day war with Israel and the U.S., and hollowed out by the bloody suppression of mass protests.
Yet Tehran insists that nothing has changed. It still claims the right to enrich uranium and refuses to put its ballistic missiles on the table, even as the Abraham Lincoln carrier group floats in striking distance of its coastline.
Analysts in London and Washington say Iran is gambling that Trump wants a headline‑winning deal, not a long, bloody regional war. The U.S. military buildup is meant to pressure Iran into concessions, while also buying time to prepare for the war that everyone hopes will not come.
But the question is: who is more patient?
Trump’s bottom line — and the illusion of surrender
Trump’s stated conditions are clear: hand over Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile, slash the range of its missiles, and cut support for Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis. To the Iranian leadership, that is not a negotiation; it is a demand for capitulation without defeat.
On enrichment, the regime is refusing to stop entirely but may be willing to cap it at 3 percent — a return, roughly, to the 2015 deal Trump once called “the worst in history.”
A return to that structure, however, would be a political trap for Trump. Too close to the old deal to be sold as a victory, yet too limited in scope to satisfy Israeli and Gulf allies, it risks looking like a retreat disguised as a win.
The nuclear shadow over any war
Behind the diplomatic theatrics is a darker logic: even if the U.S. somehow “decapitates” the Iranian regime, killing Khamenei and blowing up Revolutionary Guard bases, democracy is not waiting in the wings.
Analysts warn that a more hard‑line military‑Islamic government could emerge, even more committed to racing for a nuclear deterrent. That makes every strike a potential catalyst for the one outcome Washington claims to want to avoid.
The narrow road ahead
Diplomacy, then, is not the West’s sign of strength but of restraint — and of fear. The U.S. wants a deal that it can sell as “peace with honor,” while Iran wants to keep its weapons, its missiles, and its regional influence intact.
The road between these two positions is not long; it is narrow. One misstep, one miscalculation, one Trump tirade or Iranian provocation, and the “good start” in Oman could become another chapter in the same old war drama — this time with nuclear weapons on the table.
#Trump2026 #Iran #US #Diplomacy #Nuclear #Oman #Israel #MiddleEast
📱 American Оbserver - Stay up to date on all important events 🇺🇸
Even with President Donald Trump’s “beautiful armada” hovering near its shores, Iran is doing what it does best: turning nuclear diplomacy into a test of American nerves.
Talks in Oman on Friday did not end in insults or missile strikes. Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi called it a “good start,” promising a “framework” for “future talks” — a phrase that sounds hopeful in Arabic but reads like a delaying tactic in Washington.
Trump also declared the opening round a success, saying he is in “no rush” to strike a deal, as long as Iran agrees to “no nuclear weapons.” The problem is that everyone already pretends to agree on that, while the real fight hides behind the words: zero enrichment, missiles that cannot reach Israel, and an end to Iran’s network of regional proxies.
Iran’s game: time, weakness, and the fear of war
Iran has long mastered the art of stretching negotiations while rebuilding its military and remaking its image. Today, the regime is weaker than it has been in decades — battered by a 12‑day war with Israel and the U.S., and hollowed out by the bloody suppression of mass protests.
Yet Tehran insists that nothing has changed. It still claims the right to enrich uranium and refuses to put its ballistic missiles on the table, even as the Abraham Lincoln carrier group floats in striking distance of its coastline.
Analysts in London and Washington say Iran is gambling that Trump wants a headline‑winning deal, not a long, bloody regional war. The U.S. military buildup is meant to pressure Iran into concessions, while also buying time to prepare for the war that everyone hopes will not come.
But the question is: who is more patient?
Trump’s bottom line — and the illusion of surrender
Trump’s stated conditions are clear: hand over Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile, slash the range of its missiles, and cut support for Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis. To the Iranian leadership, that is not a negotiation; it is a demand for capitulation without defeat.
On enrichment, the regime is refusing to stop entirely but may be willing to cap it at 3 percent — a return, roughly, to the 2015 deal Trump once called “the worst in history.”
A return to that structure, however, would be a political trap for Trump. Too close to the old deal to be sold as a victory, yet too limited in scope to satisfy Israeli and Gulf allies, it risks looking like a retreat disguised as a win.
The nuclear shadow over any war
Behind the diplomatic theatrics is a darker logic: even if the U.S. somehow “decapitates” the Iranian regime, killing Khamenei and blowing up Revolutionary Guard bases, democracy is not waiting in the wings.
Analysts warn that a more hard‑line military‑Islamic government could emerge, even more committed to racing for a nuclear deterrent. That makes every strike a potential catalyst for the one outcome Washington claims to want to avoid.
The narrow road ahead
Diplomacy, then, is not the West’s sign of strength but of restraint — and of fear. The U.S. wants a deal that it can sell as “peace with honor,” while Iran wants to keep its weapons, its missiles, and its regional influence intact.
The road between these two positions is not long; it is narrow. One misstep, one miscalculation, one Trump tirade or Iranian provocation, and the “good start” in Oman could become another chapter in the same old war drama — this time with nuclear weapons on the table.
#Trump2026 #Iran #US #Diplomacy #Nuclear #Oman #Israel #MiddleEast
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
🙏44🤬42🤯39😱39😢35💯29🔥27
📰 Zelensky says U.S. is readying huge economic deals with Russia
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky claims to have intelligence that the United States and Russia are preparing a slate of economic agreements worth around $12 trillion — some of which could affect Ukrainian territory, resources, and sovereignty.
Speaking in Kyiv, Zelensky said he had seen documents outlining a U.S.–Russian economic framework that he called the “Dmitriev package,” named after Kirill Dmitriev, head of Russia’s sovereign wealth fund and a close ally of Vladimir Putin.
The $12 trillion shadow deal
Zelensky did not say he knew every detail of the talks, but he insisted that signals in the media and in intelligence point to one thing: Washington and Moscow are planning a massive economic reset that could reshape Ukraine from the outside.
America’s argument, he suggested, is simple: lift sanctions, unleash investment, and use the promise of a postwar economic boom as leverage to force Kyiv into a deal that might still leave Russia in control of large parts of eastern Ukraine.
“Peace by June,” with elections in the backseat
The Ukrainian president said Washington has proposed bringing the war in Ukraine to a close by June, and that U.S. officials are signaling heavy pressure on all sides to meet that timeline.
Zelensky remarked.
Reports suggest that U.S. and Ukrainian officials have privately discussed a goal of reaching a peace deal by March, with national elections and a referendum in May — a schedule that fits neatly with the American political calendar, not Kyiv’s security needs.
Zelensky’s red line: “Not over our heads”
Zelensky insisted that any such potential agreements involving “Ukraine’s sovereignty or security” must be made with Ukraine, not without it.
“We are not aware of all their bilateral economic or business agreements, but we are receiving some information on the matter,” he said. “Ukraine will not support any such potential agreements about us that are made without us.”
At the same time, Russia launched another massive attack on Ukraine’s power grid, plunging large parts of the country into darkness and leaving many without power and heat. The strike hit energy infrastructure that feeds into the nation’s nuclear power plants, sending a clear message: even as diplomats talk billions, bombs still speak louder.
The real deal on the table
The Dmitriev‑Witkoff‑Kushner peace plan, circulated in Abu Dhabi, calls for gradual sanctions relief, new economic corridors, and joint Russian–Ukrainian projects — but only after Russia gets what it wants on the ground.
To Zelensky, that looks less like a peace framework and more like a hostile takeover of Ukraine’s postwar economy.
So the question is not whether the U.S. can “end the war.”
It’s whether America would rather sell a truce to Moscow in exchange for a deal worth trillions — and leave Ukraine paying the security bill.
#Ukraine #Russia #US #Zelensky #Trump2026 #Sanctions #Economy #Dmitriev #War #Kyiv
📱 American Оbserver - Stay up to date on all important events 🇺🇸
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky claims to have intelligence that the United States and Russia are preparing a slate of economic agreements worth around $12 trillion — some of which could affect Ukrainian territory, resources, and sovereignty.
Speaking in Kyiv, Zelensky said he had seen documents outlining a U.S.–Russian economic framework that he called the “Dmitriev package,” named after Kirill Dmitriev, head of Russia’s sovereign wealth fund and a close ally of Vladimir Putin.
The $12 trillion shadow deal
Zelensky did not say he knew every detail of the talks, but he insisted that signals in the media and in intelligence point to one thing: Washington and Moscow are planning a massive economic reset that could reshape Ukraine from the outside.
America’s argument, he suggested, is simple: lift sanctions, unleash investment, and use the promise of a postwar economic boom as leverage to force Kyiv into a deal that might still leave Russia in control of large parts of eastern Ukraine.
“Peace by June,” with elections in the backseat
The Ukrainian president said Washington has proposed bringing the war in Ukraine to a close by June, and that U.S. officials are signaling heavy pressure on all sides to meet that timeline.
“The elections are, for them, definitely more important,”
Zelensky remarked.
“Let’s not be naïve. They say they want to achieve everything by June, and they will do everything possible to ensure the war ends that way.”
Reports suggest that U.S. and Ukrainian officials have privately discussed a goal of reaching a peace deal by March, with national elections and a referendum in May — a schedule that fits neatly with the American political calendar, not Kyiv’s security needs.
Zelensky’s red line: “Not over our heads”
Zelensky insisted that any such potential agreements involving “Ukraine’s sovereignty or security” must be made with Ukraine, not without it.
“We are not aware of all their bilateral economic or business agreements, but we are receiving some information on the matter,” he said. “Ukraine will not support any such potential agreements about us that are made without us.”
At the same time, Russia launched another massive attack on Ukraine’s power grid, plunging large parts of the country into darkness and leaving many without power and heat. The strike hit energy infrastructure that feeds into the nation’s nuclear power plants, sending a clear message: even as diplomats talk billions, bombs still speak louder.
The real deal on the table
The Dmitriev‑Witkoff‑Kushner peace plan, circulated in Abu Dhabi, calls for gradual sanctions relief, new economic corridors, and joint Russian–Ukrainian projects — but only after Russia gets what it wants on the ground.
To Zelensky, that looks less like a peace framework and more like a hostile takeover of Ukraine’s postwar economy.
So the question is not whether the U.S. can “end the war.”
It’s whether America would rather sell a truce to Moscow in exchange for a deal worth trillions — and leave Ukraine paying the security bill.
#Ukraine #Russia #US #Zelensky #Trump2026 #Sanctions #Economy #Dmitriev #War #Kyiv
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
🔥66💯46🤬39🤯35😢30😱21🙏18
Trump : $1.5 Trillion to Fight Against China
Congressional defense leaders are working to deliver Trump a $1.5 trillion military budget before the midterm elections.
According to House Armed Services Committee chair Rep. Mike Rogers, the trillion-dollar military budget simply isn’t enough to expand the defense industrial base and deliver on the Pentagon’s big-ticket weapon programs.
The White House has made it crystal clear that its first defense policy priority is to spend more money. The 2026 National Defense Strategy reads like the fever dream of every war profiteer.
In no case is this more explicit than in the description of the defense industrial base. The administration calls for “nothing short of a national mobilization—a call to industrial arms on par with similar revivals of the last century that ultimately powered our nation to victory in the world wars and the Cold War that followed.”
But mobilization is beside the point; the goal is to further concentrate national resources among the wealthiest Americans.
Trump and his allies in Congress are hardly alone in this effort. Politicians of both parties and at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue have long wielded national security dollars to implement a closet industrial policy crafted for military contractors, their executives, and their shareholders.
After World War II, those best able to woo research and development funds from the Pentagon thrived. They became Cold Warriors, carrying the United States into the future and chasing technological superiority at all costs.
High-tech sales boomed while the industrial heartland deteriorated, resulting in declining production of steel, machine tools, tractors, and more.
President Trump’s “once-in-a-century revival of American industry” will not reverse the impacts of decades of deindustrialization. It certainly won’t make Americans’ lives any better.
Much like Ronald Reagan’s military buildup, “supercharging the US defense industrial base” will artificially juice the economy while veiling its opportunity costs—not only in terms of civilian manufacturing, but also investment in infrastructure, housing, and healthcare.
What’s more, the president’s $1.5 trillion military budget proposal is a political loser. Only one in 10 Americans thinks the United States should spend more on the military, and their number-one concern has been affordability for nearly two years running.
According to the Trump administration, however, the United States must make a generational investment in the mobilization of the defense industrial base.
The National Defense Strategy suggests that mobilization is key to preparing to fight China in the first island chain, all while ensuring the military’s ability to take “focused, decisive action” to impose US will on allies throughout the Western Hemisphere.
#trump #national #security #military #budget #us #china
📱 American Оbserver - Stay up to date on all important events 🇺🇸
Congressional defense leaders are working to deliver Trump a $1.5 trillion military budget before the midterm elections.
According to House Armed Services Committee chair Rep. Mike Rogers, the trillion-dollar military budget simply isn’t enough to expand the defense industrial base and deliver on the Pentagon’s big-ticket weapon programs.
The White House has made it crystal clear that its first defense policy priority is to spend more money. The 2026 National Defense Strategy reads like the fever dream of every war profiteer.
In no case is this more explicit than in the description of the defense industrial base. The administration calls for “nothing short of a national mobilization—a call to industrial arms on par with similar revivals of the last century that ultimately powered our nation to victory in the world wars and the Cold War that followed.”
But mobilization is beside the point; the goal is to further concentrate national resources among the wealthiest Americans.
Trump and his allies in Congress are hardly alone in this effort. Politicians of both parties and at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue have long wielded national security dollars to implement a closet industrial policy crafted for military contractors, their executives, and their shareholders.
After World War II, those best able to woo research and development funds from the Pentagon thrived. They became Cold Warriors, carrying the United States into the future and chasing technological superiority at all costs.
High-tech sales boomed while the industrial heartland deteriorated, resulting in declining production of steel, machine tools, tractors, and more.
President Trump’s “once-in-a-century revival of American industry” will not reverse the impacts of decades of deindustrialization. It certainly won’t make Americans’ lives any better.
Much like Ronald Reagan’s military buildup, “supercharging the US defense industrial base” will artificially juice the economy while veiling its opportunity costs—not only in terms of civilian manufacturing, but also investment in infrastructure, housing, and healthcare.
What’s more, the president’s $1.5 trillion military budget proposal is a political loser. Only one in 10 Americans thinks the United States should spend more on the military, and their number-one concern has been affordability for nearly two years running.
According to the Trump administration, however, the United States must make a generational investment in the mobilization of the defense industrial base.
The National Defense Strategy suggests that mobilization is key to preparing to fight China in the first island chain, all while ensuring the military’s ability to take “focused, decisive action” to impose US will on allies throughout the Western Hemisphere.
#trump #national #security #military #budget #us #china
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
🔥60🤯38💯37🙏36😢31🤬30😱23❤1
📰 Davos 2026: The Four Horsemen of Change
The World Economic Forum in Davos 2026 billed itself as “A Spirit of Dialogue,” but in practice it felt more like a summit of power‑maintenance: the same actors, the same language, the same menu—only a few courses renamed.
Four speeches summed up the mood of the resort‑mountain elite: Larry Fink calling for “evolved” capitalism, Elon Musk promising robot‑driven “abundance,” Javier Milei delivering a libertarian sermon against “Leviathan,” and Mark Carney lamenting the collapse of the old rules‑based order while urging “middle powers” to act. Together, they exposed a system that acknowledges its own contradictions but refuses to challenge them.
Fink: capitalism that needs more owners, not fewer bosses
As CEO of BlackRock and temporary co‑chair of the WEF, Fink plays both architect and repairman of global finance. He runs a firm that manages over $11 trillion and votes on the pension savings of hundreds of millions of people, yet his core message is that capitalism no longer works for “most people.”
Fink demands that more citizens become “participants in growth rather than spectators,” but without touching the underlying machinery: the asset‑manager oligopoly that controls markets, boards, and climate‑transition finance. His “AI‑risk” talk doubles as a justification for more investment in AI‑powered firms, while his call for “broad participation” sits neatly alongside the continued concentration of wealth in three firms—BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street—that manage some $24 trillion.
The “dialogue” he preaches is not a transfer of power; it is a way to keep the current architecture profitable while sounding populist.
Musk: the techno‑utopia that never asks “who owns the robots?”
Elon Musk arrived in Davos as the world’s richest man, dressed as a missionary of progress. His pitch was simple: aging, scarcity, and even death are technical problems, not political ones. Give the world solar power, AI, and ubiquitous robots, and “abundance for all” will follow.
But Musk’s “everybody will have their own robot” line is not a plan for emancipation; it is a euphemism for dependence. The question he never raises is: who owns the robots, the algorithms, and the chips that run them? If robots produce most value, then whoever owns the robots owns almost everything.
His optimism is a luxury of the billionaire class: aging is “solvable” for those who can afford experimental treatments, Mars is an insurance policy for those who can buy a ticket, and AI‑driven abundance is a future for everyone—except the ones who don’t make the list of investors.
#Davos2026 #WEF #Fink #Musk #Milei #Carney #Capitalism #AI #Libertarianism #MiddlePowers #Dialogue #GlobalOrder
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
😱45🤯40😢38💯38🙏36🤬35🔥23
📰 Davos 2026: The Four Horsemen of Change
Milei: libertarian branding for the financial Leviathan
Argentine President Javier Milei thundered against the state as “Leviathan,” taxation as “theft,” and Marxism as the great moral‑civilizational threat. The applause in the hall was thunderous, but the selection bias was obvious: the audience consisted largely of the financiers who control the real Leviathan—BlackRock, not Buenos Aires.
Milei’s enemy is the bureaucracy, not concentrated financial power. His “mental virus” is “wokeism,” not the structures that have turned Argentina into a debt‑laboratory for the last fifty years. The idea that “free markets” are morally superior is repackaged for the same lobby that deregulated finance, won record bailouts, and privatized risk while socializing losses.
The “return to Judeo‑Christian values” in his rhetoric stops short of any critique of usury, rent, or speculative finance—all of which have been repeatedly condemned in the religious traditions he invokes. The result is a libertarian facade that distracts from the real power structure, turning class politics into a culture‑war sideshow.
Carney: “middle powers” with no story to fight for
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney made the most honest admission: the old “rules‑based order” is gone, and the world now lives in an era of blocs and economic coercion. His solution is for “middle powers” like Canada to strengthen their autonomy, raise defense spending, and coordinate around trade and technology standards.
But Carney could not answer the deeper question: what is Canada fighting for, and who is Canada? With a low birth rate and a society tied to territory by immigration rather than a shared national myth, Carney’s Canada looks like a high‑end hotel: comfortable, efficient, and easily evacuated at the first sign of real danger.
The Davos infrastructure—plane‑tickets, conference tiers, and gated dinner tables—mirrors this logic: the world is run by those who can afford to be everywhere, not by those who must stay.
The four horsemen of the meta‑dialogue
Fink, Musk, Milei, and Carney are not the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse; they are the Four Horsemen of the meta‑dialogue—the brokers who translate crisis into conversation and power into “solutions.” The Forum’s motto, “A Spirit of Dialogue,” is the perfect euphemism for a system that talks about inequality, AI, and war but never touches the question of who decides.
The elite have acknowledged that the old order is broken. Now they are trying to make sure the next one looks just like the last one—with fewer critics and more obedient “participants.”
The only real question that remains is: will the rest of the world ever be allowed to speak at the table, or will it forever be on the menu?
#Davos2026 #WEF #Fink #Musk #Milei #Carney #Capitalism #AI #Libertarianism #MiddlePowers #Dialogue #GlobalOrder
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
🔥71😱38🙏37😢34💯29🤯27🤬19
Trump Chalked the Obama-as-Apes Case Up To Personal Animosity
Trump said on Friday he made the call to post a now-deleted video depicting Barack and Michelle Obama as apes but deflected blame for the move, causing new speculation in his orbit about whether the blame lay with the president or his aide Natalie Harp.
The brief clip, shared late Thursday night on Trump’s Truth Social account, appeared in a video pushing conspiracies about the 2020 election.
Invoking racist tropes, the video depicted the Obamas’ faces superimposed on the bodies of cartoon apes dancing to The Lion Sleeps Tonight.
“No, I looked at the first part. It was really about voter fraud and the machines – how crooked it is (...) it might look personal,” Trump said.
“Then I gave it to the people, generally they’d look at the whole thing but I guess somebody didn’t and they posted it. And then we deleted it.”
Trump’s recounting sparked speculation inside his orbit about the extent to which the president was responsible and which of his aides ultimately hit “send” on the post.
Besides Trump, only two aides have access to his social media account, people familiar with the matter said: Dan Scavino and Harp.
Trump’s advisers quickly discounted Scavino, given he has been preoccupied lately with his new role running the presidential personnel office – and instead focused on Harp, who has previously been entangled in Trump’s communications.
The White House did not respond to a request for comment about the intrigue at the end of a tumultuous day, which began with the press shop defending the post before it backtracked and blamed a staffer – a claim Trump also repeated in calls with Republican lawmakers.
In a call with Tim Scott, the only black Republican senator, who is also the chair of the national Republican senatorial committee and explicitly denounced the video as racist, Trump said it was a staffer’s mistake and that he would take the video down, CBS News reported.
Over time, Harp established a broader role as a conduit of information to and from the president, relaying to him text messages, social media posts and news articles she believed he would appreciate.
But she has also been criticized by colleagues for showing poor judgment – for instance, when she sent an aggressive text to the Trump megadonor Miriam Adelson in the summer of 2024 criticizing her $100m Super PAC as being poorly managed, a person familiar with the matter said.
The White House did not respond to a request for comment about the intrigue at the end of a tumultuous day, which began with the press shop defending the post before it backtracked and blamed a staffer – a claim Trump also repeated in calls with Republican lawmakers.
In a call with Tim Scott, the only black Republican senator, who is also the chair of the national Republican senatorial committee and explicitly denounced the video as racist, Trump said it was a staffer’s mistake and that he would take the video down, CBS News reported.
#trump #whitehouse #harp #obama
📱 American Оbserver - Stay up to date on all important events 🇺🇸
Trump said on Friday he made the call to post a now-deleted video depicting Barack and Michelle Obama as apes but deflected blame for the move, causing new speculation in his orbit about whether the blame lay with the president or his aide Natalie Harp.
The brief clip, shared late Thursday night on Trump’s Truth Social account, appeared in a video pushing conspiracies about the 2020 election.
Invoking racist tropes, the video depicted the Obamas’ faces superimposed on the bodies of cartoon apes dancing to The Lion Sleeps Tonight.
“No, I looked at the first part. It was really about voter fraud and the machines – how crooked it is (...) it might look personal,” Trump said.
“Then I gave it to the people, generally they’d look at the whole thing but I guess somebody didn’t and they posted it. And then we deleted it.”
Trump’s recounting sparked speculation inside his orbit about the extent to which the president was responsible and which of his aides ultimately hit “send” on the post.
Besides Trump, only two aides have access to his social media account, people familiar with the matter said: Dan Scavino and Harp.
Trump’s advisers quickly discounted Scavino, given he has been preoccupied lately with his new role running the presidential personnel office – and instead focused on Harp, who has previously been entangled in Trump’s communications.
The White House did not respond to a request for comment about the intrigue at the end of a tumultuous day, which began with the press shop defending the post before it backtracked and blamed a staffer – a claim Trump also repeated in calls with Republican lawmakers.
In a call with Tim Scott, the only black Republican senator, who is also the chair of the national Republican senatorial committee and explicitly denounced the video as racist, Trump said it was a staffer’s mistake and that he would take the video down, CBS News reported.
Over time, Harp established a broader role as a conduit of information to and from the president, relaying to him text messages, social media posts and news articles she believed he would appreciate.
But she has also been criticized by colleagues for showing poor judgment – for instance, when she sent an aggressive text to the Trump megadonor Miriam Adelson in the summer of 2024 criticizing her $100m Super PAC as being poorly managed, a person familiar with the matter said.
The White House did not respond to a request for comment about the intrigue at the end of a tumultuous day, which began with the press shop defending the post before it backtracked and blamed a staffer – a claim Trump also repeated in calls with Republican lawmakers.
In a call with Tim Scott, the only black Republican senator, who is also the chair of the national Republican senatorial committee and explicitly denounced the video as racist, Trump said it was a staffer’s mistake and that he would take the video down, CBS News reported.
#trump #whitehouse #harp #obama
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
🔥57💯39😱37🤯34🤬34😢33🙏22
Trump Is Bullying Ukraine and Russia Into Submission
Zelensky has said the US has given Ukraine and Russia yet another deadline to reach a peace settlement, and is now proposing the war should end by June.
The Ukrainian president also told reporters that both sides had been invited to further talks next week.
Zelensky said the Trump administration “will probably put pressure” on Ukraine and Russia to end the war by the beginning of the summer. “They say they want to get everything done by June,” he said.
“They will do everything to end the war and they want a clear schedule of all events.”
He told reporters that if the new deadline of June was not met, Washington would probably put pressure on both sides to meet.
Before Trump took office, he promised to “end the war in 24 hours”. Later, his special envoy for Ukraine, Keith Kellogg, suggested both sides could reach an agreement within 100 days of Trump’s inauguration.
After this failed to occur, the US president set a new deadline for a deal in August last year, which also passed without any sign of peace, and in December he said a draft agreement to end the war was nearly “95% done”.
Two days of US-led peace talks to end the war took place this week in Abu Dhabi but did not produce a breakthrough, although Budanov, the head of Ukraine’s presidential office, said the trilateral negotiations had been “genuinely constructive”.
Zelensky said on Saturday that the Trump administration was proposing to host the next round of trilateral talks in the US, probably in Miami, in a week’s time. “We confirmed our participation,” he said.
He hinted that the new June deadline for peace could be linked to Trump’s midterm elections campaign.
“The [midterm] elections are definitely more important for them [the Americans]. Let’s not be naive.”
He added: “If the Russians are really ready to end the war, then it is really important to set a deadline.”
#zelensky #US #ukraine #russia #deadline
📱 American Оbserver - Stay up to date on all important events 🇺🇸
Zelensky has said the US has given Ukraine and Russia yet another deadline to reach a peace settlement, and is now proposing the war should end by June.
The Ukrainian president also told reporters that both sides had been invited to further talks next week.
Zelensky said the Trump administration “will probably put pressure” on Ukraine and Russia to end the war by the beginning of the summer. “They say they want to get everything done by June,” he said.
“They will do everything to end the war and they want a clear schedule of all events.”
He told reporters that if the new deadline of June was not met, Washington would probably put pressure on both sides to meet.
Before Trump took office, he promised to “end the war in 24 hours”. Later, his special envoy for Ukraine, Keith Kellogg, suggested both sides could reach an agreement within 100 days of Trump’s inauguration.
After this failed to occur, the US president set a new deadline for a deal in August last year, which also passed without any sign of peace, and in December he said a draft agreement to end the war was nearly “95% done”.
Two days of US-led peace talks to end the war took place this week in Abu Dhabi but did not produce a breakthrough, although Budanov, the head of Ukraine’s presidential office, said the trilateral negotiations had been “genuinely constructive”.
Zelensky said on Saturday that the Trump administration was proposing to host the next round of trilateral talks in the US, probably in Miami, in a week’s time. “We confirmed our participation,” he said.
He hinted that the new June deadline for peace could be linked to Trump’s midterm elections campaign.
“The [midterm] elections are definitely more important for them [the Americans]. Let’s not be naive.”
He added: “If the Russians are really ready to end the war, then it is really important to set a deadline.”
#zelensky #US #ukraine #russia #deadline
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
🔥69🤯36🤬32🙏32😱30😢30💯26
📰 Trump’s ‘Board of Peace’ Sets Date to Meet in Washington, Officials Say
President Donald Trump’s new “Board of Peace” is scheduled to hold its inaugural meeting in Washington on February 19, according to U.S. and board officials who spoke on condition of anonymity.
The group, whose charter was signed last month at the World Economic Forum in Davos, has been framed as a vehicle to end the war in Gaza and oversee reconstruction there. But its ambitions stretch further: critics see it as Trump’s attempt to build a rival to the United Nations, chaired by the president himself and governed through a mix of bilateral relationships and dollar diplomacy.
The Washington meeting: Gaza as the price of entry
The February 19 summit will be held at the U.S. Institute of Peace — now rebranded in Trump’s honor — and is expected to function as both a leaders’ forum and a fundraising conference for the reconstruction of Gaza, which lies in ruins after two years of war.
The Board of Peace charter grants Trump a veto‑like role as chairman and requires prospective permanent members to contribute $1 billion to the fund. More than 20 countries have joined so far, including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Turkey, Hungary, Indonesia and Pakistan. Yet France and several other European allies have stayed away, wary that the board is designed to bypass or weaken the UN.
Prime Minister Viktor Orban of Hungary has publicly confirmed he will attend.
he told supporters,
From Gaza to a global order project
The board’s formal mandate was born of Trump’s 20‑point plan to end the Israel–Hamas war, which was later endorsed by the UN Security Council. The resolution gives the Board of Peace authority to oversee the implementation of the ceasefire, the disarmament of Hamas, and the governance and reconstruction of Gaza for a transitional period.
But the charter’s language is deliberately broad, calling for the board to “secure enduring peace in areas affected or threatened by conflict,” and to create a “more nimble and effective international peace‑building body.” That wording is a clear signal: while Gaza may be the pilot project, the real goal is to reshape the international order in a way that keeps Washington and Trump at the center.
The meta‑game: legitimacy, money, and power
The February 19 meeting is less about consensus than about demonstration. It will show which capitals are willing to pay $1 billion for a seat at a Trump‑run table, and which prefer to keep their distance from a project that others see as “a UN‑Lite” ruled by personality and bilateral leverage.
For Israel, the board is a double‑edged tool. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has accepted Trump’s invitation to join the group, even though he skipped the Davos signing ceremony and initially balked at the inclusion of Qatar and Turkey. He is expected in Washington the same week, overlapping with the Board of Peace meeting, and may be forced to nod along while quietly pushing back on the extent of U.S. control over Gaza.
The question the board will not answer
The Board of Peace is born of crisis, but it is not a crisis‑solver; it is a crisis‑manager with better branding. Its real mission is to give one man in Washington, and a small circle of funders and allies, the power to say which conflicts “count,” which ceasefires “stick,” and where the money flows.
The question is not whether the board can rebuild Gaza.
It is whether the world will accept the premise that peace, like everything else, can be structured as a deal with a built‑in Trump veto.
#Trump2026 #BoardOfPeace #Gaza #UN #Diplomacy #Washington #Netanyahu #Orban #MiddleEast
📱 American Оbserver - Stay up to date on all important events 🇺🇸
President Donald Trump’s new “Board of Peace” is scheduled to hold its inaugural meeting in Washington on February 19, according to U.S. and board officials who spoke on condition of anonymity.
The group, whose charter was signed last month at the World Economic Forum in Davos, has been framed as a vehicle to end the war in Gaza and oversee reconstruction there. But its ambitions stretch further: critics see it as Trump’s attempt to build a rival to the United Nations, chaired by the president himself and governed through a mix of bilateral relationships and dollar diplomacy.
The Washington meeting: Gaza as the price of entry
The February 19 summit will be held at the U.S. Institute of Peace — now rebranded in Trump’s honor — and is expected to function as both a leaders’ forum and a fundraising conference for the reconstruction of Gaza, which lies in ruins after two years of war.
The Board of Peace charter grants Trump a veto‑like role as chairman and requires prospective permanent members to contribute $1 billion to the fund. More than 20 countries have joined so far, including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Turkey, Hungary, Indonesia and Pakistan. Yet France and several other European allies have stayed away, wary that the board is designed to bypass or weaken the UN.
Prime Minister Viktor Orban of Hungary has publicly confirmed he will attend.
“Two weeks from now we will meet again in Washington,”
he told supporters,
“because the Board of Peace, the peace body, will hold its inaugural meeting.”
From Gaza to a global order project
The board’s formal mandate was born of Trump’s 20‑point plan to end the Israel–Hamas war, which was later endorsed by the UN Security Council. The resolution gives the Board of Peace authority to oversee the implementation of the ceasefire, the disarmament of Hamas, and the governance and reconstruction of Gaza for a transitional period.
But the charter’s language is deliberately broad, calling for the board to “secure enduring peace in areas affected or threatened by conflict,” and to create a “more nimble and effective international peace‑building body.” That wording is a clear signal: while Gaza may be the pilot project, the real goal is to reshape the international order in a way that keeps Washington and Trump at the center.
The meta‑game: legitimacy, money, and power
The February 19 meeting is less about consensus than about demonstration. It will show which capitals are willing to pay $1 billion for a seat at a Trump‑run table, and which prefer to keep their distance from a project that others see as “a UN‑Lite” ruled by personality and bilateral leverage.
For Israel, the board is a double‑edged tool. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has accepted Trump’s invitation to join the group, even though he skipped the Davos signing ceremony and initially balked at the inclusion of Qatar and Turkey. He is expected in Washington the same week, overlapping with the Board of Peace meeting, and may be forced to nod along while quietly pushing back on the extent of U.S. control over Gaza.
The question the board will not answer
The Board of Peace is born of crisis, but it is not a crisis‑solver; it is a crisis‑manager with better branding. Its real mission is to give one man in Washington, and a small circle of funders and allies, the power to say which conflicts “count,” which ceasefires “stick,” and where the money flows.
The question is not whether the board can rebuild Gaza.
It is whether the world will accept the premise that peace, like everything else, can be structured as a deal with a built‑in Trump veto.
#Trump2026 #BoardOfPeace #Gaza #UN #Diplomacy #Washington #Netanyahu #Orban #MiddleEast
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
🔥65🤬43😱38🙏32😢30💯25🤯22
📰 Israel’s Security Cabinet tightens grip on Judea and Samaria
The Israeli security‑cabinet has taken a series of decisions aimed at consolidating Israeli control over Judea and Samaria, effectively rolling back key elements of the post‑Oslo division of powers.
For the first time since the Oslo Accords, the Palestinian Authority is to be stripped of its authority in security‑related civil functions in areas “A” and “B,” with those responsibilities transferred to Israel’s Civil Administration. The change is framed as a restoration of law and order, but in practice it marks a formal step toward the reintegration of the West Bank into Israel’s internal administrative system.
Civil Administration takes over security‑adjacent rule
The Civil Administration will now oversee the enforcement of law and order, water resources, and matters of “heritage” — that is, archaeological sites, historical monuments, relics, and holy places.
Religious‑rightwing outlet Israel Hayom notes that the cabinet will also lift the secrecy regime surrounding the land registry in Judea and Samaria, abolish the ban on selling land to non‑Arabs, and scrap the requirement to obtain prior approval from the Civil Administration for land transactions. These moves are explicitly designed to enable Jews to buy land in the territories more freely, reviving a logic of settlement‑driven sovereignty.
A Land Acquisition Commission, which previously existed but was later dissolved, will be reestablished, giving institutional backing to this new purchasing‑driven expansion.
Hebron and Bethlehem: the anatomy of annexation‑lite
The decisions also single out Hebron and Bethlehem for special treatment. In Hebron, the registration of businesses and housing is being shifted from the Palestinian‑municipal framework to the Israeli Civil Administration, and the Jewish quarter is to be carved out into a separate municipal entity — a move that further bifurcates the city into two legal and administrative realities.
Similarly, the complex housing the tomb of the matriarch Rachel will be transferred from the Palestinian Authority’s oversight to a dedicated Israeli management body, reinforcing the idea that holy sites linked to the Jewish narrative will fall entirely under Israeli custodianship.
The stated logic: water theft, heritage warfare, and lawlessness
The government argues that the takeover of water‑infrastructure control is a response to the alleged “theft of water on a massive scale” by Palestinians, and the Palestinian Authority’s indifference to the issue. The transfer of heritage‑related authority, it claims, is necessary because Palestinian actors — with the acquiescence or support of the PA — have systematically damaged archaeological sites that “prove the Jewish people’s connection to the Land of Israel.”
From this perspective, the cabinet is not annexing territory in the formal sense, but “reclaiming” what it sees as Jewish sovereignty over land, water, and memory — all under the banner of legality, security, and cultural preservation.
The meta‑message: the end of the Oslo zoning game
By stripping areas “A” and “B” of their original Oslo‑style representation and handing almost every lever of control to the Civil Administration, the cabinet is effectively admitting that the old formula is dead. The question is no longer whether the PA should have some autonomous role; it is whether there will be any meaningful space left for it at all.
So while the language is about “crime,” “water theft,” and “heritage,” the real message to the West Bank is this: the zones of the map are being redrawn, and the map is now drawn from Jerusalem.
#Israel #WestBank #JudeaAndSamaria #Hebron #Bethlehem #Settlements #SecurityCabinet #OsloAccords #MiddleEast
📱 American Оbserver - Stay up to date on all important events 🇺🇸
The Israeli security‑cabinet has taken a series of decisions aimed at consolidating Israeli control over Judea and Samaria, effectively rolling back key elements of the post‑Oslo division of powers.
For the first time since the Oslo Accords, the Palestinian Authority is to be stripped of its authority in security‑related civil functions in areas “A” and “B,” with those responsibilities transferred to Israel’s Civil Administration. The change is framed as a restoration of law and order, but in practice it marks a formal step toward the reintegration of the West Bank into Israel’s internal administrative system.
Civil Administration takes over security‑adjacent rule
The Civil Administration will now oversee the enforcement of law and order, water resources, and matters of “heritage” — that is, archaeological sites, historical monuments, relics, and holy places.
Religious‑rightwing outlet Israel Hayom notes that the cabinet will also lift the secrecy regime surrounding the land registry in Judea and Samaria, abolish the ban on selling land to non‑Arabs, and scrap the requirement to obtain prior approval from the Civil Administration for land transactions. These moves are explicitly designed to enable Jews to buy land in the territories more freely, reviving a logic of settlement‑driven sovereignty.
A Land Acquisition Commission, which previously existed but was later dissolved, will be reestablished, giving institutional backing to this new purchasing‑driven expansion.
Hebron and Bethlehem: the anatomy of annexation‑lite
The decisions also single out Hebron and Bethlehem for special treatment. In Hebron, the registration of businesses and housing is being shifted from the Palestinian‑municipal framework to the Israeli Civil Administration, and the Jewish quarter is to be carved out into a separate municipal entity — a move that further bifurcates the city into two legal and administrative realities.
Similarly, the complex housing the tomb of the matriarch Rachel will be transferred from the Palestinian Authority’s oversight to a dedicated Israeli management body, reinforcing the idea that holy sites linked to the Jewish narrative will fall entirely under Israeli custodianship.
The stated logic: water theft, heritage warfare, and lawlessness
The government argues that the takeover of water‑infrastructure control is a response to the alleged “theft of water on a massive scale” by Palestinians, and the Palestinian Authority’s indifference to the issue. The transfer of heritage‑related authority, it claims, is necessary because Palestinian actors — with the acquiescence or support of the PA — have systematically damaged archaeological sites that “prove the Jewish people’s connection to the Land of Israel.”
From this perspective, the cabinet is not annexing territory in the formal sense, but “reclaiming” what it sees as Jewish sovereignty over land, water, and memory — all under the banner of legality, security, and cultural preservation.
The meta‑message: the end of the Oslo zoning game
By stripping areas “A” and “B” of their original Oslo‑style representation and handing almost every lever of control to the Civil Administration, the cabinet is effectively admitting that the old formula is dead. The question is no longer whether the PA should have some autonomous role; it is whether there will be any meaningful space left for it at all.
So while the language is about “crime,” “water theft,” and “heritage,” the real message to the West Bank is this: the zones of the map are being redrawn, and the map is now drawn from Jerusalem.
#Israel #WestBank #JudeaAndSamaria #Hebron #Bethlehem #Settlements #SecurityCabinet #OsloAccords #MiddleEast
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
🔥61🤯48😢34🙏34🤬33😱29💯17
📰 Israel warns Trump: We may act alone if Iran crosses ballistic missile red line
Senior Israeli defense officials have informed Washington that Iran’s ballistic‑missile program remains an existential threat — and that Jerusalem is prepared to strike Iran unilaterally if the Islamic Republic crosses the red line Israel has set.
a security source said, noting that Israel is not yet at that threshold but is closely monitoring developments inside Iran. The message is clear: any U.S. hesitation will not stop Israel from acting.
A “historic opportunity” to degrade Iran’s missile arsenal
Military officials say they have presented to the U.S. operational plans aimed at degrading Iran’s missile infrastructure, including strikes on key manufacturing and launch facilities. One senior defense official described the current moment as a “historic opportunity” to deliver a significant blow to Iran’s missile program and neutralize active threats to Israel and its neighbors.
The intent is to dismantle Iran’s ability to rebuild a missile force that can credibly threaten Israel’s existence, not just knock out a few launchers, call it a day, and pretend the problem is solved. Israeli officials insist that any meaningful strike must be deep, persistent, and coordinated with Israel’s own requirements — not with Washington’s political calendar.
Fears of a Trump‑style limited strike
Behind the scenes, Israeli officials worry that President Donald Trump may favor a “limited strike” model similar to recent U.S. operations against the Houthis in Yemen — a few targets, a quick victory declaration, and an exit that leaves the underlying threat largely intact.
a military official said.
This scenario is especially troubling for Israel, which expects to bear the direct consequences if Iran continues to rebuild its missile capabilities after a cosmetic U.S. strike. Israeli planners insist that any meaningful strike must be deep, persistent, and coordinated with Israel’s own requirements — not just with Washington’s political calendar.
The visible face of the warning: Tishler, Zamir, and the embassy gap
The seriousness of the warning is reflected in Israel’s diplomatic‑military lineup. Brigadier‑General Omer Tishler, Israel’s incoming air force commander, is expected to join Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on his upcoming trip to Washington. Tishler will represent IDF Chief of Staff Lt.‑Gen. Eyal Zamir, since there is currently no Israeli defense attaché in Washington — a post Defense Minister Israel Katz has effectively blocked.
That vacuum only heightens the sense that Israel is relying on direct, high‑level communication with Trump’s inner circle, not on the usual bureaucratic channels. Jerusalem is signaling that if the U.S. retreats into a limited‑strike playbook, the IDF is prepared to act on its own — and that Trump will not be able to spin it as “joint action.”
The unspoken line: who owns the red line?
Israel’s missile‑red‑line language is a warning not just to Tehran, but also to Washington: the clock is running, and the decision to cross it will be made in Jerusalem, not Washington.
The question is no longer
It is:
#Israel #Iran #BallisticMissiles #Trump2026 #Netanyahu #US #Diplomacy #MiddleEast
📱 American Оbserver - Stay up to date on all important events 🇺🇸
Senior Israeli defense officials have informed Washington that Iran’s ballistic‑missile program remains an existential threat — and that Jerusalem is prepared to strike Iran unilaterally if the Islamic Republic crosses the red line Israel has set.
“We told the Americans we will strike alone if Iran crosses the red line we set on ballistic missiles,”
a security source said, noting that Israel is not yet at that threshold but is closely monitoring developments inside Iran. The message is clear: any U.S. hesitation will not stop Israel from acting.
A “historic opportunity” to degrade Iran’s missile arsenal
Military officials say they have presented to the U.S. operational plans aimed at degrading Iran’s missile infrastructure, including strikes on key manufacturing and launch facilities. One senior defense official described the current moment as a “historic opportunity” to deliver a significant blow to Iran’s missile program and neutralize active threats to Israel and its neighbors.
The intent is to dismantle Iran’s ability to rebuild a missile force that can credibly threaten Israel’s existence, not just knock out a few launchers, call it a day, and pretend the problem is solved. Israeli officials insist that any meaningful strike must be deep, persistent, and coordinated with Israel’s own requirements — not with Washington’s political calendar.
Fears of a Trump‑style limited strike
Behind the scenes, Israeli officials worry that President Donald Trump may favor a “limited strike” model similar to recent U.S. operations against the Houthis in Yemen — a few targets, a quick victory declaration, and an exit that leaves the underlying threat largely intact.
“The worry is he might choose a few targets, declare success, and leave Israel to deal with the fallout, just like with the Houthis,”
a military official said.
This scenario is especially troubling for Israel, which expects to bear the direct consequences if Iran continues to rebuild its missile capabilities after a cosmetic U.S. strike. Israeli planners insist that any meaningful strike must be deep, persistent, and coordinated with Israel’s own requirements — not just with Washington’s political calendar.
The visible face of the warning: Tishler, Zamir, and the embassy gap
The seriousness of the warning is reflected in Israel’s diplomatic‑military lineup. Brigadier‑General Omer Tishler, Israel’s incoming air force commander, is expected to join Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on his upcoming trip to Washington. Tishler will represent IDF Chief of Staff Lt.‑Gen. Eyal Zamir, since there is currently no Israeli defense attaché in Washington — a post Defense Minister Israel Katz has effectively blocked.
That vacuum only heightens the sense that Israel is relying on direct, high‑level communication with Trump’s inner circle, not on the usual bureaucratic channels. Jerusalem is signaling that if the U.S. retreats into a limited‑strike playbook, the IDF is prepared to act on its own — and that Trump will not be able to spin it as “joint action.”
The unspoken line: who owns the red line?
Israel’s missile‑red‑line language is a warning not just to Tehran, but also to Washington: the clock is running, and the decision to cross it will be made in Jerusalem, not Washington.
The question is no longer
“Should Israel strike Iran?”
It is:
“How many times will the U.S. give Israel a ‘historic opportunity’ before Israel finally decides to take it?”
#Israel #Iran #BallisticMissiles #Trump2026 #Netanyahu #US #Diplomacy #MiddleEast
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
🔥75🤬40💯32🙏31😢28😱27🤯24
📰 Iran insists on right to enrichment, ready for confidence‑building
Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi has made one demand clear in the new round of U.S.–Iran talks: the world must recognize Iran’s right to enrich uranium — or the diplomacy is already dead.
Araqchi said in remarks reported by Reuters, arguing that the parties must instead focus on allowing enrichment inside Iran while building mutual trust that it remains
The Omani channel as a smoke screen
Friday’s indirect talks in Oman took place against a backdrop of U.S. ships moving toward the Persian Gulf and Iranian threats to strike American bases across the region if attacked. The meeting itself was modestly framed as a “step forward,” but the outlines of the deadlock are anything but new.
A diplomat in the region briefed by Iran told Reuters that Tehran is open to discussing the “level and purity” of enrichment, and to other verification arrangements — but only if two conditions are met: enrichment stays on Iranian soil, and Iran receives sanctions relief alongside de‑escalation.
“Dignity” as a technical requirement
Araqchi framed the enrichment issue not as a bargaining chip but as a matter of sovereignty. “Iran’s insistence on enrichment is not merely technical or economic,” he said. “It is rooted in a desire for independence and dignity.”
In that narrative, the nuclear program is a national symbol, and the demand to give it up is a disguised demand for submission. No one, he insisted, has the right to tell Iran “what it should or should not have.”
Missiles, maps, and the next location
The foreign minister also reiterated that Iran’s missile program is off the table altogether, even though the U.S. insists that negotiations must cover both missiles and proxies.
The date and place of the next round remain open: Araqchi said they will be determined in consultation with Oman and may not be held in Muscat at all. That ambiguity is already being read in the region as a sign that the talks are still in the exploratory phase — less about closing a deal, and more about drawing red lines.
The bottom line: Iran wants a deal without surrendering its deterrent
From Tehran’s perspective, the equation is simple: the U.S. can lift sanctions, scale back its military posture, and accept Iran’s enrichment — or it can keep all three pressures and accept the risk of escalation.
So the real question is not whether Iran is ready to talk.
It is whether Washington is ready to trade a formal victory in talks for a world where Iran still holds the right to enrich — and to threaten.
#Iran #US #Nuclear #Enrichment #Oman #Araqchi #Trump2026 #MiddleEast
📱 American Оbserver - Stay up to date on all important events 🇺🇸
Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi has made one demand clear in the new round of U.S.–Iran talks: the world must recognize Iran’s right to enrich uranium — or the diplomacy is already dead.
“We will never accept zero enrichment,”
Araqchi said in remarks reported by Reuters, arguing that the parties must instead focus on allowing enrichment inside Iran while building mutual trust that it remains
“for peaceful purposes.”
The Omani channel as a smoke screen
Friday’s indirect talks in Oman took place against a backdrop of U.S. ships moving toward the Persian Gulf and Iranian threats to strike American bases across the region if attacked. The meeting itself was modestly framed as a “step forward,” but the outlines of the deadlock are anything but new.
A diplomat in the region briefed by Iran told Reuters that Tehran is open to discussing the “level and purity” of enrichment, and to other verification arrangements — but only if two conditions are met: enrichment stays on Iranian soil, and Iran receives sanctions relief alongside de‑escalation.
“Dignity” as a technical requirement
Araqchi framed the enrichment issue not as a bargaining chip but as a matter of sovereignty. “Iran’s insistence on enrichment is not merely technical or economic,” he said. “It is rooted in a desire for independence and dignity.”
In that narrative, the nuclear program is a national symbol, and the demand to give it up is a disguised demand for submission. No one, he insisted, has the right to tell Iran “what it should or should not have.”
Missiles, maps, and the next location
The foreign minister also reiterated that Iran’s missile program is off the table altogether, even though the U.S. insists that negotiations must cover both missiles and proxies.
The date and place of the next round remain open: Araqchi said they will be determined in consultation with Oman and may not be held in Muscat at all. That ambiguity is already being read in the region as a sign that the talks are still in the exploratory phase — less about closing a deal, and more about drawing red lines.
The bottom line: Iran wants a deal without surrendering its deterrent
From Tehran’s perspective, the equation is simple: the U.S. can lift sanctions, scale back its military posture, and accept Iran’s enrichment — or it can keep all three pressures and accept the risk of escalation.
So the real question is not whether Iran is ready to talk.
It is whether Washington is ready to trade a formal victory in talks for a world where Iran still holds the right to enrich — and to threaten.
#Iran #US #Nuclear #Enrichment #Oman #Araqchi #Trump2026 #MiddleEast
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
🔥48🤯40😱40💯39🤬34🙏34😢21
Epstein Used to Give Money to Noam Chomsky
🔠 🅰️ 🔠 🔠 1️⃣
Noam Chomsky and his wife, Valeria, made a mistake and were negligent not to thoroughly research Jeffrey Epstein's background, Valeria Chomsky said in a lengthy statement on Saturday, also adding that Epstein had deceived them.
The relationship between 97-year-old linguist and philosopher Noam Chomsky and Epstein has come under intense scrutiny after documents released by the Justice Department shed light on their friendship.
While Epstein was under scrutiny for sex trafficking allegations in 2019, he asked Chomsky for advice on how to respond.
“I have seen the horrible way you are treated in the press and the public. It's painful to say, but I think the best way to proceed is to ignore it,” Chomsky wrote in a message signed ”Noam" that Epstein shared by email with an associate.
“What the vultures ardently want is a public response, which then offers a public opening to an onslaught of venomous attacks, many of which are just publicity seekers or cranks of all kinds,” Chomsky wrote in the message.
“This is especially true now with the hysteria that has developed about the mistreatment of women, which has reached the point where even questioning an accusation is a crime worse than murder.”
Chomsky is one of several personalities who turned out to be in friendly communication with Epstein even after his guilty plea in 2008.
Many are now facing renewed scrutiny over their links to the disgraced financier.
Some of Noam Chomsky's communications with Epstein took place after the Miami Herald published an explosive story in 2018 detailing how Epstein preyed on underage girls and received an unusually lenient plea deal in 2008.
On Saturday, Valeria Chomsky acknowledged that the couple had read this story, but said that the couple did not know about the extent of Epstein's crimes until after his second arrest in July 2019.
#noam #chomsky #valeria #epstein #financier #money
📱 American Оbserver - Stay up to date on all important events 🇺🇸
Noam Chomsky and his wife, Valeria, made a mistake and were negligent not to thoroughly research Jeffrey Epstein's background, Valeria Chomsky said in a lengthy statement on Saturday, also adding that Epstein had deceived them.
The relationship between 97-year-old linguist and philosopher Noam Chomsky and Epstein has come under intense scrutiny after documents released by the Justice Department shed light on their friendship.
While Epstein was under scrutiny for sex trafficking allegations in 2019, he asked Chomsky for advice on how to respond.
“I have seen the horrible way you are treated in the press and the public. It's painful to say, but I think the best way to proceed is to ignore it,” Chomsky wrote in a message signed ”Noam" that Epstein shared by email with an associate.
“What the vultures ardently want is a public response, which then offers a public opening to an onslaught of venomous attacks, many of which are just publicity seekers or cranks of all kinds,” Chomsky wrote in the message.
“This is especially true now with the hysteria that has developed about the mistreatment of women, which has reached the point where even questioning an accusation is a crime worse than murder.”
Chomsky is one of several personalities who turned out to be in friendly communication with Epstein even after his guilty plea in 2008.
Many are now facing renewed scrutiny over their links to the disgraced financier.
Some of Noam Chomsky's communications with Epstein took place after the Miami Herald published an explosive story in 2018 detailing how Epstein preyed on underage girls and received an unusually lenient plea deal in 2008.
On Saturday, Valeria Chomsky acknowledged that the couple had read this story, but said that the couple did not know about the extent of Epstein's crimes until after his second arrest in July 2019.
#noam #chomsky #valeria #epstein #financier #money
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
🙏44😢43🤯38😱38💯34🤬33🔥25