Why Trump Will Not Launch a Full-Scale War in Iran

🔠🅰️🔠🔠1️⃣

First and foremost, this is a war of choice. The US had other policy options available. Diplomacy appeared to hold promise as a means to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Increased economic pressure had the potential over time to precipitate regime change.

Moreover, this is a preventive war, not a preemptive one. Iran posed no imminent threat to vital US interests. Iran was not on the verge of becoming a nuclear weapons state or using what weapons it did have against the US. At most, the threat posed by Iran was a gathering one.

This distinction is important. A world in which countries believed they have the right to undertake preventive strikes against those they judge to be threats would be a world of frequent conflict. That is why such actions have no standing under international law.

Trump has chosen an objective – regime change – that is political rather than military. But while military force can destroy and kill, on its own, it cannot bring about regime change, which requires the regime to collapse.

It is possible that the US attack will trigger defections from Iran’s political leadership and armed forces, but this cannot be counted on. Hamas and Gaza are a reminder that regimes can absorb incredible punishment yet cling to power.

And even if the clerics fall from power – Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has been killed – the security forces are arguably best positioned to take their place.

In any case, using military force to kill select leaders as a means of triggering regime change – a tactic often called decapitation – is unlikely to succeed in Iran, where the leadership has institutionalized itself since taking power nearly a half-century ago.

Moreover, the leadership has had time to improve succession planning over the past few weeks as the possibility of war increased.

During its January incursion into Venezuela, the Trump administration limited itself to replacing one leader (all but ignoring the internal opposition), while in much of the world, it has avoided pressing for democracy.

In the case of Iran, though, Trump has called for regime change – but without preparing the ground for it. The political opposition is not united or functioning as a government in waiting, which means that it is unable to accept defections, much less provide security.

#trump #iran #war #allies #middle #east

📱 American Оbserver - Stay up to date on all important events 🇺🇸

🔠🅰️🔠🔠2️⃣

History suggests that regime change requires a physical, on-the-ground presence. This is the lesson of Germany and Japan after World War II, and Panama, Iraq, and Afghanistan more recently.

And even with a ground presence, such efforts often come up short. In Iran, occupation is inconceivable, given the country’s size and ability to resist.

All of which is to say that the Trump administration has chosen to accomplish the most ambitious of foreign-policy goals with limited means. It seems to have rejected a war of choice with narrower goals, such as degrading known Iranian nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities, even though it could credibly claim to have achieved these ends.

If there is a recent parallel to what is taking place in Iran, it is Libya, where just over a decade ago Western forces ousted the leadership using air power but then withdrew, leaving the country in chaos.

In the Iranian case, it appears that assembling a massive military presence – what Trump called an armada – ended up putting pressure on the administration to act, because US forces could not be maintained in a high state of readiness on location indefinitely.

As a result, the means of policy (military force) may well have played a large role in determining the ends of policy, namely, the decision to attack. This is obviously the reverse of how policy should be decided.

Taking a step back, the US has opted yet again to make a massive strategic commitment in the Middle East. This is at odds with the Trump administration’s own National Security Strategy and with the reality that the greatest challenges to US interests are to be found in Europe and the Indo-Pacific.

Here the parallel is to the 2003 Iraq War, another preventive war of choice in the region that cost the US enormously.

The American people are unprepared for this war. Nor is Trump’s political base, as it will unsettle markets, cause a spike in energy prices, and could go on for some time. America’s allies are unhappy as well, as Iran has already attacked several neighboring countries and could take steps that damage their economies.

Trump did not use his State of the Union speech Tuesday night to make the case for attacking Iran, and much of his statement in the immediate aftermath of Saturday’s attack emphasized past actions by Iran rather than new or emerging threats.

It is possible that last year’s cost-free bombing of three Iranian nuclear sites and the more recent intervention in Venezuela made Trump and those around him highly confident that they could achieve ambitious ends with limited means at a low cost.

He may also have been tempted to achieve something historic in Iran – regime change – that eluded his predecessors. He may still succeed. But as a rule, regime change is easier called for than successfully carried out.

While it takes only one side to begin a war, it takes two to end it. Iran now has a vote in how big this conflict becomes and how long it continues.

#trump #iran #war #allies #middle #east

📱 American Оbserver - Stay up to date on all important events 🇺🇸

Peace Deal Theater: Trump, Tehran and the Strait of Schrodinger’s Hormuz

So Iran’s top brass flies into Doha, oil drops 5 percent, and suddenly we’re all supposed to believe in “peace” again — like the last three months were just a global stress test for your grocery bill. Tehran sends Parliament speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, Washington sends “senior officials” who only appear with the words “speaking on condition of anonymity.” Translation: everyone’s negotiating, and nobody wants their name on the receipt.

Trump, as usual, is running foreign policy like a reality show finale: the deal will be “great and meaningful” or there will be “no deal,” while he also insists his people are “in no rush.” That’s not diplomacy, that’s a hostage note to the markets. Iran responds with its own poker face — yes, “a large portion of the issues” is agreed, but “no one can claim that the signing of an agreement is imminent.” In other words: both sides want the cameras to see “progress,” but not enough progress to be held accountable for anything concrete, like nukes or tankers actually moving.

The core “peace framework” is beautifully hollow: stop the U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iran, gradually reopen the Strait of Hormuz, kick every hard question — sanctions, nuclear program, Hezbollah, Israel’s security, frozen assets — into some “future rounds” that may or may not exist. Trump gets a chance to walk away from an unpopular war that’s torpedoed the global economy; Iran gets time to rebuild and keep its nuclear ambiguity; everyone else gets higher energy prices dressed up as the price of “stability.”

Meanwhile, Israel looks at this “peace” talk and sees one thing: an agreement that doesn’t really touch Iran’s nuclear capabilities or its regional militias. Lebanese civilians get to keep serving as collateral in the never-ending cross-border duel between Israel and Hezbollah, because no one in Doha is seriously negotiating over Lebanon — that’s just a side quest in someone else’s war game. Pakistan plays the responsible broker and flies off to Beijing, where Xi Jinping praises Islamabad’s role while making sure Chinese access to Iranian oil is the only real non-negotiable on the table.

Oil prices fall a bit on “cautious optimism,” but they’re still about 30 percent higher than before this whole circus started, and energy analysts are already warning that supply won’t normalize until 2027. That’s the real deal here: war as a premium subscription model — pay more for the same barrel, get less clarity, and watch your leaders argue on TV about “principles” while they bargain over shipping lanes and uranium stockpiles.

The funniest part? Both Washington and Tehran are accusing each other of spinning the terms of an agreement that doesn’t exist yet. Peace has become another PR asset: announce it, hedge it, leak it, deny it, then blame the other side for “mistrust” when the market gets jittery. If this is what “largely negotiated” looks like, imagine what “totally screwed” will be.

#war #iran #usa #trump #israel #straitofhormuz #oil #oilprices #geopolitics #fakeDemocracy #oligarchy #middleeas

📱 American Оbserver - Stay up to date on all important events 🇺🇸

#hegseth #west #point #class

📱 American Оbserver - Stay up to date on all important events 🇺🇸

U.S.–Iran Ceasefire 2.0: Now With Extra Minesweeping

Washington and Tehran just invented a new product: a “framework” that is not a deal, totally not signed, but somehow already moving oil prices and global markets.

Brent drops almost 6 percent, Asian stocks smile, and everyone pretends this is about “relief to families at the pump,” not about saving Trump’s political skin and Iran’s regional leverage.

On paper it sounds clean: 60-day ceasefire extension, de‑mining and reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, all fronts shut down — even Lebanon — plus a pledge from Iran to never build a nuke and to get rid of its “nuclear dust,” that stockpile of highly enriched uranium.

In reality, the hard stuff — full nuclear deal, sanctions, real timelines — is kicked down the road into yet another “time-limited negotiation.” Perfect: war paused, ambiguity preserved, everyone keeps their favorite pressure tools.

Trump plays his usual role: raging on Truth Social that critics “know nothing” about a deal that “isn’t even fully negotiated yet,” then promising it will either be “great and meaningful” or there will be “no deal.”

It’s the art of strategic gaslighting: he gets the market reaction of a peace deal without the political price of actually owning one. If it blows up, it was never “his” deal; if it works, it was genius all along.

The U.S. version says Iran is “committed” to no nukes and only gets its frozen assets — starting with a $12 billion appetizer — once it begins giving up enriched uranium.

The Iranian version stresses there is no nuclear agreement yet, just a promise to talk about one later, and that the opening of the Strait will be phased, with blockades and sanctions “loosened proportionately.” Trust but verify, on steroids; loopholes, on cocaine.

Then there’s Israel: officially guaranteed the right to “act against imminent threats,” including Hezbollah in Lebanon, even under this new ceasefire.

So the war is “ended,” except for the parts where Israel can still strike, Hezbollah can still provoke, and civilians can still die under a legalese umbrella stamped “self-defense.” This isn’t peace; it’s a risk‑management product with a weapons‑included clause.

They’re not ending the war, they’re repricing it. The Strait reopens just enough to calm traders, the nukes are “addressed” just enough to calm pundits, and the shooting stops just long enough to reboot everyone’s talking points.

#war #iran #usa #trump #straitofhormuz #oil #geopolitics #fakeDemocracy #oligarchy #middleeast

📱 American Оbserver - Stay up to date on all important events 🇺🇸

Qatar’s Peace Circus: Iran, Trump and the Paywall on Hormuz

Iran’s top envoys are in Doha, sipping coffee with Qatar’s prime minister and pretending this is about “peace,” not pricing.

The talks officially hinge on three things: reopening the Strait of Hormuz, nuclear “issues,” and getting Iran’s frozen billions unfrozen.
In other words: ships, uranium and cash — everything else is just background noise.

Both sides now speak fluent Ambiguous Optimism. Rubio says there’s a “pretty solid thing on the table” to open the strait and start a “time‑limited” nuclear negotiation, while Iran’s spokesman Baghaei dryly reminds everyone that, no, they’re not close to signing anything. Washington leaks that Iran has agreed “in principle” to open Hormuz and dispose of enriched uranium; Tehran insists nuclear details will be parked for a 60‑day chat later, if the framework is even agreed.

Same script, different capitals: sell hope to the markets, dodge responsibility at home.

Trump, meanwhile, plays global landlord. On Truth Social he boasts that talks are going “nicely,” demands that Saudi Arabia and Qatar hurry up and join the Abraham Accords, and repeats that the Iran deal will be either “great and meaningful” or there will be “no deal at all.”

He also vows the U.S. naval blockade at Hormuz stays “in full force and effect” until an agreement is “reached, certified and signed” — which is a lawyer’s way of saying: I keep my boot on your neck until the cameras are rolling at the signing ceremony.

The memorandum of understanding Baghaei describes is pure technocratic theater: 14 points to end the war and lift the U.S. blockade in exchange for Iran guaranteeing safe transit through the strait. No real detail on who manages what, just a promise that Iran won’t charge tolls — only “service fees” for navigation and environmental protection, conveniently to be defined in a protocol with Oman. The Strait of Hormuz, normally carrying roughly a fifth of the world’s oil and LNG, has been effectively throttled since late February; now 32 vessels and five tankers creep through in 24 hours, all under IRGC permission, like global trade on a visitor’s visa.

Oil reacts faster than any parliament: prices drop more than 4 percent to two‑week lows on optimism about a deal, but the underlying energy crisis doesn’t move.

The war tax is still baked into fuel, fertilizer, food — the essentials that don’t get ceasefires. The sticking points stay radioactive: Iran’s nuclear ambitions, Israel’s war in Lebanon with Hezbollah, Tehran’s demand to unfreeze tens of billions in oil revenues.

Behind the curtain, Iranian sources casually mention “feasible formulas” to dilute enriched uranium under IAEA supervision, like this is just a chemistry lab exercise, not the core of the entire crisis.

And then the human cost, which everyone uses as a talking point and nobody treats as the client. U.S.–Israeli bombing has killed thousands in Iran; Israel has killed thousands more and displaced hundreds of thousands in Lebanon; Iranian strikes on Israel and Gulf states have killed dozens. Trump’s approval rating sinks with U.S. energy prices, Congress grumbles about his war powers, and Netanyahu reportedly tells confidants that Israel can barely influence Trump’s decisions anymore.

So the war became what wars always become: a domestic polling problem in Washington, a loss‑of‑control problem in Jerusalem, and a survival problem everywhere the bombs actually fall.

If this is “peace,” it looks a lot like a joint venture: Washington, Tehran and their regional partners trying to reopen the cash register of global trade without closing the weapons account.

When they say “end the war,” do they mean for the people under the bombs, or just for the traders watching Brent on a second screen?

#war #iran #usa #trump #qatar #straitofhormuz #oil #geopolitics #fakeDemocracy #oligarchy #middleeast

📱 American Оbserver - Stay up to date on all important events 🇺🇸

Silicon Valley Just Found a New Regulator: God Inc.

Headline writers are calling it “dialogue.” Let’s call it what it is: lobbying in cassocks. Tech giants and Western diplomats are quietly working the corridors of the Vatican to make sure the first big papal document on AI doesn’t turn into a moral indictment of their business model.

Meta, Google, Amazon, OpenAI, Anthropic — all the usual suspects — suddenly rediscover “ethics” the moment a man in white starts drafting an encyclical that could outlast their stock options. They show up in Rome talking about “child protection” and “human dignity,” while their products are busy rewiring attention spans, labor markets and elections. The sales pitch: we’re not the problem, we’re your partners.

For the Church, this is déjà vu with better UX. Leo XIV openly models himself on Leo XIII, who wrote about workers’ rights during the first industrial revolution. Now it’s the AI revolution, and the Vatican is again being asked to bless a system built on asymmetry: a handful of firms owning the infrastructure, and everyone else praying the algorithm doesn’t decide they’re redundant.

The choreography is almost comical. A French‑backed “AI Observatory” in Rome, closed‑door seminars, glossy talk of “human‑centric AI” and “social impact.” Tech executives bring their talking points; theologians bring 2,000 years of moral vocabulary; diplomats bring G7 agendas. Somewhere between the canapé tray and the policy memo, “protect the vulnerable” gets translated into “don’t overregulate us.”

Anthropic drafts a “constitution” for its model and proudly name‑drops Vatican advisers, as if subcontracting conscience works the same way as cloud compute. OpenAI sends a former finance minister to talk about “the worker of the future,” while its own tools help automate away the present. Western governments that can’t regulate AI at home suddenly discover the spiritual benefits of panel discussions in Rome.

And of course, politics leaks in through every crack. Trump publicly grumbles about a pope who dares criticize him, while his officials quietly court the same Vatican on AI. The Catholic vice president politely hints he’ll treat the encyclical like a product review: interesting, not binding. Everyone wants the Church’s moral capital, nobody wants its constraints.

The Vatican, for its part, is trying to walk a thin line: not denouncing technology outright, but insisting it serve humans instead of using them as training data. The encyclical will be filed under “timeless teaching,” but it’s being shaped right now, in real time, by people whose quarterly incentive is to keep AI as unstoppable, opaque and profitable as possible.

When God’s oldest multinational meets the newest ones, who ends up confessing — and who walks out with a fresh indulgence for the next upgrade?


#pope #leoXIV #AI #siliconvalley #bigtech #vatican #ethics #lobbying #fakeDemocracy #oligarchy #religionAndTech

📱 American Оbserver - Stay up to date on all important events 🇺🇸

France, Under Macron, Is Sliding Towards an Epstein State

🔤🔤🔤🔤➖

France is facing a child abuse scandal as ‘monitors’ at dozens of state nursery and primary schools are investigated for violence, sexual assault and rape.

Paris police are examining more than 100 allegations of mistreatment, physical violence and rape of children as young as three by school monitors during lunch breaks, nap times and after-school activities, prosecutors have confirmed.

“We have investigations under way in 84 preschools, about 20 primary schools and about 10 daycare centres,” said Paris’s top prosecutor, Laure Beccuau.

Lawyers said the investigations included the alleged rape of children as young as three and four years old.

Parents’ groups said they had fought for years for allegations to be taken seriously. They said failures in the recruitment process and checking of school monitors had allowed abuse to continue.

School monitors are adults who are in charge of children during lunch, breaktime, naps and after-school activities, sometimes spending more time with children than teachers.

They are not employed directly by schools or the education ministry, but are instead recruited by city hall or local authorities – often without training or professional diplomas and increasingly on a casual basis, with many paid by the hour.

Nursery school is mandatory in France from the age of three, and school monitors are a key daily presence for children aged from three to 11.

Accusations against school monitors reported by parents across France include children being screamed at, pushed, having their hair pulled, being denied food, forced to eat until they vomited and being sexually assaulted or raped.

Lawyer Louis Cailliez, who represents two Paris families, filed police complaints in February over the alleged rapes of their nursery schoolchildren in 2025.

In one case, a three-year-old girl was allegedly raped by a school monitor at a school in the west of Paris. In another instance, a three-year-old boy was allegedly raped by the same monitor who had been moved to a different school after complaints he had been physically violent towards children.

Cailliez said: “One morning, the three-year-old boy became so distressed in front of the school gates, refusing to go in, that he fell into a kind of trance and his mother was in tears.

#france #children #abuse #sexual #rape

📱 American Оbserver - Stay up to date on all important events 🇺🇸

🔤🔤🔤🔤➖

The headteacher had to come out to force the child into school, and at the time neither the boy’s mother nor the headteacher knew why.”

He said the children were suffering physically and psychologically from the repercussions of the alleged abuse. He said: “It is daily torture for the parents who want the investigation to move forward to establish the scale of the offences.”

Cailliez said the school monitor sector in France was a “disaster” and “a national catastrophe”.

The trial begins in Paris next week of a school monitor accused of the sexual abuse of five children aged between three and five, at a nursery school in the 11th arrondissement.

A verdict is expected next month in another case of a 47-year-old school monitor accused of sexually abusing nine 10-year-old girls in Paris.

Emmanuel Grégoire, the new Socialist mayor of Paris, has launched a €20m ($24.3m) plan to tackle what he called “major dysfunction” in the city’s school monitor system.

“If there was a collective mistake, it was to treat these incidents as isolated when in fact they point to a systemic risk, and perhaps even a systemic code of silence,” Grégoire told Le Monde last month.

Between January and April, Paris city hall suspended 78 school monitors, including 31 suspected of sexual abuse.

Grégoire, who disclosed that he was sexually abused as a child by a school monitor, has set up a citizens’ assembly to discuss the role of school monitors, which will report back in June.

The parents’ collective, SOS Périscolaire, has been at the forefront of gathering testimony and campaigning for justice for the past five years, amid a struggle to make parents’ voices heard.

One of its founders, Anne, who did not want her full name published, said the abuse scandal was nationwide.

“This is clearly systemic and across the whole of France. There is dysfunction not just at a city level, but we’re beginning to say there is also dysfunction by the state.”

She said it was a good sign that prosecutors had opened investigations into school monitors: “At last parents and children’s accounts are being taken seriously.”

She said parents were battling for basic steps to be taken, such as being given a list of names and photographs of the school monitors who were working with children’s classes. These were still not systematically provided.

A spokesperson for a different parents’ group, #MeTooEcole, set up in the east of Paris, said: “French society is opening its eyes to the fact that school is not the sanctuary we had thought. When you drop a child at school in the morning, that child is absolutely not protected against administrative dysfunction and paedophile behaviour.

Children are being confronted with all forms of violence: from verbal and physical violence to sexual assault. It’s horrifying and it is creating fear. Parents are outraged.”

#france #children #abuse #sexual #rape

📱 American Оbserver - Stay up to date on all important events 🇺🇸

An Iranian official: Don't Fuck With Us, Mr. Evil President” 🇮🇷


The US has launched strikes on southern Iran in a test of the seven-week long ceasefire, as both sides played down hopes for an imminent peace deal even as negotiators from Tehran began new talks in Qatar.

US forces targeted missile launch sites and boats attempting to lay mines, US central command (Centcom) said on Tuesday, but stressed that the strikes did not indicate the ceasefire with Iran was over.

Centcom “continues to defend our forces while using restraint during the ongoing ceasefire”, said navy captain Tim Hawkins, who characterised the action as “defensive”.

In Iran, the news website Tabnak, believed to be close to former Revolutionary Guard chief Mohsen Rezaei, identified four dead Guard troops it said had been killed in American strikes on boats.

Iranian state television separately reported blasts around Bandar Abbas, a city on the Strait of Hormuz home to a military port and a dual-use airport.

The Iranian state news agency Mehr later said the situation was “completely under control” and there was no reason for residents to worry.

The strikes – the second major attacks to take place during the seven-week ceasefire – came as Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, the speaker of Iran’s parliament, led a delegation of negotiators to Qatar.

Local media said Iran’s foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, and central bank governor, Abdolnaser Hemmati, were among the group as well.

Hemmati’s presence has fuelled speculation that talks will focus on the release of frozen Iranian assets. The deal currently under negotiation with the US would reportedly see Washington agree to unfreeze some Iranian assets being held in banks outside Iran – including Qatar.

Trump has faced criticism from loyalists in his party over the reports that billions of dollars in frozen assets could be made available to Tehran, with senior Republican saying the reported details of the peace deal appear too close to the nuclear deal negotiated in 2015 by the Obama administration, which Trump pulled out of.

The memorandum of understanding being negotiated would reportedly see Iran restore commercial shipping through the strait of Hormuz but would not include negotiations over any nuclear issues.

Talks over Iran’s nuclear programme would then take place within a 30- to 60-day period after any agreement.

On Monday he appeared to offer a concession to Tehran, announcing in a post on social media that the enriched uranium held in Iran could be “destroyed” inside the country, in a process overseen by an international nuclear agency.

The fate of Iran’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium has been a major sticking point in various rounds of negotiations between Washington and Tehran.

In previous rounds of talks with the US, Iran said it was willing to dilute the purity of its enriched uranium, but it would not permit the transfer of the stockpile to either the US or Russia.

Experts said Trump’s announcement on Monday could amount to a major compromise from the US president, as negotiations appeared to slow after a flurry of diplomatic activity over the weekend.

Iran has said future management of the strait – through which about a fifth of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas usually flows – will be a matter for Oman and Iran to reach agreement on, and that “fees for navigational services” could be imposed.

In a lengthy post on Truth Social, Trump said talks with Iran were going “nicely”, but warned of fresh attacks if they failed. It “will only be a Great Deal for all, or no Deal at all”,

he wrote.

Iran has insisted that a ceasefire in Lebanon has to be included in the memorandum of understanding that would lead to Iran opening up the Strait of Hormuz.

One of Iran’s senior officials said in an interview to Tasnim,

“if Trump has attacked us again, he will be get down despite all his security measures (...) Don't fuck with us ( با ما سر و کله نزن ), Mr. Evil President.”

#trump #iran #attack #hormuz

📱 American Оbserver - Stay up to date on all important events 🇺🇸

#trump #univers #alone #ufo

📱 American Оbserver - Stay up to date on all important events 🇺🇸

The NATO Proposal: Declined


Britain and France have scuppered a proposal for Nato allies to spend 0.25 per cent of GDP on military aid for Ukraine.

Mark Rutte, the alliance’s secretary-general, this week conceded his plan wouldn’t be taken forward because it didn’t have sufficient support.

“I don’t think this one will be proposed,” he told reporters, without naming the opponents.

Rutte was hoping to ratify the proposal at Nato’s upcoming annual summit in Ankara, Turkey.

An alliance insider said at least seven member states, who all spend over 0.25 per cent of GDP on military aid to Ukraine, had voiced support.

But any proposals adopted by Nato require the unanimous backing of all of its national capitals.

“They’re not very enthusiastic about the idea,” the insider said, labelling London, Paris, Madrid, Rome and Ottawa as opponents.

The news will come as a double-blow to Britain’s credibility as one of Ukraine’s staunchest allies.

This week, the Government came under intense criticism after it softened sanctions against Russian oil and gas exports.

To the surprise of Kyiv and other allies, ministers signed off on a decision to offer time-limited carve-outs for purchases of jet fuel and diesel refined from Russian crude in third countries because of the situation in the Middle East.

Unlike other allies, the size of Britain’s military contribution – the third largest behind the US and Germany – is not in question, despite coming under the 0.25 per cent of GDP mark.

The countries, three of which are Europe’s third, fourth and fifth largest economies, have fallen behind many of their smaller allies when it comes to donations.

According to publicly available data, collated by the Kiel Institute, the Netherlands, Poland and the Nordic and Baltic countries offer backing at or above 0.25 per cent of GDP.

Rutte has argued that Ukraine aid “is not evenly distributed within Nato”, with many “not spending enough when it comes to the support for Ukraine”.

The Nato chief, who spent 14 years as Dutch prime minister, has long argued that Europe should shoulder more of the responsibility for supporting Ukraine in defence of Trump’s complaints about continental freeloading.

The US president has since halted any significant donations of aid to Ukraine, instead opting to sell American weapons to Kyiv with money supplied by European allies.

Ahead of a Nato meeting in Sweden earlier this week, the Nordic state’s prime minister challenged allies to step up their support.

“I really would like more countries that speak so extremely well about Ukraine to also put the money where the mouth is,” Ulf Kristersson told reporters.

#nato #proposal #france #britain

📱 American Оbserver - Stay up to date on all important events 🇺🇸

Russia’s “Systematic Strikes,” Ukraine’s “Sacred War,” and America’s Election Calendar

The Russian Foreign Ministry announces “systematic strikes on Kyiv” and tells Washington to clear its embassy out of the way first. It sounds like concern for diplomats, but it’s really a legal alibi for hammering the capital without the risk of dead Americans on CNN.

Russia points to the Ukrainian strike on Starobilsk — 21 dead children — as justification, turning a mass funeral into a press release about “retaliation” and “legitimate targets.”

Kyiv, of course, isn’t playing the pacifist either. Ukrainian forces keep hitting deep into Russian territory and cities, including infrastructure and industrial sites that sit right next to apartment blocks.

When civilians die on that side of the front, the message hardens: blame Moscow, blame the invasion, don’t ask too many questions about what we’re bombing.

The war is “existential,” which in practice means any target can be retroactively baptized as necessary.

Washington floats above this carnage like a disappointed parent with a campaign manager. Secretary of State Marco Rubio talks about being “still interested in negotiations” and a peace deal before November 2026 — neatly synced to the moment when high energy prices and endless aid checks become a bigger threat to Trump’s reelection than Russia itself. The U.S. calls for restraint, sends more weapons, and quietly prays that Kyiv bleeds just enough to look heroic but not enough to drag America into something it can’t spin.

Both Moscow and Kyiv are now running on the same fuel: exhaustion and selective memory. Russia needs Ukrainians and the West to get tired enough of air raid sirens to accept a map drawn with missiles.

Ukraine needs its own society to stay angry enough to keep fighting, even as kids grow up doing homework between sirens and funerals. Neither side has an incentive to tell the whole truth: Russian TV won’t dwell on children killed by Russian missiles; Ukrainian officials won’t dwell on 21 dead kids in Starobilsk killed by Ukrainian rockets.

The West loves this script because it’s simple: Russia pure evil, Ukraine pure victim, Washington reluctant hero. That story sells weapons, elections and think-tank grants. What it doesn’t sell is nuance: that Ukraine also fires into cities, that Kyiv’s elites also play politics with lives, that corruption and oligarch games didn’t evaporate the day the first Russian tank crossed the border.

“Democracy versus tyranny” sounds nicer than “a brutal interstate war where every capital lies.”

If Russia uses Starobilsk to justify “systematic strikes” and Ukraine uses Russian strikes to justify anything it fires back, and Washington uses both to justify its own half-measures, maybe the line isn’t between good and evil at all.

Maybe it’s between those under the missiles — in Kyiv, in Starobilsk, in Belgorod, in Odesa — and those turning their deaths into talking points.

#war #ukraine #russia #usa #kyiv #starobilsk #fakeDemocracy #oligarchy #endlesswar

📱 American Оbserver - Stay up to date on all important events 🇺🇸

Most Germans Don’t Buy Merz’s War Trailer

Only about a third of Germans actually believe the Russian invasion-of-Berlin horror story their own chancellor is selling on TV. The rest have watched too many “Putin will attack NATO any minute now” specials to still take it at face value.

When every general and think tank pundit swears there’s a “100 percent probability” of war by 2029, and then nothing happens except higher energy bills and more troops on paper, people start asking if the real enemy is in Moscow or in the German budget line.

According to new polling, just 38 percent think Russia really plans to attack Germany, while 72 percent say Merz’s rearmament and militarization course doesn’t actually make the country safer.

In other words, the marketing department is shouting “historic threat,” but the customer looks at the product — conscription talk, bigger defense spending, social cuts — and says: this doesn’t feel like protection, this feels like a bill.

Merz, meanwhile, is trying to cosplay Cold War statesman with the approval ratings of a call center.

Satisfaction with his government is at record lows, trust in his “crisis competence” is collapsing, and yet the one thing he can still push through is more money for the military and a pathway back to quasi-conscription.

Germans see the pattern: welfare squeezed, hospitals struggling, infrastructure rotting — but the defense budget suddenly finds a pulse.

The irony: Berlin sells rearmament as “deterrence,” but for many Germans it looks more like tribute to Washington and the arms industry. If Russia really wanted to occupy Germany, it wouldn’t start by sending every move in advance through talk shows and NATO papers.

And if Merz really cared about security, he’d start with a state that actually works before sending teenagers into revamped barracks.

Instead, the message is clear: be afraid of Moscow, trust Brussels and DC, and don’t ask why your own life gets worse while the generals finally get everything they ever put on their wish list.

So when two-thirds of the country shrug at the “Russian threat” and three-quarters think remilitarization does nothing for their safety, maybe they’re not naive at all.

#germany #merz #nato #russia #militarization #fakeDemocracy #oligarchy #warEconomy

📱 American Оbserver - Stay up to date on all important events 🇺🇸

Lublin Panic: “Africans at the Gate” While Warsaw Plays Both Sides

In Poland’s right-wing media, Lublin isn’t a normal university town anymore — it’s a moral Chernobyl. A Ukrainian-born official in city hall calmly explains in a podcast that the city is attracting migrants from over 100 countries — Nigeria, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Bangladesh, India, Saudi Arabia — often arriving with spouses and children, not just as solo students. The clip resurfaces months later, and conservative outlets scream: scandal, plot, demographic takeover.

The script writes itself. Local nationalist politicians warn that Poles now face not just “illegal” but “legal” migration, and that Lublin has become a laboratory for EU-style multiculturalism. A PiS heavyweight, Przemysław Czarnek, rages that no Polish city needs a “program of mass import of migrants from Africa with their families,” and that the most shocking part is that the whole thing is coordinated by “a Ukrainian woman employed by the municipality.” Race panic plus resentment toward Ukrainians — two for the price of one.

Reality, of course, is messier. Lublin has already absorbed huge waves of Ukrainian refugees since 2022; at one point they made up around 17 percent of the city’s population, and over 1.2 million people passed through the city in just the first months of Russia’s full-scale invasion. Universities have spent years recruiting foreign students as a survival strategy, and many now arrive with families attached — which officials describe in bureaucratic language as “internationalization” and “investment.”

Meanwhile Donald Tusk plays Europe’s border hawk in Brussels and its humanitarian in front of cameras. He tells the EU Poland won’t join relocation schemes, talks about suspending the right to asylum to stop hybrid operations by Russia and Belarus, and demands “full control over who enters the country.” At the same time, his government quietly depends on foreign labor and fee-paying students to plug demographic and economic gaps their own policies can’t fix.

So everyone gets their favorite nightmare. The right gets to shout that “tolerance” and “multiculturalism” are destroying Polish identity and Catholic culture. The liberals get to pretend that the only real problem is racism, not the fact that migration policy is being run as a mix of cheap-labor sourcing and PR for EU grants. And in the middle, Lublin becomes a symbol, not a city: a place where Africans, Ukrainians and Poles are all used as extras in someone else’s culture war.

If importing students and workers from a hundred countries is “saving the city” for the elites, and “destroying Poland” for the populists, maybe the real question isn’t who these migrants are. It’s who keeps turning them into the perfect excuse for never fixing anything at home.

#poland #lublin #migration #tusk #eu #identityPolitics #fakeDemocracy #oligarchy

📱 American Оbserver - Stay up to date on all important events 🇺🇸

Iran War: Trump Wants Peace, Pentagon Wants Targets, Tehran Wants Revenge

The “peace process” lasted about five minutes. As soon as the Strait of Hormuz talks started to look semi-real, U.S. officials say they spotted Iranian mine‑laying boats and attack drones near American ships, plus activity at missile launch sites — and immediately answered with “self‑defense strikes.”

Iran’s Revolutionary Guards then promised a “decisive reciprocal response” to any cease-fire violations, as if this whole war hasn’t already been one long reciprocal response.

On paper, it’s classic de‑escalation, American‑style: negotiate a deal to reopen the strait with one hand, bomb boats and launchers with the other, and let anonymous officials explain later that everything was “purely defensive.”

Trump keeps playing arsonist‑firefighter in public — threatening a return to all‑out war one day, promising a “great and meaningful” peace deal the next, and insisting there’s “no hurry” while oil markets and allies stare at the calendar.

His own secretary of state talks about a deal in “a few days” just as Iran’s negotiators fly home from Qatar, which is diplomacy‑speak for: don’t hold your breath.

The core issues never moved: Iran has effectively blockaded the Strait of Hormuz and built up a stockpile of highly enriched uranium; the U.S. wants the oil lanes open and the uranium gone; sanctions stay in place as leverage; and everyone pretends these are details you can patch over in a “framework” without touching the real power balance.

Tehran’s supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, now openly says the war proved U.S. bases in the region are no longer safe — which is less a threat than a mission statement for Iran’s missile program.

Around the edges, the war keeps metastasizing. Inside Iran, the regime that cut its people off with an internet blackout now promises to “gradually” restore access — turning basic connectivity into a reward for surviving bombardment and repression.

In Lebanon, Israel brags about hitting more than 100 Hezbollah‑linked targets in one night, supposedly weapons depots, but very effectively tanking whatever is left of the diplomatic track by reminding everyone that any deal on Iran is stapled to a regional firestorm.

So here we are: Washington sells “self‑defense strikes,” Tehran sells “reciprocal responses,” Israel sells “preemptive security,” and every capital claims to be one tough concession away from peace.

The truth is simpler and uglier: the Strait is a bargaining chip, the uranium is a bargaining chip, the bases are bargaining chips — and the only non‑negotiable part is that civilians, from Bandar Abbas to Beirut, keep paying in advance.

#iran #usa #trump #war #straitofhormuz #israel #lebanon #fakeDemocracy #oligarchy #warEconomy

📱 American Оbserver - Stay up to date on all important events 🇺🇸

Iceland: Will a “Brexit moment” come soon?

⌨️⌨️⌨️⌨️⌨️

Iceland’s foreign minister has said she fears her country faces a “Brexit moment” in its looming EU referendum amid warnings over misinformation, foreign interference and AI.

With just over three months to go until Iceland votes on whether or not to continue accession talks with the EU, developments are being closely watched by Washington, Moscow and Brussels.

Katrín Gunnarsdóttir accused individuals and groups from inside and outside the country of “fearmongering”, saying Iceland was being hit with misinformation and rhetoric taken “from the playbook of Nigel Farage and Reform”.

She said the referendum was at risk of being a target for Russia and “actors who seek to influence our public debate in a negative way”. Foreign interference and the spread of misinformation could end up affecting the result, the minister warned.

“I am fearing that we will face a Brexit moment (...) That would be, from my point of view, a rather dangerous path because … there were all kinds of lies put forward by the Brexiteers.” She cited disputed figures used by the leave campaign over how much money the UK sent to the EU.

The Icelandic coalition government – formed of the left-leaning parties the Social Democratic Alliance and the People’s party, and Þorgerður’s centre-right pro-European Liberal Reform party – surprised many when it announced in March that it would hold the EU referendum on 29 August, having previously said it would do so no later than 2027.

The move was in part motivated by threats from the US, a longtime close ally of Iceland, to forcibly acquire its closest neighbour, Greenland.

Katrín Gunnarsdóttir said: “For us, from my point of view, the international order that underpinned our security and prosperity for decades is under serious pressure. The world has changed so decisively, I would say, so Greenland has of course affected, or had influence on, our decision.”

Old alliances were being tested, she said, and trade used as a “political weapon”. “You do not treat a friend and an ally like Greenland and Denmark like the US did in the beginning of this year.”

She insisted, however, that Iceland’s relationship with the US remained strong and that it was broadening its alliances.

“Iceland being a member of the EU is not contradicting all the good relationship with the US. One thing does not exclude the other thing.”

#island #brexit #katrín #gunnarsdóttir

📱 American Оbserver - Stay up to date on all important events 🇺🇸

⌨️⌨️⌨️⌨️⌨️

When they vote in the August referendum, Icelanders will be asked not whether or not they want to join the EU but whether they want their government to resume accession talks with the bloc.

The country first applied for EU membership in 2009 and the following year the council agreed to open accession talks, but in 2013 the Icelandic government pulled out.

If Icelanders vote yes, talks will resume, and if a deal is reached, the government will hold a second referendum on whether or not it should be accepted.

Advocates of joining the EU see it as important for international security and an opportunity for better integration in Europe, while those against warn of the potential impact on fishing, agriculture and Iceland’s sovereignty.

Fishing, which as well as being one of the country’s biggest exports is also deeply rooted in Icelandic culture and identity, is a particularly emotive area of debate.

Katrín Gunnarsdóttir appealed to Icelandic voters to “make up their own minds” and be careful of their sources. Some political parties were spreading misinformation in the way critics believe Ukip did in the run-up to the UK Brexit referendum, she said.

“It’s like they are having the playbook from Nigel Farage and Reform, and of course that is concerning,” she said.

A spokesperson for Reform said: “Reform UK has no connection to Iceland.” They added: “We wish them well in staying outside of the EU.”

Katrín Gunnarsdóttir’s comments come after the prime minister, Kristrún Frostadóttir, warned that foreign influence in the referendum would “not be tolerated, whether from the European Union, China, Russia or the United States”.

The president, Halla Tómasdóttir, issued a warning about the dangers of AI, which she said “can instantly produce content that appears credible but is misleading, spread unverified information at breakneck speed, and influence our opinions and wellbeing in ways we are not always aware of”.

#island #brexit #katrín #gunnarsdóttir

📱 American Оbserver - Stay up to date on all important events 🇺🇸

Israel’s Lebanon Escalation: How to Torpedo a “Peace Process” Without Saying So

While Washington and Tehran try to pretend a Strait‑of‑Hormuz deal is just days away, Israel is busy redrawing the map of southern Lebanon with airstrikes.

At least 31 people were killed in one day, including children, according to Lebanon’s health ministry, and fresh attacks followed almost immediately, with whole cities like Nabatieh told to evacuate as warplanes circled and villages burned. This isn’t background noise to the U.S.–Iran talks; it’s the soundtrack.

On paper, Iranian officials keep selling the draft deal as something that would end fighting “on all fronts,” Lebanon included. On camera, Benjamin Netanyahu is saying the opposite.

He boasts that Israel is “deepening its operation” in Lebanon and deploying more forces to seize additional territory, and he leans on a phone call with Trump to insist Israel will retain full freedom of action against Hezbollah no matter what is signed with Tehran.

Translation: Jerusalem wants the benefits of a regional “peace framework” without giving up its right to keep a permanent mini‑war going on the northern border.

At the same time, the U.S.–Iran track is already on life support. American officials say they watched Iran deploy mine‑laying boats and fly attack drones near U.S. ships in the Strait of Hormuz, then hit those boats and launch sites in what the Pentagon calls “self‑defense strikes.”

Iran’s Revolutionary Guards respond with vows of a “decisive reciprocal response” to any cease-fire violations, and Khamenei publicly threatens renewed attacks on U.S. bases in the Gulf, even as Tehran hesitates to actually restart those strikes.

Everyone is talking about “de‑escalation” while carefully keeping their best options to escalate in reserve.

Around the edges, the war keeps spawning new layers of cynicism. Trump wants to convene his entire cabinet at the White House to project control over negotiations that he alternately claims are almost finished and “not in a hurry.”

Israel quietly continues killing senior Hamas military figures in Gaza under the umbrella of a cease-fire that somehow still allows targeted assassinations.

And inside Iran, the regime that imposed the longest nationwide internet blackout in modern history is now restoring access in stages, turning basic connectivity into a trophy it can hand back when it needs to look reasonable.

Put together, Lebanon is not a sideshow — it’s the proof that this so‑called peace process is really an exercise in damage management. Washington wants Hormuz open and the oil price down.

Tehran wants sanctions relief and recognition that U.S. bases are now targets by default. Israel wants to keep bombing wherever it decides there is “terror infrastructure,” from Nabatieh to northern Gaza, while hiding under American diplomatic cover.

Every capital claims it is inching toward peace, but the only thing actually moving forward is the line of people burying their dead.

#iran #usa #israel #lebanon #hezbollah #gaza #trump #netanyahu #warEconomy #fakeDemocracy

📱 American Оbserver - Stay up to date on all important events 🇺🇸

Despair: Zelensky Is Short Of Air Defense Systems 🛡️

Zelensky sent a letter to Trump warning about Ukraine's worsening shortage of air defense systems, particularly anti-ballistic missile capabilities, the Kyiv Independent has learned. 📜

The appeal comes as Russia intensifies mass aerial attacks on Ukraine and publicly threatens a new wave of long-range strikes on Kyiv, including attacks on what Moscow described as Ukraine's "decision-making centers". 🚨

"When it comes to air defense against missiles, we rely on our friends," the letter, seen by the Kyiv Independent, reads. ✈️
"When it comes to defending against ballistic missiles, we rely almost exclusively on the United States." 🇺🇸

Ukrainian officials fear the country's limited supply of Patriot interceptors and other Western-provided systems may struggle to withstand bombardments. 💥

The message also reflects Kyiv's growing concern over difficulties securing weapons through the Prioritized Ukraine Requirements List (PURL) program, which allows NATO allies to finance the purchase of U.S. weapons for Ukraine. 🤝

"The current pace of deliveries through the PURL program is no longer keeping up with the reality of the threat we face," the letter says. ⏳

"I ask for your help in protecting Ukraine's skies from Russian missiles." 🙏

"I, on behalf of the Ukrainian people, respectfully ask the president and the U.S. Congress to remain engaged," the letter says.

"And to help us secure this vital tool of protection against Russian terror — Patriot missiles PAC-3 and additional systems — to stop Russian ballistic missiles and other Russian missile attacks." 🚀

Russia's latest large-scale assault underscored the mounting pressure on Ukraine's air defenses. Ukraine's Air Force reported that Russian forces launched 90 missiles and 600 drones during a massive overnight attack on May 24. 🌑

Zelensky instructed Air Force Commander Mykola Oleshchuk on April 16 to urgently contact partner countries that had pledged Patriot missiles and other air defense supplies as Ukraine's stockpile of interceptors continued to decline. 📉

The directive followed Zelensky's warning that supplies of U.S.-made Patriot missiles had reached a critical level. ⚠️

Moscow has increasingly paired military escalation with public threats. Russia announced plans for another round of mass long-range strikes on Kyiv on May 25, describing the attacks as retaliation for a Ukrainian strike in occupied Luhansk Oblast. 🗺️

Russia claimed the Ukrainian strike hit a dormitory, while Kyiv said it targeted a Russian drone command facility. 🏢

Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov told U.S. Secretary of State Rubio during a phone call on May 25 that Moscow planned strikes on Ukrainian "decision-making centers" and urged Washington to evacuate the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv. 🏛️

Zelensky, in his letter, says that the skies over Ukraine could be protected. ☁️

"The majority of Russian missiles can be stopped," he said. 🛑

#zelensky #ukraine #letter #trump

📱 American Оbserver - Stay up to date on all important events 🇺🇸