A truly bizarre series of events off the coast of Iran today that in my opinion were entirely provoked, if not staged, by the US. It started with multiple news reports that a US Army Apache helicopter had been shot down in the Persian Gulf but the two pilots emerged unscathed. What the hell was an Apache helicopter doing?
The AH-64 Apache is a twin-engine attack helicopter primarily designed for anti-armor warfare, close air support, and armed reconnaissance. Apparently it was conducting reconnaissance. The US claims that Iran shot it down, but Iran insists it did no such thing.
I am bothered by the claim it was shot down… If the rocket or bullets had hit the cockpit or damaged the main rotor, the craft would have plunged into the water and the pilots would not have survived. So what happened? Was one of the twin engines damaged but still able to function? Was the rear rotor damaged? Those are the only two scenarios I can imagine that would not have caused a catastrophic crash. Once the helo landed in the water, the pilots had to open the canopy and jump into the water. Hopefully the main rotor — assuming it was intact when the copter hit the water — shattered on impact. Otherwise, the pilots would have been shredded trying to escape.
Coincidentally with this crash, the NY Timespublished a story, written by David Sanger, discussing the state of US and Iranian negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program. Sanger wrote:
In the days before the latest flare-ups of violence in the Middle East, President Trump’s aides were negotiating with Tehran on four major elements of a nuclear agreement that U.S. officials contend would grind the program to a halt for 15 years or so. . . .
According to the officials and diplomats, here are the four major points of negotiation on a nuclear agreement between the United States and Iran:
1. A lengthy suspension of uranium enrichment
The United States has demanded for months that Iran agree to conduct no uranium enrichment for at least 20 years. The Iranians have countered by offering a 10-year halt, but American officials believe they will settle for 15 years.
2. Iran’s current stockpile of enriched uranium is diluted, or “downblended”
The United States would work with the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. inspection body, to dilute, or “downblend,” Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium, according to two American officials familiar with the negotiations. American officials envision an active role in handling the nuclear material, something Iran has always forbidden. Iranian officials say the United States would serve only as an observer. . . .
3. Iran dismantles its nuclear sites
The United States has demanded that Iran dismantle its three major nuclear sites at Natanz, Fordo and Isfahan. The United States struck all three in Operation Midnight Hammer nearly a year ago, severely damaging them. Iran has discussed dismantling two facilities but insists on leaving one open, in part to demonstrate it has not surrendered what it views as a “right to enrich.”. . .
4. Iran agrees to “snap” inspections
The United States wants international inspectors to be able to conduct “snap” inspections, anytime and anyplace inside Iran. It is not clear if the Iranian government will agree. As a practical matter, many of the suspect nuclear sites are inside Revolutionary Guards military bases, where inspectors have frequently been barred at the gates.
This summary represents the US position. I doubt the Iranians will agree to an end to all enrichment… They will likely insist on retaining the right to enrich up to 20% for medical isotopes. Dismantling Iranian nuclear sites is a non-starter. The IRGC will simply not accept such a condition. I think Iran will be willing to “downblend” the 60% enriched uranium it currently possesses but that will come with a price tag: immediate lifting of sanctions and the return of frozen assets. What about “Snap” Inspections? That will depend on the composition of the international inspectors. Iran has already been burned by the IAEA inspectors who reportedly collected intelligence on Iranian nuclear scientists and passed that information to Israeli and Western intelligence agencies. That information was used in June 2025 and in the current war to assassinate Iranian scientists.
While Pakistani sources who have access to the status and substance of the negotiations remain optimistic that a deal will be struck, I remain very skeptical. Beyond the nuclear items — which Iran says it refuses to discuss until the US lifts its blockade and there is a genuine ceasefire, which includes Lebanon and Gaza — I do not believe that Iran is going to compromise on its demands: lift sanctions, release frozen assets and recognize its joint-control over the Strait of Hormuz with Oman.
I think that today’s US attack on Iran was an effort to scuttle the negotiations. While Iran struck back hard at targets in Bahrain, Kuwait, Jordan and Kurdish controlled territory in northern Iraq, it limited its retaliation. Iran apparently still believes that there is a viable accord that will end the war, not only the attacks on Iran, but also bring security to Lebanon and Gaza. The onus is on Donald Trump to force Israel to accept the terms. That has the Zionists very nervous, which explains why they are spying on Trump’s negotiators.
I think the negotiations will fail — I hope I am proven wrong — because I do not believe Donald Trump will be willing to accept the concessions demanded by Iran. We will know more by close of business Wednesday.
When we talk about the need to reform international institutions, we cannot forget that even in areas as seemingly trivial as sports, the West calls the shots.
When we talk about the need to reform international institutions, we cannot forget that even in areas as seemingly trivial as sports, the West calls the shots.
The 2026 World Cup, hosted jointly by the U.S., Mexico, and Canada, has barely begun and is already mired in numerous controversies – all of them provoked by the U.S..
The main controversy involves Iran. The country is at war with the U.S. – a war initiated by the U.S. and Israel. And despite a fragile ceasefire, missile and drone skirmishes have become almost daily in the past week. The U.S. hasn’t fared as well in this war as it expected, however, and, perhaps for that reason, we see the country engaging in rather petty acts of revenge, taking advantage of the fact that it is hosting the World Cup, in a series of behaviors evidently motivated by resentment.
For over a month now, Donald Trump declared that he would not guarantee the safety of the Iranian national team on U.S. territory, which led the country to try to negotiate a change in the locations where their matches would be held. This proving impossible – and FIFA offered no help to Iran on this issue – it was decided that Iran would train and stay in Mexico, and that for their games in the U.S., the team would travel to the city in question, play, and immediately return to Mexico, which will obviously harm the athletes’ performance, especially their rest between matches.
To make matters worse, the U.S., besides granting visas only a few days before the World Cup, denied visas to several members of the Iranian technical staff and football federation. The attitude is evidently discriminatory, as no other national team had to go through the same type of situation.
Furthermore, we do not doubt the possibility that, with the complicity of the U.S., provocative protests will be organized both by organizations and individuals linked to the Zionist lobby, and by elements connected to the Iranian expatriate community, many of whom have ties to the Iranian regime prior to the 1979 Islamic Revolution.
The Iranians aren’t the only ones suffering abuse in this World Cup. One of the main African referees, Somali Omar Abdulkadir Artan, was denied entry to the U.S., despite having a visa, diplomatic passport, and FIFA documentation. Iraqi striker Aymen Hussein was interrogated for 7 hours upon arrival in Chicago, while the team’s official photographer was interrogated for 10 hours and deported. Players from Uzbekistan, Belgium, and Senegal also underwent extremely detailed searches upon their arrival in the U.S..
Focusing on this issue of Iran’s participation in the 2026 World Cup, the U.S.’s stance, and FIFA’s role, how is it possible that the U.S. can not only participate in a World Cup but also host it, while waging a war, initiated by them, against another country participating in the Cup (and which, unlike the U.S., earned their participation through merit)? Especially considering that the U.S. opened the war by massacring children at a school in Minab. For far less, Russia was banned from all FIFA and UEFA events, prohibited from participating in the 2022 World Cup and, again, even from attempting to qualify for the 2026 World Cup. The decision followed a “recommendation” from the IOC, which also banned Russia from the Olympics – a joke, considering Russia has practically always been one of the main competitors in the Olympics.
Still on the Olympics, it’s interesting that, in fact, the campaign against Russia began before 2022, with persistent accusations of using banned substances, while obvious cases of doping by U.S. athletes were ignored. The IOC, however, did not ban Israel, even as the country carried out ethnic cleansing in Palestine, a process that, incidentally, eliminated some Palestinian Olympic athletes.
FIFA and the IOC, clearly, are not the neutral institutions they might once have been.
Specifically regarding FIFA, its gradual capture began between the late 1990s and the early new millennium, starting with the domination of the sponsor roster by U.S.-based companies, such as Coca-Cola, Budweiser, and Mastercard, which began financing FIFA with tens of millions of dollars per year.
In 2010, the U.S. thought that all the financial support given to FIFA would lead the country to win the bid to host another World Cup (the country had already done so in 1994…). Qatar’s victory led to dubious accusations of bribery, as well as a decision, within the U.S., to launch a campaign of pressure and capture of FIFA.
As in many other cases over the past 15 years, the weapon used by the U.S. was lawfare. Claiming extraterritoriality for the most spurious reasons, the U.S. Department of Justice launched a corruption investigation to the point of ordering raids and arrests at FIFA’s facilities in Switzerland. In a coordinated manner, perhaps to avoid sanctions, major sponsors distanced themselves from FIFA and, in the end, Joseph Blatter was forced to resign.
Soon after, Gianni Infantino takes over. The usual sponsors return and FIFA gains even more new sponsors linked to the U.S., such as Bank of America. Quickly, the U.S. once again wins the bid to host a World Cup. Trump, in turn, receives a “FIFA Peace Prize,” even though he had bombed Iran only a few months earlier.
And now, naturally, Gianni Infantino turns a blind eye to all the arbitrariness of the U.S. government during the Cup.
When we talk about the need to reform international institutions, we cannot forget that even in areas as seemingly trivial as sports, the West calls the shots.
At the Anchorage summit last summer between U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, there was some optimism that the conflict in Ukraine might be resolved through diplomacy.
There appeared to be an atmosphere of bonhomie between the two leaders, and in particular, an openness on the American side to listen to Russia’s historic grievances about NATO’s enlargement, presenting a national security threat.
Only days later, however, Trump’s administration quietly approved the supply of new cruise missiles to Ukraine. After months of delay, those new types of weapons are now on their way to Ukraine. This firepower will give a deeper reach into Russia, which is already being assailed by long-range NATO drones.
The summit in the Alaskan capital in August 2025 was dubbed the “spirit of Anchorage.” The meeting was supposed to signal Trump’s commitment to finding a diplomatic settlement of the conflict, taking into account Russia’s historic territorial claims. There appeared to be a recognition on the American side of addressing Moscow’s concerns about the “root causes of conflict” from decades of NATO encroachment on its borders.
But nearly a year on, the diplomatic track has failed to gain any traction, as Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov acknowledged this week.
Trump has, of course, become embroiled in a disastrous war against Iran, one that is endangering the whole Middle East and the global economy.
So much for the “peace presidency” that he had promised. Still, one might expect him to at least pay some token attention to pushing diplomacy in Ukraine. No. Like a kid bored with a new toy, Trump has backed away, which makes all his past angst to stop the slaughter in Ukraine something of a superficial theater.
What is still going ahead, though, is the supply of over 3,300 U.S.-made cruise weapons, manufactured under a program called the Extended Range Attack Missiles (ERAM). The ERAM program began production in April 2025 of two new cruise missile designs.
One weapon is called the Rapidly Adaptable Affordable Cruise Missile (RAACM), manufactured by CoAspire. It has a range of 450 kilometers.
The other design, known as Rusty Dagger, has a much longer range of over 900 km, and is produced by Zone Five Technologies. Both companies are based in the U.S.
The ERAMs are much smaller than Tomahawk cruise missiles in terms of overall size, weight, and explosive warhead. But they were engineered to give Ukraine a cheaper option for deep strikes in Russian territory. They also do not have the iconic image of the Tomahawk and, therefore, can be supplied without arousing the same provocation.
They are designed to be deployed as air-launched weapons using F-16 fighter jets or MiG-29s, both of which are flown by the Ukrainian armed forces.
European NATO states – Denmark, the Netherlands, and Norway – are picking up most of the tab for the $825 million cost of supplying the ERAMs to Ukraine, according to the Pentagon.
It is being reported, although not officially confirmed, that the Rusty Dagger ERAM, the longer-range version, has already begun operations in striking Russia. The claims are based on the alleged recovery of missile debris, showing navigation equipment belonging to Five Zone Technologies.
Since the Anchorage summit last year, President Trump has sought to cast the Kiev regime and the European NATO leaders as unhelpful to his efforts to make a peace deal with Russia. There has also been a belief on that Russian side that Trump is genuine in his expressions of wanting to find a diplomatic resolution to the more than four-year war in Ukraine – the biggest in Europe since World War II.
Moscow has tended to rebuke the Zelensky regime and its European patrons for being intransigent and acting to undermine Trump’s peace diplomacy. There is no doubt that this criticism of European Russophobia blocking diplomatic engagement has some merit.
Nevertheless, a reality check is due on what Washington’s abiding agenda is.
Washington has led the long-term strategic policy of confrontation with Russia using the NATO alliance and Ukraine as a proxy. This has been Washington’s systematic policy under successive U.S. administrations, from Clinton in the 1990s to Bush, Obama, Biden, and Trump.
It was under Trump during his first administration in 2018 that the U.S. broke the taboo of supplying lethal weapons to Ukraine. Those munitions included $47 million worth of Javelin anti-tank missiles. Russia warned at the time that such arming of Ukraine would lead to open conflict. That prediction duly culminated in February 2022 during the Biden administration when Russia invaded Ukraine to defend Russian-speaking people who were being attacked and killed by the NATO-backed NeoNazi Kiev regime.
Indeed, Trump has boasted at various times about how he was the first president to send lethal weapons to Ukraine, while at the same time trying to blame the Biden administration for starting the war.
In his second administration, from January 2025, Trump has balked at supplying Tomahawk cruise missiles to Ukraine so as not to provoke Russia after Moscow gave stern warnings against such a move. And he has talked up his supposed desire to end the slaughter, at one point claiming he could achieve that in 24 hours.
Trump has also scaled back sending U.S. tax dollars as military aid to Ukraine, which might suggest that he is serious about winding down the conflict.
A more nuanced view is that what transactional Trump seems more concerned about is not so much reducing the supply of U.S. weapons to Ukraine but rather getting the Europeans to pay for it.
This is evident from the expected supply of over 3,300 ERAM cruise missiles to Ukraine, which Europe is financing. Trump has approved that delivery.
Unmistakably, this represents a grave escalation in the war against Russia, whereby the U.S. and its European NATO partners are making a concerted effort to weaponize the Kiev regime to strike deeper. The new cruise missile arsenal dovetails with the ramping up of European-supplied and financed long-range drone capability.
Thus, the inescapable conclusion is that Washington’s agenda of hostility towards Russia has not changed fundamentally. It has merely become nuanced with duplicity about seeking diplomacy, a charade in which Washington is supposedly thwarted by a recalcitrant Kiev regime and European Russophobes.
This same duplicitous charade is played with regard to Iran. Trump makes out that he wants to find a peace deal with Tehran, but that his efforts are continually sabotaged by Israel and its “crazy” prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, whom he gets on the phone to shout at, we are told. This, from a U.S. president who started a war of aggression against Iran 100 days ago on February 28 by murdering Iran’s supreme leader while he was saying prayers in his Tehran home, and on the same day killing 168 schoolgirls in a multiple air strike on a college in Minab.
The reality is that the United States could bring the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East to a rapid end by stopping the supply of weapons.
Trump’s so-called peace diplomacy is a con to cover up for the fact that U.S. warmongering is the root cause of conflicts, and this warmongering is not going to stop until it is defeated.
Since announcing a nominal cease-fire two months ago, Iran, Israel and the U.S. have remained locked in low-intensity violence that has become a new normal.
Astronomical ticket prices, soaring security costs and concern over traffic and transit snarls is mixed with pride in host cities and excitement over the U.S. team.
The United States plays Paraguay on Friday in the first U.S.-hosted game of the World Cup, at SoFi Stadium near Los Angeles. FIFA is requiring stadiums to hide the logos of their corporate sponsors during the tournament.
The bill also bars the use of funds for actions recognizing Russia's sovereignty over Ukrainian territory and mandates the provision of intelligence to Ukraine in support of its military operations.
Login
