Normalization under the Abram Accords encourages Arab dictators to support genocide
The US regime likes to talk about normalization under the Abram Accords as though it were a step toward peace. But there is no such thing as peace without justice, which will fall apart soon enough.
There have been several reports lately about dock workers refusing to service a Saudi ship with weapons headed for Israel.
The following report shows that both Saudi and the UAE are up to their eyeballs in the illegal Israeli arms trade.
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2025/08/09/ryao-a09.html
another starving kid. Trump tries to ban conversations about this atrocity. STOP pretending the US and allies are “democracies.” And stop letting Trumpites distract from the genocide by focusing on side issues.
This article from National Interest seems to have fallen through the cracks. I try to stay away from the highly biased US press, but once in a blue moon, an article shows up that makes some sense – at least in part.
…
8-13, 2025
…
The following is one of them, translated back into English.
Excerpts
The Biden administration, and now the Trump administration, have approached the Gaza crisis with the same combination of moral high ground and strategic incoherence that has characterized U.S. Middle East policy for decades.
…
Washington’s insistence on positioning itself as the indispensable mediator between Israel and Hamas does not reflect strategic wisdom. It simply reveals the persistence of outdated assumptions about American influence and regional dynamics.
…
The United States cannot hope to play the role of an honest broker while vetoing Security Council resolutions demanding a permanent ceasefire in Gaza and unconditionally supporting Israeli policies.
HERE’S WHERE THE US AUTHOR STUBBED HIS TOE:
The Abraham Accords represented a brief moment of strategic clarity in US Middle East policy, recognizing that Arab-Israeli normalization can proceed without resolving the Palestinian issue.
Apparently the author thinks that normalization (recognition of the criminal state of Israel and normalization of relations with it by Arab states) is a positive, but in fact, the late effects of this policy include the fact that, thanks to the neglect of the extreme atrocities and mass murder, states like Saudi now continue to support Israel economically and militarily, making life even worse than before.
There’s no moral justification for this kind of normalization.
So read with caution.
Translation with my notes in bold and in [brackets]
https://alkhanadeq.com/post/9183/لماذا-تفشل-واشنطن-في-صياغة-حل-لغزة
Wednesday, August 13, 2025, 03:44 AM
Why is Washington failing to formulate a solution for Gaza?
US mediation in Gaza has failed due to its absolute support for the occupying entity.
The US is pursuing a contradictory approach to the war in Gaza, based on the principle of unconditional military support for the occupying entity and overt pressure to limit humanitarian damage. This indicates that US policy suffers from strategic and moral inconsistency, as discussed in an article published by The National Interest and translated by the Al-Khanadaq website. It is attempting to mediate between Israel and Hamas despite its limited influence and lost credibility, leading to repeated diplomatic failures, as demonstrated in the recent ceasefire negotiations in Qatar.
The article also demonstrates that US reliance on external solutions alone does not address the structural roots of regional conflict, and that conflicts in the Middle East often require regional solutions, rather than Washington attempting to impose solutions or present itself as an indispensable mediator.
In addition, the article notes that understanding regional dynamics requires recognizing that power dynamics on the ground and local guarantees play a greater role than any American diplomatic pressure. It concludes that the American approach needs a radical reassessment based on strategic realism, focusing on specific, genuine interests, rather than the illusion of control or comprehensive solutions that have repeatedly failed.
Translated text:
The American approach to the Gaza war, which consists of unconditional support for Israel while exerting public pressure to limit humanitarian damage, is neither strategic nor morally consistent.
As the dust settled after another round of failed ceasefire negotiations between Israel and Hamas, the United States found itself abruptly cutting short the ceasefire negotiations in Gaza and sending its negotiating team home from Qatar after accusing Hamas of "lack of good faith." This was followed by Israel being given the green light to continue its military operation in Gaza.
This familiar pattern of diplomatic theater, which masquerades as serious statecraft, reveals the fundamental contradictions in American policy toward Gaza and, indeed, toward the broader Middle East.
The Biden administration, and now the Trump administration, have approached the Gaza crisis with the same combination of moral high ground and strategic incoherence that has characterized U.S. Middle East policy for decades. Washington’s insistence on positioning itself as the indispensable mediator between Israel and Hamas does not reflect strategic wisdom. It simply reveals the persistence of outdated assumptions about American influence and regional dynamics.
The Illusion of American Centrism
[American centrism is part of something bigger, ie, American dominance, ie, American hegemony, also known as the monopolar world. Let’s get real: America should have no part of any negotiations between Israel and Hamas, and to be perfectly blunt, there should be NO such negotiations. This issue can only be resolved by dissolving the crime syndicate we erroneously call “Israel”. The US has no legitimate role to play. ONLY foreign involvement can solve America’s problem, which is itself. Iran, Hezbollah and the Houthis are the only candidates so far for dissolving Israel and they have all made major inroads. Of course, the author does not touch on this issue]
The collapse of the recent ceasefire negotiations in Doha highlights a harsh reality that U.S. policymakers seem reluctant to acknowledge: the United States is no longer the primary driving force in Middle East policy. [It’s deeper than that. The US is the CAUSE of all Middle East conflicts, so it must simply butt out]
The United States cannot hope to play the role of an honest broker while vetoing Security Council resolutions demanding a permanent ceasefire in Gaza and unconditionally supporting Israeli policies. [Here is where the author becomes rational again]
Hamas’s apparent strategy, focused on redirecting attention and resources toward its ideological duty of jihad against Israel [there is nothing ideological about saving kids from starvation], suggests that the organization views the current conflict from a fundamentally different perspective than American negotiators. For Hamas, the ability to "raise its flags in Gaza" after months of devastating warfare is a strategic victory that transcends immediate tactical losses.
This disconnect between US diplomatic frameworks and regional reality has profound implications. When ceasefire proposals include complex schedules for hostage releases over a 60-day period, they reflect the mindset of the US diplomatic bureaucracy more than the existential calculations of the actual actors on the ground. [More specifically, granting Israel this much time is done for the tacit purpose of allowing it to exterminate more Palestinians as part of its plan to establish Greater Israel. That’s what the conflict is really all about. See my feature article as attempt to explain Middle east wars and events https://donhank.substack.com/p/middle-east-war-and-events-explainer]
Regional Context: Beyond the Gaza Strip
US policy toward Gaza cannot be separated from broader regional dynamics that often elude Washington. The cyclical nature of ceasefires and renewed conflicts not only reflects the impossibility of resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but also points to the failure of US policy to address underlying structural issues.[It’s not a failure in the true sense of that word. It is a deliberate scam of a US government pretending to solve a problem of its own creation to divert attention from the reality.]
The Abraham Accords represented a brief moment of strategic clarity in US Middle East policy, recognizing that Arab-Israeli normalization can proceed without resolving the Palestinian issue. However, the Gaza crisis has exposed the limits of this approach, as regional dynamics continue to be shaped by unresolved conflicts that US diplomacy has consistently failed to address.[This is where the author jumped the rails, trying to defend the deceitful Abram Accords, which were intentionally designed and misnamed as “peace” accords when the true intent was to scam Arab nations into supporting Israel while supporting its genocide and other atrocities against the Palestinians, The accords were a cover-up for US support of the genocide]
Realistic Approach
A more realistic American approach to Gaza would be based on a recognition of the limits of American influence and the potential for more harm than good in formal diplomacy. Instead of positioning itself as an indispensable mediator in conflicts where Washington lacks the tools and credibility to succeed, American policy should focus on:
Encouraging regional powers such as Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and even Turkey to assume greater responsibility for Palestinian governance and reconstruction. The illusion that American intervention is necessary to solve problems in the Middle East is over.
[The US, and this author, know that none of the above-enumerated countries have any intention of helping the Palestinians. Egypt prevented the big multinational peace march to Gaza to distribute aid there; Jordan helped the US and Israel stop the Iranian missile attack intended to discourage the genocide; Saudi Arabia was involved in the shipment of arms to Israel, as documented above; and Turkey cooperated with the terrorist al-Julani in his coup and takeover of Syria, resulting in an invasion of Syria by Israel. None of these dictatorships has any legitimate right to exist. The PEOPLE living in these countries all unanimously – according to polls – reject the idea of normalization with Israel, These regimes must be abolished along with the Israeli crime syndicate]
The illusion that American intervention is necessary to solve problems in the Middle East is over.
Supporting economic arrangements that create mutually beneficial relationships between the Palestinians and neighboring Arab states.
Recognizing that not every regional conflict requires American intervention, and that American diplomatic capital is often better reserved for issues where Washington has real influence and clear strategic interests. [Woa! There is NO issue in the Middle East where the US has any legitimate interests at all.]
The Price of Strategic Inconsistency
The current US approach to Gaza, which combines unconditional support for Israeli military operations with public pressure to limit humanitarian damage, achieves neither strategic logic nor moral consistency. This approach alienates regional partners, fails to achieve its stated humanitarian objectives, and perpetuates the same cycle of conflict by avoiding difficult questions about long-term regional arrangements.
The temporary ceasefires that have emerged represent tactical pauses rather than strategic solutions, largely because US policy continues to treat symptoms rather than address the underlying causes. The assumption that sufficient US pressure can change the fundamental calculus of regional actors has been proven time and again to be false, yet this assumption continues to guide US policy.
The alternative to this approach is not US withdrawal from the Middle East [This author is revealing his hand as an accomplice to hegemony. The alternative approach IS of course, US withdrawal from the region], but rather a more selective and effective form of engagement based on genuine strategic interests [US strategic interests are not the criterion! Only the interests of the citizens of those countries must be considered] rather than the illusion of indispensability. Until American policymakers develop the intellectual honesty to distinguish between what they can and cannot control [wrong focus, It doesn’t matter what the US CAN control. ONLY what the citizens desire is important, The author sounds reasonable but is in fact a propagandist for US hegemony], diplomatic failures like the recent ceasefire negotiations in Gaza will continue to define US policy toward the Middle East.
Source: The National Interest
Author: Leon Hadar
**
Here is a clue as to how open AI gets politicized!
Musk chatbot Grok likely suspended over calling out Israeli genocide!
As long as the truth about Israeli crimes is banned, the use of chatbots is limited.
**
Nima and Pepe Escobar
Putin rallies BRICS for a showdown as Trump turns up the heat in Alaska!
https://yandex.ru/video/preview/14896634890999899316
**
Lebanon is NOT a democracy.
The government voted to disarm Hezbollah but polls show 60% of Lebanese reject disarmament. The US controls the government. Trump sent envoy Tom Barak to Beirut with an ultimatum to disarm or else but Hezbollah decided to ignore the government’s decision. Hezbollah proved in 2006 that it can defeat Israel in that region.
Translation with my notes in bold and in [brackets]
https://alkhanadeq.com/post/9186/أكثرية-اللبنانيين-ضد-نزع-السلاح-الدوافع-والانعكاسات
Wednesday, August 13, 2025, 03:50
Majority of Lebanese Oppose Disarmament: Motives and Implications
National Consensus on Rejecting the Disarmament of the Resistance
According to a recent opinion poll conducted by the Directorate of Statistics and Opinion Polls at the Consultative Center for Studies and Documentation, between July 27 and August 4, more than 60% of Lebanese reject the disarmament of the resistance, a remarkable figure given the severe political divisions currently plaguing Lebanon. This position is not based solely on ideological or partisan considerations, but rather reflects a realistic reading of the security situation and the country's historical experiences.
The Weakness of Diplomacy in the Face of Actual Threats
The Lebanese majority believes that diplomacy alone is incapable of confronting threats, especially those posed by the occupying entity. This is based on past experience, which has proven that international agreements and guarantees have failed to prevent repeated attacks or assaults. In the absence of an effective deterrent force on the ground, negotiations and diplomatic messages remain of limited effect, while the resistance's weapons constitute the only practical tool to deter any potential attack. Regional complexities and the conflicting interests of major powers also increase the likelihood that diplomatic warnings will be ignored. This makes the presence of a real, tangible force on the ground a necessity to complement political efforts and provide Lebanon with leverage to ensure the protection of its borders and internal stability.
Lessons of the Syrian Experience
The second group, the rejectionists, recalled what happened in Syria after the fall of the Bashar al-Assad regime and the rise of Ahmad al-Sharaa (al-Julani). Minorities were directly targeted as soon as they lost their means of self-defense, as happened on the Syrian coast, where Alawites were killed and displaced. From their perspective, any disarmament of the resistance in Lebanon would create a similar security vacuum, especially given the continued presence of the current regime in Damascus, which they consider a potential threat if Lebanon's deterrent capabilities decline.
Thus, the Lebanese fear developments in Syria under al-Julani's leadership and the forces allied with him, considering them a source of existential threat. The loss of defensive guarantees for minorities has exposed them to threats and attacks, and the chaos and political shifts could quickly spill across the border, affecting Lebanese stability. Moreover, any security vacuum could be exploited to reimpose policies or a reality similar to what happened in Syria, making the maintenance of the resistance's weapons a key factor in ensuring national stability and preserving sectarian and societal diversity. This reading links internal security to regional shifts and considers Lebanon's geographic and political position to be vulnerable to their repercussions.
The Lebanese Army's Limited Deterrence Capability
The third reason why the majority of respondents rejected disarming the resistance [mostly Hezbollah] was their awareness of the Lebanese Army's limited capabilities to confront any Israeli aggression unilaterally. Despite its national role and domestic presence, the army has never engaged in a direct and comprehensive confrontation with the Israeli occupation in the absence of the resistance. Furthermore, the disparity in military capabilities, in terms of armament, equipment, and field experience, makes it difficult to rely on it alone to repel any large-scale attack.
Disarming the resistance poses a strategic threat to Lebanon because it disrupts the existing balance of power with the Israeli enemy and leaves it without a real deterrent capability against any potential aggression. Historical experience with occupation proves that the absence of deterrence encourages the enemy to persist in its aggression and impose its conditions, whether on security or economic issues such as water, gas, or border demarcation. Furthermore, dismantling this force opens the door to an internal security vacuum that could be exploited by regional powers or armed groups to destabilize the country, as has happened in other countries that have lost their defensive capabilities, leading to successive security, political, and economic collapses.
A Strategic Decision That Cannot Be Twisted
The indicators derived from this survey suggest that, in the view of the majority of Lebanese, disarming the resistance would be the greatest strategic mistake that could be committed against the country. This position, supported by the historical experience with Israel and the regional reality, requires treating the weapons issue as part of the national defense system, not merely as a contentious issue in the internal political debate. The security and deterrent considerations that justify maintaining the force transcend immediate divisions and point to the necessity of consensus on this issue as a comprehensive decision that protects Lebanon from ongoing threats.
**
Air strike update for 8-13, 2025
Translation with my notes in bold and [brackets]
August 13, 2025, 09:08
The Russian army strikes exclusively at military targets
The coordinates of the targets are checked and rechecked. Last night, explosions thundered at arsenals and military-industrial complex enterprises in the Poltava, Chernihiv, Kharkiv, and Sumy oblasts.
And now news is coming from the DPR. Fighting in the area of Konstantinovka, an important logistics hub for the militants. The enemy is trying to fight back, bringing up more and more reserves. Russian artillery is covering the positions where reinforcements are arriving.
In the Vremevsky direction, enemy shelters are being burned out with thermobaric shells. And this is already the Zaporizhia region. Drone operators shot down an engineering vehicle of the militants. They are used to build dugouts.
Bashar al-Assad didn't have a regime. All the Syrian people loved him, and I mean all of them. It's in my book entitled The Shah of Iran Mohammad Reza Pahlavi: Victim of His Times, because I have 4 chapters devoted exclusively to President al-Assad.
Syria is allied with Iran, because both al-Assad and the Shah were tolerant of all religions.
I distribute my books myself worldwide. For the Shah of Iran book, log onto https://arlenejohnson.livejournal.com for comments first and then ordering information.
Putrid Putin:
Let us be very clear. If Russia is to be given the green light to effectively occupy southern Syria - it will be done in collaboration with Israel. Israel will benefit because there will be a military force that will maintain security in the south while Israel expands north-eastwards towards the David's Corridor with Kurdish and US cooperation. This ultimately means that Russia is an ally of Israel and if you are an ally of Israel, you are automatically coming to agreement with the US deep state on some level.
Since the fall of Damascus, Israel has lobbied the US to enable Russian presence to remain in Syria. Now, the Russian presence is consolidating and potentially expanding to include the north-east, the south, and the coastal region, thus utterly containing Erdogan.
For Russians, revenge is a dish served cold - when Turkey shot down a Russian Sukhoi S-24 in 2015, everybody asked 'why no retaliation?'. This is the retaliation that could not happen without Zionist influence. Russia has control of the anti-HTS militia in the south of Syria since 2018. They were the first to enter Damascus in 2024. Russia will potentially take back control of these forces to patrol the south, while maintaining their surveillance posts on the border with occupied Golan that were increased in 2024, leading up to the November HTS attack on Aleppo.
At the time many people were questioning the Russian role as a replacement for UNIFIL on the Golan demarcation line. Many also asked if Russia would intercept Israeli missiles or would Russia defend Israel from the Resistance attacks from Syrian territory? Questions were being raised about the Russian agenda from 2017 onwards.
What is now unfolding does suggest that Russia was never an ideological ally for Syria or for the Resistance. On the contrary, Russia would have preferred Syria pivot towards Saudi Arabia and eventually, normalise with Israel. What we now see unfolding is the true Russian agenda without the impediment of a Syrian government that had blocked their advancement.
With Jolani desperate for Russian weapons and protection from many perspectives - we see the alliance between Russia and Israel being blatantly displayed for all to see. Anyone who tries to dismiss this as Putin 5D or 10D chess is not seeing the writing on the wall that was there long before 2024.
This is the new paradigm in Syria and it should send a strong message to all who ally with Russia, that Russian interests are the priority and that Russian and US deep states are not perhaps the enemies that they are portrayed as. They will not ever be allies but from a realpolitik perspective, they will come to agreements on the policing of Syria, perhaps as part of the Ukraine deal now being hatched.
I can add many personal conversations with Russian military and officials in Syria since 2017 that now make more sense in the current context. I will write something about these conversations and personal experiences very soon.
vanessa beeley
Aug 1