The Iran war is a catastrophe for the US
Further analysis by me would be redundant. Just read what's happening as reported in the foreign press. Don't trust the US press. It just repeats Trump's lies.
Scott Ritter:
Strategic calculations failed. 40 Israeli F-35s wiped out over night!
Iran’s Fath-360 Wipes Out 40 F-35s in 30 Min — US Defense In FREEFALL | Scott Ritter
**
Translation from Arabic with my notes in bold and in [brackets]
https://alkhanadeq.com/post/10524/إيران-تعيد-ترتيب-المنطقة-ضمن-نظام-إقليمي-جديد
Thursday, April 2, 2026, 1:16 AM
Iran is reshaping the region within a new regional order
Iranian ballistic missiles
Amidst the escalating American-Israeli aggression against Iran, the Islamic Republic appears to have successfully shifted the conflict from a limited and swift strike to an open-ended war of attrition that has lasted from days to weeks to months, with the potential to continue for many more months. According to an informed Iranian source speaking to Al-Khandaq, Iran has prepared for a war lasting from six months to two years, equipping its people, military capabilities, and the necessary supplies of food, provisions, and medicine. It has allocated $100 billion to cover the costs of this war and to repair its material losses. This shift in itself constitutes a strategic achievement, as it has exposed the limits of American power and demonstrated that military and technological superiority alone does not guarantee a swift victory. American officials have acknowledged on more than one occasion that any large-scale confrontation with Iran would be “costly and protracted” and that the regime cannot be toppled by airstrikes. Meanwhile, reports within Congress have warned of sliding into a war with no clear end in sight and no way out.
In parallel, divisions have emerged within the Western camp, with most NATO countries expressing reservations about engaging in escalation. This reflects an unprecedented disagreement with Washington regarding the management of the confrontation. Tehran has thus succeeded in deepening the rift between NATO and the US president, who has announced his intention to withdraw from the alliance and punish it for not participating in a war against Iran. Signs of tension have also appeared in the relationship between the Trump administration and some Gulf states, which have expressed, through diplomatic and media channels, their concern about being drawn into an open and costly confrontation that will ultimately affect them and the entire region, even though these countries continue their security cooperation and coordination with Washington and Tel Aviv (the UAE being one example). This discrepancy was accompanied by a vacillating and contradictory American discourse. Americans perceived Trump as contradicting himself in every speech, shifting between threats of escalation and calls for negotiation, between regime change and the possibility of dialogue, between destroying capabilities and engaging with them, and between forcibly opening the Strait of Hormuz and ignoring its importance. This sparked sharp domestic criticism and was considered a contributing factor to the escalating tensions in the American public.
In this context, the United States witnessed a wave of widespread anti-war protests. According to estimates by civil society organizations, approximately 10 million Americans took to the streets in various demonstrations across major cities, raising slogans rejecting involvement in a new war in the Middle East. Members of Congress warned against “repeating the scenarios of Iraq and Afghanistan,” while political figures expressed their refusal to bear the cost of an open confrontation with Iran.
Iran Breaks American Taboos
On the ground, Tehran succeeded in shattering the aura of American military invincibility, as bases and aircraft carriers are no longer beyond the reach of threat. Traditional taboos were also broken, as targeting American bases and their associated economic and technological interests became commonplace and part of the equation of retaliation. In this context, the theater of operations expanded to include the Israeli heartland, the Gulf, and Western economic interests, in a practical application of what is known as the unity of theaters and joint operations rooms.
Iran’s use of advanced, high-quality missile systems, including the Khorramshahr-4 cluster missile, the Sejjil ballistic missile, and the Qader missile, also emerged, sending field and strategic messages that underscored the development of its capabilities. These operations were accompanied by waves of intense bombardment targeting the Israeli heartland, described as among the most intense and violent, which disrupted or confused air defense systems and opened up gaps in Israeli airspace, making it open to Iranian missiles and drones. This was facilitated by coordination with the fronts of the Resistance Axis, particularly with Lebanon, through joint operations in which the resistance targeted Israeli radars and defense systems, disabling or diverting them and thus clearing the way for Iranian missiles.
Tehran’s Equation: Blockade for Blockade, Sanctions for Sanctions
Economically, Iran has activated sensitive cards, most notably its control of the vital Strait of Hormuz, which has directly impacted global energy markets, particularly in the West. The Iranians have also introduced a new equation: “Blockade for blockade, sanctions for sanctions,” in an attempt to counter American sanctions and economic pressure. In this context, the Iranian parliament approved imposing customs duties on every ship—especially those linked to aggression—that wishes to pass through the strait. After being sanctioned and besieged for forty years, Tehran is now retaliating by imposing sanctions and blockades on those who besiege or attack it.
Domestically, popular and institutional cohesion has been a decisive factor. The public squares have witnessed massive demonstrations, numbering in the millions and continuing daily, reflecting support for the option of confrontation and the continuation of the war until the blood of the martyrs is avenged and the enemy is taught a harsh lesson. This also demonstrates support for the new political leadership represented by the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei, and for the Iranian armed forces. The Iranian state has demonstrated, on the military, political, and economic levels, an ability to maintain leadership and control despite the assassinations of prominent figures. Iranian officials have emphasized this, stating that “the strikes did not weaken the structure, but rather increased its cohesion.”
Conversely, the United States and Israel failed to achieve their stated objectives, whether regime change, destabilization, destruction of missile capabilities, or the termination of the nuclear program. On the contrary, the confrontation revealed that these objectives clashed with a complex field and political reality. Iran opened its secret arsenals, revealing a stockpile of tens of thousands of destructive ballistic missiles.
A New Regional Order
Following this path, Iran has not only withstood the world’s most brutal military power, the United States and Israel, but has also succeeded in redrawing the equations of deterrence, paving the way for deeper transformations that will affect the future of American presence and influence in the region, and establishing a new regional order. As Brigadier General Esmail Qaani, commander of the Quds Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, stated, “The countries of the region must get used to it.”
Author:
**
https://alkhanadeq.com/post/10532/خسائر-واشنطن-المتراكمة-هل-يتحمل-ترامب-حربا-طويلة-ضد-إيران
Friday, April 3, 2026, 11:35 AM
Washington’s Accumulating Losses: Can Trump Succeed in a Protracted War Against Iran?
The American-Israeli war on Iran is heading toward a complex cost that extends beyond the military sphere, impacting the very structure of American power, both materially and politically. Reports in the American and Western media paint a picture that contradicts the official US narrative, revealing mounting losses on the ground and widening trust gaps with allies, particularly NATO and European countries.
On the ground, the losses manifest in the erosion of critical military assets. Thirteen American bases in the Middle East were damaged in a short period, and key air platforms suffered direct hits, including E-3 early warning aircraft, aerial refueling tankers, MQ-9 reconnaissance systems, and the F-35 fighter jet, which Iran confirmed shooting down. This type of loss is not only related to the value of the equipment but also to its function within the command and control system, as its disruption weakens the ability to manage and coordinate air operations. In addition to the military reputation that manufacturing companies will lose, which will in turn cause a decline in their stock prices and a decrease in confidence and demand for their products.
The deeper impact is related to the depletion of precision munitions. Data reported by the Washington Post indicates the launch of hundreds of cruise missiles, including long-range missiles that are difficult to replace quickly. Producing these systems takes years, at a time when global demand for them is increasing, both in Europe and the Middle East. This depletion imposes a new reality on American policymakers, as military surpluses are no longer as readily available as before; resources are now limited and subject to careful allocation calculations.
Conversely, Iranian drones, most notably the Shahed-136 model, have proven capable of repeatedly penetrating American defense systems. This development reflects a failure to adapt to the nature of modern warfare, despite the long experience in Ukraine, which clearly demonstrated the role of drones in shifting the balance of power on the battlefield. As military analyst Becca Wasser pointed out in Bloomberg, this imbalance is evident. She warned that the continuation of the conflict will lead to the depletion of air defense missiles and advanced munitions, with replenishing stockpiles proving difficult in the near term.
This depletion is not confined to the battlefield; it directly impacts the United States’ position within the alliance system. As stockpiles dwindle, the ability to supply allies with defense systems diminishes, sparking a debate within American institutions about support priorities. Should priority be given to the European front, the Gulf region, or Israeli needs? This question reveals a shift in Washington’s position from a power capable of fulfilling all commitments to a party forced to rearrange its priorities.
Politically, the repercussions are more complex. President Donald Trump’s rhetoric reflects an attempt to reconcile claims of progress with a desire for a swift end to the war, coupled with a growing awareness of its cost. His talk of ending the conflict within weeks clashes with the realities on the ground, which point to an open-ended conflict, creating a gap between political rhetoric and military reality.
Tensions with European allies add another layer of pressure. American criticism of the refusal to participate in securing the Strait of Hormuz, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s statements about reassessing the relationship with NATO, reflect a shift in the perception of alliances. The suggestion that the alliance could become a burden if it does not serve American interests reveals a trend toward redefining traditional commitments in a context of declining trust.
This decline is inseparable from previous crises that have contributed to weakening relations, and as the cost of the war escalates, it becomes increasingly difficult for Washington to garner additional support from its partners. At the same time, the US administration faces growing domestic pressure, with rising operational costs and resource depletion weakening its ability to politically justify the war.
In the Gulf, the relationship takes on a distinctly economic dimension. The American view of the region’s countries as a source of investment is clashing with the repercussions of the war, as security risks lead to a reassessment of financial commitments. Any decline in these investments adds an economic loss to the military cost and affects the administration’s calculations in managing the conflict.
In this context, a complex equation is emerging for the US administration. Continuing the war means further material depletion and erosion of its global projection capabilities, while withdrawing without achieving clear objectives imposes a domestic political cost. This delicate balance reflects the nature of the confrontation with a state that possesses multiple tools, both conventional and unconventional, and exploits weaknesses in the structure of American power.
What this war reveals transcends its geographical boundaries, raising deeper questions about the United States’ ability to wage protracted conflicts in a changing international environment. Losses are no longer measured solely by the number of damaged bases or the volume of munitions consumed, but also by their impact on Washington’s position in the international system and its ability to maintain its network of alliances under increasing pressure from both within and without.
Author: Editorial Staff
**
https://alkhanadeq.com/post/10530/الدفاع-النشط-يحكم-المعركة-قراءة-في-تعثر-المناورة-الإسرائيلية-جنوبا
Thursday, April 2, 2026, 7:04 AM
Active Defense Rules the Battle: An Analysis of the Israeli Maneuver’s Stumbling in the South
Resistance Fighters in Southern Lebanon
The Lebanese front witnessed a qualitative shift in the course of field operations, as the Israeli enemy launched a multi-pronged ground offensive supported by heavy and widespread destructive fire, attempting to impose a new reality on the ground. In response, the resistance successfully absorbed this shift by reshaping the battle environment through the establishment of solid defensive positions and complex combat ambushes. This disrupted the enemy’s advance and transformed the frontline villages into effective attrition warfare zones. The resistance’s reliance on active and mobile defense tactics was clearly evident, enabling it to move from a state of containment to one of initiative on the ground. Meanwhile, the enemy’s performance reflected a clear state of ground weakness, prompting it to resort to excessive aerial bombardment and a scorched-earth policy to compensate for its failure to achieve a decisive victory on the battlefield.
On an operational level, the resistance’s command and control system demonstrated a high degree of both resilience and flexibility. It successfully managed dozens of simultaneous and diverse operations, ranging from close-quarters combat and artillery fire to strategic strikes. This performance was evident in the resistance’s ability to combine tactical decentralization in managing defensive positions with centralized strategic planning, granting it significant flexibility to adapt to developments on the ground. In contrast, the Israeli enemy appeared to be in a state of clear command disarray, showing signs of a loss of tactical vision. This forced them to establish alternative positions due to the loss or disruption of their primary sites, a direct reflection of the pressure they were under on the battlefield.
As for the axes of incursion, the battles were primarily concentrated in the eastern sector, which was the most intensely contested. The enemy attempted to seize the commanding hills, but the resistance successfully transformed this area into a point of severe attrition for the enemy’s armor, targeting Merkava tanks with precision-guided weapons. In the central sector, the confrontations took on the character of direct and close-quarters combat, as the resistance countered infiltration attempts with urban warfare tactics, effectively employing engineering means and attack drones. In the western sector, the enemy attempted to advance towards the coast, but the resistance adopted a combination of static and flexible defense, drawing enemy forces into deadly fire zones that severely hampered their maneuverability.
In terms of ground combat tactics, the resistance demonstrated clear integration between its various weapons systems. Infantry operations in direct engagements were combined with engineering efforts using improvised explosive devices (IEDs), the use of attack drones, and continuous rocket fire, all within a comprehensive combat system. This performance was bolstered by the resistance’s real-time tactical intelligence capabilities, enabling it to accurately monitor enemy movements and deliver surgical strikes against their concentrations. In contrast, the enemy relied on a slow armored advance, avoiding direct engagement due to fear of guerrilla warfare. This led them to adopt a strategy of widespread destruction and the leveling of residential areas as an alternative to direct confrontation.
At the level of fire maneuvers, the resistance conducted its fire operations according to a comprehensive vision aimed first at isolating the battlefield by targeting forward positions to prevent reinforcements from reaching the enemy; second at striking the enemy’s strategic depth by targeting command centers and sensitive logistical infrastructure; and third at supporting ground forces through the use of attack drones, which proved effective in neutralizing advanced armor. In contrast, the enemy adopted a fire strategy based on spatial progression, focusing in the first phase on destroying the forward edge to create a buffer zone, then targeting the tactical depth to prevent resupply, before moving on to striking the strategic depth through raids and assassinations in an attempt to weaken the command structure and pressure the support base.
Regarding air defense, the resistance succeeded in imposing a level of operational disruption on the enemy air force by targeting aircraft with surface-to-air missiles, shooting down reconnaissance drones, and damaging military helicopters. This restricted the enemy’s freedom of movement and disrupted evacuation and support operations. This performance was reflected in the overall battle, as the enemy lost one of its most important elements of conventional superiority.
On the psychological front, the resistance succeeded in imposing a counter-pressure equation by continuing to target settlements in the north, thus reinforcing the displacement reality and weakening the Israeli narrative of its ability to secure the home front. Conversely, the enemy failed to achieve a decisive psychological impact despite the extensive destruction, as the resistance continued fighting and launching rockets even from areas that had suffered widespread devastation. This sent a clear message about the failure of the strategy to break the will of the resistance.
Field data from the past 24 hours indicates that the resistance has succeeded in achieving disciplined and effective field resilience, managing to transform the Israeli ground incursion into a continuous daily war of attrition. In contrast, the enemy is suffering from a clear setback on the ground and a dispersal of its firepower, along with an inability to establish control over the areas of engagement. This is driving it to escalate its bombardment and assassinations in an attempt to compensate for its field failures and to achieve a victory that has not materialized on the ground.
Author: Editorial Room
**
For those who believed Trump’s lie about a “cease fire”
And the following is just the tip of the iceberg and does not include the deaths in the West Bank and Lebanon.
Israel kills Palestinian girl and police officers in Gaza bombing
Air strikes target two police checkpoints in al-Mawasi area of Khan Younis as ceasefire violations continue
Relatives mourn a loved one killed in an overnight Israeli strike in Khan Younis, southern Gaza Strip, 29 March 2026 (AFP/Bashar Taleb)
**
Gaza toddler released from Israeli custody with ‘cigarette burn’ wounds
Family says toddler shows signs of torture after detention, as father remains missing
Jawad Abu Nassar, 21 months, sits on his grandmother’s lap as she holds a photo of her son, Osama, on a phone in the Gaza Strip, 24 March 2026 (MEE/Moiz Salhi)
**
**
Israeli air attack kills father and two-year-old son in Gaza
A father and his two-year-old son were amongst six people killed by Israeli forces in Gaza on Tuesday. Despite a ceasefire agreed in October, Israel continues to kill Palestinians in the enclave.
31 Mar 2026
**
https://theintercept.com/2026/04/01/iran-war-us-casualty-numbers-trump-hegseth/
Almost 750 U.S. troops have been wounded or killed in the Middle East since October 2023, an analysis by The Intercept has found. But the Pentagon won’t acknowledge it.
U.S. Central Command, or CENTCOM, which oversees military operations in the Middle East, appears to be engaged in what a defense official called a “casualty cover-up,” offering The Intercept low-ball and outdated figures and failing to provide clarifications on military deaths and injuries.
**
A video compilation edited by Drop Site News contributor Ben Craw captures some of Secretary Pete Hegseth’s recent public appearances.
**
https://youtube.com/shorts/MVKcoYhRTdw
‘In the middle of the war, Iran didn’t concentrate the Jewish people in concentration camps… they protect them like normal citizens’
In this episode of UNAPOLOGETIC, Rabbi Elhanan Beck delivers one of the most striking critiques of Zionism and the current Israeli-US wars in Gaza, Lebanon and Iran, you’ll hear. He argues that, according to the Torah, the state of Israel has no right to exist, and goes further—describing Benjamin Netanyahu as “Amalek”, a force that pulls people away from God. The rabbi also believes that, if necessary, Israel would use nuclear weapons and that “no price is too high”, suggesting they would kill millions to secure their goals. We explore the theology behind these views, including the Messiah, the Temple and the idea of Greater Israel - alongside his belief in Jewish-Muslim coexistence.
Your opening Scott Ritter piece is AI.
According to Robert Pape, Iran is a new world power, U.S. has been taken down.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXDWh3faH_Y
Robert Pape: Iran 'NEW WORLD POWER', NATO DEAD | Breaking Points | April 1, 2026
The petrodollar system is now broken, the flux of the world's savings propping up the U.S. economy is over. On this podcast, John Mearsheimer says there should be war-crimes tribunals, and Bibi, Rump and Hogsbreath aand other should hang. https://youtu.be/f5Nja-30V-w&t=1031
As well, after that, Col. Wilkerson says about Rump's proud destruction of that bridge in Iran, Donny, you're going to rebuild that, you're going to be paying reparations. From his own money, I hope.
The Earth 🌍 has declared, invert the Empire entity🌀.