Archives: Articles

By Hassan Abo Qamar

On 30 November 2025, I attended my first university lecture at the Islamic University of Gaza.

The lecture should have taken place at the university’s main campus in Gaza City, but since the Israeli army has largely reduced it to rubble, the university rented a wedding venue in Nuseirat to serve as a makeshift lecture hall.

The university has also rented another wedding venue in Khan Younis and repaired the less damaged buildings in its Gaza City campus to maintain as much as possible the educational process on campus, though only for first-year students enrolled in a handful of specializations, including various branches of engineering.

“The best available right now”

I walked to the Nuseirat wedding venue, as it is the closest to my home, and arrived at the hall 10 minutes late, something I regretted. I found around 300 students – all engineering students from 14 different fields, including mechanical, electrical and industrial engineering – crammed into the space.

Long rows of white plastic chairs were packed so tightly that one had to walk sideways to pass between them.

The number of chairs was fewer than the number of students, and many of the students were forced to sit on the raised platform usually reserved for the bride and groom, balancing their notebooks on their laps.

There were no desks, no proper educational tools – just a projector screen and a professor delivering his lecture without the basic elements that make understanding possible.

Not only would a limited number of courses be taught on-site – such as calculus and physics for engineering students – but the hall was also allocated to female students from 9 am to 12 pm, and to male students from 12 pm to 4 pm, schedules that were delivered to students through WhatsApp groups.

When I arrived, the professor of engineering was already speaking from the front of the hall about the importance of attending lectures and the challenges facing the faculty of engineering, stressing that the university was trying to account for the educational loss caused by the Israeli genocide.

He stood holding a microphone, his voice cutting in and out, mostly due to a technical issue.

In a moment of silence, he finished his talk and said calmly, “I know this isn’t the hall you imagined. But it’s the best available right now. So we’ll start again with what we have. I’m glad to see you here after everything we’ve been through, and I wish you a successful university journey.”

An unusual silence filled the hall – not because we were comfortable (we weren’t) – but because his words were the first moment of honesty in a scene that felt unreal.

The day continued, and we studied three subjects in the same hall: engineering fundamentals, calculus and general physics.

In most lectures, we couldn’t write anything down – there were no desks, no clear view of the screen and no sound that reached us intelligibly.

During the break, which lasted no more than 15 minutes between the calculus and general physics lectures, there was no cafeteria or space to rest.

We stayed seated where we were, talking quietly and waiting for the final lecture to begin.

No solace

I began asking students about their thoughts and whether they would continue attending in person, but many had already decided to rely on online lectures until conditions improve.

Despite the difficulty of accessing electricity and the internet, and despite poor comprehension – as most online lectures consist of old, non-interactive recordings from four or five years ago – most students felt this option was less harsh than attending in person.

The dilemma isn’t only location, though. I contacted one of my high school classmates, Mahmoud Wishah, who is a medical student at the Islamic University.

Medicine is only taught at the main university location on the Gaza City campus.

But the destruction Israel has inflicted on the university’s buildings is beyond imagination, Wishah said, leaving the university without many of its essential facilities.

Only three buildings are partially functional, of which only the first floors of each are intact, he said. One is for administrative work, and the second is under renovation to receive students.

“The third [building] is for medicine and engineering, containing four classrooms – two for each faculty,” he said. “The medical classrooms are supposed to hold 50 to 60 students at most, but on the first day, around 250 students attended.”

The rest of the buildings have been completely destroyed.

“Even though the teaching staff is excellent,” Wishah said, “they cannot make up for the loss: There is no library to study in, no common areas or cafeterias to foster relationships among peers.”

Wishah also pointed out that there are “no laboratories for practical courses,” an issue that forced the Islamic University to postpone core subjects for first-year students – like histology and biology, which require observing embryos and live tissues – to later years because they cannot currently be implemented.

Many students have already left because there was no space, Wishah said, and students who end up sitting at the back cannot hear the professor clearly or see what the projector displays.

A second obstacle is the cost of transportation. Not only do students have to pay taxi drivers in cash, but they also have to find change.

Much of the cash in Gaza has been in circulation since October 2023, making it often worn-out and hard to obtain.

“Transportation is extremely difficult,” he said, “but I need in-person classes because I can’t grasp the online lectures.”

Another obstacle is affording university tuition. Even before the genocide, many families struggled to pay university tuition.

Today, after two years of blockade, displacement and losing almost everything, the idea that students could fund their own education seems impossible.

Many of the recently graduated high school students are unable to afford to continue their postgraduate studies.

The Islamic University provides a one-semester tuition waiver for all faculties except medicine, while Al-Azhar University offers no waivers at all.

The costs of books, notebooks and transportation have skyrocketed, and no solutions or initiatives have been introduced to address this crisis.

Even those students who managed to attend this semester are unsure whether they can continue next semester.

In recent weeks, attendance at the Nuseirat location has dropped to just 10 or 15 students – a sharp decrease from the 250-300 who attended the first lecture.

An obligation

Global attention often focuses on food aid and temporary ceasefires, which are, of course, necessary. But they are not enough or as important as education to rebuild Gaza, which must be seen as part of the humanitarian response, not an optional choice postponed to “post-crisis” times.

Education for Palestinians – and the preparation of a generation capable of rebuilding Gaza after the genocide – is an obligation for Palestinian institutions and international institutions.

Education is a necessity for survival and for building a possible future despite all the challenges and destruction the Israeli occupation has visited upon the Gaza Strip.

Hassan Abo Qamar is a writer based in Gaza.

23 February 2026

Source: countercurrents.org

By Laala Bechetoula

THEY HAVE FINALLY SAID IT OUT LOUD

For decades, whenever we pointed to the map of “Greater Israel” — stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates, encompassing not only Palestine but vast parts of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia — we were dismissed as conspiracy theorists, as paranoid, as antisemitic.

That era is over.

On February 20, 2026, Mike Huckabee — the official United States Ambassador to Israel, appointed by Donald Trump, a man who speaks with the authority of the world’s most powerful nation — sat down with journalist Tucker Carlson and confessed.

Carlson asked him about the biblical passage in which God promises Abraham’s descendants the land “from the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates.” Huckabee did not deny it. He did not retreat. He did not hedge.

He answered with chilling calm: “It would be fine if they took it all.”

Let us translate what he said. The American ambassador just told the world that it is “fine” — indeed, that it would be “a good thing” — for Israel to conquer and annex Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt.

This is not a conspiracy theory. This is a recorded, broadcast, undeniable confession from the highest levels of the U.S. government.

THE MAP THEY NO LONGER DENY

The map Huckabee and Carlson discussed is not new. It is the same map Netanyahu carries in his pocket, the same map Smotrich has displayed in the Knesset — the same Smotrich who, upon hearing Huckabee’s words, responded publicly: “I ❤️ Huckabee.” No ambiguity. No subtext. Pure confirmation.

This so-called “Promised Land” includes: all of historical Palestine; the entire territory of Jordan; Lebanon, up to the Litani River; Syria, including the occupied Golan Heights; vast parts of Egypt (Sinai and the Nile Delta); Iraq, to the Euphrates River; and northwestern Saudi Arabia.

When Huckabee later attempted to walk back his statement, the contradiction was glaring. The first statement revealed the intent; the second was merely a diplomatic maneuver. The word, like a bullet once fired, does not return.

HUCKABEE IS NOT ALONE: THE TRIUMVIRATE THAT RUNS AMERICA

Some will claim Huckabee speaks only for himself. They are lying.

On September 15, 2025, at the City of David in occupied Jerusalem, Huckabee stood beside Netanyahu and Secretary of State Marco Rubio and delivered a sermon, not a diplomatic address: “4000 years ago, here in this city, on Mount Moriah, God chose His people… The people were the Jewish people. The place was Israel.”

On August 12, 2025, Netanyahu openly declared his commitment to the “Greater Israel” vision on i24NEWS. When presented with a pendant depicting the map from the Nile to the Euphrates, he responded: “Very much.” Huckabee’s February 2026 statement is simply the American echo of Netanyahu’s August 2025 declaration.

THE INTERNATIONAL RESPONSE: RARE UNITY — AND WESTERN SILENCE

Within hours, a joint statement from more than 14 countries — including Türkiye, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and the UAE — along with the OIC (57 member states), the Arab League (22 members), and the GCC (6 members), declared unequivocally:

“ISRAEL HAS NO SOVEREIGNTY WHATSOEVER OVER THE OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORY OR ANY OTHER OCCUPIED ARAB LANDS.”

Saudi Arabia condemned the statements as “extremist rhetoric.” Jordan described them as “absurd and provocative statements” amounting to “an assault on the sovereignty of the countries of the region.” Egypt rejected the remarks as a “blatant violation” of diplomatic norms.

And Washington? The White House did not respond. The State Department did not respond. The only official American voice was a single Embassy spokesperson in Jerusalem, who murmured that the remarks had been “taken out of context.”

Fourteen nations spoke. Fifty-seven member states of the OIC spoke. The world’s most powerful government said nothing.

And Europe? Also silent. No statement from Brussels. No rebuke from Paris or Berlin or London.

Silence, in diplomacy, is not neutrality. It is consent.

CHINA, RUSSIA, INDIA: THE GLOBAL SOUTH CALCULUS

China does not need to speak. It watches, records, and waits. Every silence from Washington is filed away in Beijing as evidence for a future it is already preparing.

Russia does not condemn. It amplifies. Every American contradiction is Russian oxygen.

India is the most explosive fracture of all. Prime Minister Modi arrives in Tel Aviv on February 25 — two days from now — to embrace Netanyahu, the man the ICC has indicted for war crimes. Meanwhile, in the streets of New Delhi, Mumbai, and Pune, hundreds of thousands of Indians — a country of 200 million Muslims and a civilization with a century-long tradition of solidarity with Palestine, from Gandhi to Nehru — are demanding Modi cancel his visit. Some were arrested. The government of the world’s largest democracy is suppressing its own people to maintain its alliance with a state condemned by the ICJ. Modi speaks. His people speak louder.

THE JEWS WHO SAY: NOT IN OUR NAME

J Street said it clearly when Huckabee was nominated: what is happening today is “a world that no one in our parents’ and grandparents’ time would recognize.” The overwhelming majority of Jewish Americans did not vote for this ambassador. They are being spoken for without their consent.

Jewish Voice for Peace occupied Grand Central Terminal with t-shirts reading “Not in our name” — and was subsequently labeled a “hate group” by the ADL. An ADL employee quit in protest, saying: “Those were Jewish people we were defaming.”

The ADL defamed Jews for opposing genocide. This sentence should stop the world.

A FINAL IRONY

After the interview, Tucker Carlson — the man who offered Huckabee the platform to say what American diplomacy had never said out loud — was briefly detained by Israeli airport authorities before being released. Even the useful voices are controlled, monitored, disposable.

THE FINAL INDICTMENT

To Western Media: The silence of your studios this week — when fourteen nations condemned and you said nothing — is the loudest thing you have ever broadcast.

To the International Community: America uses its veto every time. Now you know why. Those running American policy genuinely believe Israel is entitled to everything. And they no longer bother to hide it.

To World Jewry: You are not being protected. You are being used.

To Evangelical Christians: Huckabee’s vision is not Christian. It is Constantinian — the fusion of cross and sword, the sanctification of power. And it has led, inexorably, to genocide.

To Benjamin Netanyahu: History will not remember you as a visionary. It will remember you as the man who destroyed Gaza, starved children, bombed hospitals, and justified the unjustifiable.

To Mike Huckabee: “It would be fine if they took it all.” Say that to the mothers of Gaza. The stones cry out, yes. But the bones of the dead cry louder.

To the White House: You chose silence. That silence has been heard in Cairo, in Amman, in Beirut, in Baghdad, in Riyadh. Your silence was your statement.

THE AGE OF DE-WESTERNIZATION

As Algerian scholar Amir Nour writes in “The Monstrosity of Our Century” (Clarity Press, 2026):

“What we are witnessing today is not merely a ‘political conflict,’ but a historic turning point marking the collapse of Western hegemony that has dominated the world for three centuries. I call this transformation the dawn of a new era — the Age of De-Westernization — in which power is being redistributed, universal values are being rewritten, and moral balances are being redefined.”

Huckabee’s confession — and Washington’s silence in response — will be remembered as one of the funeral bells of Western hegemony.

THE MIRROR AND THE CHOICE

Nour also writes: “Palestine is not merely the cause of an oppressed and occupied people; it is the mirror of the world’s conscience.”

Huckabee has spoken. Netanyahu has declared. Smotrich has confirmed. The Arab and Islamic world has responded. The White House has chosen silence.

Now it is your turn.

WHAT WILL YOU SAY?

The age of Western impunity is not ending because the world has become more just. It is ending because the world has become more awake. And an awake world is the one thing empires cannot survive.

Sources: Anadolu Ajansı, U.S. Embassy Jerusalem, Jordan Times, Clarity Press, The Jerusalem Post, The Hill, J Street, CNN, Jewish Voice for Peace.

Laala Bechetoula is an independent Algerian writer and analyst.

23 February 2026

Source: countercurrents.org

By T Navin

Over the past decade, India has witnessed a troubling intensification of communal polarization. Incidents of vigilante violence, religious profiling, moral policing, economic boycotts, and digitally amplified misinformation have strained the country’s secular and constitutional fabric. Mob attacks on minorities, identity-based harassment in marketplaces and festivals, and attempts to regulate personal freedoms in the name of culture have created an atmosphere where intimidation often appears normalized. In many such moments, the response of the larger majority community was marked by silence — sometimes born of fear, sometimes complicity, sometimes quiet disagreement but reluctance to intervene.

Yet in early 2026, a noticeable shift began to take shape. Across geographically and politically diverse states — Uttarakhand, Rajasthan, West Bengal, Madhya Pradesh, Telangana, and Kerala — ordinary citizens from the Hindu majority increasingly stepped forward to confront hate, defend those targeted, and assert values of coexistence. These responses were not orchestrated by political parties or large organizations. They emerged organically — from gym owners, park visitors, customers, community elders, social media users, and neighbourhood residents. What connects these disparate events is a growing unwillingness to allow intimidation to masquerade as cultural guardianship.

In Kotdwar, Uttarakhand, on January 26, 2026, gym owner Deepak Kumar intervened when a group claiming affiliation with Bajrang Dal harassed an elderly Muslim shopkeeper, Wakeel Ahmed, objecting to the use of the word “Baba” in his shop’s name. The confrontation could easily have passed as yet another localized act of intimidation. Instead, Deepak publicly declared himself “Mohammad Deepak,” asserting that identity cannot be monopolized and that shared humanity supersedes sectarian labeling. The act was simple yet profound. He faced immediate backlash — boycott calls, threats, and a decline in gym memberships. But the video of his intervention spread rapidly online. Citizens from across the country expressed support. Lawyers volunteered legal assistance. Political representatives visited in solidarity. The phrase “Mohammad Deepak” became shorthand for moral courage within the majority community. It suggested that silence is not inevitable and that intervention, even when costly, can inspire a wider ripple of resistance.

A similar dynamic unfolded in Jaipur on Valentine’s Day 2026. Alleged members of Bajrang Dal entered a public park carrying sticks and demanding identification from couples, claiming to defend cultural values. Moral policing of this sort has often thrived on the compliance of bystanders. This time, however, the script changed. Park visitors challenged the vigilantes, questioned their authority, and demanded to know under what law they were enforcing such checks. Faced with collective resistance rather than passive spectatorship, the group retreated. Videos of the confrontation circulated widely, sparking conversations about personal liberty, the right to public space, and the limits of cultural policing. The episode demonstrated that intimidation depends on acquiescence — and when that acquiescence collapses, the authority of vigilante actors weakens.

In South 24 Parganas, West Bengal, three Muslim meat traders were brutally assaulted after being labelled “Bangladeshi” in a dispute infused with religious slurs. The incident revealed how easily economic competition or local disagreements can be communalized through profiling and rumour. Yet the aftermath reflected a different trajectory. Local majority members publicly condemned the attack. Protests were organized that cut across religious lines. Social media amplified calls for justice rather than circulating inflammatory narratives. This solidarity did not erase the violence, but it diminished the perception of impunity that often emboldens such acts. It signalled that religious identity would not automatically determine public sympathy.

In Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, tensions during a Durga temple procession escalated into stone-pelting and property damage affecting Muslim neighbourhoods. Rather than deepening polarization, several majority community leaders advocated restraint and fairness. They criticized what they termed divisive “bulldozer politics” and urged authorities to conduct impartial investigations. Interfaith dialogues were convened. Public statements emphasized shared civic belonging over retaliatory narratives. The emphasis shifted from assigning collective guilt to preserving civic peace. The insistence on procedural fairness reflected an emerging awareness that justice must not be communalized.

One of the most striking episodes occurred during Telangana’s Medaram Jatara festival. A Muslim street vendor, Shaik Shaiksha Vali from Kurnool, was harassed by YouTubers who accused him of conducting “food jihad.” They questioned his hygiene, demanded his Aadhaar card, and forced him to eat his own buns on camera to “prove” their safety. Despite vending peacefully for over a decade, the incident was sensationalized online. The public reaction, however, disrupted that narrative. Long-time customers, local residents, influencers, and ordinary social media users rallied in support. Videos surfaced of people deliberately purchasing and eating his buns in solidarity. Financial assistance was extended. Messages emphasized that commerce, food, and livelihood cannot be reduced to religious conspiracy. The attempt to inject sectarian hostility into a cultural festival was met with collective refusal. What could have become another flashpoint instead became a reaffirmation of everyday coexistence.

In Kerala, the release of the trailer for The Kerala Story 2: Goes Beyond triggered controversy over a scene depicting forced beef consumption in a conversion narrative. Rather than responding solely with outrage, many Keralites — including large segments of the Hindu majority — responded with humour and cultural assertion. Memes, reels, and posts celebrating beef with parotta went viral. People shared images of communal meals with playful captions. Symbolic beef festivals were planned not as acts of provocation but as affirmations of Kerala’s shared culinary heritage across religions. Even tourism messaging adopted light irony. Humour became a tool of resistance, undermining attempts to portray plural practices as coercive. Instead of internalizing divisive framing, citizens reclaimed cultural normalcy.

Across these varied contexts, five interlinked lessons – five Cs emerge. First, courage disrupts the inertia of silence. When one individual publicly challenges intimidation, it signals to others that dissent is possible. Fear thrives on perceived isolation; visible solidarity erodes that isolation. Second, complicity has limits. When injustice becomes overt, humiliating, or widely visible, especially through viral exposure, passive observers may reach a tipping point. Third, collective conscience remains resilient. Despite sustained polarization, everyday interdependence — shared markets, festivals, workplaces — promotes lived experiences of harmony that resist abstract demonization. When propaganda contradicts lived reality, moral instincts resurface. Fourth, community solidarity diminishes impunity. Extremist actors often rely on assumptions of silent majority approval, public condemnation strips away that shield. Finally, constitutional values gain renewed life when citizens enact them. Equality, liberty, and fraternity are not merely textual commitments; they become tangible when people defend a vendor’s dignity, a couple’s freedom, or a neighbour’s safety.

This emerging solidarity does not suggest that communal tensions have disappeared. Structural challenges remain: the need for consistent law enforcement against hate speech and vigilante violence, greater media responsibility in framing incidents, and civic education that reinforces constitutional ethics. Digital ecosystems continue to amplify misinformation at speed. Political polarization persists. Yet the events of early 2026 indicate that communal hate no longer moves unchallenged in many spaces. It increasingly encounters resistance from within the majority community itself.

That shift alters the moral equation. When solidarity crosses religious lines and originates from those not directly targeted, it weakens narratives of inevitable polarization. It demonstrates that pluralism in India is not merely a constitutional aspiration or nostalgic memory, but a living practice defended in markets, parks, festivals, and online spaces. If sustained and amplified, these localized acts of courage may signal not just episodic resistance but a deeper recalibration — a reassertion that unity is not imposed from above but enacted from below, one intervention, one gesture, one shared meal at a time.

T Navin is an independent writer

22 February 2026

Source: countercurrents.org

By Dr. Ghassan Shahrour

The Epstein case has been dissected endlessly — the names, the networks, the island, the conspiracy theories. The world has memorized the scandal. Yet almost no one can name the journalist whose work reopened the case, or the survivors and families whose courage made justice possible. This silence is not a coincidence. It is a cultural failure — a fourth betrayal that leaves children everywhere more vulnerable.

The first three betrayals are well known: institutions that protected a predator, a legal system that misled victims, and a society that tolerated the abuse of children when wealth and power were involved. But the fourth betrayal is quieter and more corrosive. It is the public’s fascination with scandal over justice, and the media’s willingness to feed that appetite. It is the collective choice to glorify the powerful figures orbiting the case while ignoring the people who fought for truth.

This imbalance is visible in every metric of public attention. Searches for the “Epstein list” surged globally, while searches for Julie K. Brown — the investigative journalist whose reporting exposed the illegal 2008 plea deal — barely registered. Headlines celebrated the spectacle of elite names, but gave only passing mention to the year‑long investigation that located victims, reconstructed evidence, and forced the justice system to act. Even after a federal judge ruled that prosecutors had violated the victims’ rights, the story remained framed around the scandal, not the accountability.

This is not simply a media problem. It is a cultural distortion. Scandal is easy to consume; justice is hard to sustain. Scandal entertains; justice demands responsibility. Scandal centers the abuser; justice centers the abused. When society rewards the spectacle, it sends a dangerous message: that the labor of protecting children is less worthy of attention than the crimes committed against them.

But the fourth betrayal extends beyond journalism. It also erases the courage of survivors and their families — the people who refused silence even when institutions failed them. Many of Epstein’s victims came forward as teenagers, without legal support, without public sympathy, and often against the wishes of adults who feared retaliation. Some families stood by their daughters with extraordinary strength, encouraging them to speak, to testify, to reclaim their dignity. Their courage is not a footnote; it is the foundation of every step toward justice.

Research consistently shows that when survivors see others speak out, they are more likely to report abuse. When families support their children, disclosure becomes possible. When society honors these acts of courage, future victims gain the confidence to defend themselves. Yet in the global conversation about Epstein, these voices were overshadowed by the gravitational pull of scandal. The very people who made justice possible were pushed to the margins of public memory.

This is where public media must be held to account. Any outlet that treats child exploitation as entertainment — that prioritizes clicks over truth, spectacle over justice, scandal over survivors — participates in the fourth betrayal. When media institutions fail to highlight the protectors, they weaken the ecosystem that future victims depend on. They do not merely misinform the public; they jeopardize the rights and safety of children.

From the my perspective of human security, this is not merely a story about a crime or a scandal, but about whether our culture chooses to protect children or protect power.

If we want a world where children are safer, we must rebalance the ethics of attention. We must honor the journalist who pursued the truth when institutions retreated. We must recognize the survivors who spoke when silence was safer. We must celebrate the families who stood with their children against power. Justice is not only a legal process; it is a cultural choice. And the next child who suffers will depend on whether we choose scandal — or choose to stand with those who defend them.

Dr. Ghassan Shahrour, Coordinator of Arab Human Security Network, is a medical doctor, prolific writer, and human rights advocate specializing in health, disability, disarmament, and human security.

22 February 2026

Source: countercurrents.org

By Prof. Junaid S. Ahmad

It takes a special kind of sentence to stain a legacy. LeBron James found one: “I’ve heard nothing but great things” about Israel — uttered while Gaza burns, while civilian bodies are counted in the tens of thousands, while entire neighborhoods have been erased and families are digging loved ones from rubble.

“Noth­ing but great things.”

That is not ignorance. That is moral anesthesia.

For more than a decade, LeBron insisted that silence is complicity. He scolded America when it deserved scolding. He condemned Trump. He wore Black Lives Matter on his chest. He made it clear that he was not just a basketball player but a citizen with a conscience. He rejected “shut up and dribble.” He told the world that greatness demands courage.

Fine. But courage is not a domestic product.

When the violence moved beyond U.S. borders — when Gaza became a graveyard broadcast in real time — the volume dropped. Then, worse than silence, came praise. Not cautious language. Not a plea for peace. Praise. “Nothing but great things.”

That phrase lands like applause at a funeral.

No one is asking LeBron to deliver a graduate seminar in Middle East history. The question is simpler: how does a self-declared champion of the oppressed offer unqualified admiration to a state conducting one of the most devastating military campaigns of the 21st century? This is not a matter of “complexity.” It is a matter of clarity. Children under rubble are not complex. Bombed hospitals are not nuanced.

The GOAT debate ends here — not because politics should decide basketball, but because LeBron insisted that morality is part of greatness. You cannot demand to be measured like Muhammad Ali and then flinch when sacrifice is required. Ali’s legend rests not only on jabs and footwork but on the willingness to lose everything for what he believed. LeBron wants the halo without the heat.

His activism has been loud when safe and cautious when costly. Speaking against racism in America carried risk, yes — but it also aligned with league messaging and corporate branding. Speaking forcefully against Israeli state violence would risk sponsors, partnerships, global markets. And so we get “nothing but great things.”

Imagine the moral equivalent. Imagine a celebrity in 1855 saying he had heard “nothing but great things” about the plantations. Imagine a superstar in 1955 praising segregation for its “order.” The issue is not historical equivalence; it is moral blindness — complimenting the powerful while the powerless are crushed beneath them.

And LeBron is not alone in this elegant cowardice.

Stephen Curry’s reported venture-capital ties to Israeli tech companies raise an obvious question: when your money touches an ecosystem deeply tied to military and surveillance systems, are you really neutral? Money is real. Where you invest it helps build real systems in the real world. Investment is not innocent. Divestment would cost him nothing compared to what civilians are paying. If silence is complicity, profit can be too.

Then there is Steve Kerr. His father, Malcolm Kerr, was assassinated in Beirut while serving as president of the American University of Beirut. Kerr understands political violence in the most personal way imaginable. That should make him exquisitely sensitive to every family shattered by bombs and bullets.

Instead, there is restraint. Caution. Silence.

Some argue that because Kerr’s father was assassinated in the Middle East, he must “understand” Israel’s security posture. But let’s be clear about something uncomfortable: if we are talking about assassination as a tactic, Israel has turned it into a refined instrument of statecraft. Decades of targeted killings — scientists, leaders, officials — carried out across borders with precision and frequency. Drone strikes. Covert operations. Car bombs. Snipers. The record is long and publicly acknowledged. If assassination has a world champion in modern geopolitics, Israel is in the finals every year.

So the framing that Kerr should instinctively sympathize with Israel because of assassination misses the point. If anything, his personal tragedy should make him recoil at the normalization of state-sanctioned killing, not fall silent before it.

The NBA loves to market itself as progressive. Slogans on courts. Statements before games. Social justice packaged between commercials. But justice is not a limited-time promotion. It either applies universally or it becomes merchandise.

LeBron James will retire as one of the most gifted athletes ever to touch a basketball. That is secure. But moral greatness is not measured in championships. It is measured in whether principles survive contact with power.

He once said silence is complicity. He was right.

And history has a longer memory than any scoreboard.

When the lights fade and the banners hang, it will not ask how high he jumped — only where he stood.

Prof. Junaid S. Ahmad teaches Law, Religion, and Global Politics and is the Director of the Center for the Study of Islam and Decolonization (CSID), Islamabad, Pakistan.

22 February 2026

Source: countercurrents.org

By Dr. Ranjan Solomon

“We cannot fight for our rights and our history as well as future until we are armed with weapons of criticism and dedicated consciousness.” – Edward Said

Hamas has expressed conditional openness to an international peacekeeping force (or “Internal Security Force”) in Gaza, but with major caveats that directly challenge the “external control” model favoured by the US and Israel.

Hamas has firmly rejected foreign interference in the territory’s “internal affairs” and opposes any international guardianship or mandate that includes disarming its fighters.

While agreeing to a technocratic committee for civil administration, Hamas is pushing to integrate its roughly 10,000-strong existing police force into the new security structure.

Despite ceasefire agreements, Hamas has been quietly reasserting its grip by placing loyalists in key administrative and security roles.

In short, Hamas appears willing to accept a foreign presence that acts as a buffer against Israel, but rejects any external force that replaces its control or disarms its personnel. It aims to retain its, or its affiliates’, role in the future—even under a nominally “independent” or “technocratic” governance framework. Hamas has asserted that any discussions on Gaza must begin with a total halt to Israeli “aggression”. Israel, in direct contrast, insists that Hamas disarm as a precondition for the commencement of reconstruction.

Hamas Wants Peacekeeping—For and By Palestinians

Hamas spokesperson Qassem stated unequivocally:
“We want peacekeeping forces that monitor the ceasefire, ensure its implementation, and act as a buffer between the occupation army and our people in the Gaza Strip, without interfering in Gaza’s internal affairs.”

Trump’s “Board of Peace” (BOP), by contrast, is portrayed as a mechanism to colonise, exploit, and profit from Gaza. The very composition of the Board and the roles assigned to key actors obscure what critics argue is its real intent: the gradual corporatisation of Gaza.

The long-term plan is for the ISF to comprise 20,000 international soldiers and to train and support 12,000 local Palestinian police officers. Hamas has made its position clear: training Palestinian police within a national framework is acceptable if it is aimed at maintaining internal security and addressing instability created by occupation and militias. Any deviation from this principle, however, is likely to be non-negotiable.

Five countries have committed to providing troops to the ISF: Indonesia, Morocco, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, and Albania. Egypt and Jordan have committed to training Palestinian police officers, fulfilling training and logistical needs. Indonesia is expected to serve as deputy commander, with a significant troop commitment of around 8,000 personnel.

Despite these arrangements, analysts question the very foundations of the BOP. The proposal has been met with scepticism and indifference, with many countries expressing concern that it could overlap with or undermine the role of the United Nations. European Council President Antonio Costa has stated that the EU has serious doubts about key elements of the Board, including its scope, governance, and compatibility with the UN Charter.

Moreover, the BOP’s 11-page charter—comprising eight chapters and 13 articles—does not mention Gaza even once. This omission raises serious questions about the sincerity of US intent, suggesting that it may be acting in alignment with Israeli strategic interests and, critics argue, even private interests linked to Trump.

The plan’s second phase calls for the complete disarmament of Hamas and the destruction of its underground tunnel network—a core Israeli demand. While the Board of Peace seeks to fundamentally reshape Gaza in ways that benefit Israel, its success hinges on the implementation of disarmament and the establishment of a stable security force. If the vision is to transform Gaza into a European-style “Riviera”, it is likely to remain a non-starter.

At a recent summit, it was declared that “the war is over” and that “peace is possible”.

The Myth of “War Is Over”

Such declarations reflect an ongoing debate about the sustainability of agreements brokered by the Trump administration. While President Trump has repeatedly announced the end of conflicts—particularly in the Middle East—these claims have often been met with scepticism, continued violence, or only partial implementation.

On October 13, 2025, during a visit to Israel and Egypt, Trump declared the war in the Middle East over, citing a ceasefire, hostage releases, and the supposed disarmament of Hamas. However, reports indicated that Israeli troops remained in more than half of Gaza. By early 2026, analysts continued to describe the ceasefire as fragile, with ongoing violence rendering such declarations premature.

Critics view these announcements as “deal-making narratives” rather than definitive resolutions. In most cases, the underlying causes of conflict remain unresolved, while sporadic violence and diplomatic tensions persist. As such, claims of peace in Gaza appear overstated and premature.

Donald Trump’s Announcements and Unrealised Claims

As of early 2026, despite Trump’s claims of brokering lasting peace, the situation in Gaza remains volatile, with continued reports of strikes and ceasefire violations. While the October 2025 ceasefire reduced the intensity of violence, it has not led to a comprehensive peace.

A brief assessment of the situation as of February 2026 reveals a fragile ceasefire that critics describe as little more than a temporary pause rather than a durable truce. Israeli strikes and violations continue, resulting in casualties and heightened tensions. At the same time, the humanitarian crisis has worsened, with thousands displaced, widespread destruction of infrastructure, and limited access to aid. Despite official claims of improvement, reports from the ground indicate a far more chaotic and violent reality.

The hard truth is that the US administration appears to have a limited understanding of Palestinian realities and remains unwilling to acknowledge this gap. The ceasefire, critics argue, risks becoming a theatrical exercise that masks deeper strategic objectives.

Minimum Conditions for a Just and Lasting Settlement

A just and lasting settlement for Palestine requires several foundational conditions to be met. These include a permanent ceasefire accompanied by the full withdrawal of Israeli forces, the return of all hostages, and the disarmament of Hamas, potentially alongside amnesty for those willing to commit to peaceful coexistence.

Equally important is political reorganisation, including the reunification of Gaza and the West Bank under a reformed Palestinian Authority or a transitional technocratic administration capable of ensuring accountable governance. A durable solution also depends on ending Israeli occupation, dismantling illegal settlements in the West Bank, and lifting the blockade on Gaza.

International recognition of a sovereign Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital, remains central to achieving self-determination. In parallel, sustainable peace requires security guarantees for both Palestinians and Israelis, supported by broader regional normalisation contingent on resolving the Palestinian question.

Finally, addressing the Palestinian refugee crisis through a just and negotiated settlement, in accordance with international law, is indispensable to any meaningful and lasting peace.

The international community, including the United Nations, continues to support a two-state solution based on these principles as the most viable path to ending the conflict.

Dr. Ranjan Solomon has worked in social justice movements since he was 19 years of age.

22 February 2026

Source: countercurrents.org

By Jessica Corbett

President Donald Trump’s “summary executions continue,” Princeton University visiting professor Kenneth Roth said early Saturday after the US military announced its 43rd bombing of boaters whom the administration claimed were smuggling drugs.

Sharing a 16-second clip of the strike on social media, US Southern Command said late Friday that “Joint Task Force Southern Spear conducted a lethal kinetic strike on a vessel operated by designated terrorist organizations. Intelligence confirmed the vessel was transiting along known narco-trafficking routes in the eastern Pacific and was engaged in narco-trafficking operations. Three male narco-terrorists were killed during this action. No US military forces were harmed.”

Roth, the former longtime director of Human Rights Watch, noted that “the strike raised the death toll in Trump’s campaign against people accused of drug smuggling at sea to at least 147—each a murder.” Some tallies put the death toll at 148 or 149.

Since Trump started bombing boats in September, critics have condemned the strikes as “war crimes, murder, or both.” The administration has tried to justify the operation by arguing that it is in an “armed conflict” with drug cartels in Latin America, including Venezuela—whose president, Nicolás Maduro, was abducted by US forces last month and subsequently pleaded not guilty to narco-terrorism charges in a federal court in New York.

Various human rights advocates and legal experts, including Democrats and even some Republicans in Congress, have rejected that argument. However, both the GOP-controlled Senate and House of Representatives have declined to pass recent war powers resolutions intended to stop Trump’s boat bombings.

“Three more people have been killed. This is murder. Demand Congress take action against these strikes now!” Amnesty International USA said on social media Saturday, sharing a form constituents can use to contact their representatives.

Multiple journalists highlighted that in this case, and others, the targeted boat appeared to be stationary when the US bombed it.

[https://twitter.com/DavidClinchNews/status/2025033934375960669]

The Friday bombing came after the US Department of Defense announced that it had killed 11 people on three boats in the Caribbean Sea and the eastern Pacific late Monday.

“The US military has carried out strikes every three or four days since the new leader of the Southern Command, Gen. Francis L. Donovan of the Marine Corps, took over last month after the previous commander, Adm. Alvin Holsey, abruptly retired,” the New York Times reported. “Defense Department and congressional officials said Adm. Holsey had expressed concerns about the strikes.”

Jessica Corbett is a senior editor and staff writer for Common Dreams.

22 February 2026

Source: countercurrents.org

By Vikas Parashram Meshram

In the Sajjangarh block of Banswara district, located at the southern tip of Rajasthan, lies a small village called Ghoti ki Todi. Kamladevi Bhagora, a 43-year-old woman from this village, has done something that has become an exemplary inspiration—not just for her own village, but for women across many others. A mother of three sons from a farming family, this ordinary woman fought for her land, her rights, and her dreams with remarkable courage—and she won.

Kamladevi’s childhood was spent in the fields. She learned the art of sowing seeds, growing crops, watering, and harvesting from the very courtyard of her home. From a young age, her hands formed a deep bond with the soil. But one thing she had always observed was this: in the fields, her mother worked just as hard as her father, yet decision-making power remained in the hands of men. What to plant, how much to sell, where to spend money—all of this was decided according to the wishes of men. Women contributed their labor but had no say. This social imbalance stayed in young Kamladevi’s mind like an unanswered question—one she would later strive to answer.

Kamladevi’s life began to take a new turn when she joined Vaagdhara, an organization working in the tribal regions of Rajasthan on women’s empowerment, organic agriculture, and community rights. Through her association with Vaagdhara, she formed Mahila Saksham Samuh (Women’s Empowerment Groups) and Gram Swaraj Samuh (Village Self-Governance Groups) across seven neighboring villages. The Mahila Saksham Samuh brought together 140 women, while the Gram Swaraj Samuh included 140 members—both women and men. These groups aimed to increase villagers’ participation—especially women’s—in gram panchayat affairs. Through them, Kamladevi began addressing issues such as women’s rights, land ownership, and sustainable agriculture, emerging as a powerful grassroots leader.

Vaagdhara provided her with in-depth training on land rights, organic farming, and women’s participation in the Panchayati Raj system. Through capacity-building workshops and field visits, her understanding and vision expanded considerably. She realized that meaningful change is impossible unless women farmers become aware of their rights.

When Kamladevi began discussing sustainable organic agriculture with women farmers, she encountered a challenge. They listened and understood—but hesitated to act. Reflecting on this, she realized the absence of a relatable role model. Without a living example, shifting from chemical to organic farming felt too risky.

Determined to change this, Kamladevi resolved: “If I want to show others the way, I must walk it myself first.”

She farms approximately 4 bighas of land with her family and began practicing sustainable organic agriculture on 3 bighas. Without waiting for expensive inputs, she used what was available at home. With 2 cows and 8 goats, she prepared compost from cow dung and used traditional bio-pesticides like Dashparni and Neemastra. She eliminated dependence on chemical fertilizers and pesticides entirely.

Her main crops included indigenous varieties of maize and tur (pigeon pea), along with vegetables such as brinjal, tomatoes, bottle gourd, okra, and onions for household use. She paid special attention to preserving local seed varieties, saving seeds from each harvest for the next season. This reduced costs and ensured resilience to local climatic conditions. Her farm became a living example for the village. Women who had once hesitated began to see that organic farming works—lower costs and better-quality produce gradually built trust.

Kamladevi also strengthened her household economy through goat rearing. Between 2021 and 2025, she earned a total of ₹1,02,500 by selling goats. This demonstrated how integrating animal husbandry with farming can significantly improve a family’s financial stability. Cow dung became compost; goats became income—an integrated system that ensured resilience.

Through her groups, she encouraged women to attend panchayat meetings and claim their legal rights: rights to land, participation, and access to government schemes. Gradually, women’s voices grew stronger, and they began to speak up and participate in decision-making.

Seed Banks: The Foundation for the Future

Kamladevi’s vision extended further. She recognized that preserving local seeds reduces costs and safeguards agricultural heritage. She has been working to establish community seed banks, enabling farmers to share seeds, preserve indigenous varieties, and reduce dependence on market-bought seeds. Though seemingly small, this initiative has far-reaching implications for food sovereignty and sustainability.

A Wave of Inspiration: Light Reaches Over 200 Women

Today, Kamladevi has inspired more than 200 women farmers across seven villages to adopt organic farming. These women now prepare bio-fertilizers, use local seeds, and are moving away from chemical agriculture.

Surekha Dama, a member of the Mahila Saksham Samuh, shares: “Adopting organic farming has been very beneficial—it has reduced our household expenses. All of this is because of Kamla. She boosted my confidence and gave me the opportunity to voice my opinions. Earlier, we just worked; now our views are heard.”

Surekha’s words echo across hundreds of lives transformed by Kamladevi’s leadership. When one woman rises and uplifts others, an entire community begins to change.

The Mark of a True Leader

Kamladevi’s greatest strength lies in her example. She did not merely speak—she acted. Her farming practices, animal husbandry, and community organizing all stand as proof of her leadership. While Vaagdhara’s training shaped her perspective, the courage to act came from within. She has shown that lack of resources is not a barrier to transformation—when there is determination, the path emerges.

Vikas Parashram Meshram is a journalist
Email: vikasmeshram04@gmail.com

20 February 2026

Source: countercurrents.org

By Roger D Harris and John Perry

The kidnapping of a sitting head of state marks a grave escalation in US-Venezuela relations. By seizing Venezuela’s constitutional president, Washington signaled both its disregard for international law and its confidence that it would face little immediate consequence.

The response within the US political establishment to the attack on Venezuela has been striking. Without the slightest cognitive dissonance over President Maduro’s violent abduction, Democrats call for “restoring democracy” – but not for returning Venezuela’s lawful president.

So why didn’t the imperialists simply assassinate him? From their perspective, it would have been cleaner and more cost-efficient. It would have been the DOGE thing to do: launch a drone in one of those celebrated “surgical” strikes.

Targeted killings are as much a part of US policy now as there were in the past. From Obama’s drone strikes on US citizens in 2011 to Trump’s killing of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, lethal force has been used when deemed expedient. And only last June, the second Trump administration and its Zionist partner in crime droned eleven Iranian nuclear scientists.

The US posted a $50-million bounty on Maduro, yet they took him very much alive along with his wife, First Combatant (the Venezuelan equivalent of the First Lady) Cilia Flores.

The reason Maduro’s life was spared tells us volumes about the resilience of the Bolivarian Revolution, the strength of Maduro even in captivity, and the inability of the empire to subjugate Venezuela.

Killing Nicolás Maduro Moros appears to have been a step too far, even for Washington’s hawks. Perhaps he was also seen as more valuable to the empire as a hostage than as a martyr.

But the images of a handcuffed Maduro flashing a victory sign – and declaring in a New York courtroom, “I was captured… I am the president of my country” – were not those of a defeated leader.

Rather than collapsing, the Bolivarian Revolution survived the decapitation. With a seamless continuation of leadership under acting President Delcy Rodríguez, even some figures in the opposition have rallied around the national leadership, heeding the nationalist call of a populace mobilized in the streets in support of their president.

This has pushed the US to negotiate rather than outright conquer, notwithstanding that the playing field remains decisively tilted in Washington’s favor. Regardless, Venezuelan authorities have demanded and received the US’s respect. Indeed, after declaring Venezuela an illegitimate narco-state, Trump has flipped, recognized the Chavista government, and invited its acting executive to Washington.

NBC News gave Delcy Rodríguez a respectful interview. After affirming state ownership of Venezuela’s mineral resources and Maduro as the lawful president, she pointed out that the so-called political prisoners in Venezuelan prisons were there because they had committed acts of criminal violence.

Before a national US television audience she explained that free and fair elections require being “free of sanctions and…not undermined by international bullying and harassment by the international press” (emphasis added).

Notably, the interviewer cited US Energy Secretary Chris Wright’s admission made during his high-level visit to Venezuela. The US official said that elections there could be held, not in three months, but in three years, in accordance with the constitutionally mandated schedule.

As for opposition politician María Corina Machado, the darling of the US press corps, Rodríguez told the interviewer that Machado would have to answer for her various treasonous activities if she came back to Venezuela.

Contrary to the corporate press’s media myth, fostered at a reception in Manhattan, that Machado is insanely popular and poised to lead “A Trillion-Dollar Opportunity: The Global Upside of a Democratic Venezuela,” the US government apparently understood the reality on the ground. “She doesn’t have the support within, or the respect within, the country,” was the honest evaluation, not of some Chavista partisan, but of President Trump himself.

Yader Lanuza documents how the US provided millions to manufacture an effective astroturf opposition to the Chavistas. It is far from the first time that Washington has squandered money in this way – we only have to look back at its failed efforts to promote the “presidency” of Juan Guaidó. Its latest efforts have again had no decisive result, leaving Machado in limbo and pragmatic engagement with the Chavista leadership as the only practical option.

Any doubts that there is daylight between captured President Maduro and acting President Rodríguez can be dispelled by listening to the now incarcerated Maduro’s New Year’s Day interview with international leftist intellectual Ignacio Ramonet.

Maduro said it was time to “start talking seriously” with the US – especially regarding oil investment – marking a continuation of his prior conditional openness to diplomatic engagement. He reiterated that Venezuela was ready to discuss agreements on combating drug trafficking and to consider US oil investment, allowing companies like Chevron to operate.

That was just two days before the abduction. Subsequently, Delcy Rodríguez met with the US energy secretary and the head of the Southern Command to discuss oil investments and combating drug trafficking, respectively.

Venezuelan analysts have framed the current moment as one of constrained choice. “What is at stake is the survival of the state and the republic, which if lost, would render the discussion of any other topic banal,” according to Sergio Rodríguez Gelfenstein. The former government official, who was close to Hugo Chávez, supports Delcy Rodríguez’s discussions with Washington – acknowledging that she has “a missile to her head.”

“The search for a negotiation in the case of the January 3 kidnapping is not understood, therefore, as a surrender, but as an act of political maturity in a context of unprecedented blackmail,” according to Italian journalist and former Red Brigades militant Geraldina Colotti.

The Amnesty Law, a longstanding Chavista initiative, is being debated in the National Assembly to maintain social peace, according to the president of the assembly and brother of the acting president, Jorge Rodríguez, in an interview with the US-based NewsMax outlet.

As Jorge Rodríguez commented, foregoing oil revenues by keeping oil in the ground does not benefit the people’s wellbeing and development. In that context, the Hydrocarbon Law has been reformed to attract vital foreign investment.

The Venezuelan outlet Mision Verdad elaborates: “The 2026 reform ratifies and, in some aspects, deepens essential elements of the previous legislation…[I]t creates the legal basis for a complete strategic adaptation of the Venezuelan hydrocarbon industry, considering elements of the present context.”

As Karl Marx presciently observed about the present context, people “make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances.” The present US-Venezuelan détente is making history. So far – in Hugo Chávez’s words, por ahora – it does not resemble the humanitarian catastrophes imposed by the empire on Haiti, Libya, Iraq, Syria, or Afghanistan.

But make no mistake: the ultimate goal of the empire remains regime change. And there is no clearer insight into the empire’s core barbarity than Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s speech at the Munich conference with his praising of the capture of a “narcoterrorist dictator” and his invocation of Columbus as the inspiration “to build a new Western century.”

Washington’s kidnapping of Maduro was intended to demonstrate the empire’s dominance. But it also exposed its limits: the durability of the Bolivarian Revolution and the reality that even great powers must sometimes negotiate with governments they detest. The outcome remains uncertain.

Roger D. Harris is with the Task Force on the Americasand the Venezuela Solidarity Network. Nicaragua-based writer

John Perry has been published in the London Review of Books, FAIR, CovertAction and elsewhere. Both authors are active with the Nicaragua Solidarity Coalition.

20 February 2026

Source: countercurrents.org

By Nicolas J. S. Davies

After some delays, the United States is dispatching a second aircraft-carrier, the USS Gerald R. Ford, from the Caribbean to the Middle East to join the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group and threaten Iran.

This is the third Atlantic crossing for the Ford’s crew since it set sail from Norfolk, Virginia, in June 2025, and the second time its deployment has been extended, first to redeploy from the Middle East to the Caribbean, and now to redeploy back to the Middle East.

There is a grave danger that the U.S. government is preparing to exploit the genuine sympathy of people all over the world for the Iranian civilians massacred during protests in December and January as a pretext for an illegal military assault on Iran.

A new US war on Iran would be a cynical and catastrophic escalation of the crisis already swallowing its people, piling the unimaginable death and suffering of a full-scale war on top of many years of economic strangulation under US “maximum pressure” sanctions and the repression of the recent protests.

The world must act to prevent war, and the voices of Americans calling for peace and humanity may have an impact on President Trump and US politicians, in an election year when Americans are already sickened by US complicity in genocide in Gaza and the murderous paramilitaries invading US cities.

In a succession of speeches and in its National Security and Defense Strategy documents, the Trump administration promised a major shift in U.S. foreign policy away from endless wars in the Middle East, to prioritize its ambitions to expand U.S. power and coercion in the Americas and the Pacific.

But Trump is already following in the footsteps of the five US presidents before him, quickly abandoning his formal strategy goals and diverting America’s overpriced but impotent war machine back to the Middle East, to threaten or even attack Iran.

The renewed US threats against Iran have made it clear to Iran’s leaders that their symbolic strikes on Al Udeid air base in Qatar in June 2025, in retaliation for US strikes on nuclear facilities in Iran, were an insufficient deterrent to future US and Israeli attacks.

So Iran has signaled that it will respond to any new Israeli or U.S. attacks with more deadly and destructive retaliation against US forces in the region. Foad Azadi at the University of Tehran reports that Iranian leaders now believe they would need to inflict at least 500 US casualties to successfully deter future attacks.

Iran’s leaders may well be right that Trump would have a low tolerance for US casualties and the political blowback he would suffer for them, if he should make the fateful choice to launch such an unnecessary and catastrophic war.

Iran has had many years to prepare for such a war. It has modern air defenses and an arsenal of ballistic missiles and drones with which to retaliate against US targets throughout the region, which include US bases in Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain and the UAE, and the flotilla of US warships loitering near, but not yet within range of, Iran’s shores.

The US is so far showing respect for Iran’s military capabilities, keeping the Abraham Lincoln at least a thousand miles from Iran’s coast, according to retired US Colonel Larry Wilkerson of the Eisenhower Media Network.

This cautious US naval deployment is a far cry from the six US carrier battle groups the US deployed to commit aggression against Iraq in 2003. The United States still has twelve “big-deck” aircraft carriers like the Lincoln and the Ford, but nine of them are in dock or unready for deployment. The USS George Washington, based in Japan, is now the only US carrier in East Asia, since the Abraham Lincoln left the Philippines in January to threaten Iran.

Standard deployments for these warships last only six or seven months, and their lack of readiness is the result of several years of overextended deployments, after which they need longer periods of maintenance and repair than the normal six to nine month turnaround time between deployments.

For example, since the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower completed a nine month combat deployment in the Middle East in January 2025, it has spent over a year in dock at Norfolk to repair the wear and tear it sustained in the failed US campaign against Yemen’s Ansar Allah (or Houthi) forces.

The United States and its allies bombed Yemen in successive campaigns under Biden and Trump, but failed to reopen the Red Sea and Suez Canal to Israeli or allied commercial shipping. As a result of the Yemeni blockade, most Western cargo shippers diverted their ships away from the Red Sea, forcing the Israeli port of Eilat into bankruptcy in July 2025.

Ansar Allah paused its blockade when Israel signed a ceasefire in Gaza in October 2025, but larger ships still avoid the Red Sea and insurance rates remain high, as Israel’s aggression and genocide continue to destabilize the region in unpredictable ways.

The US failure to defeat the much smaller Ansar Allah forces in Yemen is a small taste of what US forces would face in a prolonged war with Iran, which already inflicted significant damage on Israel during the twelve-day war in June 2025.

Iran used its older missiles and drones to deplete Israel’s air defenses. Then, once Israel began to exhaust its stocks of interceptors, Iran used newer, more sophisticated ballistic missiles to strike important military and intelligence headquarters in Tel Aviv and other military targets.

With Israel in trouble, the US entered the war directly, and bombed three nuclear enrichment sites in Iran, before agreeing to an Iranian ceasefire proposal on June 24, 2025. Israeli censorship has prevented a comprehensive public accounting of its losses in that war.

While overextended deployments have caused wear and tear to aircraft-carriers and other warships, US weapons transfers to its allies in Israel, Ukraine and NATO have depleted its own weapons stocks. This creates pressure on US leaders to hold off on launching a new war against a well-prepared enemy like Iran until it has replenished them, which could take a long time.

Meanwhile the war in Ukraine has exposed structural weaknesses in the US war machine. Russia has vastly out-produced the west in basic war supplies like artillery shells and drones, which has proven militarily decisive in Ukraine.

As Richard Connolly of the RUSI military think tank in London has pointed out, Russia did not privatize its weapons industry after the end of the Cold War, as the US and its allies did. It maintained and improved its existing infrastructure, which he called “economically inefficient until 2022, and then suddenly it looks like a very shrewd bit of planning.”

After the Cold War ended, on the initiative of Soviet leader and visionary peacemaker Mikhail Gorbachev, Russia’s economic weakness forced its military leaders to make honest, hard-nosed assessments of what it would take to defend their country in the post-Cold War world, and the shrewd planning that Connolly put his finger on is one result of this.

On the US side however, Eisenhower’s infamous “military-industrial complex” used its “unwarranted influence” to exploit the west’s post-Cold War triumphalism and expand its global military ambitions. Many Americans immediately recognized this as a dangerous new form of imperialism. Wiser heads among America’s political leaders and foreign policy experts predicted that the rest of the world would ultimately reject America’s new imperialism and be forced to confront it as a threat to peace.

The neoliberal privatization of US and western armament production turned it into an even more lucrative and politically powerful industry, which only reconfirmed Eisenhower’s warnings. Monopolistic military contractors have produced smaller quantities of increasibgly expensive, technologically advanced warships, warplanes and surveillance systems. Despite wreaking catastrophic destruction in country after country, these weapons have proven impotent to prevent humiliating US defeats in its wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Ukraine, and will likely prove just as useless in a major war with Iran.

The simplistic, linear thinking of Trump and his advisors leads them to believe that the solution to a trillion dollar per year war machine that can’t win a war is a $1.5 trillion per year war machine.

But this is nonsense. Russia has not defeated the US and NATO by outspending them. Quite the opposite. Since 1992, the US military alone has outspent Russia by fifteen to one ($26 trillion vs $1.7 trillion in constant 2024 dollars, according to SIPRI). Russia’s military superiority is the result of taking its own defense more seriously and confronting its problems more honestly than corrupt US leaders have ever tried to do since the end of the Cold War.

At a price tag of $17.5 billion, the USS Gerald R. Ford is the largest, most expensive warship ever built, costing more than the entire annual military budgets of most other countries. Making an even bigger warship for $26 billion would not make Americans any safer, just a bit poorer.

Relying on the offensive use of military force and record military spending to try to solve America’s problems has put the United States on a collision course with the rest of the world. In 1949, long before Eisenhower’s farewell speech in 1961, he offered some sage advice to politicians and pundits who were calling for a massive US attack on the USSR to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons.

“Those who measure security solely in terms of offensive capacity distort its meaning and mislead those who pay them heed,” said Eisenhower. “No modern nation has ever equaled the crushing offensive power attained by the German war machine in 1939. No modern nation was broken and smashed as was Germany six years later.”

Unlike Iran today, the USSR was indeed working to develop nuclear weapons, but Eisenhower warned Americans against launching a new war that might kill millions to try to stop it.

As Eisenhower insisted, offensive military action offers no solutions to international problems. But diplomatic solutions are always possible. Diplomacy does not mean holding a gun to someone’s head and demanding that they sign an unconditional surrender. It means treating other people and countries with mutual respect and finding solutions that everybody can live with, based upon rules that we all agree on.

The UN Charter universally prohibits the threat or use of force and requires all countries to resolve disputes peacefully. So one country’s wrongdoing, real or perceived, is never a valid pretext for another country to threaten or use military force.

There is no good reason to sacrifice American soldiers and sailors in a war on Iran; no justification to kill Iranian troops for defending their country, as Americans would do if another country attacked the United States; no justice in killing Iranian civilians by turning their homes and communities into a new US war zone.

Could the stark choice our country is facing in Iran be a turning point, a moment when the American people will stand up and clearly, strongly say “No” to war, before our corrupt leaders can plunge Iran and the United States into yet another “Made in the USA” military catastrophe?

Nicolas J. S. Davies is an independent journalist, a researcher for CODEPINK and the author of Blood on Our Hands: The American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq.

20 February 2026

Source: countercurrents.org