Iran's Fantasy of Strength: When Bazaar Tactics Collide with Reality - Pierre Rehov

 

​ by Pierre Rehov

Most importantly, Tehran is betting on time.

 

• This is not containment. It is disarmament. It is the eradication of Iran's nuclear ambitions as a strategic variable. And it is accompanied by equally stringent regional and military demands: the cessation of financing, arming, and directing the organizations of the proxy terrorist network that has defined Iranian power projection for decades.... The United States is not seeking behavioral change. It is demanding total transformation.

• The regime in Tehran still stands, which is its all-encompassing objective. Iran's territory is not occupied and its capacity to inflict damage — through missiles and proxies — has not been fully neutralized. The costs Iran has imposed on its neighbors and adversaries, both militarily and with political pressure... are perceived as significant. From this perspective, the war might not appear lost to them. In an ongoing war, one does not surrender. One bargains.

• Most importantly, Tehran is betting on time. After all, Trump just promised not to bomb Iran's power plants for another ten days. Trump, in their reading, is a dealmaker, not an occupier. He seeks outcomes, not endless wars. And in the echo chambers of Western media, where narratives of American overreach and impending quagmire are readily amplified, Tehran finds confirmation of its own illusions.

• In the end, the outcome will not be determined by rhetoric or by the theatrical posturing of preconditions. It will be determined by the hard realities of power. It is overwhelmingly, decisively, and unmistakably tilted against Iran. Those now in charge of Iran... may no longer recognize that.

The Iranian regime has not merely rejected US President Donald Trump's peace plan; it has countered with a series of conditions so detached from reality that they raise a fundamental question: is Tehran negotiating or hallucinating? Pictured: A display of mock missiles and caskets with the Israeli and US flags at a regime-organized demonstration on March 22, 2026, in central Tehran. (Photo by Majid Saeedi/Getty Images)

US President Donald J. Trump has reportedly laid out a 15-point peace plan to Iran — with conditions that, taken together, amount to Tehran's near-total strategic capitulation.

In response, the Iranian regime has not merely rejected them; it has countered with a series of conditions so detached from reality that they raise a fundamental question: is Tehran negotiating or hallucinating?

What is unfolding is not a classic diplomatic standoff between two adversaries seeking a middle ground. It is a confrontation between a superpower-backed coalition imposing terms from a position of overwhelming superiority, and a regime that behaves as though it were dictating the outcome of a war it is, in fact, losing.

The substance of the American demands is not improvised but instead reflects a coherent objective: the dismantlement of Iran's entire nuclear infrastructure combined with a permanent ban on uranium enrichment on Iranian soil, the transfer of enriched uranium stockpiles to the IAEA, and the imposition of intrusive, unlimited inspections.

This goes far beyond anything envisioned in the 2015 Obama-era JCPOA "nuclear deal". This is not containment. It is disarmament. It is the eradication of Iran's nuclear ambitions as a strategic variable. And it is accompanied by equally stringent regional and military demands: the cessation of financing, arming, and directing the organizations of the proxy terrorist network that has defined Iranian power projection for decades — Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, and Iraq's PMF. Add to this the requirement to maintain the Strait of Hormuz as an open international waterway and the elimination of ballistic missile capabilities, and the picture becomes unmistakable. The United States is not seeking behavioral change. It is demanding total transformation.

Yet, in classic Trump's "art of the deal" fashion, the offer includes sweeteners: lifting sanctions, support for a civilian nuclear program, and the removal of the "snapback" mechanism. In other words, a pathway is offered to survival, under new rules. The only inconsistency lies in Tehran's response.

What Iran is putting on the table so far is not a counterproposal. It is a daydream built on an apparent misreading of reality. Tehran demands the recognition of its sovereign right to enrich uranium, the preservation of its nuclear infrastructure, and the limitation of IAEA inspections. It demands the full and immediate lifting of all sanctions before talks even begin, along with guarantees that no future US administration will reinstate them — an absurdity under American constitutional constraints. It demands explicit assurances of regime survival, and the end of covert operations and targeted strikes. It refuses any reduction of its regional proxy footprint, insisting on maintaining influence in Iraq, Lebanon and Yemen, and on preserving alliances with terrorist organizations in those countries. It rejects meaningful constraints on its ballistic missile program. And, in a final act of surreal audacity, it demands financial compensation for damage inflicted by US and Israeli strikes—including, in some formulations, "moral damages" for eliminated operatives.

How can such a gap exist between reality and Iran's perception of it? The answer might lie in a combination of ideological rigidity, strategic miscalculation, and possibly the intellectual degradation of the Iranian leadership itself. Over the past year, and especially through targeted operations attributed to Israel, many of the regime's most capable strategists, military planners, and scientific minds have been eliminated. What remains is not the intellectual elite that once shaped Iran's long-term strategy but a second-tier leadership —less sophisticated, less disciplined, and perhaps more prone to operate according to instinct rather than analysis. These may not be grand strategists but rather functionaries steeped in a culture of transactional bargaining and accustomed to the logic of the bazaar, where the first offer is deliberately absurd and the negotiation is a theatrical performance of endurance.

Protecting the Free World, however, is not a bazaar, and Trump is clearly not a carpet merchant.

The first shock, for any observer, is that Iran seems not to perceive itself as being in a position of defeat. From a Western perspective, the United States and Israel, since the first day of the war, have been dominating Iran militarily, technologically, and operationally. Iran's military and nuclear assets have been decimated, its networks disrupted, and its vulnerabilities exposed. All the same, the regime in Tehran still stands, which is its all-encompassing objective. Iran's territory is not occupied and its capacity to inflict damage — through missiles and proxies — has not been fully neutralized. The costs Iran has imposed on its neighbors and adversaries, both militarily and with political pressure — particularly on a US president navigating domestic constraints — are perceived as significant. From this perspective, the war might not appear lost to them. In an ongoing war, one does not surrender. One bargains.

The second shock is applying bazaar tactics to high-stakes geopolitics. Extreme demands are just the opening move. One starts at the maximum to negotiate down to the acceptable. The objective is not to reflect reality, but to shape the negotiation space. By presenting conditions that are, on their face, unacceptable, Tehran is attempting to see if Trump desires a rapid resolution. Tehran may believe that if Trump fears a prolonged conflict that could evolve into a Vietnam-style quagmire — or, in more contemporary terms, a Ukraine-style stalemate — then he will make concessions.

This calculation is reinforced by Iran's belief — whether genuine or feigned — that it retains leverage. The Strait of Hormuz remains under its influence, a maritime chokepoint through which a significant portion of the world's oil and gas flows. From Lebanon, Hezbollah continues to bombard Israel with hundreds of rockets, while the Houthis in Yemen have not yet escalated. Iran's economy, battered but not collapsed, has adapted to decades of sanctions. Most importantly, Tehran is betting on time. After all, Trump just promised not to bomb Iran's power plants for another ten days. Trump, in their reading, is a dealmaker, not an occupier. He seeks outcomes, not endless wars. And in the echo chambers of Western media, where narratives of American overreach and impending quagmire are readily amplified, Tehran finds confirmation of its own illusions.

Even within serious analytical circles, this perception is bolstered. The Wall Street Journal has noted that Iran behaves as though it believes it is winning — and therefore demands a steep price to end the conflict. In the ideological framework of the Islamic Republic, the regime cannot afford to lose face. Its legitimacy is built on resistance — against the "Great Satan" and the "Zionist entity." For Iran's regime to accept negotiations under terms that reflect defeat would be to undermine the very narrative, however illusory, that sustains it. For the leadership, acknowledging strategic failure is not merely a diplomatic setback; it is an existential risk. It signals weakness. It invites internal dissent. It fractures the illusion of invincibility that authoritarian systems require to survive. Therefore, the regime does what such systems always do: it doubles down on rhetoric, inflates its demands, and projects strength even where weakness is evident.

On the US-Israel side, there is a structured, coherent strategy backed by overwhelming force and clear objectives. On the Iranian side, there is a negotiation posture shaped by ideological rigidity and a cultural reflex toward exaggerated bargaining.

What we are witnessing, therefore, is not simply a diplomatic impasse. It is a collision between two fundamentally different ways of understanding power. For Washington and Jerusalem, power is measurable, operational, and cumulative. It is expressed through capabilities, alliances and outcomes. For Tehran, in its current degraded state, power is performative. It is asserted, declared, dramatized — sustained through narrative rather than grounded in reality.

This premise is why Iran's position appears so irrational to Western observers. It is not that the regime is unaware of its vulnerabilities. It is that acknowledging them would be even more dangerous, internally, than ignoring them. So it constructs a parallel reality in which it acts as if it is still calling the shots — hoping to remain a regional power and a force to be reckoned with — despite mounting evidence to the contrary.

There is, however, a limit to how long such a dissonance can be maintained. Negotiation, by its very nature, is a process of convergence. At some point, positions must align with reality or with one another. The question is not whether Iran will eventually adjust its demands, but at what cost and under what pressure. The current posture is not sustainable. It is a delaying tactic, a psychological shield, a final attempt to negotiate from a position that no longer exists.

And this is where the strategic asymmetry becomes decisive. Trump is negotiating from a position of leverage, timing and control. Unlike the bazaar merchants of Tehran, he does not need to start high to negotiate low. He can start high and stay there.

In the end, the outcome will not be determined by rhetoric or by the theatrical posturing of preconditions. It will be determined by the hard realities of power. It is overwhelmingly, decisively, and unmistakably tilted against Iran. Those now in charge of Iran — like Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela, who was offered so many off-ramps that he refused to take — may no longer recognize that.

Pierre Rehov, who holds a law degree from Paris-Assas, is a French reporter, novelist and documentary filmmaker. He is the author of six novels, including "Beyond Red Lines", "The Third Testament" and "Red Eden", translated from French. His latest essay on the aftermath of the October 7 massacre " 7 octobre - La riposte " became a bestseller in France. As a filmmaker, he has produced and directed 17 documentaries, many photographed at high risk in Middle Eastern war zones, and focusing on terrorism, media bias, and the persecution of Christians. His latest documentary, "Pogrom(s)" highlights the context of ancient Jew hatred within Muslim civilization as the main force behind the October 7 massacre.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/22383/iran-fantasy-of-strength

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The Dire Strait of Hormuz - Thaddeus G. McCotter

 

​ by Thaddeus G. McCotter

Iran’s chokehold on the Straits of Hormuz exploits Western division, turning diplomacy into surrender and giving the mullahs a new shield for terror, coercion, and nuclear ambition.

 

As of this writing, the Iranian mullahs’ piratical closure of the Strait of Hormuz remains unresolved, whether through military or diplomatic means, or both.

The military option entailed a proposal to mount a protective flotilla of U.S. and European navies to keep the Strait of Hormuz open. The European partners within NATO have demurred; President Trump has denounced their reticence in blunt and brutal language. This has quite naturally led to bruised European egos and wounded their national pride.

Unfortunately for President Trump, opposing his request to militarily defend the Strait of Hormuz—and, more broadly, opposing the president himself—has proved to be a winning domestic political strategy for the leaders of these EU and NATO nations, at least in the short run.

This EU/NATO coalition of the unwilling has weakened the American hand, as it has effectively forced a shift toward seeking a diplomatic resolution to the conflict with Iran.

The division among NATO’s European nations and the United States has been accompanied by attacks from Iran and its proxies on non-NATO U.S. allies in the region, aimed at coercing them into demanding an end to American military operations against the mullahs.

Moreover, the Iranian regime is concomitantly employing propaganda to foment international opposition to the U.S. and aiming to disrupt the economies of America and her allied nations to increase pressure on the U.S. to cease and desist.

In sum, the Iranian regime’s strategy is simple: utilize any means at its insidious disposal to have other nations and their peoples—including Americans—compel the United States to acquiesce to Iran’s unconditional strategic victory. This is why, in the dire straits of Hormuz, the Iranian mullahs have become the sultans of sin.

This is also why one must continually impress upon our erstwhile European allies that, in the long run, this outcome must be avoided at all costs.

One can justly criticize the Trump administration’s performance before and during this phase of the Iran War. Speaking for myself only, I have long argued that the heinous Iranian regime must implode beneath the Iranian people’s thirst for freedom, not explode from the kinetic actions of the U.S. military.

The mullahs recognize this, too. Iran’s barbaric regime, which has recently killed over 30,000 of its own freedom-seeking citizens, including Saleh Mohammadi, a 19-year-old champion wrestler, will continue doing so as long as it remains in power. The regime will continue to lie through its bloodstained maw to get enough breathing room to tighten its iron hold on Iranians and rebuild its military—including nuclear—power.

But America and her EU/NATO and other allies are where we are, and a recrudescence of recriminations will not avail us.

Iran’s mullahs sought nuclear weapons as a shield for their continued export of terrorism. In the Obama administration’s misguided effort to negotiate an end to the regime’s nuclear program, the exclusion of Iran’s sponsorship of terrorism and its brutal treatment of its own citizens produced a twofer: the mullahs could wield the threat of abandoning negotiations to deter U.S. and allied military action, even as they covertly advanced their nuclear ambitions to achieve and reinforce those same aims.

Right now, like it or not—and I do not—if the United States “negotiates” a resolution or simply declares victory and ceases and desists (the Europeans are not the only ones who can play to domestic politics), Iran’s rulers will have secured a third shield for their exportation of terrorism: the ability to close the Strait of Hormuz at will.

Indeed, Iran has already commenced using its piratical closure of the Strait of Hormuz to shield itself from the consequences of its actions. This is no Trojan horse. By only opening the strait to “non-hostile vessels” who coordinate and cooperate with the regime, Iran is declaring, in a crystal-clear manner, ownership over one of the world’s most critical international waterways.

Moreover, this maneuver is firmly in line with the regime’s strategy of isolating the United States and Israel and bringing international pressure to bear on both to cease their operations against Tehran. The fact that Iran sent its unilateral announcement to the United Nations—an institution less than worthless in confronting Tehran—serves to put the world on notice regarding the regime’s intent and aims.

Further, anyone who believes this deceitful regime’s alleged promises to abandon its pursuit of nuclear weapons is dangerously disregarding the Iranian regime’s decades-long lies about its nuclear and missile programs. Iran’s firing of missiles capable of reaching Diego Garcia should have ended any notion that the regime can credibly or honestly adhere to verifiable international agreements.

But the American people, who are already weary and wary of both the military and economic costs of this war, will not support sending our ground troops into Iran—period.

Thus, diplomacy under present conditions will require a united front among the free world and our regional Arab allies. It will require securing freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz and a coordinated diplomatic effort to contain the Iranian regime and set it on a path toward collapse under the weight of its people’s aspirations for liberty.

Unfortunately, there are many—both at home and abroad—who would prefer to see President Trump and/or Israel fail in the Iran war rather than see their strategic objectives realized. In pursuit of their own political interests, those openly or covertly rooting for the barbaric mullahs—who continue to butcher their own citizens and attempt to hold the global economy hostage—are worse than misguided. They abet the erosion of American and international security and cement Iran’s ability to export terrorism, reconstitute its nuclear and missile capabilities, and engage in economic extortion with impunity.

That is far too high a price for the world to pay to “humble” President Trump and harm our ally Israel.

* * *

An American Greatness contributor, the Hon. Thaddeus G. McCotter (M.C., Ret.) served Michigan’s 11th Congressional district from 2003 to 2012. He served as Chair of the Republican House Policy Committee and as a member of the Financial Services, Joint Economic, Budget, Small Business, and International Relations Committees. Not a lobbyist, he is also a contributor to Chronicles; a frequent public speaker and moderator for public policy seminars; and a cohost of “John Batchelor: Eye on the World” on CBS radio, among sundry media appearances.

Thaddeus G. McCotter

Source: https://amgreatness.com/2026/03/28/the-dire-strait-of-hormuz/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Palestinian Authority security forces are ‘building offensive force for surprise attack’ - Josh Hasten

 

​ by Josh Hasten

New Regavim report warns that P.A. has 65,000-strong ‘shadow army’ threatening Israel.

 

Palestinian Authority security forces monitor areas in the center of the city of Jenin, in northern Samaria, on Dec. 16, 2024. Photo by Nasser Ishtayeh/Flash90.

( Mar. 25, 2026 / JNS )

A new investigative report by the Regavim Movement warns that the Palestinian Authority Security Forces (PASF) function as a “shadow army” capable of posing a major threat to Israel, prompting calls from officials and security experts for an urgent review of the findings.

According to the March 24 report, “The Writing is on the Wall (of Jericho),” the Palestinian Authority is developing what Regavim describes as a “terror army in the heart of the state,” capable of launching a surprise attack on Israel on a scale far greater than the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas assault.

“At any moment, the Palestinian Authority Security Forces may mobilize against us, and the events of Oct. 7 will seem like a walk in the park in comparison,” Naomi Linder Kahn, director of the International Division of Regavim, told JNS on Tuesday.

According to the report, the PASF has evolved far beyond its intended role as a civilian police force under the 1995 Oslo II framework, which capped its size at 30,000 personnel equipped primarily with light arms for law enforcement duties.

Regavim alleges that the force now numbers approximately 65,000 combat-trained personnel, including individuals with past terror convictions, and possesses weaponry suited for offensive operations, including grenade launchers, machine guns, armored vehicles and armor-piercing munitions.

The report also reveals that P.A. personnel have received advanced military training abroad, including officer and command training in Russia; armored, tank and artillery instruction in Pakistan; and tactical parachuting training in Egypt and Italy.

According to Regavim, training facilities in Jordan and Jericho—described publicly as centers for civilian policing—conduct exercises that include live-fire from high-speed all-terrain motorcycles, urban-warfare drills, and breaching operations involving explosives, capabilities the group says are indicative of preparations for combat rather than law enforcement.

“Every inch of the State of Israel is in danger, and we demand that the State of Israel act swiftly and decisively to prevent the nightmare scenario for which the Palestinian Authority has been training its troops for decades,” Kahn said.

The cover of the new Regavim report on the Palestinian Authority Security Forces, March 2026. Credit: Regavim.

‘A clear and present danger’

Yisrael Ganz, governor of the Binyamin Regional Council and chairman of the Yesha Council, described the report as “a wake-up call,” warning that the PASF represents “a clear and present danger.”

Ganz urged the Israeli government and security establishment to carefully review the findings and ensure that the security of residents in Binyamin, and of all Israeli citizens, relies first and foremost on the Israel Defense Forces operating with full freedom of action throughout Judea and Samaria.

“At the same time, the council is working and will continue to work to strengthen security components in the communities and to increase readiness on the ground, in full coordination with security authorities,” he added.

Lt. Col. (res.) Maurice Hirsch, director of the Initiative for Palestinian Authority Accountability and Reform at the Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs and former director of military prosecution for Judea and Samaria, told JNS the PASF should be viewed as a fully developed army.

He noted that approximately 6,000 terrorists participated in the Oct. 7 Hamas-led massacre and warned that what he described as “the P.A. terror army” is significantly larger and better trained.

“If Israel does not take immediate steps to dismantle the terror army, the next massacre, which will be much greater in scale, is just a matter of time,” Hirsch said.

A longtime security official from the Binyamin region, who requested anonymity, suggested the PASF could also be deployed internally by the Palestinian Authority to confront Israeli civilians entering Palestinian Authority-controlled areas following terror attacks.

He warned the findings could signal the potential for widespread escalation in Judea and Samaria, including the possibility of another full-scale intifada.

A Regavim spokesperson added that statements by P.A. officials expressing aspirations to “return” to Israeli cities, including Haifa, Jaffa, Tiberias and Beersheva, undermine the perception of the Palestinian Authority as a moderate partner.

“Relying on the Palestinian Authority as a partner or subcontractor for security in Judea and Samaria, or as a legitimate alternative for the ‘day after’ in Gaza, paves the way for the next disaster,” the spokesperson said. “Israel’s security must rest solely on its own strength and sovereignty.” 

Josh Hasten is a Middle East correspondent for JNS. He is co-host of the JNS podcast “Jerusalem Minute,” as well as the host of the JNS podcast “Judeacation.” He also hosts the weekly radio program “Israel Uncensored” on “The Land of Israel Radio Network.” An award-winning freelance journalist, he writes regularly for JNS and other publications. He is also a sought-after guest for television and radio interviews on current events in Israel, having appeared on CNN, BBC, Sky News, Fox, APTV, WABC, ILTV, i24News, and many others.

Source: https://www.jns.org/palestinian-authority-security-forces-are-building-offensive-force-for-surprise-attack

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Politico publishes political cartoon with alleged antisemitic imagery - Nicholas Ballasy

 

​ by Nicholas Ballasy

The illustration, created by cartoonist Sean Delonas, portrays former President Donald Trump, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and Republican lawmakers aboard a small boat labeled “Ship of Neocons.”

 

A political cartoon published by Politico on Friday is drawing criticism online, with some viewers accusing it of using antisemitic imagery in its portrayal of U.S. and Israeli leaders.

The illustration, created by cartoonist Sean Delonas, portrays former President Donald Trump, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and Republican lawmakers aboard a small boat labeled “Ship of Neocons.” The title appears to reference Ship of Fools, a well-known allegorical painting, a Washington Free Beacon report pointed out.

In the cartoon, the boat is shown heading toward a waterfall, while a sack labeled as money sits atop the mast. The figures are depicted wearing Jewish religious items, including prayer shawls and yarmulkes. The background includes the word “Amalek,” a term from the Hebrew Bible.

Critics on social media and in some political circles argue that parts of the imagery, including the use of religious symbols, portrayals involving money, and physical exaggerations reflect longstanding antisemitic stereotypes. Others on social media have defended the cartoon as political satire aimed at criticizing hawkish foreign policy positions and the ongoing conflict involving Iran.

Politico has not publicly responded to the criticism. 

Nicholas Ballasy

Source: https://justthenews.com/nation/culture/politico-published-cartoon-alleged-antisemitic-imagery

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Iran-aligned Houthis claim responsibility for missile attack on Israel - Nicholas Ballasy

 

​ by Nicholas Ballasy

Israeli officials said the projectile was intercepted, marking the first attack from Yemen since the Iran war began, report says

 

Yemen’s Iran-aligned Houthi rebels said they carried out a missile strike on Israel Saturday, fueling fears the group is becoming directly involved in the broader Middle East conflict. 

Israeli officials said the projectile was intercepted, marking the first attack from Yemen since the war began last month, the Associated Press reported. 

Nicholas Ballasy

Source: https://justthenews.com/world/middle-east/iran-aligned-houthis-claim-responsibility-missile-attack-israel

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

House digs in on Homeland funding standoff with Senate as Trump intervenes to pay TSA workers - John Solomon

 

​ by John Solomon

House Republican leaders said that President Donald Trump supported their idea for temporary but full funding.

 

House Republicans late Friday voted to fully fund the Homeland Security Department after rejecting a compromise that would have excluded immigration enforcement, setting up a showdown with the Senate as a partial government shutdown showed no sign of ending.

The 213-203 vote approved six weeks of full funding through May 22, seeking to pressure senators not to exclude previously approved money for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol.

House Republican leaders said that President Donald Trump supported their idea for temporary but full funding.

"House Republicans have voted once again to FULLY FUND the Department of Homeland Security," House Majority Leader Steve Scalise said. "Nearly every single House Democrat voted no.

"It COULD NOT BE ANY CLEARER who truly cares about the safety and security of the American people and who is using them as political pawns," he added.

With the congressional stalemate showing no signs of ending, Trump took matters into his own hands earlier Friday and signed an executive order to pay Transportation Security Administration employees who have worked for weeks without paychecks.

Trump signed the action hoping to ease long security lines at many of the nation’s airports. 

“America’s air travel system has reached its breaking point,” Trump wrote in his order. 

John Solomon

Source: https://justthenews.com/government/congress/house-votes-fully-fund-homeland-security-department-setting-showdown-senate

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

'No Kings' calls itself leaderless, but its own internal documents tell a very different story - Leo Briceno

 

​ by Leo Briceno

Organizer Sarah Parker says the movement is 'people-powered' but its own toolkit reveals a tightly structured operation

 

"No Kings," a decentralized protest movement that crystallized in opposition to President Donald Trump's second term, will hold thousands of events on Saturday morning, according to Sarah Parker, an organizer for one of the events in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

The protests mark the most recent development for the amorphous group, which has prompted similar events in the past.

"Tomorrow we’re going to have over 3,500 events across the country," Parker said. "I think it’s important to be out in the streets at this moment in time to save our country. The events will be overwhelmingly peaceful, and there are going to be millions of Americans from different affiliations, different ages and different ethnic backgrounds coming together to be in community."

Parker did not describe how "No Kings" works with local figures to organize events but said the protests aim to build on local displeasure with the administration.

LIZ PEEK: DEMOCRAT FURY FUELS 'NO KINGS' PROTESTS BUT ENDGAME IS ELUSIVE

No Kings protesters, left, pictured alongside Sarah Parker, an organizer for a protest in Minnesota, right. ( Dong Xudong/Xinhua via Getty Images; Fox News Digital)

"I think this is organic. This is a people-powered movement. We have different local hosts that are volunteers who have stepped up to host an event in their areas, even in rural areas. We have hundreds of events in rural and deep-red states," Parker said.

Unlike other organized organizations, "No Kings" is not a non-profit, a business, or a formal organization, making its structure a mystery. Because of its lack of centralization, it has little to no financial reporting requirements and no easily identifiable leadership.

"No Kings" first burst onto the scene through "No Kings Day" in June 2025, an event that, in the words of their website, inspired "a nationwide uprising 14 times larger than both of Trump’s inaugurations combined."

'NO KINGS' PROTESTERS FILMED HAVING CHILDREN BASH TRUMP PIÑATA

Almost a year later, the protests scheduled for Saturday hope to continue their opposition, touting opposition to Trump’s recent actions in Iran and debates over immigration enforcement.

"Masked secret police terrorizing our communities. An illegal, catastrophic war putting us in danger and driving up our costs. Attacks on our freedom of speech, our civil rights, our freedom to vote. Costs pushing families to the brink," their website’s description reads.

President Donald Trump on July 28, 2025, in Turnberry, Scotland.   (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

Despite Parker’s framing of a decentralized movement, No Kings provides a highly-structured document for organizers titled "March 28 Toolkit," instructing viewers on how to recruit their own speakers, delegate roles, register their event and use No Kings branded media materials. It also lays out best practices for logistics as well as how to avoid permitting and insurance requirements for event-holders.

BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN DOUBLES DOWN ON ANTI-TRUMP, ANTI-ICE STANCE, SAYS 'BLOWBACK IS JUST PART OF IT'

Notably, the document also includes a "host hotline," providing a number with a Maryland area code.

A map of events scheduled for Saturday shows organizational activity in the vast majority of urban centers across the country. Parker said that no one center will play a lead role, but that Minneapolis will act as a "flagship." 

Parker isn’t affiliated with No Kings directly. Instead, she described herself as a part of 50501 — another decentralized organization that partners with No Kings. She did not describe the nature of the partnership or how they interacted amid their similarly decentralized structures.

REVOLUTIONARY TOURISM: INSIDE THE $600M MARRIAGE OF DARK MONEY AND FAR-LEFT AGITPROP

Protesters gather in Washington, D.C., for the No Kings Day protest on October 18th, 2025. (Fox News Digital/Emma Woodhead)

Asked what 50501 meant, Parker said the name originally stood for "50 states, 50 capitols, one day."

It, too, is not registered as a non-profit or business.

When asked who should be listening to No Kings’ messaging, Parker said she believes its lawmakers that should pay attention.

"I think it's for any elected official that is not listening to their constituents again. It should be a message for any, any elected officials, regardless of their political affiliation," Parker said.

 

Leo Briceno is a politics reporter for the congressional team at Fox News Digital. He was previously a reporter with World Magazine.

Source: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/no-kings-calls-itself-leaderless-its-own-internal-documents-tell-very-different-story

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

China boosts cooperation in fentanyl probes following FBI Director Kash Patel’s visit - Steven Richards

 

​ by Steven Richards

China’s track record calls into question the country’s long-term commitment to permanently end the illicit trade of fentanyl precursors.

 

New indictments this week in a sweeping probe into the alleged sale and distribution of fentanyl precursor chemicals by Chinese companies and their American collaborators shows that federal investigators may have finally broken the logjam in cooperation with Chinese authorities. 

FBI Director Kash Patel publicly thanked China’s Ministry of Public Security–the country’s domestic law enforcement agency–for its “unprecedented cooperation” in the investigation and for tightening controls over the precursor chemicals after an agreement between the U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping last October. 

China has cooperated before with the U.S. on cracking down on the precursors used to manufacture deadly fentanyl, but often limited its help to administrative actions or token assistance. 

For example, the Chinese government promised on two prior occasions to crack down on fentanyl precursor chemicals, only to allegedly subsidize their manufacture and route trade instead through Mexican cartels, Just the News previously reported. 

When FBI Director Kash Patel quietly traveled to China in the wake of the Trump-Xi meeting, he aimed to hammer out the details of the leaders’ agreement with his Chinese counterparts. The Chinese leader had made renewed promises to crackdown on the chemical trade in exchange for tariff relief.  

Two prior U.S. administrations, including the first Trump administration, agreed to similar deals with Beijing, only to find that little actually changed. 

But, this time, China has shown remarkable openness by receiving the FBI director personally in Beijing, the first time in over a decade, Patel said. 

"This was a historic trip for the FBI and America’s national security – the first time in a decade that an FBI Director has been to China and received an audience with his counterpart to discuss the fentanyl crisis," Patel told Fox News Digital at the time of his trip. 

Operation "Box Cutter"  

The recent indictments handed down by a federal grand jury in Dayton, Ohio, charged six Chinese nationals and two Chinese pharmaceutical companies in “narcotics and money laundering conspiracies” tied to the buying and selling of chemical agents used to “​​manufacture and cut fentanyl,” the Justice Department said. 

As the prosecutors explained, drug traffickers use some substances known as “cut” to increase the volume of doses of fentanyl available for sale. One common chemical used is medetomidine, a powerful animal tranquilizer. 

The two indicted Chinese companies, Shandong Believe Chemical Company Pte Ltd. and Shandong Ranhang Biotechnology Co. Ltd., used defendants Hanson Zhao, Gao Yanpeng, Xia Yi, Zhang Jian, Wang Zhoalan and Zhang Chunhai “to solicit, negotiate, and secure payments for illegal cutting agents from U.S. customers.” 

Three of the defendants were also charged with attempting to provide material support for a foreign terrorist organization by selling precursor chemicals and medetomidine to a person who claimed to be a member of the Mexican cartel ​​Cártel del Golfo. 

According to the U.S. Department of Justice, China’s Ministry of Public Security assisted the FBI with “critical intelligence” about Shandong Believe Chemical Company and its “criminal network,” leading to the indictment targeting the company. 

Patel: “These indictments are historic" 

These indictments follow earlier prosecutions tied to the operation, code named Box Cutter. A previous round of indictments in September charged three U.S. citizens, 22 Chinese nationals, and four additional Chinese pharmaceutical companies. One of the defendants, Eric Michael Payne of Tipp City, Ohio, was alleged to be the “main supplier” of fentanyl cutting agents to traffickers operating across Southern Ohio. 

Patel celebrated the new indictments this week, specifically linking the progress of the investigation to his under-the-radar trip to China and the close collaboration of federal law enforcement with their Chinese counterparts.

“These indictments are historic,” Patel said in a statement posted to X. “The multi-agency investigation involved unprecedented cooperation with China’s MPS - and followed the FBI’s historic visit to China in November, successfully working with MPS to tighten controls over the precursor chemicals key to fueling fentanyl trafficking.” 

Shortly after taking office last year, President Trump imposed several tariffs on China for its failure to combat fentanyl precursor chemicals, targeting steel, automobiles, and other goods that once reached over 100%. China retaliated by raising its own tariffs on U.S. goods. 

After multiple rounds of tit-for-tat tariffs and other trade barriers, Trump and Xi agreed to a trade truce after negotiations on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit held in South Korea.

In addition to a renewed crackdown on fentanyl precursors, China vowed to resume purchases of American soybeans and delay onerous restrictions on exports of vital rare earth metals for at least one year. In return, the Trump administration promised to drastically reduce the significant tariffs it had imposed against China since Trump took office. 

Skepticism remains

At the time, experts told Just the News that it would be important for the United States to demand results, not just words, from the Chinese on fentanyl, given the country’s poor track record on enforcement. 

“[We’re] going to have to see some results here,” Victoria Coates, former Deputy National Security Advisor during Trump’s first term and a vice president at the Heritage Foundation, told Just the News after the summit. “Chairman Xi will smile for the cameras, he'll say nice things, and then go back and do exactly what he was doing before.” 

Once before, in 2019, China agreed to add all fentanyl related substances to its controlled substances schedule, making their export tightly regulated. Prior to this agreement, China was “the primary source of U.S.-bound illicit fentanyl, fentanyl-related substances, and production equipment,” according to the Congressional Research Service. 

Though the agreement saw direct shipments of fentanyl and related products from China approach zero, Mexican criminal organizations quickly replaced the direct pipeline to the United States. Those criminal organizations reported imported fentanyl precursors directly from China for manufacturing drugs for export to the United States. Additionally, the Treasury Department assessed that those organizations increasingly cooperated with Chinese money laundering operations in this drug trade. 

China was criticized for poor enforcement, especially as tensions between China and the United States reached new heights towards the end of the first Trump administration. 

During this period, the Chinese government tacitly permitted Chinese money laundering organizations to assist Mexican drug cartels to launder the dollars obtained in the U.S. as part of the fentanyl trafficking process.

The problem remained unsolved. In November 2023, President Joe Biden attempted to negotiate greater Chinese enforcement action against the illicit fentanyl trade, but the plan failed to address the Mexican cartel middlemen, Just the News previously reported. Less than a year later, a House committee concluded that China was still subsidizing the production of fentanyl precursor chemicals, raising significant questions about China’s compliance with the agreement.  

Steven Richards

Source: https://justthenews.com/government/security/china-boosts-cooperation-fentanyl-probes-following-fbi-director-kash-patels

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Iran’s Revolutionary Guards begin recruiting 12-year-olds - Neta Bar

 

​ by Neta Bar

Children are being enrolled for checkpoint duty and logistics.

 

Minors serving in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ Basij forces. Credit: Iran International.

( Mar. 28, 2026 / Israel Hayom )

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has lowered the minimum age for participation in war-support roles to 12, a senior official acknowledged on state television, in remarks cited by the Iran International news channel.

Rahim Nadali, a cultural official in the IRGC’s Tehran branch, said an initiative called “For Iran” has been recruiting participants to assist in activities such as patrols, checkpoints and logistics. According to him, most of the minors being recruited are being directed to the Basij paramilitary militia, which is responsible for suppressing opposition to the regime.

“Given that the age of those coming forward has dropped and they are requesting to participate, we lowered the minimum age to 12,” he said, adding that children aged 12 and 13 can now join. The remarks were broadcast as part of state media coverage of the war effort.

The move comes despite Iran’s commitments under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which prohibits the use of children in military activities.

The elimination of Basij personnel in Tehran. Credit: IDF.

For weeks, the U.S. and Israeli air forces have been targeting Basij personnel, who have suffered heavy casualties. Morale among Basij gunmen has plummeted, driven by fear of strikes on checkpoints and headquarters, with many forced to sleep in streets and mosques. Videos circulating on Iranian social media show Basij members fleeing in panic after civilians play drone sounds through their mobile phones.

Originally published by Israel Hayom.

Neta Bar

Source: https://www.jns.org/news/world/irans-revolutionary-guards-begin-recruiting-12-year-olds

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Arabs Did Not Help the Gulf States: What Do they See as the Central Source of Instability in the Middle East? - Khaled Abu Toameh

 

​ by Khaled Abu Toameh

The Arabs' failure to help the Gulf states appears to stem from a desire to continue depicting Israel, and not Iran, as the central political issue.

 

Translations of this item:

Dutch

• While the Gulf states find themselves directly in the line of fire, their frustration is not directed only at Tehran, but increasingly at fellow Arab states whose response has been muted, symbolic, or absent altogether. As far as the Gulf states are concerned, the Arab response is just background noise.

• For decades, the Arab world has been organized around a single political narrative: Israel is the central threat to regional stability. This narrative has shaped diplomacy, media, education, and public discourse across the Arab world. It has served Arab regimes as a tool of legitimacy and deflection – a way to redirect internal frustrations toward an external enemy.

• The Arabs' failure to help the Gulf states appears to stem from a desire to continue depicting Israel, and not Iran, as the central political issue.

• Arab inaction is driven mainly by fear, weakness, and division, but it is reinforced by a lingering reluctance to fully abandon the old regional narrative centered on Israel.

• If Arab states were to fully mobilize in defense of the Gulf against Iran – politically, militarily, and rhetorically – they would be forced to confront an uncomfortable truth: that the primary threat to Arab security no longer aligns with the anti-Israel narrative that has defined the region for generations.

• For the people of the Gulf states, the conclusion is clear: When it matters most, Arab solidarity is unreliable, and, contrary to the political discourse in the Arab world, Israel is not the central threat to regional stability.

While the Gulf states find themselves directly in the line of fire, their frustration is not directed only at Tehran, but increasingly at fellow Arab states whose response has been muted, symbolic, or absent altogether. As far as the Gulf states are concerned, the Arab response is just background noise. Pictured: Flames and smoke rise from the site of an Iranian drone attack next to Dubai International Airport on March 16, 2026. (Photo by AFP via Getty Images)

Recent Iranian missile and drone attacks on Gulf states – including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Bahrain, and Kuwait – have exposed a deep and widening rift within the Arab world.

While the Gulf states find themselves directly in the line of fire, their frustration is not directed only at Tehran, but increasingly at fellow Arab states whose response has been muted, symbolic, or absent altogether. As far as the Gulf states are concerned, the Arab response is just background noise.

For decades, the Arab world has been organized around a single political narrative: Israel is the central threat to regional stability. This narrative has shaped diplomacy, media, education, and public discourse across the Arab world. It has served Arab regimes as a tool of legitimacy and deflection – a way to redirect internal frustrations toward an external enemy.

The Arabs' failure to help the Gulf states appears to stem from a desire to continue depicting Israel, and not Iran, as the central political issue.

If Iran becomes the universally acknowledged primary threat, that narrative collapses. So, there is an underlying hesitation in some parts of the Arab world publicly to shift the spotlight away from Israel and redefine Iran as the main enemy. Acknowledging Iran as the primary threat carries political and ideological costs in the Arab world. Arab inaction is driven mainly by fear, weakness, and division, but it is reinforced by a lingering reluctance to fully abandon the old regional narrative centered on Israel.

If Arab states were to fully mobilize in defense of the Gulf against Iran – politically, militarily, and rhetorically – they would be forced to confront an uncomfortable truth: that the primary threat to Arab security no longer aligns with the anti-Israel narrative that has defined the region for generations.

Anwar Gargash, diplomatic adviser to UAE President Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, recently criticized what he described as the failure of joint Arab and Islamic countries to respond effectively to escalating Iranian threats against Gulf states.

In a post on X, Gargash wrote that Gulf countries are facing repeated attacks from Iran, raising urgent questions about the effectiveness of institutions such as the 22-member Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, the world's second-largest intergovernmental organization after the United Nations, with 57 member states across four continents.

He emphasized that any criticism of Western or US presence in the Middle East would be "unobjective" if Arab and Islamic countries themselves fail to act meaningfully in the face of such threats.

"With this [Arab and Islamic] absence and inability, it would not be acceptable later to talk about the decline of the Arab and Islamic role or to criticize the American and Western presence."

Gragash's remarks reflect growing frustration in Gulf states with what are perceived as largely symbolic or rhetorical reactions from Arabs and Muslims, which have often stopped short of implementing concrete measures or strategies for deterrence.

Gargash's criticism signals that the Arabs of the Gulf states have begun questioning the reliability of traditional Arab solidarity. That may well be why some have already begun adjusting by moving closer to security cooperation with non-Arab partners -- including the US and Israel -- considering more independent military responses, and preparing for a scenario where they must act alone.

For Gulf leaders watching their skies light up with incoming projectiles, the lack of a response from many Arab and Islamic countries to the Iranian attacks does not constitute an act of solidarity; it is abandonment and betrayal.

Beyond standard condemnations, broader Arab backing has been extremely limited.

While Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states have coordinated internally, pan-Arab mobilization has been largely absent. Arab responses, meanwhile, have largely consisted of statements condemning escalation, and calls for restraint and de-escalation.

What is missing from the Gulf perspective: military coordination, air defense integration beyond the GCC, and political alignment against the Iranian aggression.

Not all Arab states, however, see Iran as the primary threat.

For Gulf countries, Iran is an immediate, kinetic threat targeting their territory. Its actions threaten energy security and regime stability. Control over the Strait of Hormuz is an existential concern for the Gulf countries.

Other Arabs and Muslims do not seem to share this concern. For them, the Iranian regime is a secondary or manageable adversary.

For the Arabs and Muslims living outside the Gulf region, domestic priorities and internal stability take precedence. Many Arab and Islamic leaders face publics that oppose alignment with the US or Israeli military actions. They are also most likely afraid of Iranian retaliation.

These Arab and Muslim leaders worried that entanglement in the conflict could expand into a full-scale regional war that would pose a direct threat to their national security and regimes.

Muna Busamra, editor-in-chief of Al-Bayan, a Dubai-based Arabic-language newspaper, agreed with Gargash's criticism of the muted reaction of the Arabs and Muslims to Iran's attacks on the Gulf countries.

"Between silence and justification, Arab positions have redrawn the map of trust and partnership in the region," Busamra remarked.

"In the Iranian terrorist aggression against the Gulf states, the surprise lay not in the nature of the threat, but in the magnitude of the void exposed by the moment of truth. Claims crumbled, rhetoric faltered, and entire systems that had long spoken of 'solidarity' without demonstrating the ability to practice it when it became an obligation were uncovered.

"In light of this escalation, the event was not merely military, but a revealing moment for the reality of Arab and Islamic action. The question is no longer theoretical: Where are the institutions that were supposedly established for such situations? Where are the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation? And where are the countries that have long been at the forefront with grand pronouncements about shared national security?...

"What is more dangerous is that some [Arab and Islamic] parties did not merely hesitate, but silently bet on a different outcome. They bet that the [Iranian] strike would be devastating, and that the Gulf states would enter a state of confusion that would reshape the balance of power in the region. This gamble was not innocent; rather, it reflects a profound misreading of reality, and perhaps an implicit desire to see a different scenario, even at the expense of the region's security....

The Gulf states, which have always been present in supporting their Arab surroundings—politically, economically and humanely—were not expecting anything in return, but they certainly did not expect that absence would turn into a stance, or that historical support would be met with cold silence at a moment of direct threat.

"This experience will reshape many assumptions. It will no longer be possible to treat the concepts of "partnership" and "brotherhood" superficially, and alliances will no longer be built on pleasantries, but rather on clear positions and converging interests. The region is moving toward a more frank phase... and one less tolerant of ambiguity...

"The Gulf states, which have proven their resilience and ability to manage crises effectively, will base their future choices on one principle: who was present when presence was required."

Mauritanian journalist Ould Salek, writing in the UAE's Al-Ain newspaper, also weighed in on the lack of Arab and Islamic backing for the Gulf states.

"Since Arab national security becomes meaningless if it does not include Gulf national security, citizens and residents of the Arab Gulf states have the right to ask with genuine concern: Where are the institutions of joint Arab and Islamic action, foremost among them the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, while the Gulf states are exposed to direct threats and repeated Iranian aggression?... Where are the major Arab and regional powers when the situation has become critical, and Gulf security is in the eye of the storm?...

"For decades, these [Gulf] countries opened their doors to millions of Arabs, who settled there, worked, built homes, raised children, and whose interests and lives became intertwined with the life of the Gulf itself. They were in a welcoming Arab space where they found dignity, opportunity, and stability.

"The role of the Gulf states was not limited to hosting and providing livelihoods; it extended to supporting their brethren in times of hardship. Foremost among these was the Palestinian cause, which, were it not for Gulf support, would have been lost. When Arab economies faltered, cities crumbled under the weight of war, or peoples sought a lifeline, the Gulf states were present, offering assistance, aid, relief, and economic and political support....

"But the current regional landscape reveals a reality that cannot be ignored: the Gulf states view Iran as the primary threat, due to geography, direct experience, and Iran's activities across multiple Arab arenas. Conversely, other Arab states consider Israel the most significant threat in their priorities....

"Ultimately, the most undeniable truth remains that Arab solidarity should not be selective, nor should it be based on double standards. Palestine has the right to receive support, but no one has the right to use it as a pretext to attack the Gulf and then demand Arab silence. Just causes do not justify injustice, grand slogans do not erase aggression, and those who attack the Gulf do not become friends simply because they raise the Palestinian flag."

For the people of the Gulf states, the conclusion is clear: When it matters most, Arab solidarity is unreliable, and, contrary to the political discourse in the Arab world, Israel is not the central threat to regional stability.

• Follow Khaled Abu Toameh on X (formerly Twitter)

 

Khaled Abu Toameh is an award-winning journalist based in Jerusalem.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/22382/arabs-did-not-help-gulf-states

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter