Sunday, August 30, 2026

‘One Big Military Theft’: Trump Announces Deal for US Control of Venezuelan Oil Fields


Trump shakes hands with Woods following Venezuelan invasion.

US President Donald Trump shakes hands with ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods, during a meeting with US oil companies executives in the East Room of the White House in Washington, DC on January 9, 2026.

(Photo by Saul Loeb / AFP via Getty Images)

“This is proof Trump put our service members at risk to get Venezuelan oil for his billionaire buddies,” one Democratic senator said. “Putting our soldiers’ lives on the line for private profit is a gross dereliction of his constitutional duty.”

Olivia Rosane, Common Dreams, Aug 29, 2026

President Donald Trump announced on Truth Social on Friday that his government had “secured majority US control” of Venezuelan oil reserves containing 65 billion barrels of oil.

The announcement followed on reporting from Axios that a deal was in the works, prompting criticisms that such a move would be “colonial” and calls for Congress to reject any such proposal.

RECOMMENDED…

Oil Tanker anchored in Venezuela

‘Yet Another Trump Grift’: Congress Called to Stop US Takeover of Venezuelan Oil Fields

President Donald Trump

‘Menace to the World’: With Iran Talks Stalled, Trump Vows to Declare Strait of Hormuz a US Territory

“Let’s be clear: This isn’t a win,” Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) wrote on social media in response to the announcement. “This is proof Trump put our service members at risk to get Venezuelan oil for his billionaire buddies. Putting our soldiers’ lives on the line for private profit is a gross dereliction of his constitutional duty.”

When US forces invaded Caracas and kidnapped Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife First Combatant Cilia Fores on January 3, Trump’s own words following the invasion confirmed suspicions that he acted largely to gain access to the country’s oil.

“These are some of the largest crimes of our lifetimes.”

“We’re going to get the oil flowing the way it should be,” he said in a press conference following the attack.

Friday’s deal, which seems like an attempt to make good on that promise, was also announced by Secretary of State Marco Rubio and acting Venezuelan President Delcy Rodriguez, who provided more details.

According to Venezuelanalysis:

Rodríguez stated that the deal will involve private corporations developing 17 “strategic fields” with 65 billion barrels of proven reserves. She echoed Rubio’s $100 billion investment claim and pledged that the projects would yield $209 billion in tax revenues. According to the acting president, the announced agreement “ushers in a new era of growth and prosperity.”

However, economist Francisco Rodríguez, a senior research fellow at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, argued that the agreement was actually a bad deal for Venezuelans.

“President: According to your figures, this agreement will generate tax revenues of just $3.22 per barrel of Venezuelan oil. This represents 4.7% of the current price, and less than half of the royalty rate contemplated in concessions granted by Juan Vicente Gómez,” he wrote on social media, addressing the current Venezuelan leader and referring to a Venezuelan dictator from the early 20th century.

Joseph Bouchard, a journalist and researcher who focuses on Latin America, agreed with Rodriguez’s criticism of the deal, writing on social media that “Trump [was] ‘generously’ buying billions of barrels of Venezuelan oil at less than 5% its market price. He’s stealing their oil for his own family and cronies’ profit. Guessing this may be used as a chip to manipulate the midterms. These are some of the largest crimes of our lifetimes.”

Francisco Rodriguez had earlier pointed out that the deal violated the Venezuelan Constitution, which holds that all minerals and hydrocarbons are “inalienable public domain,” according to Venezuelanalysis. For the deal to go through, therefore, Venezula would have to alter its Constitution.

Former head of Human Rights Watch Kenneth Roth noted on social media that “senior Venezuelan officials, all fearing arrest, are hardly in a position to negotiate vigorously, making the whole thing seems like one big military theft.”

Trump is under pressure to lower gas prices that have spiked due to the fallout of his war on Iran, which entered its sixth month on Friday, and promised in his announcement, “This Historic Transaction MORE THAN DOUBLES American Oil Reserves, greatly increases our Oil Supply, and will substantially lower Gas Prices for all Americans, long into the future.”

However, The Associated Press pointed out: “A significant drop in US gas prices tied to the agreement should not be expected immediately. Experts have repeatedly warned that a substantial boost in Venezuelan oil production will not happen quickly as repairing and expanding infrastructure takes years and requires billions of dollars.”

Exploiting Venezuela’s oil reserves would also exacerbate the climate crisis, which just this summer intensified a deadly heatwave in Europe and is supercharging an El Niño that could contribute to a significant increase in food prices in 2026 and 2027.

An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder


Dear Common Dreams reader,

It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits.

It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do.

Many people said we wouldn’t last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong.

Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.

Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work.

But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever.

We don’t accept corporate advertising and never will. We don’t have a paywall because we don’t think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you.

When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we.
Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives?

—Craig Brown, Co-founder
about:blank

about:blank

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

Olivia Rosane

Olivia Rosane is the opinion editor and a staff writer for Common Dreams.

Full Bio >

 

𝐎𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝟕, 𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐜𝐮𝐞𝐝 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐫𝐮𝐛𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐝𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐔𝐒-𝐈𝐬𝐫𝐚𝐞𝐥 𝐰𝐚𝐫 𝐨𝐧 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧: 𝐑𝐞𝐝 𝐂𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭

 Aljazeera, 30 Aug 2026

More than 7,250 people have been pulled from the rubble of the US-Israeli attacks on Iran since the war began on February 28, according to the Iranian Red Crescent.

Pirhossein Kolivand, head of the Iranian branch of the humanitarian agency, said rescuers had to operate under extremely difficult conditions, including during air strikes.

Kolivand added that the Iranian Red Crescent would not remain silent in the face of what he described as war crimes and violations of humanitarian law.

He said evidence of attacks on humanitarian infrastructure had been sent to international legal bodies and that the appropriate legal channels would be pursued.

Saturday, August 29, 2026

Hamas must not concede in talks what Israel failed to win on the battlefield


Sami Al-Arian

MME, 28 August 2026

As pressure mounts to disarm and incorporate it into a reconstructed Palestinian order, the movement needs strategic patience to preserve its independence and resistance identity

Hamas fighters secure the area as Egyptian workers and Red Cross officials search for the remains of the last Israeli captive, in the Zeitoun neighbourhood of Gaza City, on 8 December 2025

Hamas fighters secure the area as Egyptian workers and Red Cross officials search for the remains of the last Israeli captive, in the Zeitoun neighbourhood of Gaza City, on 8 December 2025 (Omar al-Qattaa/AFP)

Some moments in the history of liberation movements require courage to act; others require equal courage to wait.

Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, on 7 October 2023, was a daring decision that shattered assumptions that had governed the Palestinian question for years.

It brought Palestine back to the centre of world politics, exposed the illusion that it could be managed or bypassed, and confronted Israel and its western supporters with a conflict they had convinced themselves could be contained indefinitely.

Nothing that followed can justify transferring responsibility for Gaza’s destruction from those who destroyed it to those who resisted them.

Responsibility for the devastation of Gaza, the killing of its civilians and the ruin of its homes, hospitals, universities and schools belongs to those who carried it out. Criticism of Palestinian strategy must never become a mechanism for absolving the perpetrators and their supporters.

New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch

Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters

The scale of that sacrifice demands a harder look at how it is being managed politically.

Hamas today faces perhaps the most difficult transition in its history. The movement that entered Al-Aqsa Flood as an armed resistance organisation now confronts enormous pressure to emerge from the war disarmed, removed from governing Gaza, integrated into a reconstructed Palestinian political system and dependent upon arrangements designed principally by the US and Israel with the tacit support of regional mediators.

Tactical flexibility is indispensable to any resistance movement, but it must serve a coherent strategy rather than gradually displace it.

Four developments should concern anyone who believes the resistance must preserve its independence: the political trajectory signalled by Hamas’s 2017 document, the handling of postwar negotiations, the mounting pressure for disarmament and the movement’s re-engagement with its old Fatah-aligned rivals.

A political wager

Hamas’s 2017 Document of General Principles and Policies, issued well before Al-Aqsa Flood, was widely understood as an effort to present a more pragmatic face to the world. It accepted a sovereign Palestinian state along the 4 June 1967 lines as a formula of national consensus, while refusing to recognise the legitimacy of the Zionist state and maintaining the right of resistance.

The position had a long pedigree. As early as 2009, Khaled Meshaal, then the head of Hamas’s political bureau, told the New York Times that his group “had accepted a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders, including East Jerusalem, the dismantling of settlements and the right of return [of Palestinian refugees] based on a long-term truce”.

The document represented a political wager: that moderation would break the movement’s isolation and open doors in Europe and beyond.

Hamas should study Fatah’s experience and refuse ever to surrender a strategic position in exchange for a promise of future reciprocity

European figures discussed whether it justified engagement. Former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair after leaving his post as the envoy for the Middle East Quartet – which includes the US, EU, UN and Russia – courted Hamas’s leadership, and later acknowledged that the boycott imposed after the movement won the 2006 elections had been a mistake. Yet the broader political opening never came.

Therein lies the lesson: a liberation movement should distinguish between flexibility exchanged for concrete political gains and concessions offered in anticipation of western acceptance. The real danger is a process in which each concession becomes the starting point for the next.

Fatah travelled down that road decades earlier, with each concession presented as the gateway to the next diplomatic breakthrough: recognition was to produce reciprocity, negotiation to deliver statehood and security cooperation to build confidence, while Oslo itself was supposed to be transitional.

Instead, the transitional became permanent as settlements expanded, the occupation deepened and sovereignty receded, leaving Fatah today a shadow of its past.

Hamas should study that experience and refuse ever to surrender a strategic position in exchange for a promise of future reciprocity. Western approval is not a Palestinian national objective.

Squandered leverage

The second concern is more immediate. Negotiations are a contest over interests conducted through bargaining power, yet since the war entered its diplomatic phase, Hamas has repeatedly appeared willing to relinquish leverage before securing reciprocal, enforceable gains.

The release of the Israeli-American soldier Edan Alexander in May 2025 was presented as a goodwill gesture intended to reopen diplomatic space, but goodwill has value in negotiation only when the other side treats it as something to reciprocate.

The larger test came with US President Donald Trump‘s Gaza initiative in September 2025. In its initial response, Hamas agreed to release the Israeli captives, living and dead, under the exchange formula, and accepted the transfer of Gaza’s administration to an independent Palestinian technocratic body.

As the world fixates on Hamas, who will disarm the Israeli settlers storming West Bank villages?

Read More »

On the broader future of Gaza and fundamental Palestinian rights, however, it insisted that such questions belonged within a comprehensive national framework.

I had argued for precisely this approach days before the movement issued its response on 3 October 2025.

Once the captives were exchanged and that undertaking fulfilled, Hamas should have considered stepping back from direct negotiation over the larger questions, since a resistance leadership does not have to conduct every negotiation itself.

It could have entrusted the bargaining to experienced independent Palestinian negotiators versed in international law, diplomacy, American politics, Israeli negotiating practice, maps and security arrangements, while itself defining the objectives and the red lines.

One of the tragedies of the Palestinian negotiating experience since the 1980s has been the repeated confusion of revolutionary legitimacy with negotiating competence, which was among Fatah’s costliest mistakes under Yasser Arafat.

The record of Oslo makes the asymmetry plain. Israel fielded specialised teams, serving generals and the seasoned foreign ministry lawyer Joel Singer; as Mahmoud Abbas himself later acknowledged, the Palestinians were negotiating against “an experienced, capable delegation” without comparable expertise of their own. Negotiation is a profession, and recognising that a movement lacks it costs far less than pretending otherwise.


Follow Middle East Eye’s coverage of Israel’s genocide in Gaza


The Vietnamese understood this well. Throughout the long Paris talks, Hanoi treated diplomacy as one instrument within a larger political and military strategy: the Politburo set the objectives and the permissible concessions, while veteran negotiators such as Le Duc Tho conducted the bargaining.

When the talks moved beyond positions the leadership was prepared to accept, the negotiators were instructed to return to the earlier agreement as the basis for settlement. The art lay in knowing what could be traded, what had to be preserved and when compromise served the wider goal.

More than weapons

These questions have become urgent because Hamas has moved from discussing governance to entertaining formulas concerning its weapons.

Recent proposals would see them stored or transferred as part of a demilitarisation arrangement tied to Israeli withdrawal, an approach Israel has rejected while insisting on complete disarmament first. Are Palestinians really expected to hand over their weapons while the tanks are still at the border?

The pattern is familiar from the Oslo years: a Palestinian concession enters the diplomatic record, Israel rejects the arrangement as insufficient, and the next negotiation begins from the concession rather than from the position that preceded it. The reward for an unreciprocated concession is usually another demand.

Disarmament therefore goes to the identity and strategic purpose of the movement itself. Restraint can itself be a form of resistance, and Hamas need not return to governing Gaza: relinquishing direct administration might even free the movement from the contradiction between governing a besieged population and functioning as a resistance organisation. Leaving government and abandoning resistance are entirely different propositions.

The greater danger is that a movement exhausted by war and subjected to extraordinary pressure from mediators and international powers could be transformed, incrementally, into merely another Palestinian faction seeking a place in an electoral order whose parameters others have designed.

Fatah’s transformation came about exactly that way. A concession was justified as tactical, another was required to preserve the political process, and another was demanded to demonstrate seriousness, until an organisation established to liberate Palestine became the governing component of an authority operating under occupation.

The movement’s re-engagement with its old rivals in Fatah’s orbit belongs to the same set of concerns. In August, Hamas met officials from the Democratic Reform bloc of the former Gaza security chief Mohammed Dahlan, in contacts a Hamas official confirmed to Al Jazeera, ahead of Palestinian legislative elections scheduled for November.

Weeks earlier, a senior aide had said that Dahlan intervened in the disarmament negotiations through direct contacts with the US president’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner.

Political circumstances change, and old adversaries meet. Yet Hamas should ask what purpose these returns are designed to serve, and why the very powers now pressing for its disarmament appear so comfortable with them.

Strategic patience

Defenders of the present course will ask what the alternative is, and the answer is strategic patience: a movement under immense pressure does not have to resolve every question immediately. Hamas can fulfil the limited agreements it has made while declining to negotiate away questions that belong to the Palestinian people as a whole, using the intervening period to reorganise while the environment becomes clearer.

The region has changed since 2023 in ways in which the consequences are still unfolding. A growing number of analysts argue that the confrontation involving Iran, Israel and the US may leave Tehran strategically stronger than many anticipated. Washington and Tel Aviv, meanwhile, have expended enormous military, political and diplomatic capital.

Gaza itself remains under a fragile ceasefire, with the sequencing of Israeli withdrawal and disarmament unresolved. Why should Hamas negotiate as though today’s balance of power were permanent?

There is a time to fight, a time to negotiate and a time simply to hold one’s position

Elections are a legitimate instrument of popular representation, and Palestinian institutions desperately need renewal after years of stagnation and eroded democratic legitimacy. Taking part in them is one thing; allowing them to redefine the movement’s relationship to resistance is another. Hamas needs to state clearly what it now considers its strategic constants, and how armed, popular, political, legal and diplomatic forms of resistance fit within them. Such questions cannot be answered through piecemeal agreements negotiated under pressure.

There is a time to fight, a time to negotiate and a time simply to hold one’s position, which is sometimes nothing more than the refusal to make irreversible concessions under temporary pressure.

Al-Aqsa Flood came at an almost unimaginable human cost to Gaza, and that cost must never be used to delegitimise Palestinian resistance or shift responsibility from those who devastated the Strip. Neither does the magnitude of Palestinian sacrifice exempt Palestinian leaders from strategic accountability: a resistance movement has to protect the political value of the sacrifices made in the name of its cause.

Hamas can leave the government of Gaza, contest elections under the right conditions and negotiate when circumstances require, without allowing tactical concessions made under extraordinary pressure to redefine its principles. Where its own negotiating capacity is inadequate, it should have the confidence to entrust the bargaining to professionals while retaining the authority to set the red lines.

The gravest danger facing Hamas now lies beyond the battlefield. Having survived one of the most destructive wars in modern history, it could gradually concede at the negotiating table what its adversaries failed to attain by force.

What Israel could not extinguish through military might and genocide should not be surrendered through the fine print of an agreement concocted in Washington.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.

Sami Al-Arian is the Director of the Center for Islam and Global Affairs (CIGA) at Istanbul Zaim University. Originally from Palestine, he lived in the US for four decades (1975-2015) where he was a tenured academic, prominent speaker and human rights activist before relocating to Turkey. He is the author of several studies and books. He can be contacted at: nolandsman1948@gmail.com.

 

Friday, August 28, 2026

Air Force Major Faces Rare Charges After Calling for Trump’s Impeachment

Maj. Jason Watson faces charges relating to alleged “contemptuous” statements he made against the president. 

 

By Chris Walker , Truthout 

 Published August 27, 2026

 

The United States Air Force emblem appears on a circular surface in Walnut Creek, California, April 18, 2023.

Honest, paywall-free news is rare. Please support our boldly independent journalism with a donation of any size.

The United States Air Force has issued multiple charges against a decorated airman over his public statements earlier this summer calling for the impeachment of President Donald Trump.

In addition to Trump, Major Jason Watson also called for Vice President J.D. Vance’s impeachment during a demonstration outside the U.S. Capitol building on July 2. He reiterated his demands for impeachment in subsequent interviews afterward.

Watson’s lawyer, Christopher Mutimer, indicated on Tuesday that the airman is facing possible charges relating to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The Air Force later confirmed that those charges had been issued, and that Watson was being held in pre-trial confinement.

Watson’s arrest at the U.S. Capitol in early July occurred during a protest involving multiple organizations and speakers who were critical of the White House’s decision to start a war in Iran without congressional authorization and other military actions. Watson held a sign at that event that read, “impeach, convict, remove.”

“When the president of the United States orders military action against foreign countries — absent an emergency scenario where American interests are under imminent dire threats, as was done with Venezuela, Cuba and Iran — that’s an unconstitutional usurpation of Congress’s authority and a violation of the War Powers Clause,” Watson said at the event.

Thursday, August 27, 2026

Haaretz: Israel arms drug dealers to commit new ‘Sabra and Shatila’ in Gaza

Criminal gangs have expelled Palestinians and looted homes while serving as an ‘operational arm’ of Israel’s military

 

Palestinians inspect the damage at the site of an Israeli air strike in Gaza City on 24 August (AFP/Omar Al Qattaa)

MEE staff

Published date: 27 August 2026

There are growing fears that Israel may be creating the conditions for local atrocities in Gaza “reminiscent of the Sabra and Shatila massacre,”  according to a report by the Israeli daily newspaper Haaretz.

During the 1982 massacre, Israeli-allied Lebanese Phalangist forces slaughtered up to 3,500 Palestinian and Lebanese civilians as Israeli troops surrounded the Beirut refugee camps and oversaw the killing.

In a report publish on Wednesday Haaretz warned that the Israeli army is expanding its use of mercenaries, criminal gangs and drug dealers to commit “war crimes” on Israel’s behalf in Gaza.

Based on testimony from Israeli soldiers, UN reports and satellite imagery, the investigation found that increasingly well-armed collaborator militias have expelled Palestinians from their homes and carried out operations across Gaza.

Israel has trained at least five militia groups, and potentially a sixth, operating from heavily fortified bases inside Israeli-occupied areas of the enclave.

New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch

Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters

One Israeli soldier described how the state, army and Shin Bet intelligence service send armed and “trained militias to commit war crimes, and I’m the one who has to protect them during their operations so they don’t get hurt”.

The Israeli army has itself committed war crimes across Gaza.

Why the Mecca Agreement is a necessary show of force

Read More »

Israel faces a genocide case at the International Court of Justice, while the International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

At least one militia armed and supported by Israel had links to the Islamic State group. Its leader, Yasser Abu Shabab, was killed by Hamas in December 2025.

Many Palestinians celebrated Abu Shabab’s death, while his own family had renounced him as a traitor for collaborating with Israel.

“But the militia project he came to symbolize continues to evolve and expand – particularly since the October 2025 ceasefire was announced,” Haaretz reported.

Another militia leader, Shawqi Abu Nasira, openly acknowledged his collaboration with Israel in a video posted online.

“I made the decision to liberate the land from Hamas. If people say that makes me a collaborator, then I’m a collaborator.”

The vast majority of Palestinians view collaboration with Israel as treason and betrayal, regardless of their position on Hamas.

‘They entered every structure, looted everything they could get their hands on, came out with piles of stuff – and then burned down the house’

– Unnamed Israeli soldier

Israel has also built infrastructure for the gangs amid Gaza’s widespread destruction. Near a militia base in Shujaiya, Israeli forces levelled a large Palestinian cemetery and replaced it with an extensive training ground.

The relationship between the gangs and the Israeli military has become increasingly intertwined. Fighters roam freely around Israeli army outposts, according to soldiers who spoke to Haaretz.

“The gunmen stage displays of force, film them and upload the footage to their Facebook pages for propaganda and recruitment purposes,” the investigation said.

Israel supplies the gangs with weapons and provides artillery and drone support during their operations.

‘Reminiscent of Sabra and Shatila ‘

The mercenaries also serve another purpose. They attack Palestinians struggling to survive Israel’s genocide, drive families from their homes, loot their belongings and burn their houses.

Israeli ministers have repeatedly called for making life in Gaza unbearable as part of efforts to ethnically cleanse the enclave and replace its Palestinian population with Jewish settlers.

In one account, Israeli soldiers said the mercenaries arrived in pickup trucks before “they just ran and shot at people”.

“They entered every structure, looted everything they could get their hands on, came out with piles of stuff – and then burned down the house,” one unnamed Israeli soldier said.

gaza
Boys fly a kite against the backdrop of smoke rising from the Gath shelter for displaced Palestinians, after an Israeli air strike in Gaza, on 31 January (AFP/Bashar Taleb)

Reports that Israel has used local gangs to outsource parts of its strategy to ethnically cleanse Gaza are not new. Their activities have been documented for more than a year.

The soldiers’ testimony, however, provides further evidence that the mercenaries now function as an “operational arm” of the Israeli army and Shin Bet.

Israel continues to arm criminal gangs while demanding that Hamas disarm and opposing the formation of any independent Palestinian security force in Gaza. The arrangement allows Israel to use the militias against anyone it labels a Hamas member while unleashing them against ordinary Palestinians.

Hamas sources told Haaretz that they would not surrender their “defensive weapons” while the militias remain armed and receive Israeli support, because the groups would seek to target them.

Middle East Eye delivers independent and unrivalled coverage and analysis of the Middle East, North Africa and beyond. To learn more about republishing this content and the associated fees, please fill out this form. More about MEE can be found here.

 

Wednesday, August 26, 2026

With “economic D-Day” against Iran, Washington escalates conflict with China

 Andre Damon@Andre__Damon, WSWS, 26 Aug 2026

 

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent speaks to members of the media outside the White House in Washington, Thursday, Aug. 20, 2026. [AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin]

The Trump administration on Monday launched what Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent called an “economic D-Day” against Iran—a campaign of secondary sanctions aimed at every country, bank and company that trades with Tehran, above all China, which took roughly nine-tenths of Iran’s oil exports before the US blockade choked them off.

Six months of US and Israeli bombardment, which killed at least 3,468 people in Iran by June 10, has not brought down the government in Tehran, and most shipping still avoids the Strait of Hormuz. The administration is now carrying the war into the world economy, on a course that leads to confrontation with China.

The campaign Bessent announced at a Washington press conference Monday adds shipping, gold, digital assets, aviation and technology to the sectors covered by US secondary sanctions, which already reach Iran’s oil and banks.

Among the nearly 60 companies, people and ships sanctioned Monday are trading and logistics firms in China and Hong Kong and entities in Singapore, the United Arab Emirates, Malaysia, Switzerland, Britain, France, Greece, Syria, Ukraine and the Marshall Islands, according to Al Jazeera’s tally of the Treasury list.

“Every country has a defined timeline to shut down activities we have identified,” Bessent said, without naming them. China, India, Turkey, Iraq and the UAE are the most exposed, experts told CNN.

Asked by reporters whether Chinese banks would be hit, Bessent replied that “no one is above the reach of US sanctions” and said to expect “a major announcement of a financial institution being sanctioned by the end of this week.”

President Donald Trump set the campaign in motion with a Truth Social post last Wednesday. “ANY country that allows its financial institutions, businesses, airports, or government entities to provide any type of lifeline to Iran will itself face TREMENDOUS Economic Consequences,” he wrote.Available from Mehring BooksThe struggle against imperialism and for workers’ power in IranA pamphlet by Keith Jones

Bessent followed on CNBC on Thursday, calling the campaign “a one-two punch” of blockade and sanctions and saying that Washington was telling other governments, “You’re either with us or against us.” He added, “Keep in mind that the Chinese get 50 percent… of their energy from inside the Gulf.”

Three days before the announcement, the Wall Street Journal’s editorial board, in a lead editorial printed Saturday, made clear that the central target is China. “After six months of war with Iran, President Trump has a credibility problem,” it wrote. “No President has yet climbed the Iran sanctions ladder with China, moving from the isolated ‘teapot’ refineries that buy Iran’s oil to the Chinese state-owned enterprises that support them. Nor has any President given Dubai an ultimatum to shut down Iran’s illicit financial network and meant it.”

The editorial’s final paragraph warned that “Iran may lash out militarily in response, targeting Gulf energy again, and the US will have to be ready with a firm response.”

The Washington Post’s editorial board wrote Monday evening that delivering Bessent’s “zero-leakage approach… will require picking a big fight with China, the largest buyer of Iranian oil.” The editorial noted that US sanctions so far have fallen on “independent refiners and intermediaries rather than major Chinese banks or state-owned companies.”

The Post continued: “The Trump team cannot help but describe its recalibrated approach in martial terms… But D-Day evokes a military campaign with a clear objective: the enemy’s unconditional surrender. Economic pressure rarely works that way… That’s why containment is not really about regime change. Its immediate goal is to make an already battered Iran weaker so that it’s less capable of threatening its neighbors and developing nuclear weapons.”

This is a testament to the deepening political crisis triggered by the failure of US imperialism to achieve its strategic objectives in its war against Iran.

The war was conceived as a means of seizing the chokepoint of the world’s oil supply and gaining a decisive advantage over China. Instead, the United States confronts a political debacle, and it is China’s position that has been strengthened.

The sanctions campaign is an attempt to recoup by economic force what could not be won by bombing, and it aims that force at Beijing. Washington has paused the bombing since late July but has not renounced it; Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Monday that “by no means are we foreclosing using kinetic strikes anywhere in the Strait of Hormuz or around Iran.”

Socialism AI Logo

Socialism AI

by the WSWSSocialismAI.com

Questions about this article? Ask Socialism AI

What exactly are ‘secondary sanctions’ and how have they been used historically as a tool of US economic warfare against other countries?What is the longer history of US oil embargoes and financial blockades—like those against Cuba or Russia—and how effective have they actually been at forcing political change?How does this escalation against China over Iranian oil connect to the broader US “pivot to Asia” strategy that’s been building for years?

Ask more questions at SocialismAI.com

The war the sanctions are meant to salvage began on February 28, when Washington and Tel Aviv started the bombing. A cease-fire in April and a June 17 memorandum with Tehran lifted the blockade and let Iran export oil until Washington broke the arrangement in early July by sending ships through a route in the strait to which Iran had not agreed. When Iran fired on the ships the US struck back, and on July 8 Trump declared the cease-fire over. The blockade was reimposed. On August 17, the day the memorandum expired, Trump said of Oman, with which Iran is negotiating a shipping corridor, “If Oman gets in the way, we’ll bomb the shit out of them.”

To “sever every economic lifeline” of Iran, as Bessent put it, means to sanction the Chinese refineries, shipping companies and banks that buy and move its oil, and behind them the Chinese state. Behind the refineries stands the largest manufacturing economy in the world, whose trade in raw materials and finished goods a “zero-leakage” sanctions regime would have to police.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lin Jian said at a briefing Tuesday that “China will do everything necessary to firmly safeguard its rights and interests.” Asked by Bloomberg whether China would change course, he said its cooperation with Iran “should not be disrupted.” Beijing, the Financial Times reported Tuesday, has told Washington that any broad extension of the sanctions to Chinese companies will bring retaliation.

Asked on Monday why the sanctions were not being imposed at once, Bessent replied: “Well, we are giving everyone the opportunity to remedy bad behavior. Why would I want to blow up the global financial system?”

Bessent’s statements are an admission of the provocative character of US actions. Desperate to shore up its geopolitical position, it is taking a series of increasingly reckless and desperate steps, whose impact is to widen the global scope of the war.

The Financial Times wrote in an editorial Tuesday that the operation “seemed more like a series of warning shots fired from far offshore,” and concluded that it “amounts to another risky gamble on a road that, for both sides, ultimately has to lead back to the negotiating table.”

However, the sequence Washington has followed does not lead to a negotiating table. It leads to a widening global conflagration, centrally targeting Russia and China.

Tuesday, August 25, 2026

How the Media Sells Genocide

August 25, 2026

 

Share this:

Joy to the World – by Mr. Fish

Western media, by employing double standards, censorship, deceptive language, amplifying Israeli lies and dehumanizing Palestinians, facilitates the genocide in Gaza.

Chris Hedges ScheerPost

The Western media manufactures consent for genocide. It normalizes Israel’s decades-long military occupation and apartheid. It erases Israel’s flagrant violations of international law. It perpetuates the fallacy of Israeli victimhood. It betrays, discredits and demonizes the work of Palestinian journalists and media workers in Gaza, at least 220 of whom have been killed by Israel between Oct. 7, 2023, and August 2025. It supinely accepts draconian Israeli censorship. It acquiesces with tepid letters of protest at Israel’s refusal to allow foreign reporters in Gaza — an effort by Israel to mask its war crimes. It amplifies Israeli lies, from beheaded babies to widespread sexual assault of Israeli women on Oct. 7, to obfuscate the truth.

When writing about Gaza, verbs are in the passive tense. There is no subject. No one is accountable. Genocide, it seems, is an act of God. No different from an earthquake or tsunami. Clichés and opaque adjectives such as the “cycle of violence” or “clashes” distort and falsify reality.

“If thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought,” George Orwell warned.

Terms such as “genocide,” “atrocity,” “ethnic cleansing” and “occupied territories” magically disappear from media reports on Palestinians, whose resistance is routinely described as “savage” and “barbaric.” New York Times reporters are instructed by editors to avoid terms such as “Palestine,” “genocide,” “carnage,” “refugee camp,” “slaughter” and “massacre,” when referencing Palestinians.

The media slavishly regurgitates what Israel feeds it. Saturation bombing becomes “surgical air strikes.” Israel’s weaponization of famine becomes a “food shortage.” The killing of unarmed civilians — including children — becomes “clashes.” The hilltop fortress-like compounds of Jewish colonists becomes “neighborhoods.” Extrajudicial assassination of a journalist or a doctor becomes “died.”

Genocide, referred to as the “Israel-Hamas war” is justified as “self-defense,” part of the mantra of Israel’s “right to defend itself.” When schools, hospitals, clinics, ambulances, mosques, churches and other civilian targets are obliterated, they are labeled “Hamas command centers” or targeted because Hamas is “using civilians as human shields” — something Israel does routinely, when the army binds detained Palestinians and forces them to enter potentially booby-trapped buildings and tunnels ahead of Israeli troops.

When Israelis are held by Hamas, they are “hostages,” even if they serve in the military. When Palestinians — including children — are held without charges or trial and disappeared into Israeli detention centers, where torture is “widespread” and “systematic,” they are “prisoners.”

Missile attacks on tent cities or hospitals are blamed on Palestinian armed groups firing errant rockets. If Israel acknowledges the attacks — which very rarely happens — they are described as a “tragic mistake.”

Civil institutions in Gaza are characterized as “Hamas-run” to cast doubt on the veracity of what they report. The New York Times routinely qualifies announcements from the Gaza Health Ministry by noting it “does not distinguish between civilians and combatants,” masking the slaughter of tens of thousands of civilians.

The result is some of the most convoluted writing in the history of journalism, including the Nov. 5, 2023 New York Times headline that reads: “Explosions Gazans Say Was Airstrike Leaves Many Casualties in Dense Neighborhood.”

“When Middle East Eye journalists Mohamed Salama and Ahmed Abu Aziz, along with Reuters photojournalist Hussam al-Masri, and freelancers Moaz Abu Taha, and Mariam Dagga — who had worked with several media outlets, including the Associated Press — were killed in a “double tap” strike — designed to kill first responders arriving to treat casualties from initial strikes — at Nasser Medical Complex, how did Western news agencies respond?” I asked in my column The Betrayal of Palestinian Journalists.

“Israeli military says strikes on Gaza hospital targeted what it says was a Hamas camera,” the Associated Press reported.

“IDF claims hospital strike was aimed at Hamas camera,” announced CNN.

The camera belonged to Reuters, which said Israel was “fully aware” the news agency was filming from the hospital.

“When Al Jazeera correspondent Anas Al Sharif and three other journalists were killed on Aug. 10 in their media tent near Al Shifa Hospital, how was it reported in the Western press?” I asked.

“Israel Kills Al Jazeera Journalist It Says Was Hamas Leader,” Reuters titled its story, despite the fact al-Sharif was part of a Reuters team that won a 2024 Pulitzer Prize.

The German newspaper Bild, published a front page story headlined: “Terrorist disguised as a journalist killed in Gaza.”

“The linguistic gymnastics employed by the media went as far as redefining words, making them meaningless,” writes Assal Rad in “Don’t Say Palestine: How the Media Manufactured Consent for Genocide:”

Mainstream media failed to describe Israel’s repeated breaches of the ceasefire with the language of violation. Instead, the coverage followed the same patterns of rationalizing Israel’s attacks and uncritically parroting Israel’s claims to justify its actions. As Palestinians continued to be killed — during a ‘ceasefire’ — and the flow of aid did not reach the level of need or what was agreed to, Western media framed these flagrant violations as ‘tests’ or ‘challenges’ to a ‘shaky ceasefire.’ As leading human rights organizations like Amnesty International warned that the genocide was, in fact, not over, legacy media continued to frame it as a war with a ‘fragile ceasefire.’

Words matter. Words justify actions. If there is no genocide, if Israel is defending itself in a war, the U.S. and Israel’s European allies have the right to provide tens of billions of dollars in military aid. If this is a war begun by Hamas on Oct. 7 then it is possible to lament the obliteration of Gaza and mass slaughter by Israel as the regrettable result of the Hamas attack.

This corruption of language is designed, as Orwell noted, to defend the indefensible:

Things like the continuance of British rule in India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of political parties. Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. Defenseless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers. People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called elimination of unreliable elements.

Adam Johnson in “How to Sell a Genocide: The Media’s Complicity in the Destruction of Gaza,” examined over 12,000 articles from The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN.com, Politico, Axios, USA Today, and The Associated Press, along with 5,000 TV segments aired on CNN and MSNBC. His carefully researched book is a damning indictment of the “liberal” media’s justification of the genocide.

CNN and The New York Times instructed their editors and journalists that attacks could only be attributed to Israel after confirmation from the IDF and GPS coordinates. Johnson quotes a source at CNN:

Whether it’s in the newsroom or in the field, we couldn’t credit anything to Israel unless we were held to this impossibly high bar of having to call it an “explosion,” until we geolocated the site of the explosion, sent the coordinates to the Israelis and asked them for comment.

You can see an interview with Johnson about his book at The Electronic Intifada here.

CNN journalists reporting on Israel and Palestine must submit their work for review to the network’s Jerusalem bureau prior to airing. The CNN bureau, like all news bureaus in Israel, is required to abide by restrictions imposed by Israeli military censors.

The very few Palestinians who appear on CNN and other legacy media outlets, are routinely asked — usually before they are even permitted on air — if they “condemn” Hamas. Guests who express even tepid criticism of Israel are asked whether Israel “has a right to exist.”

No one is ever asked if they condemn Zionism, apartheid, ethnic cleansing, genocide or Israel’s 100 year war on Palestine. Nor are they asked if the Palestinians have a right to defend themselves — which under international law they do, including with weapons.

Our domesticated journalists and news organizations are, as Robert Fisk pointed out, “prisoners of the language of power.” They dutifully parrot the official lexicon. This makes them not only propagandists, but accomplices to genocide.

Those who protest the genocide, including students on university campuses — many of whom are Jewish — are smeared as “Hamas supporters” and “antisemites.” Journalists ferret out Zionist students, usually found esconced in campus Hillel houses, who claim to be “fearful for their safety,” because of the protests. The media pays little attention to the rise in anti-Muslim bigotry or the repression meted out to student protestors, which includes not only police brutality and 3,000 detainments and arrests, but suspensions, probations, expulsions, withholding of diplomas and the firing of sympathetic faculty.

Slogans which call for Palestinian liberation — including “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” — along with the Palestinian flag, have been criminalized.

The message is clear: Jewish lives matter. Palestinian lives do not.

“The reports of UN agencies, of respected human rights monitors, of medical journals, and of professional medical personnel, are generally treated with respect and given prominence in the mainstream media,” writes the historian Rashid Khalidi in the introduction to Robin Anderson’s book, “The Complicit Lens: US Media Coverage of Israel’s Genocide in Gaza:”

Not in this war: instead, if such sources are cited at all, equal media treatment is given to the outrageous slanders and calumnies against these organizations and individuals, smears that are produced in profusion by Israel’s legion of professional propagandists and its myriad of defenders in the US. Besides smearing critics of Israel’s genocide as supporters of Hamas or terrorist sympathizers, the main weapon in their arsenal of defamation is their systematic and outrageous misuse of the deadly accusation of antisemitism.

The massive defections of readers and viewers from mainstream media to social media platforms that do not filter news through the Israel lobby, the U.S. government or corporations, are a stark indicator of the media’s bankruptcy. The response to these defections has been “platformicide” — the use of algorithms, shadow banning, restriction of live streaming capabilities and the closing of accounts by social media giants such as Facebook, Instagram, X, YouTube and TikTok, to dramatically reduce the reach of reporting on Palestine.

This censorship is part of a coordinated effort to hide the horror of the genocide from the public.

By constantly referencing Oct. 7, the Western media decontextualizes the genocide. It ignores Israel’s 19-year siege of Gaza. Oct. 7 is characterized in the Western media as “unprovoked.” Israel’s massacres of unarmed Palestinians in Gaza in the winter of 2008 and 2009, along with its attacks on Gaza in 20122014 and during the Great March of Return in 2018 and 2019 are ignored.

The 1948 Nakba — when European Zionists seized more than 78 percent of historic Palestine, violently expelled 750,000 Palestinians, destroyed more than 530 Palestinian villages and killed 15,000 Palestinians — is rarely referenced. Seventy percent of those driven from their homes in 1948 were forced into Gaza.

The Zionist project is predicated on fostering historical amnesia.

“Once Hamas was established as a brutal, terrorist group whose members gleefully tortured, dismembered, and beheaded babies without conscience, no further explanation was needed,” writes Anderson in her book. “The media simply avoided reporting Israel’s history of violence and as a result, establishment media also avoided the conditions of everyday life for Palestinians.”

The fiction that there is currently a ceasefire in Gaza — Israel has killed at least 1,286 Palestinians and injured 4,257 since it supposedly went into effect — has become the excuse used by Western media to turn its back on Gaza. This genocide denial has characterized the coverage since its inception. It masks not only Israel’s crimes, but Israel’s stated intention to ethnically cleanse all Palestinians from Gaza. It effectively neuters international law. And it makes a mockery of the profession of journalism.

When the last act of ethnic cleansing happens, Western media will, I am sure, continue to bombard us with Israeli agitprop, euphemisms and clichés.

It will justify the genocide until the end.

NOTE TO SCHEERPOST READERS FROM CHRIS HEDGES: There is now no way left for me to continue to write a weekly column for ScheerPost and produce my weekly television show without your help. The walls are closing in, with startling rapidity, on independent journalism, with the elites, including the Democratic Party elites, clamoring for more and more censorship. Bob Scheer, who runs ScheerPost on a shoestring budget, and I will not waver in our commitment to independent and honest journalism, and we will never put ScheerPost behind a paywall, charge a subscription for it, sell your data or accept advertising. Please, if you can, sign up at chrishedges.substack.com so I can continue to post my now weekly Monday column on ScheerPost and produce my weekly television show, The Chris Hedges Report.

Chris Hedges is a Pulitzer-prize winning journalist, best-selling author & activist

Editor’s Note: At a moment when the once vaunted model of responsible journalism is overwhelmingly the play thing of self-serving billionaires and their corporate scribes, alternatives of integrity are desperately needed, and ScheerPost is one of them. Please support our independent journalism by contributing to our online donation platform, Network for Good, or send a check to our new PO Box. We can’t thank you enough, and promise to keep bringing you this kind of vital news.

Donate Online

Send a Check

You can also make a donation to our PayPal or subscribe to our Patreon.