The Friday Edition

Our Friday News Analysis | What the World Reads Now!

February 05, 2026

Helping to Heal a Broken Humanity (Part 70)

The Hague, 6 February 2026 | If you know of a decisive story, tell the world! We're still searching.

EDITORIAL | Our World is Like a Tinderbox

By Abraham A. van Kempen
6 February 2026

Our world is like a tinderbox, filled with potential sparks that could ignite a bright future or fade into nothingness. Let's work together to keep our planet safe and shining for everyone.

Will there be a regime change any time soon in Iran, Ukraine, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, …?

Leave those countries alone and let their people decide. People in Iran, Ukraine, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and elsewhere are sick and tired of their leaders. Sooner rather than later, they will vote. Of course, a handful of influencers, who are more equal than others, can vote anytime, anywhere, with their money. Their monetary votes keep those incompetent, blind-leading-the-blind leaders in power, serving their masters.

How can the little guys defeat the power of the big guys? Impossible!

That’s the world we’re in. This is why we need the three most powerful leaders of our time – Trump, Putin, and Xi – to step in and restrain those among us who are on a path to further harm rather than heal our broken humanity.

Next week, I will be ready to send a personal letter to President Trump, President Xi, and President Putin notifying them that the Building the Bridge Foundation, The Hague, has nominated them to share the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize.

Let’s see if they’re up for the challenge.

Enjoy your weekend.

Sincerely,

Abraham A. van Kempen
Sr. Editor

Building the Bridge Foundation, The Hague
A Way to Get to Know One Another and the Other

PROF. GLENN DIESEN: IS PEACE IN UKRAINE EVEN POSSIBLE NOW?

Judge Andrew Napolitano welcomes Prof. Glenn Diesen, who analyzes whether peace is possible.

Watch the Video Here (26 minutes, 05 seconds)

Host: Judge Andrew Napolitano

Judging Freedom
5 February 2026

Current State of the Russia-Ukraine Conflict

Prof. Glenn Diesen:

“I shared my pessimistic outlook on the chances of a peaceful resolution in Ukraine, as it seems the opportunity has already passed.”

On February 4th, 2026, negotiations in Abu Dhabi involved the U.S., Russia, and Ukraine. Russian negotiators seemed satisfied, while Ukrainian representatives looked downcast, reflecting wide gaps between the parties' positions. The U.S. played a role beyond mere mediation.

As the war nears its end, Russia has a strategic advantage, making it difficult to apply pressure. Any progress in negotiations is likely to hinge on pressuring Ukraine. Ukrainians probably realize this, though their public statements are designed to boost morale and maintain Western support.

Ukrainian leadership faces a difficult position, balancing a positive narrative for Western allies and the Ukrainian people amid hardships. Acknowledgments of struggle are rare and quickly withdrawn to avoid dissent. Political divides—among elites, military, and right-wing groups—further complicate the situation.

There is an ongoing challenge in shifting the narrative from one of imminent victory to accepting significant losses and the need for compromise. This shift is necessary but painful, and Ukrainian leaders are preparing the public for a possible defeat that could be perceived as humiliating.

Military Aid and Financing

Ukraine mainly gets weapons from the US and Europe. Shipments continue but remain insufficient, leading to shortages in manpower and equipment. The US claims it only sells weapons, but it appears to also provide direct aid and financial support. The scope and type of assistance are carefully managed by all parties.

Internal Political Tensions in Ukraine

Ukrainian leadership faces pressure from nationalist and right-wing groups, which have gained influence in the military after threats against Zelensky for pursuing peace with Russia. These factions find it hard to accept defeat because of their goal of keeping Ukraine free from Russian influence.

Russia holds an advantage, but nationalists resist a humiliating peace. Delaying a settlement could worsen Ukraine's terms.

The Kremlin's Perspective on Peace

Russia aims to prevent NATO expansion into Ukraine, seen as an existential threat. Conceding territory or regime change in Kyiv are ways to protect interests. The conflict's high toll has made the public expect clear gains, making peace without concrete results difficult for the government.

The Kremlin's aims go beyond mere guarantees against NATO expansion; they also include territorial adjustments and potentially regime change to fulfill its security goals. These high expectations from Russia make it more challenging to achieve a negotiated resolution.

Broader Negotiations and Security in Europe

Negotiations may encompass more than Ukraine as Russia seeks to establish a new European security system. The conflict is linked to the collapse of Cold War security orders and NATO's eastward expansion. Russia wants guarantees to block NATO's move into Georgia, Moldova, and more, preferring a stable security framework based on shared security rather than alliances.

US-Russia Relations and Arms Control

Uncertainty surrounds US nuclear policy, as exemplified by delays in responding to Russian proposals to extend New START. Russia views the US as unpredictable and inconsistent in Ukraine and arms control negotiations, undermining diplomacy and trust in treaties.

RUSSIA AND UKRAINE HOLDING NEW ABU DHABI TALKS: WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW

The US has returned to the table, as territorial disputes persist

RT composite. © Getty Images / EXTREME-PHOTOGRAPHER; FabrikaCr

HomeRussia & FSU
4 February 2026 08:38

On Wednesday, Russian, Ukrainian, and US delegations held a second round of peace talks in the UAE, but territorial disputes remain the main obstacle to agreement.

Ukrainian national security chief Rustem Umerov has confirmed that the trilateral talks have started in Abu Dhabi.

Trilateral talks return

The talks, originally scheduled for Sunday, were postponed due to a scheduling conflict, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said. Unlike the first round, which included US participation, the upcoming meeting was expected to be bilateral. However, the White House announced on Tuesday that American representatives Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner would join the meeting on Wednesday.

The previous round, which took place on January 23 and 24, was the first to feature a trilateral format and was described by all parties as “very constructive.”

Kirill Dmitriev, who heads Russia’s sovereign wealth fund and is part of Moscow’s negotiation team, visited Florida on Saturday to meet with a US delegation before the upcoming round of talks. He characterized the discussions as constructive.

Read more
Putin envoy hails ‘constructive’ talks with US delegation

Witkoff described the meeting with Dmitriev as “productive,” noting it as part of Washington’s efforts to mediate and resolve the conflict. In a separate post on X, he expressed optimism that the discussions showed Moscow was “working toward securing peace,” and he also thanked US President Donald Trump for what he called “critical leadership” in striving for a durable settlement.

What’s on the agenda

After initial talks, negotiators recognized that territorial disputes remain the primary barrier to reaching a peace deal. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated, "it’s still a bridge we haven’t crossed," and mentioned that "there’s active work going on to try and see if both sides’ views on that can be reconciled.”

The composition of delegations

Peskov told journalists that Russia is sending “the same delegation as last time” to the UAE. In the first round of discussions, the Russian team was led by Admiral Igor Kostyukov, the head of the country’s military intelligence, along with other defense officials.

Vladimir Zelensky announced that Kyiv will be represented at the negotiations by Umerov, the head of the Ukrainian leader’s office, Kirill Budanov, along with other senior military and intelligence officials.

The composition of the teams indicates a primary emphasis on security and battlefield concerns rather than on diplomatic matters alone.

Territory Remains the Main Sticking Point

The recent statements from Moscow, Kiev, and Washington provided insights into each side’s expectations before the meeting.

Read more
Putin-Zelensky meeting would only be in Moscow – Kremlin

Russian Presidential aide Yury Ushakov characterized territory as the “main question” in the negotiations, though he noted that other issues still need resolution. US envoy to NATO Matthew Whitaker also identified territorial concerns as the most challenging aspect of any agreement.

Zelensky dismissed the possibility of concessions, stating that Kiev would not relinquish its claims to Donbass or the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant "without a fight.”

Peskov dismissed the statement, noting that “the dynamics on the front speak for themselves,” and mentioned that the plant has been under Russian control for over two years. Ushakov previously stated that the withdrawal of Ukrainian forces from the rest of Donbass is a crucial part of Moscow’s proposed settlement.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly stated that the People’s Republics of Donetsk and Lugansk, along with Kherson and Zaporozhye regions—areas that joined Russia following referendums in fall 2022—are now officially part of Russia, and he considers the matter settled. Moscow also insists that Ukraine’s desire to join NATO and the potential deployment of Western troops are unacceptable.

Read more
Putin ‘kept his word’ on Ukraine ceasefire – Trump

Kostyukov stated that Kremlin officials are "always ready" for negotiations, noting that the Ukrainian representatives seemed "in a gloomy mood" while Russia stayed confident.

The military situation has influenced the overall mood, with Moscow accusing Ukrainian forces of intensifying strikes on civilian targets following the initial talks.

On Tuesday, Zelensky stated that “the work of our negotiating team will be amended accordingly” following a substantial Russian attack on Ukrainian energy infrastructure, which supports the country’s military-industrial complex. Moscow dismissed Zelensky’s claims of a breach of the energy truce, asserting that Trump requested that Putin pause attacks only until February 1, and that this deadline has now expired.

When journalists inquired about the energy truce on Tuesday, Trump stated that the Russian president had "kept his word on that" and had "gone from Sunday to Sunday" without launching strikes, as was promised.

Western reaction

Washington has expressed cautious optimism. Trump and other officials stated that the parties are “very close” to reaching a deal. Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan mentioned that the parties seem closer to an agreement than they were earlier.

Read more
‘Why should Russia talk to us?’ – Kallas

In contrast, EU Chief diplomat Kaja Kallas stated that Brussels does not plan to reopen direct negotiations with Moscow, emphasizing the need to maintain pressure on Russia before talks can begin. Meanwhile, Russian envoy Dmitriev criticized the EU’s stance, claiming it does little to promote peace.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz expressed approval of the ongoing talks, stating it was “good that the negotiations… are continuing,” and committed to collaborating with European partners to “put an end to the conflict as soon as possible.”

NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte addressed the Ukrainian parliament on Tuesday, describing direct negotiations as an "important progress." However, he stated that the recent Russian airstrikes indicate a lack of genuine commitment to peace. Rutte cautioned Ukrainian MPs that reaching an agreement to end the conflict will involve tough decisions. He also asserted that Western troops would be deployed to Ukraine once a deal is made, despite Moscow's repeated rejection of such a scenario.

NEARLY HALF OF UKRAINIANS WANT THE GOVERNMENT OUT AFTER THE WAR ENDS – POLL

Only about a quarter of respondents genuinely support Vladimir Zelensky, the survey authors have claimed

FILE PHOTO: The government building in Kiev, Ukraine. © Global Look Press / Christophe Gateau

HomeRussia & FSU
4 February 2026

Nearly half of Ukrainians believe the government in Kiev is 'completely tainted' and should resign after the Russia conflict ends, a Wednesday survey shows. The poll authors also suggest that support for Vladimir Zelensky might be much lower than it appears.

The poll from January 23-29 surveyed 1,003 Ukrainians via phone, conducted by KIIS, as per their press release.

42% of people believe the government is "completely tainted" and oppose current members staying in power after a peace deal, while 48% think the cabinet still has some "real professionals" capable of continuing their duties.

The survey showed 61% of respondents support Zelensky, based on those answering “yes” to trusting the Ukrainian leader.

Read more
Zelensky hints at staying in power

According to KIIS, when asked to describe an "imaginary acquaintance" support for Zelensky, support dropped from 61% to 53%.

Real trust in Zelensky may be lower, with only 25% stating they 'completely' trust him as sincere supporters. The 36% who 'rather' trust him might support him due to conflict loyalty, despite criticizing his policies, the institute said.

Earlier this week, Zelensky suggested he might run for another term despite a major corruption scandal involving his close associate, Timur Mindich, last year. His term ends in May 2024, but he refuses elections due to martial law. Moscow argues he's illegitimate. Last month, Ukraine extended martial law, delaying elections until at least May.

What is the Side of the Story that is Not Yet Decisive? Edited and annotated by Abraham A. van Kempen

WE THREW IT ALL AWAY

RIP Arms Control, 1972-2026

Watch the Video Here (2 minutes, 23 seconds)

Scott Ritter
Substack.com
5 February 2026

Today marks the first day in 64 years that the world wakes up without the institution of arms control and treaty-based agreements that once protected humanity from nuclear horror.

We once held the prospect of peace in our arms.

Then we threw it all away.

THE FRONTIER OF WARFARE: PARTICLE BEAM WEAPONS IN MILITARY TECHNOLOGY

In a time when space is the new front line, particle beam weapons offer lightning-fast strikes against missiles and satellites. Explore their development from Reagan’s Star Wars program to China’s recent advances, and what it means for global security.

#ParticleBeamWeapons #MilitaryInnovation #DirectedEnergy

By Boreal Times Newsroom
The Boreal Times
4 February 2026

Particle Beam Weapons: Evolution and Impact on Modern Military Strategy

In modern warfare, where precision and speed often decide the outcome, a class of science-fiction-like weapons is slowly becoming a reality. Particle beam weapons, which use streams of subatomic particles accelerated to near light speed, represent advanced directed energy technology. Unlike traditional firearms or explosives, they deliver powerful energy directly to a target, potentially damaging its molecular or electronic systems instantly. While lasers have attracted significant attention in recent military developments, particle beams offer unique benefits, such as deeper penetration and operation in difficult environments. Despite decades of research, these weapons remain primarily experimental and face significant technical challenges. This overview explores their scientific basis, historical progress, current development, and the geopolitical consequences that could alter global defense strategies.

Particle beam weapons work by accelerating atomic or subatomic particles—such as electrons, protons, or ionized atoms—to speeds close to the speed of light. This movement gives them a large amount of kinetic energy, which, when focused into a beam, can cause severe damage on impact. Charged particle beams are propelled by electromagnetic fields, while magnetic lenses keep them focused. Neutral particle beams, a more advanced type, start with charged ions that are then neutralized to prevent deflection by Earth’s magnetic field, enabling straight-line travel through space. Picture a gigajoule of energy in a beam capable of destroying missile warheads or disabling satellites without generating debris. This concept isn’t theoretical; it’s based on physics tested in laboratories for over fifty years.

Particle beam technology originates from mid-20th-century developments in particle accelerators for scientific purposes. By the 1950s, DARPA launched initiatives like Project Seesaw to assess its military potential. The Cold War era saw a significant boost due to concerns over Soviet missile dominance. In 1958, DARPA’s Chair Heritage program began exploring particle beams for naval use, laying the foundation for U.S. strategic defense. The 1980s, under President Reagan’s SDI—commonly called “Star Wars”—marked a peak, with space-based missile shields featuring neutral particle beams (NPBs). These NPB tech, developed at Los Alamos, aimed to identify and target warheads mid-flight. The 1989 BEAR project marked a milestone: an NPB linear accelerator was launched aboard a suborbital Aries rocket, reaching over 200 km altitude, working autonomously in space before returning safely to Earth. Today, that device is displayed at the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum, symbolizing the ambitious spirit of that era.

Despite these achievements, the post-Cold War era experienced a slowdown. The high costs and technical hurdles led many programs to be canceled, prompting a focus on more advanced directed energy technologies, such as high-energy lasers (HELs) and high-powered microwaves (HPMs). The U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) has spent billions on DE weapons since the 1960s, but numerous initiatives failed. By the early 2000s, particle beam efforts were put aside as lasers proved easier to develop at scale. Nonetheless, interest in the field persisted. In 2019, the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) reintroduced NPB concepts, suggesting a space-based system capable of intercepting ballistic missiles during boost and mid-course phases. The plan included $34 million in FY2020 funding, increasing to $380 million by 2023, with an orbital prototype test planned for that year. This aligned with congressional directives for space-based missile defense prototypes by 2022, with a focus on rapid deployment.

By 2026, particle beam weapons will still in the research phase and not yet ready for deployment. The Department of Defense’s Directed Energy Roadmap focuses on developing high-energy lasers (HELs) to 500 kW by FY2025 and aiming for megawatt capabilities by FY2026. Particle beams are only briefly mentioned or left out of the main reports. There are many challenges: accelerators are very large, often spanning kilometers, like the Large Hadron Collider, making them impractical for mobile units or space applications. Charged particle beams tend to repel each other, causing divergence, and atmospheric conditions further limit their range. Neutral beams can reduce some issues but require vast amounts of power—measured in gigawatts—for continuous operation. Additional hurdles include thermal management, beam stability, and platform integration for satellites or ships. Experts recognize that although particle beams offer advantages such as greater penetration and weather resilience, their development is still behind that of lasers due to significant challenges.

The global landscape remains highly competitive. China has announced a significant breakthrough scheduled for 2025: a prototype power system for space-based particle beams, developed by DFH Satellite Co. under the leadership of Su Zhenhua. This system produces 2.6 megawatts of pulsed power with a synchronization precision of 0.63 microseconds, merging high energy output with unprecedented accuracy. Such technology could allow satellite-mounted weapons to target U.S. assets, including GPS networks and Starlink constellations, risking disruptions to command and control during conflicts. Russia has developed directed energy weapons (DEWs), such as the Peresvet laser system tested in 2017, though it places less emphasis on particle beam weapons. Over 30 nations are investing in DEWs, with U.S. expenditures doubling since 2017. Major defense contractors like Lockheed Martin are advancing laser technologies, providing 300 kW systems for the Army’s IFPC-HEL program, though they have not publicly showcased particle beam systems.

Market projections highlight increasing interest in the sector. The worldwide particle-beam weapons market is forecast to grow substantially from 2025 to 2033, segmented by type (neutral and charged) and application (land, sea, and air combat). North America remains the leading region, with Asia-Pacific following, mainly due to missile defense needs and technology development. This expansion mirrors the broader Directed Energy Weapon (DEW) timeline, which spans from foundational research in the 1960s to the U.S. space-based NPB tests in 2023. Full operational deployment of some systems is expected by 2025.

The implications of this technology are significant. In antimissile defense, particle beams could destroy targets almost instantly, reducing the need for kinetic interceptors. Naval forces could provide protection against anti-ship missiles, as studied by the U.S. Navy in the 1970s. However, ethical and arms control issues raise concerns. The 1995 U.N. protocol bans blinding lasers, but particle beams occupy a legal gray area. Their potential for nonlethal applications, such as dazzling sensors, further complicates regulation. Critics argue that developing such technology could trigger an arms race, while supporters believe it is vital for deterring space-based threats.

Congressional oversight emphasizes these tensions, such as technological readiness, costs—high initial expenses but low per shot—and the sustainability of the industrial base. The DOD’s FY2025 request of $789.7 million for DE programs demonstrates a firm commitment, yet particle beams receive less focus than laser advancements, such as the Navy’s HELIOS system on destroyers. As climate change and geopolitical dynamics grow more intense, particle beams might either become the protective technology of the future or stay as an expensive, unfulfilled promise.

Looking to the future, breakthroughs in power systems and miniaturization could shift the balance. If China’s progress results in operational satellites, it might threaten U.S. space dominance, leading to countermeasures such as hardened satellites or anti-DEW technology. Currently, particle beam weapons represent the careful balance between technological innovation and restraint in military development.

References:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle-beam_weapon

https://www.datainsightsmarket.com/reports/particle-beam-weapons-630883

https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R46925

https://dsiac.dtic.mil/articles/pentagon-aims-to-loft-particle-beam-anti-missile-weapon-into-space-in-four-years

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LDqmD9nq8Y

https://science.gc.ca/site/science/en/safeguarding-your-research/guidelines-and-tools-implement-research-security/emerging-technology-trend-cards/directed-energy-weapons

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/capabilities/directed-energy.html

https://www.army-technology.com/analyst-comment/directed-energy-weapons-laser

https://ciaotest.cc.columbia.edu/olj/sa/sa_feb01ghc01.html

Share your thoughts in the comments, and explore more insights in our Journal and Magazine. Please consider becoming a subscriber.

Thank you: https://borealtimes.org/subscriptions–

Follow The Boreal Times on social media. Join the Oslo Meet by connecting experiences and uniting solutions: https://oslomeet.org

WHAT COMES NEXT IN IRAN?

The question hinges on Trump and the Iranian army

Women walk past a mural painted on the outer walls of the former US embassy in Tehran, colloquially referred to as the “Spy Den” on Sunday. / Photo by Atta Kenare / AFP via Getty Images.

By Seymour Hersh
Substack.com
4 February 2026

My favorite foreign policy expert is Eliot A. Cohen, emeritus at Johns Hopkins SAIS in DC. Despite nearing retirement, he's a critic of Trump. In a recent Atlantic essay, Cohen argues Trump should be called “Dear Leader,” a title used by North Korea’s Kim Jong Il, who also ruled without internal criticism.

I've heard that America’s Dear Leader has been entrusted with a delicate task: addressing rising tensions in Iran after Ayatollah Khamenei’s brutal suppression of a recent uprising, which he admits caused “several thousand” deaths. The official death count is 3,117, but many believe it is seriously understated, with estimates reaching as high as 16,500. The Iranian Revolutionary Guards, nearly 200,0000 troops, was authorized to shoot protesters and did so with fierce vengeance.

Overthrowing Iran's religious leadership has long been targeted by Israel, many in America and Europe, and Iranians. Success hinges on persuading Iran's 760,000 troops, excluding the Revolutionary Guards, to join or agree.

Planning for this continues.

A few weeks ago, I learned that David Barnea, the soon-to-retire head of Mossad, visited Washington last month. He was with military commanders to discuss possible actions if they decide to overthrow Iran’s religious regime.

If authorized, the operation wouldn't happen for months, allowing better weather and time to train intelligence and commando units. June was a likely target. The operation also depends on supporting Iran’s regular army, which needs to play a key role, especially if parts of the Revolutionary Guards stay loyal to the regime when resistance begins.

I was told to urgently reassure Iranian army leadership that America would support them if they challenged the Ayatollah.

While careful messaging was needed, Trump, true to his style, adopted a confrontational stance weekend. A Saturday NY Times headline said: “Trump Again Pushes Iran with War Threats and Unclear Evidence.” On CNN the next day, he said: “If no deal is reached with Iran, the world will find out if a US strike would trigger regional war.” Tehran responded quickly, with BBC reporting: “Iran’s Supreme Leader Warns of Regional War If US Attacks.”

Some experienced American experts working with Israel welcomed the president’s threats. One said, "The opposition needs not only the army but also the military's strength and dedication to prevent Iran from internal conflict among its historic factions. The US has repeatedly encouraged revolution, only to abandon it, causing failure. The administration was warned to show resolve from day one and keep it. While Trump’s statements seem stale to you, they’re like manna to Iranians.'

The expert discussed Khamenei's role in deploying the Revolutionary Guards and endorsing harsh measures against young protesters. He said, “Khamenei and supporters have fragile control but keep opposition subdued via fear and disorganization." After the crackdown, he noted, "Discontent and a desire to oust Khamenei now exist across all levels.”

Most experts agree that Benjamin Netanyahu, the controversial Israeli prime minister, will not be included in future Washington plans to support the Iranian people in removing the Ayatollah. The expert warned it would “screw the pooch" if Israelis are seen as complicit in the overthrow.

The official did not clarify how to prevent these perceptions, especially since the Trump administration responded to the Iran crisis by hosting Mossad's chief at the White House.

ALASTAIR CROOKE: IRAN DEFEATED INSURRECTION & RESTORED DETERRENCE

Prof. Glenn Diesen’s conversation with former British diplomat Alistair Crook details the ongoing deadlock in negotiations between the U.S., Iran, and Israel, with discussions halted over missile concerns and sanctions relief.
Iran wants to keep its nuclear program separate from other issues, while Israel requests wider security assurances. Recent protests in Iran, driven by foreign-trained insurgents, were contained without destabilizing the government.
The regional confrontation, observed by Russia and China, raises global risks, as military movements and economic instability make diplomatic solutions more challenging.

Watch the Video Here (47 minutes, 48 seconds)

Host Prof. Glenn Diesen
Substack.com
5 February 2025

U.S., Iran, and Regional Dynamics: A Conversation with Alistair Crook

Welcome back. Today, we host Alistair Crook, a seasoned British diplomat and negotiator with decades of experience in Middle Eastern conflicts and political Islam. He founded and directs Conflict Forum. A link to his Substack with a detailed analysis is in the description for interested viewers.

Trump’s Strategy Towards Iran: Initial Aims and Evolving Challenges

Initially, Trump saw Iran unrest as a chance for a quick victory—aiming for a clean, fast operation with minimal commitment. He sought Israeli support to find opportunities for a strike that could destabilize or overthrow Iran, echoing past interventions. The plan was to target a leadership weakness to instigate regime change. However, the situation became more complex than Trump anticipated.

The military build-up in the Persian Gulf, meant as pressure, reveals U.S. weaknesses. The fleet, mainly armed with Tomahawk missiles, is inadequate for a large-scale Iran operation. Iran's response is strong: its coast is protected by anti-ship missiles, submarines, and fast boats, threatening U.S. forces. This has pushed the fleet away from Iran due to drone and missile threats. Iranian drone swarms could overwhelm U.S. defenses, and anti-ship missiles remain a key danger.

Iran has responded to U.S. threats to close the Strait of Hormuz by asserting it can do so independently, allowing passage only for non-complicit Gulf nations. Iran warns that any attack by the U.S. or Israel would lead to full-scale war and closing all regional waterways. It rejects limited strikes and dismisses the idea that Israel could avoid retaliation.

The Dilemma Facing U.S. Policy and Regional Deterrence

Trump faces a tough situation as the case for a military strike is weak, with Israeli intelligence downplaying the nuclear threat and protests in Iran suppressed. Limited, risky options remain. U.S. assets are vulnerable, and symbolic acts likely won't help. Israel's stance complicates things, as they say airstrikes won't overthrow Iran but aim to weaken it via unrest and balkanization—a strategy Western allies oppose.

Iran's deterrence stance warns that any attack will trigger a full response, preventing U.S. control over escalation. This strategy influences America’s Arab allies, such as Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Gulf nations, who avoid conflicts out of fear of Iranian retaliation and unrest.

Regional Shifts and the Gulf States’ Calculations

The Gulf states hesitate to support the U.S. for multiple reasons. While closing Hormuz would impact their economies, their stance also reflects changing views on Israel and concerns about internal stability. Saudi Arabia has become more aggressive towards Israel, seeing its goals as threatening. Past conflicts and the risk of unrest among Gulf Shia communities influence their caution. Leading Shi’a figures warn that attacking Iran’s supreme leader could trigger global jihad against Israel and the U.S., risking regional destabilization.

Negotiations: Stalemate and Diverging Agendas

Recent talks between the U.S. and Israel shifted from Iran’s nuclear program to its missile capabilities. Israel opposes any deal neglecting this. The U.S. demands—surrender of uranium, halt enrichment, restrict missile development, and reduce regional ties—are unacceptable to Iran. Iran wants to focus solely on nuclear issues and lift sanctions. Negotiations haven't begun; efforts aim to create a framework for future talks.

The Iranians aim to keep the nuclear issue separate from other disputes, saying that linking them hinders the removal of sanctions. Israel warns it may oppose any deal that doesn't meet its security needs, increasing pressure on U.S. leaders and complicating diplomacy.

The Character of the Recent Iranian Insurrection

Unrest in Iran was partly fueled by insurgents trained abroad, mainly in U.S.-operated facilities in Armenia and Syria. Groups like the MEK and Kurdish factions aimed to create chaos through violence and attacks on security forces. With Turkish intelligence support, Iran intercepted many operatives, leading to arrests and casualties among insurgents and security personnel. The death toll is estimated at just under 3,000, with the government releasing detailed lists to counter external claims. Tactics resembled those of ISIS, including immolations and indiscriminate killings. Despite the violence, Iran’s political and military structures remained intact with no major defections during the crisis.

The Broader Geopolitical Implications

The standoff threatens regional and global stability, and market volatility could trigger economic turmoil if it escalates. Trump’s strategy is focused on showing strength and avoiding weakness to domestic audiences.

Major powers like Russia and China are watching closely, with Russia's parliament arguing that Iran should avoid U.S. pressure. Reports mention Russia possibly extending nuclear protection or deploying nuclear-capable ships. China-Russia naval cooperation might complicate U.S. responses and increase the risk of accidental escalation.

Conclusion

The current situation is tense, as the U.S. faces a dilemma: going to war could entail high costs, but withdrawing risks damage its credibility. Russian and Chinese assets in the area, along with Iran’s strengthened deterrence and regional factors, make the environment complex and unpredictable. Since negotiations are still in early stages, the situation is unstable and unresolved, carrying major consequences for the future of the Middle East.

WAS JEFFREY EPSTEIN REALLY A RUSSIAN SPY SQUID?

The attempts to link the late ultra-elite pedophile to Putin are absurd to the point of desperation

By Tarik Cyril Amar, a historian from Germany working at Koç University, Istanbul, on Russia, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe, the history of World War II, the cultural Cold War, and the politics of memory

@tarikcyrilamartarikcyrilamar.substack.comtarikcyrilamar.com

HomeWorld News
5 February 2026

‘Not many people know zis’ – as Franz Liebkind, the eccentric Nazi hobby playwright in ‘The Producers,’ might say – but Jeffrey ‘suicide-just-on-time’ Epstein was actually a remarkable Beluga whale. Or perhaps a giant, shapeshifting, hypnotic killer squid. Or simply Charlie Sheen.

Impossible? Totally absurd? Absolutely delusional?

Not at all (excuse my French)! Because, deep down, you see – you do see it, right? – all of these are essentially the same—manifestations of Russia! And so was Jeffrey Epstein, at least according to a coordinated wave of misleading nonsense, clearly intended as a message by Western propaganda outlets like the British Telegraph, the New York Post, the Daily Mail, and the Polish government. Meanwhile, Ukrainian and Russian exiled info-warriors are quick to join in – or rather, the (evil) clown car.

The claims about Russia are absurd and not worth debating. They are a disgraceful display of propagandists recycling baseless accusations and using transparent tricks that make you laugh, sad, and cringe.

Meduza uses a sensational headline: ‘Who are the Russians named in the latest Epstein files? Vladimir Putin, for one’, then clarifies: ‘there’s no evidence in the released files that a meeting between Putin and Epstein ever took place.’ That kind of overly sensationalized nonsense.

This surge in malicious acts against Moscow shows that, with about half of the Epstein Files revealed—and more shocking disclosures likely—the untrustworthy Western 'elites' and their media struggle to manage the fallout. They may even be panicking, which is understandable.

Read more
Russiagate 2.0: The West has rolled out a disgraced asset on Epstein

Well-informed individuals recognize the Epstein phenomenon as a highly successful, wealthy, and well-connected pedophile operating for Israel, a view supported by observers like Ana Kasparian and Tim Anderson.

We are not yet certain whether that indicates direct employment and training by Mossad, as the FBI source clearly stated, or a more informal but equally profound relationship. However, that is not the main issue. It is undeniable that his connections to Israel played a crucial role in his life and ‘work’.

While Epstein engaged in illegal activities like insider trading, pandemic profiteering, and arms trading, his main operation was a widespread blackmail scheme involving corrupt, influential Western individuals participating in depraved acts with victims, supported by his network. This compromised them and increased their susceptibility to manipulation.

Individuals now publicly suspected of such conduct—based on previous allegations, unclear settlements, and new images and messages from the Epstein files—include former Prince Andrew, former Labor Party figure Peter Mandelson, ex-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, and the two Bills: Clinton and Gates. Many others are also implicated.

Based on evidence, some individuals aren’t suspected of sex crimes but were willing to be complicit, influenced by hospitality, flattery, access, private plane rides, and possibly grants. For example, Noam Chomsky seems to have been among these.

The only individual whose reputation was improved, rather than harmed, by being mentioned in the files is Norman Finkelstein, a steadfast critic and opponent of Israel’s actions, from apartheid to genocide. According to the files, he is the sole person who responded to the Epstein network's approach with a firm, unmistakable message – to paraphrase – "go and screw yourself." This is what any decent person would have done; however, he is the only one to have done so.

Read more
Was Epstein a Mossad spy, or did he just look like one?

The West’s attempt to turn its widespread elite corruption, involving a pedophile criminal for Israel, into a ‘Russia!’ issue is foolish and shameless. It resembles the tired Russiagate conspiracy theory, which falsely claimed Trump colluded with Russia, using the same tactic—blaming Russia for Western-made issues.

Russia-rage was fictional but portrayed as truth; Epstein Files reveal real corruption but are denied or minimized by the Western media. How ironic.

The incomplete Epstein Files show many Western elites are linked to crime, sadism, and nihilism. Those in power embody malevolence, and Western institutions fail to oppose this evil, facing resistance, delays, and censorship in transparency efforts. True accountability remains lacking.

The West has long credibility issues. The Epstein Files reveal that influential elites are involved in depravity worse than imagined, even more alarming than many so-called ‘conspiracy theories’.

We live in a world where the so-called evil West has played a role in enabling Israel's actions in Gaza, undermining international law and ethics. Many Western elites are reportedly compromised by scandals involving a criminal linked to Israel, which likely influences these failures. But this connection is obvious; Epstein was not unique, and what he represented continues beyond him.

Western elites and their media allies want us to fear and hate Russia, China, Venezuela, Cuba, Iran, Palestine, and others targeted at any time. They claim we must bomb Iran to defend Iranian women's rights, despite their history of raping and likely disappearing girls.

The West is the swamp. And everyone knows it.

BUILDING THE BRIDGE! | A WAY TO GET TO KNOW THE OTHER AND ONE ANOTHER

Making a Difference – The Means, Methods, and Mechanisms for Many to Move Mountains

Photo Credit: Abraham A. van Kempen, our home away from home on the Dead Sea

By Abraham A. van Kempen
Senior Editor
Updated 19 January 2024

Those who commit to 'healing our broken humanity' build intercultural bridges to learn to know and understand one another and others. Readers who thumb through the Building the Bridge (BTB) pages are not mindless sheep following other mindless sheep. They THINK. They want to be at the forefront of making a difference. They're seeking the bigger picture to expand their horizons. They don't need BTB or anyone else to confirm their biases.

Making a Difference – The Means, Methods, and Mechanisms for Many to Move Mountains

Accurate knowledge fosters understanding, dispels prejudice, and sparks a desire to learn more about the subject. Words have an extraordinary power to bring people together, divide them, forge bonds of friendship, or provoke hostility. Modern technology offers unprecedented possibilities for good, fostering harmony and reconciliation. Yet, its misuse can cause untold harm, leading to misunderstandings, prejudices, and conflicts.

Continue reading

A Free Trial for Life – SUBSCRIBE NOW!

• It's quick and straightforward.

• We won’t ask for your credit card number.

• Just enter your e-mail address to receive your complimentary free-for-life subscription to our newsletter.

• Please include your First and Last Name.

• We won’t share or sell your e-mail address.

_________________________

Related Articles Recently Posted on www.buildingthebridgefoundation.com:

OUR FRIDAY NEWS ANALYSIS

OUR WEDNESDAY NEWS ANALYSIS

OUR MONDAY EDITION

________________________

The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of the Building the Bridge Foundation

LATEST OPEN LETTERS

03-02
TO WORLD LEADERS
06-01
Standing in Solidarity with the People of Venezuela
21-07
Freedom
20-03
Stand up to Trump
18-02
Average Americans Response
23-12
Tens of thousands of dead children.......this must stop
05-06
A Call to Action: Uniting for a Lasting Peace in the Holy Land
28-05
Concerned world citizen
13-02
World Peace
05-12
My scream to the world

The Friday Edition

Our Friday News Analysis | What the World Reads Now!

LATEST OPEN LETTERS

Latest Blog Articles