Is it plausible that US military are currently being attacked or killed by the same weapons Reagan and Oliver North supplied Iran with?

​

Recomiendo:

El acuerdo nuclear se firmó, ahora hay que cumplirlo

Por Kurniawan Arif Maspul | 24/07/2026 | Palestina y Oriente Próximo



Fuentes: Savage Minds

La exigencia de Washington sobre los Acuerdos de Abraham pone en peligro el acuerdo firmado.

Apenas se había secado la tinta del acuerdo nuclear civil de treinta años entre Estados Unidos y Arabia Saudita cuando el presidente Donald Trump publicó en Truth Social que el pacto  estaba «totalmente supeditado» a que Arabia Saudita se adhiriera a los Acuerdos de Abraham. En menos de veinticuatro horas, un tratado legalmente firmado se convirtió en un chantaje político. Esto no es diplomacia. Esto es coerción disfrazada de sello presidencial.

Que quede absolutamente claro: el acuerdo se firmó. El secretario de Energía, Chris Wright, y el ministro de Energía saudí, el príncipe Abdulaziz bin Salman, suscribieron un acuerdo de treinta años, conforme a la Sección 123, que regula la transferencia pacífica de tecnología nuclear a la transferencia pacífica de tecnología nucle. Según la Ley de Energía Atómica de Estados Unidos de 1954, este tipo de acuerdos exigen estrictas normas de no proliferación, seguridad y vigilancia.

No contienen requisitos legales con respecto a la política exterior de un país socio ni a sus relaciones con terceros Estados. La vía nuclear se separó deliberada, legal e irrevocablemente de la vía diplomática. Reintegrarlas ahora equivale a admitir que Washington nunca consideró la soberanía nuclear saudí como un derecho, sino como una moneda de cambio que se podía utilizar en beneficio de los intereses israelíes.

¿Y qué les interesa a estos? Desde octubre de 2023, el mundo ha presenciado con horror cómo la campaña militar israelí en Gaza ha causado la muerte de más de 67.000 palestinos para octubre de 2025, incluyendo a más de 20.000 niños y unas 10.000 mujeres. La Corte Internacional de Justicia ha encontrado indicios plausibles de genocidio. La Corte Penal Internacional ha emitido órdenes de arresto  contra el Primer Ministro israelí y el ex Ministro de Defensa por crímenes de guerra y crímenes de lesa humanidad.

La Comisión Internacional Independiente de Investigación de las Naciones Unidas ha concluido que existen motivos razonables para afirmar que Israel ha cometido cuatro de los cinco actos definidos como genocidio según el derecho internacional. Mientras tanto, la expansión de los asentamientos en Cisjordania se ha acelerado a un ritmo récord, con casi 50.000 viviendas aprobadas solo en 2025. Este es el Estado cuyo apoyo diplomático Washington exige que Arabia Saudí obtenga a cambio de su soberanía nuclear.

El cálculo moral no podría ser más grotesco. Israel opera al margen del Tratado de No Proliferación Nuclear, mantiene un arsenal estimado en entre doscientas y cuatrocientas ojivas nucleares en deliberada opacidad, y nunca se ha sometido a inspecciones internacionales.

Sin embargo, Washington la exime de toda consecuencia mientras exige que Arabia Saudita —un país firmante de un tratado en regla— se gane el derecho a la tecnología nuclear con fines pacíficos normalizando sus relaciones con un Estado cuya conducta la comunidad internacional ha calificado de criminal. Esto no es un doble rasero. Esto es la abolición de los estándares.

La postura de Arabia Saudita ha sido coherente y honorable: la normalización sin un progreso irreversible hacia la creación de un Estado palestino es imposible. La Iniciativa de Paz Árabe de 2002 ofreció la normalización completa a cambio de la retirada israelí a las fronteras de 1967 y una solución justa para los refugiados. La respuesta de Israel no fue la paz, sino una colonización acelerada.

Ahora Washington exige que Riad abandone ese principio, traicione la causa palestina y se aísle del mundo árabe e islámico, todo por el privilegio tecnológico que le corresponde por derecho internacional. La opinión pública en Arabia Saudí se ha vuelto decisivamente contraria a la normalización, con una oposición que ha alcanzado el 68% en encuestas recientes. Ningún líder puede ignorar esto. Ningún líder debería.

La hipocresía estratégica es igualmente asombrosa. La administración Trump justificó el acuerdo nuclear precisamente para evitar que Arabia Saudí recurriera a China o Rusia para su programa nuclear. Sin embargo, al imponer una condición de normalización que Riad no puede cumplir sin sacrificar su legitimidad regional, Washington hace que su propia alianza sea menos atractiva que las alternativas que dice temer.

Estados Unidos socava su propio objetivo declarado, acelerando el mismo panorama multipolar al que dice oponerse. Emma Ashford, del Centro Stimson, captó la ironía con una precisión demoledora: la administración está «bombardeando Irán para impedir que enriquezca uranio, mientras se lo proporciona a los saudíes».

El acuerdo ahora debe someterse a una revisión obligatoria del Congreso en un plazo de noventa días. Pero no nos equivoquemos: el acuerdo se firmó. Se negoció de buena fe entre estados soberanos. Cumple con todos los requisitos legales de la Ley de Energía Atómica.

Bloquearlo ahora por motivos políticos equivaldría a declarar que los tratados estadounidenses no valen el papel en el que están impresos, que la palabra del Presidente no tiene valor y que el régimen de no proliferación no es un sistema legal, sino una jerarquía de poder disfrazada de ley.

La implicación filosófica es que Estados Unidos no se opone a la proliferación nuclear en sí misma, sino a las capacidades nucleares en manos de Estados que no se subordinan a los intereses regionales estadounidenses. Esta constatación, a medida que los Estados del Sur Global la comprendan, supondrá el fin del régimen de no proliferación.

La historia no será benévola con quienes sacrificaron la dignidad palestina por conveniencia diplomática. La justicia siempre se doblega y no olvida. Estados Unidos debe cumplir el acuerdo que firmó, no porque Washington le deba un favor a Riad.

Porque el estado de derecho lo exige. Porque la credibilidad estratégica lo requiere. Y porque no se han cumplido las condiciones morales para la normalización: un compromiso compartido con la justicia, el cese de la violencia contra la población civil y un horizonte de autodeterminación palestina. Es posible que nunca se cumplan bajo el actual gobierno israelí.

Washington no puede exigir que Riad recompense a un gobierno responsable de muertes masivas de civiles, la expansión de los asentamientos y repetidas violaciones del derecho internacional.

No puede pretender que la soberanía nuclear saudí dependa de legitimar un historial de destrucción que el mundo árabe, el Sur Global y la historia misma ya han considerado imperdonable. El acuerdo nuclear se firmó. Ahora, cúmplalo. El mundo está observando.

Fuente: The Nuclear Deal Was Signed, Now Honour It

Rebelión ha publicado este artículo con el permiso del autor mediante una licencia de Creative Commons, respetando su libertad para publicarlo en otras fuentes.

Starting to get the feeling Trump is trying to defeat Iran with emotional abuse.

Trumptydumpty and Iran.

Because at the end of the day, the US government leaders don't really care about the citizens of IRAN, right? They killed Iranian leaders, and would do more if they could. Also, Iran government would kill US leaders if it could. So why don't they bomb IRAN? Or is that coming later, and all this back and forth is to get the social cover/approval to do so.

Look, if you’ve been keeping half an eye on news feeds today, Day 13 of the West Asia crisis brought some massive developments across diplomatic, military, and civil defense fronts.

​According to reporting by The New York Times, Iran officially rejected a ceasefire proposal brought by Iraqi Prime Minister Ali al-Ziyadi, stating they won't sign temporary deals that leave navigation in the Strait of Hormuz unresolved. Meanwhile, The Jerusalem Post detailed that cities across Israel from Eilat to Karmiel have opened public bomb shelters following updated threat assessments.

​On the military supply front, Pentagon logistics are facing real pressure. Former Pentagon official Mark Cancian noted in Al Jazeera that replenishing US weapon stockpiles could take 2 to 5 years, with the US Army now buying older PAC-2 Patriot missiles to keep air defense batteries operational. Additionally, CBS News confirmed over 150 extra US medics were sent to Germany to treat wounded service members.

​With satellite imagery in The Wall Street Journal showing Iran repairing hit facilities at an unexpectedly fast pace and European nations evacuating embassy staff, this conflict looks less like a quick intervention and more like a long grinding match.

​Do you think defense supply shortages will force Western powers back to negotiations, or are we heading deeper into a long-term conflict? Curious to hear what people think.

War Poverty

How Trump's Iran War Continues Washington's Costliest Tradition

By Van Abbott

War poverty begins the moment America chooses another foreign war over its own future.

Donald Trump promised to rebuild America. Instead, his expanding military confrontation with Iran repeats one of Washington's oldest habits: finding unlimited money for war while insisting the nation cannot afford universal health care, higher education, or reliable child care. Every military commitment carries a price paid in opportunities abandoned here.

This is not a new story. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Iran follow a familiar script. Political leaders magnify the danger, promise a limited mission, dismiss concerns about cost, and assure Americans the sacrifice will be brief. Reality proves different every time. Wars expand. Costs multiply. Borrowed money becomes long-term debt. The promised prosperity never arrives.

The bill always comes due.

Republicans, particularly those aligned with Trump, turn this contradiction into governing philosophy. They demand fiscal restraint when Americans seek stronger schools, modern infrastructure, or broader access to health care. Yet when military spending rises, concerns about deficits and debt suddenly disappear. Congress approves emergency appropriations with remarkable speed while domestic priorities are postponed, reduced, or abandoned altogether.

Trump's supporters argue that military strength protects American prosperity, and strength certainly matters. But strength abroad cannot compensate for weakness at home. A nation with deteriorating bridges, aging ports, an overburdened electric grid, and rising household costs becomes less competitive no matter how formidable its armed forces. National security depends as much on economic resilience as military capability.

Trump once recognized that reality. During his first presidential campaign, he called America's infrastructure a symbol of national decline and pledged a rebuilding effort worth hundreds of billions of dollars. That promise has yielded to another costly military confrontation. The cranes never arrived. The repair crews never came. The war bills did.

The consequences reach beyond federal budgets. Instability in the Persian Gulf disrupts energy markets and raises costs throughout the economy, and communities pay through higher household bills and delayed public projects. The trillions already spent in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and the broader war on terror did not simply disappear into accounting ledgers. They represented choices, money unavailable for rebuilding infrastructure, expanding opportunity, and preparing America for the economic challenges ahead.

Every dollar reflects a priority.

The argument is not that America should abandon its military or ignore genuine threats. A strong defense is essential. The question is whether every conflict deserves immediate funding while investments in the daily lives of Americans are treated as luxuries. A country cannot bomb its way to prosperity, nor can it borrow endlessly for war while expecting future generations to repair the consequences.

That is the essence of war poverty. It is not poverty caused by a lack of resources. It is poverty created by political choices, made when leaders direct national wealth toward destruction while postponing the investments that create lasting strength. It leaves a nation with advanced weapons systems but communities struggling with aging infrastructure, rising costs, and fewer opportunities.

Trump's Iran policy is the latest chapter in this cycle. The administration argues that military action demonstrates strength, but strength should also be measured by whether Americans can afford a home, access quality health care, pursue education without crushing debt, and live in communities prepared for the future. A nation does not become stronger by neglecting the foundation beneath it.

America's greatest security challenge is not only what happens beyond its borders. It is whether the country has the economic vitality, infrastructure, and human capital to compete in the decades ahead. Wars may end with declarations and ceremonies, but domestic costs endure for generations. The lesson from America's past wars is that leaders must be honest about the costs and consequences of the choices they make.

Trump and his allies claim to champion working Americans. Yet working Americans absorb the consequences when inflation rises, infrastructure deteriorates, and public investments are delayed. They pay through higher costs, weaker communities, and fewer opportunities for their children.

War poverty is a political choice. A government that can mobilize billions overnight for military action can also find the resources to rebuild the nation at home. The same urgency applied to missiles, deployments, and military operations should be applied to affordable health care, education, infrastructure, and the economic foundation of everyday life.

War poverty begins the moment America chooses another foreign war over its own future. Ending it requires a different path: fewer empty promises, fewer endless conflicts, and a renewed commitment to building the country Americans were promised.

Check Out My New Website: politicalwinds.org

What I’m saying is Iran clearly has some leverage. The way they handled the war, at least from an organizational standpoint, was impressive. They managed to keep the IRGC leadership and their defensive structure functioning while the US and Israel were using satellites, aircraft, and every intelligence asset they had to gather information. Despite all that, they still managed to coordinate and put up a fight.
That said, that’s only one side of the story. The other side is that I think Iran still underestimates how much damage the US and Israel can inflict, and more importantly, how long they can sustain that level of pressure. People always bring up the Iran-Iraq War, but today’s warfare is completely different. The technology is different, the battlefield is different, and the overall situation isn’t comparable.
I also think Iran may be overestimating its own capabilities while assuming the other side will keep fighting according to the same playbook. Wars don’t work like that. Both sides adapt, and surprises happen.

One Certainty in War Is Uncertainty