The US-Israeli attack on Iran is igniting a powder keg that will have global repercussions

The repercussions will be dire and far-reaching, affecting the people of the Middle East and populations worldwide . . . Proponents claim this will “decapitate” a rogue state but history teaches us otherwise.

By Fareed Khan 
A version of this can be found on Substack.

On February 28, 2026, the world awoke to the thunder of missiles and airstrikes in the Middle East as the United States and Israel launched a coordinated, unprovoked attack on Iran. Framed by President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as a pre-emptive strike to halt Iran’s alleged imminent completion of a nuclear warhead, as well as to overthrow the regime, this assault marks a brazen violation of international law and the UN Charter.

Iran posed no imminent threat to either nation, and the justification for the attack echoes decades-old fear mongering that has repeatedly failed to materialize. This act of aggression is not merely a regional skirmish. It threatens to destabilize the entire Middle East, disrupt global energy supplies, and plunge the world into economic turmoil. Moreover, it exposes the hollow rhetoric of leaders like Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, who advocated independence from American hegemony in Davos, but instead has revealed himself as little more than an American lapdog by supporting the US attack, forsaking an independent Canadian foreign policy.

The repercussions of this attack will be dire and far-reaching, affecting not just the people of the Middle East but populations worldwide. The region, already scarred by decades of conflict, instigated by the West and Israel, stands on the brink of unprecedented instability. Iran’s response—launching retaliatory strikes and mobilizing its proxies—has already escalated tensions with neighbouring Arab nations. The US-Israeli attack has targeted Iran’s military infrastructure, nuclear facilities, and leadership, potentially killing Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and crippling the regime’s command structure. While proponents claim this will “decapitate” a rogue state, history teaches us otherwise.

The 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq, justified by fabricated claims of weapons of mass destruction, did not bring stability to the region. It unleashed chaos, sectarian violence, and the rise of terrorist groups like ISIS. Similarly, this assault on Iran risks fracturing the country along ethnic and religious lines, empowering hardliners, and spawning new insurgencies that could spill over into Iraq, Syria, and beyond.

The potential human cost will be staggering. Millions of Iranians, already enduring economic hardship under years of US-led sanctions, now face the horrors of war—bombings, displacement, break down of civil society, and possibly famine. Neighbouring countries, home to refugees from past conflicts, will bear the brunt of any mass exodus, but the instability won’t stop at borders.

The Persian Gulf, through which the majority of Middle Eastern oil flows—accounting for about 20% of global crude oil consumption via the Strait of Hormuz—has become a flash point. Iranian forces have already telegraphed their intent to restrict shipping through the strait, and tanker traffic has slowed amid fears of blockade or sabotage. A prolonged disruption could spike oil prices to levels not seen the late 2000s when prices topped $140 per barrel, triggering inflation, recessions, and energy shortages worldwide. Europe, still dealing with the repercussions of the on-going Russia-Ukraine war, would be hit hard, as would developing economies in Asia and Africa dependent on stable and affordable oil prices. The global supply chain, already fragile, could unravel, exacerbating poverty and inequality. This is not hyperbole, it’s the predictable outcome of US military aggression destabilizing a region that fuels most of the world’s economy.

Compounding this folly is the abject failure of international diplomacy. The UN Charter explicitly prohibits the use of force except in self-defence or with Security Council approval—neither of which applies here. Iran, for all its deep flaws, was not on the verge of attacking anyone, contrary to the claims made by the US and Israel. Intelligence assessments from US allies have long dismissed Netanyahu’s perennial claims of an “imminent” Iranian nuclear bomb as exaggerated. These warnings date back to the 1990s, when Netanyahu, as a Knesset member, predicted Iran would have nuclear capabilities within three to five years—a timeline that has has been recycled ad nauseam without becoming reality. Previous US presidents, from both parties, resisted Israel’s pressure to attack Iran precisely because they understood the catastrophic blowback and its long lasting implications. However, Trump’s decision to green light this attack, in close coordination with Israel, reeks of election-year posturing, prioritizing geopolitical ambitions over any sincere efforts to seek long-term peace.

In this grim scenario, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s response stands out as a particularly shameful capitulation to the Trump geopolitical agenda. At the World Economic Forum in Davos just weeks ago, Carney delivered a powerful speech railing against American coercion, touting Canada’s sovereignty, and vowing to “disconnect” from US dominance. He spoke of “elbows up” defiance, positioning himself as a bulwark against Trump’s authoritarian agenda.

Yet, when confronted with a blatant violation of international law by a president who has made a habit of ignoring international norms, Carney has parroted US talking points, offering adamant support for the Iran attack and framing them as necessary to counter a “regional threat.” This doesn’t demonstrate leadership but rather theatrical hypocrisy—bluster and bravado at home and abroad about how Canada would walk its own path masking a deeper subservience to the US, revealing Canada is still in lockstep with American imperialism when push comes to shove.

Contrast this with the stance of former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien in 2003. Faced with the US-led push to invade Iraq without UN sanction, Chrétien stood firm, condemning the action as a violation of international law and refusing to join the “coalition of the willing.” His decision, supported by an overwhelming majority of Canadians, preserved Canada’s moral standing and spared it from the quagmire that followed. Iraq’s destabilization not only cost the US trillions of dollars and resulted in the death of millions of Iraqis but birthed new terror networks that continue to haunt the world today.

Carney, by contrast, has shown no such courage in his response to the attack on Iran. His knee jerk support for the US and Israel aligns him with Trump—a leader who has disdain for the international rule of law, as evidenced by his attack on Venezuela, his efforts to bring down the Cuban government, and attempts to annex Greenland. Carney has railed against Trump for the benefit of domestic audiences, decrying tariffs and his bullying, but with the Iran attack has jumped to echo the US president’s war cries. This duplicitous duality exposes the emptiness of Carney’s nationalist rhetoric. His performative rebellion for Canadian voters while aligning with the actions of a fascist warmonger destabilizing the Middle East, shows a leader who should not be trusted. It seems when it comes to Iran and Middle East geopolitics Carney’s leash is held firmly by Washington.

European nations that have joined in supporting the strikes—blaming Iran despite its lack of imminent aggression—make a mockery of their professed commitment to international law. This hypocrisy underscores a dangerous double standard, one where Western powers flout rules they impose on the Global South, demanding submission, threatening their adversaries with military aggression or economic coercion if they don’t.

Admittedly Iran, a decidedly “vile government” that brutally violates its citizens’ rights, is no saint. But if human rights were the true motive for the US-Israeli attack, as they have stated is part of the justification for the military action, why not target China, Russia, or North Korea to free the people of those nations from tyranny? The answer is that neither the US, Israel, nor its allies truly care about protecting the human rights of oppressed peoples. Additionally, these nations possess something that Iran doesn’t—nuclear weapons. Their arsenals provide leverage against bullies like the US that Iran is lacking. Paradoxically, this attack may be a catalyst that accelerates nuclear proliferation worldwide, as vulnerable states conclude that nuclear weapons are the only shield against unprovoked assault by the super powers of this world.

History will judge the perpetrators harshly. The United States, once seen as a beacon of democracy, will be remembered as a rogue empire that squandered its advantage on endless wars and coups, from Vietnam to Latin America to Afghanistan to Iraq—and now Iran. Its actions have eroded global trust, fuelling anti-Americanism and empowering its adversaries. Israel will also be etched in history as one of the most evil regimes of the 20th and 21st centuries. For decades, Zionist influence has steered US foreign policy toward dismantling Middle Eastern powers supportive of Palestinian rights—Egypt and Jordan via peace deals, Iraq through lies about WMDs, Libya via NATO bombings, and now Iran as the final obstacle to Israel’s hegemonic ambitions in the region.

This attack isn’t about security as the US and Israel claim. It is about erasing opposition to expansionism, to an ethnic cleansing and genocide agenda targeting Palestinians, that began with the Nakba in 1948 and continues in Gaza and the West Bank today. It is also about controlling the flow of oil which powers the engine of US and Western imperialism and economic control.

Canada, too, will face condemnation in the history books. By endorsing this illegal, unjustified attack on Iran, Carney has further tarnished a nation that was once admired for peacekeeping and multilateralism. Future generations will view this as a betrayal, akin to complicity in colonial atrocities. The attack on Iran is just the opening salvo in regime-change efforts, but without addressing root causes—Western meddling and Israel’s territorial and genocidal ambitions. It will only sow more anti-American and anti-Israel hatred, and will further destabilize a region that plays a key role in the global economic engine.

This assault is a reckless gamble, in support of Israel’s regional agenda, that endangers the global community. It destabilizes a volatile region, threatens economic stability and hammers another nail into the coffin of the so-called “international order” that Western leaders often talk about. Leaders like Carney, who enable it through spineless alignment with the US agenda, must be held accountable. The world must demand de-escalation, UN mediation, and a return to diplomacy before this spark ignites a global inferno. History and basic humanity demands no less.

© 2026 The View From Here. © 2026 Fareed Khan. All Rights Reserved.

Trump’s State of the Union speech shows a narcissistic, sociopath who is a danger to Americans and the world

Fascism in the vein of Hitler's regime is starkly manifest in Trump's America, in its cult of personality, in threats against those that oppose him, and fervent white nationalism and white supremacy.

 

By Fareed Khan 
A version of this can be found on Substack.

In the wake of Donald Trump’s 2026 State of the Union address the United States is at a crossroads, grappling with a vision of leadership that prioritizes spectacle over substance. Delivered in the House of Representatives chamber the speech clocked in at an unprecedented 1 hour and 48 minutes, shattering records for length while offering a barrage of claims about economic revival, border security, and global dominance that were not based in reality. This marathon speech painted a picture of America resurgent under Trump’s stewardship. Yet, beneath the bravado and the chants of “USA” from Republicans in the chamber, the address revealed deeper fissures in the fabric of American democracy—echoes of a superpower diminished and declining not due to external forces, but by internal deceptions, divisions, corruption and hubris.

Trump’s narrative centred on an economy he described as “roaring” and “booming,” crediting his policies for record job growth and plummeting inflation. He boasted of unemployment holding steady at around 4.3%, with wage growth outpacing inflation and consumer confidence on the rise. However, these assertions mask a more troubling reality. Fact-checkers noted exaggerations, such as his claim of inheriting a “stagnant economy” from the previous administration, when in truth, he built upon a post-pandemic recovery already underway during Joe Biden’s last year in office. American GDP growth slowed to 1.4% in the last quarter of 2025, attributed in part to a prolonged government shutdown the prior year. Such selective storytelling fosters a culture where facts are malleable, tailored to fit a narrative of unassailable success, leaving citizens starved of objective truth and vulnerable to manipulated perceptions.

The speech’s emphasis on immigration enforcement further highlighted a troubling embrace of cruelty over humanity. Trump clashed sharply with Democrats, accusing them of prioritizing “illegal aliens” over American citizens and urging the passage of the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act—a law condemned by the American Civil Liberties Union—to mandate proof of citizenship for voting. He touted mass deportations and border security as triumphs, claiming the border is now “secure” and crime rates are dropping. Yet, reports indicate that operations by what many American’s are calling the “ICE gestapo” (Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents) have led to the detention of tens of thousands, including US citizens, and at least two American deaths in custody, as well as the public shootings of two American citizens in Minnesota. This approach sees compassion as a weakness, celebrating policies that inflict suffering on vulnerable populations while ignoring the human cost. Outrage is reserved not for these injustices, but for any critique of Trump’s lies, by his army of MAGA trolls who worship the ground he walks on.

Trump’s portrayal of himself as a saviour figure—a billionaire outsider rescuing the nation from decline— was on full display. He honoured heroes like the US men’s hockey team and awarded medals, framing himself as the architect of national renewal amid the country’s upcoming 250th anniversary. Supporters on social media hailed the speech as “epic” and “thrilling,” praising his invocation of Judeo-Christian values and declaration of America as a “Christian nation,” a supreme irony given the decidedly anti-Christian practices of his administration. However, this adulation overlooks his history of legal troubles, including more than 30 convictions that his MAGA base dismisses as political persecution. The address recycled unsubstantiated claims of election fraud, sowing doubt in democratic processes and feeding conspiracy theories that sustain his grip on power.

A particularly alarming theme emerged in Trump’s foreign policy pronouncements, where he positioned the US as a dominant global force which, in reality, is wreaking calculated havoc abroad. He addressed tensions with Iran, stating they “want to make a deal more than I do” but refusing to budge on nuclear ambitions, while boasting of “Operation Midnight Hammer” that allegedly obliterated their program. He mentioned seizing 80 million barrels of Venezuelan oil following the attack on Maduro’s regime, framing it as an economic win.

Such actions, presented as triumphs, resemble unchecked aggression, scorching distant lands with the fire of American interventionism. The global community watches warily, aware that one reckless move could unleash catastrophe, where international relationships are undone due to colonial and imperialistic ambitions.

Domestically, the speech exacerbated existing divisions, splitting the nation into echo chambers of resentment. Trump lambasted Democrats for not standing during applause lines on protecting citizens, supporting victims of crimes by undocumented immigrants, or endorsing voter ID laws. Incidents like Democratic Rep. Al Green’s removal for holding a sign reading “BLACK PEOPLE AREN’T APES” underscored the racial tensions simmering beneath the surface. His base consumes these narratives through social media, where memes and half-truths nourish a worldview of supremacy, declaring that Trumpian acolytes are the true guardians of society while demonizing others as traitors.

Even the tech sector’s billionaire moguls—individuals whose vast fortunes insulate them from the everyday hardships faced by ordinary people—now display a disturbing deference to Trump’s authoritarian leanings. During the address, he proudly announced a so-called “Rate Payer Protection Pledge,“ claiming he had secured agreements with major AI and tech companies to ensure they cover their own electricity costs for power-hungry data centres, framing himself as an unrivalled master negotiator who shields everyday consumers from rising bills.

Yet this supposed triumph reveals a deeper capitulation. These once-independent titans of Silicon Valley who built empires on disruption and free inquiry, now appear to bend the knee to a leader whose governance increasingly resembles that of tyrants in authoritarian regimes. By aligning with policies that prioritize short-term optics over principled oversight, they help sustain a man who thrives on division, spectacle, and the erosion of accountability. What begins as pragmatic self-interest in powering AI ambitions risks becoming complicity in a broader fog of moral and democratic decrepitude. 

The address’s combative turn, about an hour in, shifted from optimism to grievances against the Supreme Court for striking down his global tariffs—a policy he vowed to resurrect through new means, even suggesting tariffs could eventually replace income taxes. The fact that he was critical of the four justices sitting before him (a majority refused to attend), whose job is to be a check against government overreach illustrates a leader who greets any criticism with scorn, continuing to pursue discredited ideas with renewed vigour despite their illegality, much like the fable of the emperor with no clothes being flattered by his subjects. 

As the speech unfolded, one could say that Americans were witnessing another step in the slow unravelling of world’s oldest constitutional democracy. Many of the proposals outlined in Trump’s speech, sounded appealing but lacked the legislative details, serving more as a political rallying cry aimed at the mid-term elections rather than substantive policy proposals. With approval ratings for Trump hovering lower than ever the address aimed to reset his agenda amid economic worries and a potential war with Iran. Yet, the underlying menace of his mantra, fuelled by division and disregard for norms, threatens to burn all in its path. 

The world, compelled to endure the erratic thrashings of this corrupt and dangerous leader, must fully grasp the peril. A single impulsive outburst could plunge humanity into an abyss from which there is no return. With each passing day, Trump’s decisions and decrees inch the US and the world perilously closer to the edge of catastrophe. In the face of this wounded and vigilant citizens and leaders across the globe must join forces, raising a unified chorus of condemnation and action against this harbinger of calamity, whose toxic influence threatens to shatter the very pillars of international civil society.

Though many may recoil from the truth, fascism in the vein of Hitler’s regime is starkly manifest in Trump’s America—embodied in its cult of personality, its threats and attacks on those that oppose him, and fervent white nationalism and white supremacy. It even echoes the horrors of concentration camps through detention centres that imprison the innocent, including American citizens swept up by ICE raids.

History bears grim witness to the consequences of inaction against the Nazis in the 1930s, allowing tyranny to fester and engulf the world in flames. To avert a chilling repetition, the global community must rally without delay, bolstering those who seek to excise this malignant figure and his obsequious enablers from power—not merely for America’s redemption, but for the preservation of humanity’s shared future. We must all remember that in the face of rising authoritarianism, silence is complicity, and unity is our greatest weapon against the encroaching darkness.
 

© 2026 The View From Here. © 2026 Fareed Khan. All Rights Reserved.

PITY THE NATION

By Fareed Khan 
A version of this can be found on Substack.

US attack on Iran, on Israel's behalf, would destabilize the Middle-East and lead to a wider war

At the heart of current Iranian regime change attempt lie decades of effort by the US and Israel to destabilize the Islamic Republic.

 

By Fareed Khan 
A version of this article can be found on Substack.

As the world watches to see if Donald Trump will make good on his threats against Iran, Western audiences must grasp a crucial reality: Tehran remains the Middle East’s last significant counterweight to Israeli dominance, largely thanks to its unyielding commitment to the Palestinian cause. While many Muslim-majority governments in the region have softened their stance, Iran has offered resolute support to groups resisting Israel’s long-standing occupation, embedding the fight against Israeli expansion as a foundational element of its foreign policy. This defiance squarely confronts Israel's aspirations for regional hegemony, casting Iran as an enduring obstacle in Jerusalem’s strategic playbook. Amid Israel’s growing clout—bolstered by normalization deals with select Arab states and targeted military operations against adversaries—the push for regime change in Tehran, led by the United States and Israel, has only gained momentum.



To understand the geopolitics of the conflict between Iran on one side and Israel and the US on the other, let’s examine the political and historical context which will reveal that Israel functions as the true terrorist state in the region through state-sponsored violence, assassinations, and disproportionate military campaigns against weaker nations and peoples, while the US and Israel combined represent the most dangerous actors in the Middle East, repeatedly destabilizing the region with interventions based on geopolitical ambitions and fabricated pretexts.

The Palestinian struggle remains central to understanding Iran’s isolation and Israel’s animosity towards that nation. Tehran has long provided financial, military, and political support to groups like Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, framing this aid as an “axis of resistance” to Israeli actions in Gaza and the broader occupation in territories where Palestinians want to establish a state. This support contrasts sharply with the shifting stances of Arab nations. Countries like Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Bahrain, and Kuwait—oil-rich powers with significant financial leverage—have increasingly normalized relations with Israel, effectively abandoning their strong historical support for Palestinians.

The Abraham Accords of 2020 normalized relations between Israel, the UAE, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco, bypassing Palestinian statehood, which these nations had as a condition of normalization for decades prior to the agreement. These treaties have prioritized economic and security issues over Palestinian rights, as evidenced by the apathetic response by these nations to Israel’s genocidal crimes in Gaza since October 2023.

For more than 28 months, as Israel has inflicted unimaginable terror on Palestinians in Gaza, there have been no broad-based sanctions imposed by any Arab nations against Israel despite massive demonstrations by their citizens calling for such action. Diplomatic ties remain intact, unlike actions by some European nations—Spain, Ireland, Norway, Slovenia—which have downgraded diplomatic and economic relations, while several Latin American nations—Bolivia, Belize, Colombia, Chile, Honduras—have severed diplomatic ties or recalled their ambassadors. Moreover, no Arab states have forcefully committed to enforcing International Criminal Court (ICC) arrest warrants against Israeli leaders for alleged war crimes. This shift underscores a realignment where Middle East Arab capitals view Israel as a counterweight to Iranian influence, rather than an adversary, as has been the case historically. The result is a region where Palestinian freedom and rights are sidelined, allowing Israel freer rein to pursue its hegemonic agenda.

The ongoing efforts to destabilize Iran’s government stem from decades of US and Israeli pressure aimed at weakening the Islamic Republic. Nationwide protests that erupted in late December 2025—sparked by runaway inflation and severe economic hardship exacerbated by long-standing U.S.-led sanctions—quickly escalated into widespread demands for political change.

Iranian authorities have consistently blamed the unrest on foreign interference, accusing the CIA and Israel’s Mossad of orchestrating and arming demonstrators to sow chaos. Tehran has pointed to reported Israeli intelligence operations that have targeted and degraded Iranian-backed militias across the Middle East in recent years as evidence of broader destabilization efforts.

Compounding these tensions, the Trump administration has significantly bolstered US military presence in the region since early 2026, deploying two aircraft carriers, fighter jets, and other assets while issuing threats of targeted strikes. This buildup aligns closely with Israel’s long-standing objective of confronting Iran’s government more decisively, raising the spectre of coordinated action that could result in the downfall of the current Iranian leadership.

The US push for confrontation with Iran stems largely from decades of sustained Israeli influence via powerful pro-Israel lobby groups. Organizations like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), have long shaped US policy toward Iran, portraying it as an existential threat to steer decisions in Israel’s favour. Critics argue this lobby diverts US foreign policy from pursuing America’s own national interests, as seen in the withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal and the imposition of broad based sanctions, which Israel had called for, even though the agreement was effectively controlling Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

Despite claims by pro-Israel voices that war would benefit both nations, history suggests otherwise. A military conflict with Iran could mirror the Iraq War’s aftermath, which resulted in widespread destabilization, sectarian violence, and the rise of extremist groups hostile to the US. The 2003 US invasion of Iraq, launched on fabricated claims that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, unleashed widespread chaos across the Middle East, claiming hundreds of thousands of innocent lives and costing trillions of dollars.

This catastrophic precedent casts a long shadow over any prospective US attack on Iran, which risks igniting proxy conflicts in Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, and beyond, further fracturing an already fragile region. The current rhetoric mirrors the pretexts used for launching the Iraq war—manufactured threats used to justify American aggression in violation of the UN Charter and international law. Today, Israeli and American narratives cast Iran as an imminent nuclear danger, despite its adherence to rigorous international inspections under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA—Iran nuclear deal), until the US unilaterally withdrew from it due to pressure from Israel.

Such portrayals invert the true dynamics of regional threats. Far from the aggressor depicted by the US and Israel, Iran has acted predominantly in self-defence, responding to external encroachments rather than launching them. Tehran has not invaded a neighbouring nation in over two centuries—unlike Israel, which has initiated multiple wars against its neighbours since it was created in 1948. Iran’s backing of proxies in Lebanon, Iraq and Syria stems from a perceived encirclement by the US military and Israeli belligerence and provocation.

By contrast, the US and Israel have a documented history of attacking other nations based on false pretenses. Prime examples include the 1953 CIA-orchestrated coup that overthrew Iran’s democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh to protect the interests of Western oil companies, installing the Shah and planting seeds of enduring anti-American resentment, and Israel’s 1956 attack on Egypt, in conjunction with the UK and France, which caused the Suez Crisis and nearly brought the US and the Soviet Union into direct nuclear conflict.

For decades, US and Israeli military and covert operations have served as primary drivers of instability across the Middle East and beyond. The US invasions of Afghanistan in 2001, Iraq in 2003, and the “war on terror” fuelled sectarian violence, empowered extremist groups like ISIS, resulted in over four million of deaths, and drained trillions from the US treasury. Subsequent interventions in Libya in 2011 and support for Syrian rebels in the Syrian Civil War fragmented states, resulted in power vacuums exploited by radical elements, and created failed states.

Israel has similarly escalated tensions and created regional instability through acts such as the 1967 pre-emptive strikes in the Six Day War that seized territories from Egypt, Jordan, and Syria; the 1982 invasion and years-long occupation of southern Lebanon that gave rise to Hezbollah; and repeated attacks on Gaza, including Cast Lead (2008-2009) and Protective Edge (2014), and now the current genocidal campaign, which have caused tens of thousands of deaths and deepened Palestinian hardship. These military operations have displaced millions of Palestinians, inflamed anti-Western and anti-Israel sentiments, and sustained cycles of violence. In this context, it is Israel that emerges as the one employing terrorism—through settler violence, targeted assassinations of Palestinian leaders, and disproportionate military force. In comparison, Iran’s action are responses to Israeli and American aggression, and remain overwhelmingly reactive.

This pattern of hostility towards Iran has unfolded through sustained economic sabotage, targeted assassinations, and cyber warfare. During the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq War, US intelligence enabled Iraq’s chemical attacks on Iranian forces, prolonging the conflict and causing more than 600,000 Iranian casualties. In 2010, the US and Israel deployed the Stuxnet virus to destroy Iranian nuclear centrifuges and delay the program. Israel has repeatedly assassinated Iranian nuclear scientists, including the 2025 strikes that killed prominent figures like Fereydoun Abbasi. Additionally, the 2020 US drone strike that eliminated General Qasem Soleimani was perceived in Tehran as an act of war, as did Israeli airstrikes in Syria that targetted the Iranian consulate in Damascus.

These acts of Israeli aggression have destabilized the Middle East far more profoundly than Iran’s defensive measures ever have. A direct US attack on Iran would compound these risks, and potentially trigger broad proxy wars, massive refugee crises, disruptions to global oil supplies resulting in economic chaos, and accelerate the rise of nuclear proliferation risks.

Compounding this aggression is the stark nuclear disparity that exposes the hypocrisy at the heart of the threats against Iran. The US, a declared nuclear superpower with a vast arsenal, stands alongside Israel, which maintains an undeclared stockpile estimated at around 90 warheads (with fissile material sufficient for potentially another 300 more weapons), while refusing international inspections or transparency. Yet these two nuclear-armed states fabricate pretexts to attack non-nuclear Iran, which has historically complied with rigorous international inspections under the JCPOA—until the US withdrawal from the agreement undermined it and escalated tensions. Israel’s policy of refusing to cooperate with the International Nuclear Energy Agency, combined with the overwhelming American stockpile, creates a profound imbalance that poses a far greater risk to global peace than Iran’s nuclear program, which was in response to the threat from Israel, and has never produced a functional nuclear warhead.

Decades of crushing US sanctions have further deepened Iran’s economic turmoil, employing a familiar playbook to weaken Iran and pave the way for potential change. Reimposed in 2018, these measures have frozen Iran’s oil revenues, seized assets, and driven inflation above 40%, with food prices surging over 57% in recent periods—exacerbating shortages and hardship for ordinary Iranians. These policies have eroded Iran’s middle class by an average of 17 percentage points annually in earlier sanction waves (2012–2019), undoing decades of social and economic progress and pushing millions into vulnerability. While the late 2025 protests across the country stemmed from genuine domestic grievances against the theocratic government—fuelled by economic collapse, currency devaluation, and governance failures—Iranian officials have alleged involvement by external actors (Mossad and the CIA) arming demonstrators, with claims of capturing over 3,000 agents and seizing 60,000 weapons as evidence of orchestrated foreign interference.

Additionally, Israel’s persistent espionage against the United States, going back to the 1960s, further erodes any pretense of an unblemished alliance between the two nations. Despite receiving tens of billions of dollars in US aid Israel has engaged in aggressive spying against the US, more than any other ally. High-profile cases, such as the Apollo Affair involving theft of nuclear material, and Jonathan Pollard’s theft of classified nuclear documents, underscore this pattern of betrayal. When combined with Israel’s history of promoting actions based on fabricated and exaggerated intelligence—like its pivotal role in advancing the false 2003 Iraq WMD claims—these actions reinforce the view that the US and Israel, rather than Iran, are the primary forces destabilizing the Middle East.

In contrast, Iran’s authoritarianism and misogynistic policies notwithstanding, its foreign policy has been reactive. It has never attacked or occupied neighbours’ territories, focussing instead on deterrence against invasions, like the 1980-88 Iraq War which led by the US. Additionally, recent escalations, such as the 2025 unprovoked Israeli and US attack on Iran, show Iran’s restraint to avoid full war, given geographic and strategic constraints. In this scenario, pursuing regime change risks unleashing chaos akin to post-Saddam Iraq, empowering radicals.

Ultimately, the relentless push for confrontation with Iran primarily advances Israeli strategic goals while imposing heavy costs on the United States—perpetuating a vicious cycle of violence, economic drain, and regional chaos that threatens the lives of millions across the Middle East.

If any powers truly endanger peace in the region and beyond, it is the United States and Israel, whose repeated interventions, covert operations, and aggressive postures have fuelled discord across the Middle East for years. Genuine stability demands confronting the core injustice that fuels anti-Israel and anti-American sentiments—the denial of Palestinian rights and self-determination—rather than manufacturing existential threats to rationalize further military action.

History has repeatedly shown that military interventions in the Middle East—particularly those involving the United States and Israel—tend to generate deeper resentment and instability, undermine long-term security for all parties, and inflict devastating suffering on civilian populations.

Any American and Israeli military action against Iran now carries the grave risk of igniting a prolonged regional war that could pull in adjacent Arab nations. Such a conflict could rapidly expand through proxy battles across multiple fronts, trigger severe disruptions to global energy markets, unleash massive waves of refugees, and heighten the dangers of nuclear proliferation—ultimately exacting a human and strategic toll far exceeding any short-term tactical advantages the U.S. and Israel might hope to achieve.

In the end, the pursuit of dominance through force risks not victory, but a legacy of enduring instability and destruction that could haunt the region—and the world—for generations.

© 2026 The View From Here. © 2026 Fareed Khan. All Rights Reserved.

Alberta separatism endangers all Canadians and fuels US aggression against Canada

By facilitating a separatist referendum Danielle smith has violated her oath of office and allegiance to the crown that she is sworn to uphold.

 

By Fareed Khan 
A version of this article can be found on Substack.

As Canada marks the 61st anniversary the red and white maple leaf flag today (February 15th), a symbol of unity forged in the fires of national identity, we find ourselves confronting an insidious threat from within. The Alberta separatist movement, spearheaded by groups like the Alberta Prosperity Project (APP), may appear marginal but need to be taken seriously by all Canadians, with polls indicating support for separation hovering between 16% and 30% of Albertans. While much of this support is soft and symbolic, based on grievances against Ottawa, this relatively small faction poses an outsized danger to the fabric of Confederation. It weakens Canada at a dangerous moment in history when we face overt aggressions from the United States under President Donald Trump, including tariff wars, annexation rhetoric, and direct meddling in our sovereignty.

Even worse, the movement is riddled with white supremacist, racist, and fascist undertones that go beyond mere fringe elements, amplifying divisions that could profoundly erode social cohesion in Alberta and across Canada. Recent analyses highlight how separatist “town halls” have featured inflammatory anti-immigrant language, including mentions of the “great replacement” conspiracy theory that falsely claims federal policies are designed to displace “old stock” (i.e. white) Canadians with racialized newcomers. Speakers at Alberta Prosperity Project events have scapegoated immigrants as economic burdens and cultural threats, prompting formal complaints to anti-racism organizations like StopHateAB, and contributing to documented upticks in xenophobic harassment and fear among racialized communities.

This xenophobia often intersects with anti-Indigenous sentiments, where separatists portray treaty rights and reconciliation efforts as obstacles to provincial sovereignty, disregarding that historic treaties with First Nations predate Alberta’s existence and bind the Crown directly. Indigenous leaders from Treaties 6, 7, and 8 territories have condemned the movement outright, launching legal challenges and warning that it threatens ongoing reconciliation and Indigenous rights.

These exclusionary narratives align Alberta separatists with broader far-right networks in Canada, including neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups that have historically overlapped with anti-government militias and promoted ideologies of racial homogeneity for white people. Far from being isolated, such racist ideologies normalize hate speech, heighten risks of discrimination and violence against racialized Canadians and Indigenous peoples, and shred the multicultural fabric that defines modern Alberta. This makes the movement’s apparent marginality all the more deceptive in its potential to bring dangerous extremism into the political mainstream.

The separatist support, while limited in numbers, is by no means ineffective or benign. Recent surveys reveal that only about 16% of Albertans are “hardline” separatists committed to full independence, with broader support—around 28%—often serving as a protest vote against Ottawa rather than a genuine call for secession. The APP’s petition drive, aiming for 177,000 signatures by May 2026 to trigger a referendum, has garnered attention through community meetings, aggressive campaigning and the effective use of social media. But the relatively small size of the movement belies its impact.  Even a minority movement can destabilize a nation, as history shows with Quebec’s referendums in 1980 and 1995, which nearly tore Canada apart, and set the stage for years of rancorous federal-provincial relations.

In Alberta’s case, the danger is amplified by external forces in the form of Donald Trump and his designs on Canada. In this scenario the province’s oil-dependent economy, strained by federal environmental policies, becomes an issue that could be leveraged by Trump to the benefit of the US as the separatists seek American support.

It seems the separatist camp are ignoring how an independent Alberta would face insurmountable hurdles—currency shifts, border controls, having to take on their share of Canada’s $1.3 trillion national debt, and trade disruptions, as they suddenly fall outside trade agreements signed by the Canadian government.  All the political and economic infrastructure that has taken decades for Canada to build, all of this could cascade into economic turmoil and chaos for Alberta, and would also impact Canada negatively resulting in declining GDP and lost jobs.

Compounding the separatist threat is the movement’s deep entanglement with white supremacist, racist and fascist elements. Alberta has a troubling history of far-right extremism, from the Aryan Guard neo-Nazi group to militant networks like Diagolon, which blends neo-fascism with anti-authority ideologies. While the APP positions itself as a mainstream advocate for provincial autonomy, its events have featured inflammatory anti-immigrant rhetoric echoing white supremacist tropes by members of such groups. Speakers at separatist town hall events have invoked the “great replacement” conspiracy theory, alleging federal immigration policies intend to dilute “old stock” (i.e. white) Canadians. Anti-immigrant sentiments run rampant within the movement, with calls to restrict newcomers in an independent Alberta, portraying them as economic drains and cultural threats. This xenophobia has real-world consequences, with immigrant support groups in Alberta reporting surges in harassment and racist incidents linked to separatist messaging.

Anti-Indigenous racist rhetoric is equally pervasive, with separatists dismissing treaty rights as barriers to sovereignty, ignoring that treaties the Crown made with First Nations existed before Alberta came into being.  These treaties predate its creation by many years before Alberta was carved out of the North-West Territories via a federal statute.  First Nations leaders from Treaties 6, 7, and 8 territories, which cover almost all of the province, have unanimously rejected the concept of separatism, filing constitutional challenges and warning that not only is Alberta’s separation not possible under constitutional and federal laws, but that it undermines reconciliation efforts.

These elements align the movement with broader far-right ecosystems in Canada, where white supremacist groups like the Soldiers of Odin and Three Percenters have proliferated, often overlapping with anti-government militias. By normalizing hate within the movement the separatists not only endanger immigrants, racialized communities, and Indigenous peoples, but also damage Alberta’s social fabric, fostering an environment where a MAGA type movement would become rooted and foster violence similar to what we have seen in the US.

This internal division could not come at a worse time, as Canada grapples with escalating threats from the Trump White House. Since his return to office, the US has imposed near-universal tariffs on Canadian exports outside the Canada-US-Mexico trade agreement (CUSMA), escalating a trade war that has already cost both nations billions. Additionally, since returning to office Trump has repeatedly mused about annexing Canada as the “51st state,” dismissing our border as an “artificial line” and labeling Prime Minister Mark Carney (and former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau) as “Governor” in derogatory tweets. These are not idle jests, as they echo historical American imperialist narratives.

Additionally, APP leaders have held multiple covert meetings with US officials since April 2025, discussing logistics like switching to the US dollar, border security, and even a $500 billion credit line to fund Alberta’s independence. These meetings, confirmed by US State Department staff, represent blatant foreign interference in Canadian affairs, with the goal of exploiting Alberta’s oil and resource wealth and weakening Canada. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has called Alberta a “natural partner” for the US, signaling an intent to carve up our nation. In this context, separatism isn’t just provincial discontent—it’s a seditious fifth column that amplifies American aggression. A fractured Canada would be weaker and ill-equipped to counter Trump’s hegemonic designs in the Western Hemisphere leaving us vulnerable to economic coercion and loss of territory.

At the heart of this peril to Canadian sovereignty is Premier Danielle Smith’s role in enabling separatism. While publicly disavowing independence, claiming to support “a sovereign Alberta within a united Canada,” Smith has taken concrete steps to bolster the movement when her government amended provincial legislation, slashing the referendum petition signature threshold from 600,000 to 177,000, thereby making an independence vote far more feasible. This change directly aids groups like the APP and Stay Free Alberta. Moreover, Smith has permitted United Conservative Party (UCP) MLAs to openly sign the separation petition without repercussion, stating they “can sign whatever petition they want.” Separatist leader Jeff Rath claims multiple UCP caucus members have done so, blurring the lines between governance and disloyalty.

Smith’s Mar-a-Lago visit with Trump in January 2025 and her refusal to denounce US meddling further suggest alignment with forces undermining Canada, and should be viewed as sedition under the Criminal Code. Section 59 defines seditious intention as advocating force to effect governmental change, while Section 61 criminalizes seditious conspiracy with up to 14 years’ imprisonment. Though experts note sedition laws are archaic and rarely applied without violence, Smith’s facilitation of the separatist cause goes far beyond mere political tolerance.  By amending legislation to reduce the referendum petition signature threshold—making a separation vote far more attainable—she has actively facilitated separatism and thereby enabled a movement that seeks to dissolve Alberta’s place within the Canadian federation. These steps constitute not only potential sedition but also a direct violation of her oath of office.

As Premier, Smith swore under the Oaths of Office Act to be “faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, her heirs and successors, according to law,” and to “diligently, faithfully and to the best of my ability execute according to law the office of Premier.” By making it easier for those pushing separation to orchestrate a referendum that would repudiate allegiance to the Crown and the constitutional unity of Canada, she has breached this solemn pledge of loyalty to the Sovereign and the federation she is sworn to uphold. Former deputy premier Thomas Lukaszuk has publicly accused her and her caucus of violating their oaths, arguing that elected officials who support separation while drawing salaries funded by the Crown are disloyal hypocrites.

By most accounts this amounts to sedition—aiding a movement that invites foreign powers to dismantle the federation. Alberta MLAs who have signed the separation petition are equally in violation of their identical oaths of office, flirting with disloyalty and warranting investigation as potential subversion. In an era of escalating US threats, such conduct erodes national unity and demands immediate accountability—whether through federal oversight, calls for their resignation from positions held under the Crown they have betrayed, or calls for their arrest under the criminal code.

Canada’s strength lies in unity symbolized by our flag, which replaced colonial symbols with a maple leaf representing all provinces. Allowing Alberta separatism to fester, unchecked with its racist undercurrents and foreign collusion, invites catastrophe. It weakens Canada against Trump’s bellicose policies, from tariffs that could devastate our economy to annexation fantasies that mock our sovereignty.

Let this flag day serve as a call to recommit to the federation for which Canadians past and present have fought and died.  In their name and in the name of all Canadians who believe in a united Canada we must reject separatism in all its forms, stand resolute against American aggression, and hold our own political leaders to account for actions that undermine the country they swore to serve. Only through this collective resolve can we preserve the inclusive, diverse, pluralistic, and resilient Canada that has endured for generations. Failure to act decisively now risks not merely Alberta’s isolation, but the gradual unravelling of the entire nation generations of Canadians have worked so hard to sustain.

© 2026 The View From Here. © 2026 Fareed Khan. All Rights Reserved.

To protect Canadian sovereignty from US belligerence Carney must cancel the F-35 fighter jet deal

If Prime Minister Mark Carney meant what he said in his Davos speech rejecting the F-35 deal is the logical decision. The financial stakes are immense, and the cost of inaction endangers Canada.
 

By Fareed Khan 
A version of this article can be found on Substack.

In the shadow of escalating US threats to Canadian sovereignty, the New Democratic Party’s recent demand for Prime Minister Mark Carney to scrap the $19 billion F-35 fighter jet contract with Lockheed Martin has ignited a crucial national debate. The NDP is not merely suggesting a pivot. They are insisting on cancelling all 88 jets, including the 16 to which Canada is already committed, in favour of Sweden’s Saab Gripen.

This call comes amid a barrage of American provocations, from tariff threats on Canadian aircraft to repeated musings by President Donald Trump about annexing Canada as the “51st state.” As Canada grapples with these realities, it is imperative to recognize that procuring advanced defence hardware from a nation increasingly hostile to its allies poses an existential risk to its territorial integrity and independence. In such a scenario the NDP says that Canada must abandon the F-35 program completely to avoid entrusting its air defences to a partner that could disable them at will through software controls or a de facto kill switch.

The post-World War Two era of stable US-Canada relations, built on mutual trust and shared democratic values, is unequivocally over. For decades, Canada benefited from this alliance, contributing to NATO missions, protecting North American skies under NORAD, and enjoying the security umbrella provided by American military might. But under Trump’s second administration, that partnership has devolved into coercion and intimidation. Just days before the NDP’s announcement, Trump threatened to decertify the approximately 2,600 Bombardier jets operating in the US, and impose a 50% tariff on Canadian-made aircraft, ostensibly because Canada did not certify certain American made Gulfstream models swiftly enough. This threat against Canada’s aviation industry was no isolated incident. It followed punitive tariffs on Canadian steel, aluminum, and softwood lumber that often bypass the protections of the Canada-US-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA), which Trump negotiated in his first administration.

But Trump’s rhetoric has escalated further. Since returning to the White House he has repeatedly floated the idea of annexing Canada as the 51st state, a notion he has invoked in speeches and on social media posts, framing it as a “joke” that thinly veils aggressive intent. Such statements are not harmless. They signal a fundamental shift where the US views its northern neighbour not as an equal ally but as a subordinate entity ripe for economic domination or outright absorption.

This erosion of trust extends to the heart of defence procurement. The F-35 is not merely a fighter jet, it is a sophisticated network-dependent platform with its operational effectiveness dependent on US-controlled software and data systems. Central to this are the Mission Data Files which serve as the aircraft’s “brains,” providing critical information on threat identification, route planning, and combat communication. These files are managed by a US team at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida and require frequent updates, especially in conflict scenarios. American policy explicitly prohibits international operators from performing independent updates outside the continental United States, with Israel being the sole exception. For Canada (and other nations that buy the aircraft) this means total dependency, and without friendly relations with the US our F-35s could fly but would be rendered ineffective against threats, much like a smartphone starved of updates the aircraft would be vulnerable and obsolete.

Defence analysts have long warned of this “all the eggs in one basket” scenario, which is a set up for failure. The F-35’s Autonomic Logistics Information System funnels all data through US servers in Fort Worth, Texas, managed by Lockheed Martin. In a belligerent situation—such as escalated disputes over tariffs or border issues—the US could withhold updates, restrict access, or even implement a metaphorical “kill switch” to degrade the aircraft’s capabilities. This is not speculative fiction, it echoes restrictions placed on Ukraine’s use of F-16s against Russia, where the US limited operational freedoms to avoid escalation of the war. For Canada to invest $19 billion upfront—and a staggering $74 billion over the F-35’s life cycle—in a system that the US could neuter, is not strategic, it is suicidal.

Canada is not alone in having these concerns. Across NATO, allies are re-evaluating their reliance on American systems amid Trump’s erratic policies. Denmark, for instance, has expressed profound regret over its F-35 purchase. Rasmus Jarlov, chairman of Denmark’s parliamentary defence committee, publicly lamented the decision, fearing the US could disable the jets by halting spare parts supplies to coerce concessions over Greenland—a territory Trump has obsessively targeted for annexation, even threatening the use of force. Trump has also threatened tariffs on NATO allies opposing US control of Greenland, further straining the alliance. European officials have echoed these worries, suggesting contract cancellations if the US mirrors its restrictions on Ukraine’s fighters. Germany’s $10 billion deal for 35 F-35s is currently under scrutiny, and projections of over 550 European F-35s by decade’s end now seem precarious as trust evaporates.

Trump has also disparaged NATO troops’ contributions in Afghanistan and questioned the alliance’s mutual defence commitments. This has prompted a cascade of doubt. If the US can abandon commitments to Ukraine or threaten Denmark over Greenland, what prevents it from leveraging F-35 dependencies against Canada or other NATO allies over trade disputes? The stable alliance that defined the post-war order—where the US was the reliable guarantor—has been weaponized into a tool of coercion. As Prime Minister Carney articulated at the World Economic Forum in Davos, we are amid a “rupture, not a transition,” where middle powers like Canada must unite against great power rivalry and weaponized economic integration. Carney’s call for “strategic autonomy” resonates and shows that middle powers are not powerless. They can build alternatives that embody values like sovereignty and solidarity.

Enter the Saab Gripen as a viable path forward. Unlike the F-35, the Gripen offers operational sovereignty, with no requirement for permission on updates or mission planning. Saab’s proposal includes intellectual property transfer and assembly in Canada, enabling independent maintenance and upgrades. This deal promises up to 12,600 high value added jobs bolstering the Canadian aerospace sector while reducing dependency. By switching to the Gripen, Canada would signal to allies like Australia, Japan, and South Korea that alternatives exist, potentially unravelling US military hardware export dominance worth hundreds of billions.

Critics may argue that the F-35’s stealth capabilities are superior, but technical edge means little if political whims can result in the fleet being inoperable. Canada’s situation is symbolic, and the NDP’s demand followed Carney’s Davos speech, echoing his language on middle powers collaborating. If Carney meant what he said, rejecting the F-35 deal is the logical step. The financial stakes are immense—$74 billion committed to a multi-generational dependency—but the cost of inaction is higher. A compromised air defence network in an era where the US could sabotage the air force fleets of Canada if needed leaving this country vulnerable to American aggression.

Ultimately, Canada can no longer afford to trust the US as a steadfast ally. The threats of tariffs, annexation rhetoric, and potential control over our air defence hardware demands a decisive break from business as usual. Cancelling the F-35 contract, beyond the initial 16 jets at the least, and embracing Sweden’s Gripen is not anti-American, it is pro-Canadian, ensuring our sovereignty and territorial integrity. As Carney warned, if middle powers do not act together, they risk being on the menu.

Ottawa must heed the NDP’s urgent call to decisively change course on Canada’s fighter jet procurement, scrapping the F-35 program beyond the initial 16 jets and committing instead to the Saab Gripen to secure genuine operational independence. This is not merely a policy adjustment—it is an essential act of national self-preservation. The time for complacency is emphatically over. The defence of Canada now demands the immediate establishment of true independence in military procurement from the United States, an ally whose trust has been irreparably fractured by relentless threats, economic coercion, and annexation rhetoric that has been unseen in Canada-US relations since the 19th century.

In this new era of great-power belligerence, where Canada risks becoming a vassal state rather than a sovereign partner, strategic autonomy is no longer optional. It is the only path to safeguarding this nation’s territorial integrity, air sovereignty, and future as a free and independent nation. It’s time to fly on our own wings or Canada is sure to be grounded by a leash held by a belligerent neighbour.

© 2026 The View From Here. © 2026 Fareed Khan. All Rights Reserved.