A city floods because its rivers have been squeezed into concrete channels and its wetlands have disappeared. Perhaps part of the answer is to give the river some room again and restore the wetlands.

A coastline is increasingly battered by storms. Instead of assuming that the only defence is a higher concrete wall, perhaps mangroves, dunes, saltmarshes or reefs can absorb some of the energy before the waves reach roads, houses and infrastructure.

A city becomes dangerously hot during summer. Rather than responding only with more air-conditioning, trees, parks, water, green roofs and restored waterways can help reduce the heat before mechanical cooling has to deal with the rest.

None of this sounds particularly revolutionary. Human societies have worked with landscapes, forests, rivers and soils for thousands of years. What is new is the attempt to turn that old understanding into a systematic modern framework for solving social, economic and environmental problems — and, crucially, to persuade governments, engineers, financiers and businesses that functioning ecosystems should sometimes be treated as infrastructure rather than scenery.

That is where the idea starts to become genuinely disruptive.

An old idea with a new name

Nature-based Solutions, usually shortened to NbS, have moved rapidly from specialist environmental language into international policy, urban planning, engineering, infrastructure finance, climate strategy and corporate sustainability.

The term now sits comfortably alongside concepts such as climate resilience, biodiversity restoration, ecological infrastructure, green infrastructure and natural capital. Governments use it. Development banks use it. Engineers increasingly use it. Insurers, asset managers and property developers are beginning to use it too.

The broad definition is simple enough: a Nature-based Solution uses the protection, restoration or management of natural or modified ecosystems to help address a human problem, while also producing benefits for biodiversity and human wellbeing.

That last part matters. A Nature-based Solution is not simply something green.

A golf course is green. A plantation of one fast-growing tree species is green. A landscaped business park is green. None automatically qualifies as a Nature-based Solution.

A project becomes meaningful only when there is a clear problem to solve, a genuine ecological process doing some of the work, and a measurable benefit for nature as well as people.

That distinction is necessary because NbS has become fashionable enough to attract the same problem that affects almost every successful environmental idea: once businesses and governments discover the phrase, everything starts being described as one.

Nature has always been doing the work

Wetlands controlled floods long before anybody described them as “natural infrastructure”. Forests protected watersheds before environmental economics existed. Mangroves reduced wave energy before coastal engineers modelled them. Farmers used mixed planting, windbreaks and soil management centuries before the language of ecosystem services emerged.

Indigenous communities have managed landscapes through sophisticated ecological knowledge systems for generations, often without making the modern Western distinction between “human activity” and “nature” at all.

In that sense, Nature-based Solutions are not an invention. They are a new institutional language for an old reality.

That language matters because institutions respond to categories. A wetland regarded as “an environmentally sensitive area” may end up in the conservation department. A wetland recognised as part of a city’s flood-protection system suddenly becomes relevant to engineers, planners, finance departments and insurers.

A forest regarded simply as scenic landscape has one kind of political value. A forest understood as part of a regional water-security system has another.

South Africa has long used a closely related concept: ecological infrastructure. Functioning catchments, rivers, wetlands, dunes and ecological corridors can provide services every bit as important to society as dams, pipes, roads and treatment works.

That shift in perspective is more profound than it sounds.

The invisible infrastructure under our feet

Nature performs work constantly, and much of that work remains invisible until it disappears.

A wetland may look like reeds, mud and shallow water. Functionally, however, it may be storing floodwater, slowing runoff, trapping sediment, filtering pollutants, recharging groundwater, supporting fish, storing carbon and providing habitat.

A forest can regulate water flows, stabilise soil, influence local temperatures, recycle moisture, support pollinators and store carbon.

Mangroves can reduce wave energy, trap sediment, support fisheries, create nursery habitat and protect coastlines.

Urban trees provide shade, cool the air through evapotranspiration, intercept rainfall and support wildlife.

Healthy soils retain water, nutrients and carbon while supporting the biological processes upon which agriculture ultimately depends.

Much of modern development has treated these functions as though they were free, limitless and replaceable. Often they are none of those things.

Nature-based Solutions ask an awkward economic question: why destroy a functioning system and then pay to recreate only part of what it used to do?

The strange economics of destroying something useful

Imagine a wetland outside a growing city.

The wetland absorbs stormwater, but the land has commercial value, so it is drained and developed. Roads, warehouses, offices and houses follow.

Rainwater can no longer soak into or spread across the landscape. Instead it runs rapidly over hard surfaces and enters the drainage system almost simultaneously.

Flooding increases downstream.

Government responds with larger drains, channels, culverts, retention structures and pumping systems. Those assets require maintenance, electricity and eventual replacement. They may still be overwhelmed during extreme weather.

Meanwhile the biodiversity, water filtration and cooling benefits of the wetland have vanished.

The city has effectively destroyed a functioning piece of infrastructure and then spent money constructing an incomplete replacement.

Conventional accounting may nevertheless record the development as economic growth because the commercial value of the buildings is obvious while the economic value of the lost wetland is largely invisible.

This is one of the deeper challenges posed by Nature-based Solutions. They force planners and economists to account for things that traditional development models have often treated as external to the transaction.

A mangrove, a seawall — or both?

The same logic applies to coastal protection.

Suppose a settlement is increasingly exposed to storm surges. The conventional response may be a seawall. In many places that is entirely appropriate.

But imagine that the coastline once contained a broad belt of mangroves, saltmarshes or dunes that was removed for development.

Restoring those systems may reduce wave energy before it reaches the wall. At the same time, the restored habitat can support fisheries, biodiversity and carbon storage.

The engineering question then changes.

Instead of asking, “Should we build a seawall?”, the better question becomes: “What combination of coastal vegetation, dunes, drainage, seawalls and other defences provides the best long-term protection?”

This is the growing field of green-grey hybrid infrastructure.

It is perhaps the most realistic expression of Nature-based Solutions because it avoids the simplistic idea that nature and engineering are competitors.

They are not.

The strongest solutions often use both.

Letting rivers behave like rivers

Flood management provides another clear example.

For much of modern history, the instinctive engineering response to rivers was to control them. Straighten them. Deepen them. Wall them in. Move water downstream as quickly as possible.

That can work extremely well locally.

It can also transfer the problem elsewhere.

A river disconnected from its floodplain loses the broad landscape that once stored water during periods of high flow.

Nature-based flood management reverses some of that logic. Rivers may be reconnected with floodplains. Wetlands may be restored. Selected areas may be allowed to flood safely. Obsolete barriers may be removed. Water may be slowed upstream rather than forced downstream faster.

None of this means abandoning engineering.

Quite the opposite.

Designing a system in which water is deliberately allowed to spread in certain places requires hydrological modelling, ecological understanding, land-use planning, engineering, risk analysis and consultation.

The concept may sound simple. Its implementation rarely is.

The city as a sponge

Urban drainage makes the same principle particularly visible.

A natural landscape absorbs rainfall in many different ways. Vegetation intercepts it. Soil stores it. Depressions hold it. Wetlands slow it. Some evaporates. Some infiltrates. Some reaches streams gradually.

A city replaces much of that landscape with roofs, roads, pavements and parking areas.

Water can no longer infiltrate. It moves rapidly over hard surfaces and reaches drains in large volumes at roughly the same time.

The city has effectively created a hydraulic problem.

Nature-based urban drainage attempts to restore some of the missing functions through measures such as:

• rain gardens and vegetated swales;
• permeable paving;
• street trees;
• wetlands and retention areas;
• green roofs;
• restored streams;
• landscaped parks designed to hold stormwater temporarily.

Each intervention may be modest on its own. Collectively they can alter the behaviour of water across an entire neighbourhood.

The same landscape can also cool the city, improve biodiversity and create public space.

That ability to produce several benefits from one investment is among the strongest arguments for NbS.

A pipe is very good at being a pipe.

A wetland may be a flood-control system, water-treatment system, habitat, carbon store, educational resource and public park at the same time.

Beira: when green and grey meet

Beira in Mozambique provides a useful African example.

The low-lying coastal city is highly exposed to flooding and cyclones. Rather than relying exclusively on conventional drainage infrastructure, major resilience work has combined drainage improvements with restoration of the Chiveve River, mangroves, retention areas and urban green space.

The point is not that nature replaced engineering.

It did not.

The project combined the two.

The restored landscape helps manage stormwater and creates additional capacity within the urban system, while conventional infrastructure continues to regulate and move water where necessary.

This hybrid approach is likely to become increasingly important, particularly in rapidly growing cities where climate change is pushing traditional infrastructure beyond the conditions for which it was designed.

South Africa’s water factories

South Africa provides another useful way of understanding the idea.

Most people think of water infrastructure as dams, pipes, pumps and treatment plants.

But the water entering those systems first passes through a landscape.

Mountain catchments collect rainfall. Vegetation influences runoff. Wetlands regulate flows. Soils filter water. Rivers transport it.

Damage the landscape badly enough and the engineered system downstream inherits the consequences.

This is why South Africa’s ecological-infrastructure programmes treat healthy catchments and wetlands as part of the water system itself.

The long-running Working for Water programme offers a good example. Some invasive alien plants consume substantially more water than the native vegetation they replace while also affecting biodiversity and fire regimes. Removing them can therefore improve water availability while restoring ecological function and providing employment.

The programme predates the modern popularity of the term Nature-based Solutions.

Again, the lesson is that the practices are often older than the label.

Cooling the city before switching on the air-conditioner

Urban heat is becoming another major field for Nature-based Solutions.

Mechanical cooling will remain essential. Hospitals, care facilities, workplaces and homes increasingly need air-conditioning, and in extreme heat it saves lives.

But there is a difference between using air-conditioning as one component of a heat strategy and expecting it to carry the entire thermal burden of a city.

Trees provide shade. Vegetation cools air through evapotranspiration. Green roofs reduce surface temperatures. Parks create cooler microclimates. Restored waterways can help reduce local heat.

The principle will sound familiar to anyone involved in good building design: reduce the load before engineering the remaining load.

Nature-based Solutions apply the same logic at neighbourhood and city scale.

Agriculture: where the easy answers end

Agriculture is perhaps where Nature-based Solutions become most politically difficult.

Modern farming has achieved extraordinary productivity. It has also contributed in many regions to soil degradation, water pollution, habitat loss and declining pollinator populations.

Nature-based agricultural approaches can include agroforestry, cover crops, mixed planting, restoration of field margins, improved soil management, integrated water systems and habitat for pollinating insects.

Used intelligently, these approaches can reduce erosion, improve water retention and make farms more resilient.

But agriculture exposes a problem that environmental language often tries to avoid: land has competing uses.

Farmers must remain economically viable. Food must remain affordable. Land cannot simultaneously maximise agricultural production, carbon storage, biodiversity, recreation and water retention without compromise.

That makes the language of effortless “win-win” solutions dangerous.

There are genuine multiple benefits in many projects, but there are also genuine trade-offs.

A Nature-based Solution that makes a farm ecologically better but economically impossible is not sustainable.

The most dangerous phrase may be “win-win”

The phrase appears constantly in environmental policy.

It should be approached carefully.

Restoring an urban wetland may reduce flooding, improve biodiversity and create recreational space with relatively few disadvantages.

Elsewhere, the trade-offs may be substantial.

Restoring a floodplain may remove agricultural land from production.

Mangrove restoration may affect aquaculture.

Rewilding may conflict with farming.

A new urban park may raise nearby property values and eventually displace lower-income residents — the phenomenon increasingly known as green gentrification.

A forestry scheme optimised for carbon may not produce the best biodiversity outcome.

Nature-based Solutions do not eliminate politics.

Often they expose politics that conventional infrastructure has hidden.

Why the idea is growing so quickly

Several global crises have converged at the same time.

Climate change has created an urgent need both to reduce emissions and to adapt to impacts that are already unavoidable.

Biodiversity loss has made it increasingly obvious that climate cannot sensibly be treated as an isolated environmental problem.

Cities are expanding while becoming more vulnerable to heat, flooding and water stress.

Infrastructure needs are growing while public finances remain under pressure.

Agricultural systems face increasingly difficult combinations of drought, extreme weather, soil deterioration and shifting ecological conditions.

At the same time, economists and policymakers are gradually being forced to acknowledge something that ecology has always known: the economy sits inside the natural world, not outside it.

That intellectual shift may ultimately prove more important than the phrase Nature-based Solutions itself.

Can nature solve climate change?

It can help.

It cannot solve it alone.

Forests, peatlands, wetlands, grasslands and soils contain vast quantities of carbon. Protecting them can avoid emissions. Restoring them can increase carbon storage.

These are significant climate interventions.

The danger begins when this is translated into slogans suggesting that nature can simply absorb the emissions produced by a fossil-fuel economy.

Carbon stored in a forest is not equivalent to carbon left underground as coal, oil or gas.

Fossil carbon has been isolated from the atmosphere for geological timescales. Burning it introduces additional carbon into the active climate system.

A forest may absorb some of that carbon, but forests burn, die, are harvested and suffer drought. Their storage capacity is finite.

Nature-based Solutions should therefore complement rapid decarbonisation.

They cannot replace it.

The carbon-offset trap

This distinction is central to the controversy surrounding carbon offsets.

Imagine a company emits one million tonnes of carbon dioxide and purchases credits from a forest project claiming to absorb one million tonnes.

The company’s annual report may then describe the operation as carbon neutral.

The arithmetic looks satisfyingly precise.

Reality is less tidy.

Would the forest have existed anyway? How accurately was the carbon measured? How long will it remain stored? Could wildfire destroy it? Has deforestation merely shifted somewhere else? Who owns the land? Were local communities consulted? Is the project restoring a diverse native ecosystem or simply planting a commercial monoculture?

And, most importantly, did the availability of the offset allow the company to avoid cutting emissions that could have been reduced directly?

These questions explain why many environmental scientists who strongly support ecosystem restoration are also deeply critical of the way Nature-based Solutions can be used in carbon markets.

There is a fundamental difference between saying:

We have reduced our emissions aggressively and are also investing in ecosystem restoration.

and saying:

We can continue emitting because somebody elsewhere is planting trees.

The first can be legitimate climate action.

The second may simply be sophisticated accounting.

Planting trees is not the same as restoring nature

Few environmental ideas have been simplified as aggressively as tree planting.

Trees are perfect political symbols. They photograph well. They can be counted. Companies can sponsor them. Governments can promise millions.

Ecology is harder to fit onto a billboard.

A forest is not simply a large collection of trees.

And more trees are not desirable everywhere.

Grasslands, savannas, peatlands and other naturally open ecosystems can be seriously damaged by inappropriate tree planting.

A plantation of one species may contain thousands of trees yet support far less biodiversity than the ecosystem it replaced.

The better principle is simple:

restore the right ecosystem in the right place.

Sometimes that means planting trees.

Sometimes it means allowing a forest to regenerate naturally.

Sometimes it means removing invasive trees.

Sometimes it means restoring grassland.

Sometimes it means rewetting peat.

And sometimes the most valuable intervention is to do almost nothing except stop destroying what is already there.

Protection may matter more than restoration

Restoration attracts attention because something visibly happens.

Trees are planted. Rivers are rehabilitated. Wetlands are reconstructed. Photographs show “before” and “after”.

Protection is less dramatic.

A forest exists on Monday. It receives legal protection on Tuesday. On Wednesday it still looks like the same forest.

Yet preventing the destruction of a functioning ecosystem may be vastly more valuable than destroying it and promising to recreate it later.

Ancient forests contain ecological relationships that cannot be rebuilt quickly.

Mature peatlands contain carbon accumulated over centuries or millennia.

Complex wetlands cannot necessarily be reconstructed to their original condition.

Species removed from a landscape may never return.

A credible Nature-based approach therefore needs a hierarchy: protect first, improve management second, restore where damage has already occurred, and create new ecological systems only where appropriate.

Restoration should never become an excuse for destruction elsewhere.

Nature is infrastructure — but it is alive

Treating ecosystems as infrastructure is useful, but it can also create another misunderstanding.

A concrete wall behaves broadly according to its specification.

A wetland does not.

Plants grow. Species move. Sediment accumulates. Droughts occur. Fires happen. Sea levels rise. Diseases appear. Ecosystems mature.

Sometimes they become more effective over time. Sometimes they deteriorate.

This uncertainty explains part of the hesitation among engineers, financiers, insurers and procurement departments.

Conventional infrastructure is deeply institutionalised. Governments know how to specify a culvert. Engineers know how to design a bridge. Banks know how to finance a power plant. Insurers understand a building.

Living infrastructure does not always fit neatly into those systems.

How should the performance of a restored wetland be guaranteed?

Who is responsible if vegetation fails?

How should risk be priced over thirty years?

What happens if climate change alters the ecosystem itself?

These are not arguments against NbS. They are evidence that the field still has to mature.

Engineers are not the enemy

The debate sometimes falls into an unhelpful caricature: nature good, concrete bad.

Serious infrastructure planning cannot work that way.

A dense coastal city threatened by catastrophic flooding may require wetlands, permeable landscapes, drainage tunnels, pumping stations, levees and warning systems simultaneously.

The correct question is not whether engineering can be avoided.

It is whether engineering can be improved by incorporating ecological systems where they make sense.

The future is therefore unlikely to be “green instead of grey”.

It is more likely to be green where green works, grey where grey works, and hybrid systems where the two reinforce each other.

That is a much more credible proposition.

So is Nature-based Solutions really disruptive?

Yes — but not quite in the sense of a single movement confronting an organised establishment.

NbS is better understood as a framework that disrupts existing assumptions.

It challenges construction when it suggests that more concrete is not automatically the best answer.

It challenges water engineering when it says catchments and wetlands belong inside infrastructure planning.

It challenges property development when floodplains, wetlands and urban forests acquire economic value that competes with development value.

It challenges intensive agriculture when biodiversity, soil health and water retention begin to appear as productive assets rather than environmental extras.

It challenges government budgeting because benefits cross departmental boundaries.

And it challenges finance because many valuable ecological services do not produce a simple revenue stream.

Most fundamentally, it challenges a long-standing economic assumption: that environmental destruction can be profitable simply because many of its costs are borne elsewhere.

That is where resistance becomes inevitable.

When restoration becomes politics

Environmental restoration is politically comfortable while it remains voluntary and additional.

Conflict begins when it affects who may use land, how that land may be used and what economic activity must stop.

Europe’s Nature Restoration Regulation offers a good example. The legislation became intensely political as farmers, political parties and industry groups raised concerns about land availability, food production, regulation and economic costs.

Some of those concerns were entirely genuine.

Others became part of a broader backlash against environmental policy.

The important lesson is not that restoration is right and farmers are wrong, or vice versa.

It is that Nature-based Solutions stop being an abstract environmental idea the moment they affect land, livelihoods and property rights.

At that point they become normal politics.

The conflict does not fit neatly on the political spectrum

Businesses may support ecosystem restoration because they depend upon secure water supplies or resilient supply chains.

Farmers may resist badly designed environmental rules while strongly supporting soil conservation.

Engineers may lose some traditional work while gaining entirely new fields of ecological engineering.

Developers may oppose restrictions on one site while profiting from the value created by green neighbourhoods elsewhere.

Conservation organisations may support NbS while condemning corporate projects they regard as greenwashing.

Indigenous communities may strongly support ecosystem protection while opposing outsiders attempting to monetise carbon stored on ancestral land.

The important questions therefore become much more practical:

• Who pays?
• Who benefits?
• Who owns the land?
• Who controls the project?
• Who carries the risk?
• Who has to change behaviour?
• And who gets to decide?

These questions are harder than arguing about whether nature is good.

The land problem

Almost every large-scale environmental strategy eventually collides with the same physical reality.

There is only one planet, and land is finite.

Climate strategies want forests.

Conservation strategies want habitat.

Farmers need food production.

Cities need housing.

Renewable-energy systems require land and transmission corridors.

Mining requires access to resources.

Communities need livelihoods.

Some ecosystems will need space to migrate as the climate changes.

Nature-based Solutions can reconcile some of these pressures.

They can also intensify them.

Large-scale tree planting is an obvious example. Plant enough trees to offset a substantial quantity of fossil-fuel emissions and vast areas may be required.

Those areas are not empty.

People live there. People farm them. Wildlife already occupies them. Other ecosystems already exist there.

The question “Where will the nature go?” is therefore much less trivial than it sounds.

A solution can be green and still be unjust

The social dimension is perhaps the most important safeguard against environmental idealism.

A Nature-based Solution can work ecologically while failing socially.

Imagine an urban river restoration programme in which informal settlements occupy part of a floodplain.

Restoring the floodplain may genuinely reduce flood risk.

Residents are relocated. A river park is created. Biodiversity improves. Surrounding property values rise.

The project may win environmental awards.

But what happened to the people who lived there?

Or imagine a forest-carbon scheme operating on land used by an Indigenous community without strong formal title.

The forest suddenly acquires international financial value because of its carbon.

Investors arrive.

Access is restricted.

The people who protected the landscape for generations lose control over it.

The carbon accounts may look excellent.

The solution is still unjust.

This is why community participation cannot mean inviting people to a consultation meeting after all major decisions have already been made.

Rights, consent, ownership and decision-making authority are part of the solution.

Indigenous knowledge is not a free technology

Nature-based Solutions increasingly emphasise Indigenous and local ecological knowledge.

That is welcome, but it can also become another form of extraction.

A community may have spent generations developing knowledge of fire, water, plants, soils and seasonal patterns.

That knowledge cannot simply be lifted into a consultancy report and converted into an international investment product without considering ownership and rights.

Respect means more than citing Indigenous knowledge.

It means recognising Indigenous authority.

The difference matters.

Carbon is easy to count. Biodiversity is not.

Another difficulty is that climate policy increasingly operates through measurable numbers.

Carbon lends itself to this.

A tonne of carbon dioxide can be expressed numerically.

Biodiversity is much more complicated.

How does one place a single number on genetic diversity, habitat connectivity, soil organisms, pollinating insects, ecological relationships or resilience?

The danger is obvious.

A project can optimise the metric that is easiest to count while damaging the ecosystem that is harder to measure.

A plantation may store carbon while providing poor habitat.

A renewable-energy development may reduce fossil-fuel use while being badly located from a biodiversity perspective.

A bioenergy crop may reduce one set of emissions while increasing pressure on water and agricultural land.

Nature-based Solutions are useful partly because they insist that climate outcomes are not enough on their own.

A credible intervention should make ecological sense as well.

Nature can fail too

There is a tendency to describe nature as inherently resilient.

It is — up to a point.

Forests can experience heat stress, drought and fire.

Wetlands can dry out.

Mangroves can become trapped between rising seas and urban development.

Coral reefs can exceed thermal limits.

Species can lose the climates in which they evolved.

This creates an uncomfortable paradox.

The hotter the world becomes, the more we may need ecosystems to protect us from climate change.

But the hotter the world becomes, the less capable some ecosystems may be of providing that protection.

Nature-based Solutions therefore have limits.

They cannot indefinitely compensate for a climate system moving beyond the conditions in which those ecosystems function.

That is another reason rapid emissions reduction remains essential.

Finance has a nature problem

Finance prefers assets with clear ownership, measurable outputs and predictable cash flows.

A toll road generates toll revenue.

A solar plant sells electricity.

A building collects rent.

What revenue does a wetland generate when it prevents a flood that never happens?

Who pays a forest for stopping sediment from reaching a reservoir?

Who receives the financial benefit when street trees reduce heat-related illness?

The value may be enormous while the direct commercial income is close to zero.

That creates a structural problem.

A Nature-based Solution may make excellent economic sense for society while offering a poor investment proposition to a private company.

This is why public finance remains so important.

Payments for ecosystem services, insurance mechanisms, carbon markets, resilience bonds and biodiversity markets may help in some circumstances.

But not every useful ecosystem needs to be turned into a financial product.

Sometimes protecting a wetland is simply what public infrastructure spending should do.

Should everything in nature have a price?

Putting economic values on ecosystems can be useful.

It makes invisible benefits visible.

A government may think twice about destroying a wetland if the cost of lost flood protection is quantified.

A business may behave differently if the financial risk created by water scarcity appears on its balance sheet.

But pricing nature creates philosophical problems too.

Suppose a wetland is estimated to provide £50 million in ecological services.

A proposed development is worth £80 million.

Have we inadvertently created a price at which destroying the wetland becomes acceptable?

Nature undoubtedly has economic value to people.

It may also have value that cannot be reduced to a financial calculation.

The two ideas need not be mutually exclusive.

But they should not be confused.

Greenwashing: the obvious danger

The rapid popularity of Nature-based Solutions makes misuse inevitable.

A company can plant trees and call itself nature-positive.

A developer can add landscaping and call it ecological infrastructure.

A carbon project can use forests to obscure continuing fossil-fuel emissions.

A government can fund restoration projects while simultaneously subsidising far larger activities that destroy ecosystems.

The best defence is to ask simple questions.

When a project is described as Nature-based, ask:

• What problem is actually being solved?
• What ecological process is doing the work?
• Would the project have happened anyway?
• Does biodiversity genuinely improve?
• What was there before?
• Who owns or uses the land?
• Who benefits financially?
• Who loses?
• What happens in thirty or fifty years?
• What conventional infrastructure is still necessary?
• Is the project eliminating damage, or merely compensating for damage occurring elsewhere?

A genuine solution should survive those questions.

A marketing exercise often will not.

Why standards matter

This is why formal standards are becoming increasingly important.

If the term “Nature-based Solution” becomes so broad that almost anything can qualify, it becomes meaningless.

Frameworks such as the IUCN Global Standard attempt to impose discipline by asking whether projects address a genuine societal challenge, improve biodiversity, are economically viable, involve affected communities, acknowledge trade-offs, adapt over time and remain sustainable.

That may sound bureaucratic.

It is actually evidence that the field is maturing.

Every serious discipline eventually develops methods for distinguishing competent practice from weak practice.

Ecological infrastructure needs the same intellectual discipline as conventional infrastructure, even if living systems cannot be reduced to exactly the same design codes.

Nature is not free

Another misleading phrase is that nature provides services “for free”.

In one sense it does.

Wetlands do not send municipalities invoices.

Trees do not bill residents for shade.

But maintaining functioning ecosystems is not costless.

Land has value.

Restoration costs money.

Urban trees need water and maintenance.

Wetlands may require invasive-species management.

Mangrove restoration may fail if hydrology is wrong.

Rivers evolve.

Landowners may need compensation.

Monitoring may continue for decades.

Treating nature as free contributed to the original problem.

If something is assumed to have no cost, governments and businesses tend to invest very little in maintaining it.

Nature-based Solutions make more sense when ecosystems are understood as productive assets requiring stewardship.

Restoration does not end on launch day

Political systems love projects with visible beginnings.

Plant the trees.

Cut the ribbon.

Take the photograph.

Announce the hectares.

Move on.

Living infrastructure does not work like that.

Young vegetation may take years to establish.

Invasive species return.

Wetlands accumulate sediment.

Urban trees die.

River systems change.

Climate conditions shift.

A successful Nature-based Solution therefore requires long-term maintenance just as conventional infrastructure does.

The difference is that maintenance may involve ecological management rather than replacing bearings or pumps.

This is one of the least glamorous parts of the subject, but it is critical.

The next battle will be over evidence

Nature-based Solutions have reached the point where attractive pilot projects are no longer enough.

Governments, engineers, investors and insurers increasingly want performance data.

How much floodwater did the wetland store?

How much did peak river flow decline?

How many degrees of cooling did the urban canopy provide?

How much carbon was actually stored?

How did biodiversity change?

What maintenance was required?

How did the project perform during an extreme event?

How did its whole-life cost compare with a conventional alternative?

These questions will determine whether NbS becomes a permanent infrastructure discipline or remains a collection of worthy environmental projects.

The movement now needs evidence as much as enthusiasm.

The US$7 trillion contradiction

This brings us to perhaps the most uncomfortable part of the entire story.

It is possible to invest heavily in Nature-based Solutions while continuing to destroy nature far more quickly than it is being restored.

That is broadly where the world remains today.

Current estimates suggest hundreds of billions of dollars are flowing into nature-positive activity.

Trillions continue to flow into activities that degrade ecosystems.

The exact numbers will continue to change, but the imbalance is enormous.

Imagine spending £1 repairing a house while spending £30 demolishing it.

The repair programme may be excellent.

The arithmetic is still against you.

This reveals the real dividing line in the Nature-based Solutions debate.

It is relatively easy to persuade businesses and governments to support restoration when restoration is an additional activity.

It becomes much harder when protecting nature requires something profitable to stop.

“Also do this” versus “do this instead”

A company may happily sponsor tree planting.

It may be less enthusiastic about abandoning a development site.

A municipality may fund wetland restoration while continuing to permit construction across floodplains.

An energy company may buy carbon credits while resisting restrictions on fossil-fuel production.

An agricultural business may promote soil restoration while opposing binding land-use rules.

Nature-based Solutions are politically comfortable when they say:

also do this.

They become disruptive when they say:

do this instead.

Protect this land instead of developing it.

Restore this river instead of channelising it.

Invest in this catchment instead of expanding treatment capacity downstream.

Reduce these emissions instead of offsetting them.

That is the point at which environmental policy stops being an add-on and starts affecting the structure of the economy.

Is this anti-growth?

Not necessarily.

Healthy catchments support economies.

Reduced flooding protects businesses.

Restored fisheries support livelihoods.

Urban green space can improve productivity and quality of life.

Ecological restoration creates employment.

Lower disaster losses improve economic resilience.

Nature-based Solutions are not inherently anti-growth.

They do, however, challenge one particular version of growth: the assumption that an economy can continue becoming richer while systematically degrading the natural systems on which it depends.

If GDP rises because a forest is cleared, groundwater is depleted and soils are exhausted, national accounts may record economic activity.

Whether the country has actually become wealthier in any durable sense is another question.

That question sits behind much of the emerging debate around natural capital, ecological economics and Nature-based Solutions.

A framework, not a movement

It is tempting to describe NbS as a global environmental movement.

That is not quite accurate.

There is no central organisation directing it.

The concept is used by governments, development banks, conservation organisations, engineers, cities, corporations, universities and community groups.

They do not all mean exactly the same thing.

Some see NbS as ecological restoration.

Some see climate adaptation.

Some see infrastructure.

Some see carbon finance.

Some see conservation funding.

Some see a new commercial market.

Some see a way of redesigning the relationship between economics and ecology.

And some critics see a mechanism through which corporations can monetise nature without changing the underlying economic system.

They are all operating under the same broad label.

That gives the concept reach.

It also creates risk.

What would a high-integrity Nature-based Solution look like?

The best projects tend to share several characteristics.

They begin with the actual problem rather than a fashionable solution.

They understand the ecosystem before intervening.

They protect functioning nature before attempting to recreate it.

They involve local communities in genuine decision-making.

They combine scientific evidence with local knowledge.

They measure biodiversity rather than simply counting trees.

They model future climate conditions.

They acknowledge trade-offs openly.

They compare themselves honestly with conventional engineering alternatives.

They use hybrid green-grey infrastructure where appropriate.

They budget for decades of maintenance.

And they do not use restoration as an excuse for avoidable environmental damage elsewhere.

None of these principles is particularly radical.

Taken together, however, they set a very high bar.

That may be exactly what the field needs.

The deepest shift may be psychological

For much of the industrial era, society became extremely good at treating nature as background.

Rivers became obstacles.

Wetlands became wasteland.

Forests became timber inventories.

Coasts became real estate.

Rain became drainage.

Soil became substrate.

Carbon dioxide became an invisible externality.

Nature-based Solutions reverse that perspective.

The river is infrastructure.

The wetland is infrastructure.

The soil is infrastructure.

The dune is infrastructure.

The forest is infrastructure.

But they are also more than infrastructure because they are living systems with ecological value beyond the particular services humans happen to require from them.

That may sound like a change in language.

Language, however, changes what gets measured, what gets funded and what gets protected.

This is not a rejection of technology

The future of Nature-based Solutions may actually be highly technological.

Satellites can monitor forests.

Drones can survey restoration.

Sensors can measure soil moisture and water quality.

Artificial intelligence can identify changes in vegetation and habitat.

Hydrological models can determine where wetlands will provide the greatest flood benefit.

Digital twins can integrate natural systems with engineered infrastructure.

Climate models can test whether today’s restoration project is likely to survive the conditions expected in 2050.

The real choice is not between modern technology and nature.

That distinction is increasingly obsolete.

The challenge is to use technology to understand and support living systems rather than automatically replacing them.

And perhaps we should be cautious about the word “solution”

Nature is not a catalogue of products waiting to solve human problems.

A forest does not exist because we require carbon storage.

A wetland does not exist because we need flood protection.

A mangrove forest is not a seawall made of trees.

Nature-based Solutions are a human framework imposed upon complex ecological systems.

That requires humility.

What works brilliantly in one city may fail in another.

A mangrove is not a universal coastal defence.

A tree is not a universal climate intervention.

A wetland is not automatically better than a stormwater pipe.

There are places where conventional infrastructure is indispensable.

There are places where nature can do much of the work.

And there are many places where the best answer will be a combination of the two.

Context is everything.

That makes Nature-based Solutions less suited to slogans and more suited to serious engineering.

So can nature save us?

Not in the way the question is usually posed.

The planet will survive.

The more relevant question is whether the climatic and ecological conditions that allowed human civilisation to flourish can remain sufficiently stable for societies to continue functioning.

Nature-based Solutions cannot replace decarbonisation, clean energy, efficient buildings, better transport, pollution control, resilient agriculture, disaster planning or conventional infrastructure.

Nor can they compensate indefinitely for economies that destroy ecosystems faster than restoration can rebuild them.

What they can do is change the way all of those systems are designed.

That may prove enormously important.

Our water system is partly ecological.

Our food system is biological.

Our climate is regulated through interactions between atmosphere, oceans, soils and living systems.

Our cities exist inside watersheds.

Our economies exist inside the biosphere.

The separation between “the economy” and “the environment” was always largely artificial.

Nature-based Solutions make that increasingly difficult to ignore.

Designing with the system that keeps us alive

Perhaps the best way to understand Nature-based Solutions is therefore not as a green technology, a conservation campaign or a new form of carbon accounting.

They are better understood as a design philosophy.

Understand the problem.

Understand the landscape.

Protect what is already working.

Restore what can realistically be restored.

Engineer what nature cannot provide.

Combine ecological and conventional infrastructure where necessary.

Respect the people who live within the system.

Measure what happens.

Maintain it.

Adapt when conditions change.

And stop pretending that environmental destruction is economically rational simply because the costs appear on somebody else’s balance sheet.

That is why Nature-based Solutions are potentially disruptive.

Not because they ask humanity to abandon engineering and return to some idealised natural past.

Quite the opposite.

They ask us to become better engineers, better planners and ultimately better economists.

For roughly two centuries, industrial civilisation became extraordinarily good at overcoming nature.

The challenge of the twenty-first century may be learning when not to.

And perhaps the most useful way to understand the entire Nature-based Solutions debate can be reduced to one thought:

Nature is not something outside the system that supports civilisation. Nature is the system that supports civilisation.

The sooner infrastructure, economics and politics begin to reflect that reality, the more meaningful the phrase “Nature-based Solution” will become.

The post Nature-Based Solutions: Can We Repair the Future by Working With Nature? appeared first on FREENET AFRICA.

There is a recurring pattern at the beginning of modern wars. Governments describe their objectives confidently, military superiority appears measurable, analysts calculate force ratios, and predictions emerge that the decisive phase will take weeks or months. Then the enemy adapts.

That has happened spectacularly in Ukraine. Russia’s full-scale invasion, launched on 24 February 2022, is now approaching four and a half years of continuous warfare. Moscow failed to capture Kyiv or destroy the Ukrainian state in the opening campaign. Yet Ukraine also failed to expel Russia, and Russian forces still occupy approximately 20% of internationally recognised Ukrainian territory. Peace negotiations exist intermittently, but on 21 August Moscow was still insisting that any settlement recognise the “realities on the ground”, while Washington acknowledged that a rapid resolution was unlikely. (Reuters)

Something remarkably similar has happened in the newer Middle Eastern war. The United States and Israel launched large-scale coordinated attacks on Iran on 28 February 2026. The operation killed Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and senior Iranian commanders and struck military and nuclear-related facilities. President Donald Trump subsequently suggested that the central objectives of the campaign could be completed within weeks. Almost six months later, the Islamic Republic remains in power, Iran retains substantial missile and regional capabilities, the nuclear question is unresolved, shipping through the Strait of Hormuz remains severely disrupted, and an attempted ceasefire has largely collapsed. (Reuters)

So who is winning?

The answer depends on what “winning” means. If it means destroying more targets, controlling more territory or possessing greater conventional military power, there are relatively straightforward answers. If it means achieving the political objectives for which the war was started, the picture becomes very different.

Ukraine: Russia has the land, but not the victory it expected

Russia remains the stronger power in conventional terms. It has a much larger population, a substantial defence-industrial base, large missile and drone inventories and the ability to sustain enormous casualties. Most importantly, it possesses territory. Roughly one-fifth of Ukraine remains under Russian occupation, including Crimea and large portions of the east and south. (Reuters)

Territory matters. A war cannot be judged entirely by percentages on a map, but possession creates bargaining power. If hostilities were frozen tomorrow along the existing line, Russia would physically retain a substantial part of Ukraine and the land corridor to Crimea.

That represents an undeniable Russian advantage.

Yet the battlefield situation is considerably less favourable to Moscow than the simple territorial figure suggests.

Russian advances since the major territorial changes of 2022 have generally been extraordinarily slow. A July 2026 CSIS assessment estimated Russian advances around some major axes at only tens of metres per day and concluded that Russian territorial control actually contracted during April and May 2026. CSIS estimated Russian battlefield casualties at around 1.4 million since February 2022, although wartime casualty statistics from all sides must be treated cautiously. (CSIS)

Ukraine has also demonstrated that Russia’s gains are not irreversible. President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said in August that Ukrainian forces had regained approximately 745 square kilometres during 2026. Russia, meanwhile, claimed the capture of 19 settlements during its summer campaign. Neither set of battlefield claims should be treated as perfectly precise, but together they describe something important: this is no longer a battlefield on which one army is simply advancing and the other retreating. Territory is changing hands locally while the strategic front moves very slowly. (Reuters)

Ukraine’s increasingly sophisticated drone war has become central to this change. Ukrainian forces are striking logistics centres, ammunition stores, military facilities and energy infrastructure deep inside Russia and Russian-occupied territory. ISW reported in August that Ukrainian operations against Russian logistics and the expansion of Ukrainian drone-controlled “kill zones” were reducing Russia’s operational tempo. (Institute for the Study of War)

This matters because Ukraine cannot realistically compete with Russia shell-for-shell, missile-for-missile or soldier-for-soldier indefinitely. Its answer has increasingly been engineering rather than mass: drones, automation, electronic warfare, artificial intelligence, distributed manufacturing and relatively inexpensive weapons attacking expensive targets.

Russia has adapted in turn.

Its most important present advantage may therefore not be territorial movement but its growing capacity to punish Ukraine from the air. Russia has expanded long-range drone infrastructure and intensified missile and drone attacks against Ukrainian cities and infrastructure. Civilian casualties rose sharply during the summer. On 19 August a major attack on Kyiv killed 17 people, while Ukrainian authorities said shortages of Patriot interceptors were limiting their ability to stop ballistic missiles. Ukraine says allied deliveries of missile interceptors in 2026 have fallen to roughly one-third of their 2025 level. (Reuters)

The Middle Eastern war is actually contributing to this problem. Western and particularly American air-defence resources have competing demands elsewhere.

Ukraine also continues to face a problem Russia does not face to the same degree: dependence on outsiders. NATO and European states remain heavily committed, and mechanisms such as the Prioritised Ukraine Requirements List continue financing critical American systems. Allies announced another $1 billion package in June, while European governments are again meeting to discuss increased support. (Reuters)

But dependency creates uncertainty. Moscow can reasonably calculate that political priorities in Washington, Berlin, Paris or London may eventually change. Ukraine cannot make the same calculation about Russian war production disappearing.

Russia, however, has its own clock ticking.

The wartime economic boom produced by enormous state expenditure is fading. Moscow reduced its 2026 growth forecast to only 0.4%, while high interest rates, sanctions, taxation and the diversion of resources towards military production are placing growing pressure on civilian industry. Even prominent Russian businessmen have publicly complained about economic conditions. (Reuters)

Ukraine’s strategy therefore increasingly appears to be an attempt to make time work against Russia: prevent a decisive breakthrough, destroy logistics and energy assets, keep Russian casualty rates high, maintain Western support and gradually increase the economic cost of continuing the war.

Russia’s strategy is almost the mirror image: remain militarily and politically durable for longer than Ukraine and its supporters, continue applying pressure to Ukrainian society, exploit manpower and missile advantages, and eventually force negotiations from a position in which Russian territorial possession becomes permanent.

So who is winning in Ukraine?

At present, Russia has the stronger negotiating position because it holds approximately 20% of Ukraine and can still impose enormous destruction. On that narrow measure, Russia is ahead.

But Russia is not achieving anything resembling the decisive victory envisaged in February 2022. Ukraine remains independent, heavily armed, increasingly integrated with Europe and capable of striking targets hundreds of kilometres inside Russia. Russian forces have paid an extraordinary price for relatively small additional territorial gains.

Equally, Ukraine cannot credibly claim victory while one-fifth of the country remains occupied and its cities remain vulnerable to sustained Russian bombardment.

The best description in August 2026 is therefore a strategic stalemate with a Russian territorial advantage but an increasingly contested battlefield initiative.

Russia is ahead on the map. Neither side is close to winning the war.

The US–Israel–Iran war: overwhelming firepower meets strategic survival

The Iran conflict is even more revealing because the conventional imbalance is enormous.

There is little doubt which side would win a traditional contest of air forces, intelligence systems, precision strike capabilities and high-end military technology. The United States possesses capabilities Iran cannot remotely match, while Israel has demonstrated an extraordinary ability to penetrate Iranian airspace and intelligence networks.

The opening campaign illustrated this brutally. The February attacks killed Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and senior military commanders and severely damaged Iranian infrastructure. Iran’s political leadership was decapitated to a degree that would have paralysed many states. (Reuters)

Yet Iran did not collapse.

The Islamic Republic’s deliberately layered political and military structure survived. Mojtaba Khamenei formally succeeded his father, while the Revolutionary Guards became even more important within the wartime state. Reuters subsequently reported that real power had increasingly migrated towards the IRGC and national-security apparatus. (Reuters)

That survival itself changed the definition of victory.

American and Israeli objectives have at various times included eliminating or severely restricting Iran’s nuclear programme, degrading its ballistic missiles, weakening Hezbollah and other Iranian-aligned forces, limiting Tehran’s regional power and, at the most ambitious end, encouraging regime change.

After six months, none has been decisively achieved.

Most strikingly, the nuclear question remains unresolved. The IAEA’s first post-war assessment reported little observable change in the underlying nuclear issue and said inspectors still lacked reliable knowledge of the location and condition of important enriched-uranium stocks. Destroying facilities is not the same thing as destroying technical knowledge, nuclear material or the political decision to pursue a programme. (Reuters)

Iran therefore provides a textbook example of the difference between military destruction and strategic defeat.

The US and Israel can destroy Iranian installations. Iran cannot prevent every strike. But Tehran does not need to defeat the United States Air Force to deny Washington victory. It needs to survive, retain the ability to retaliate and impose costs greater than Washington is politically willing to continue paying.

The Strait of Hormuz has become its most powerful instrument.

Before the war, roughly one-fifth of global crude oil and LNG flows passed through the strait. By August, traffic had collapsed. Reuters reported periods in which only single-digit numbers of commodity vessels crossed each day; on 21 August just seven were recorded. Oil flows through the strait have fallen dramatically from pre-war levels, although exact quantities vary and some vessels operate without normal tracking. (Reuters)

This transforms Iran’s geography into a strategic weapon.

Iran cannot economically survive indefinitely with its own exports blockaded. But neither can the wider world treat Hormuz as irrelevant. By threatening shipping, attacking vessels and creating sufficient uncertainty to deter commercial traffic, Tehran can export part of the cost of the war to countries that are not participants in it.

Oil prices have consequently remained elevated, with Brent closing above $94 a barrel on 21 August. Higher energy costs feed inflation throughout Europe, Asia and the United States. (Reuters)

That is asymmetric warfare on a global scale.

Iran is nevertheless paying an immense price.

Its economy is in severe distress. Reuters reported inflation of approximately 66% in July and food prices up dramatically year-on-year. Infrastructure has been damaged, the currency has weakened, unemployment has risen and the US naval blockade has restricted Iran’s ability to export oil and import goods. Washington is now preparing an even tougher sanctions regime. (Reuters)

If the war becomes principally a contest of economic endurance, Iran begins from a far weaker position.

But America is not fighting without costs either. The Pentagon put the direct cost of the campaign at $37.5 billion by July, with additional funding required. American personnel have been killed and hundreds injured, while the conflict is consuming expensive precision weapons and air-defence interceptors. (Reuters)

There is also a political price. A Reuters/Ipsos poll in August placed President Trump’s approval at 33%, while 80% of Americans surveyed believed the Iran war would be prolonged. High petrol prices have made a distant conflict directly visible to American voters. (Reuters)

Iran’s regional network compounds the problem. Tehran’s partners are not a single centrally controlled military alliance, and the term “Iranian proxies” can obscure significant independence among them. Nevertheless, Hezbollah, the Houthis and armed groups in Iraq give Iran multiple theatres through which pressure can be exerted.

Houthi activity around the Bab el-Mandeb creates a second threat to maritime trade. Iranian-aligned Iraqi forces create risks for American and Gulf facilities. Lebanon has intermittently become part of the confrontation. Gulf states themselves have been drawn closer to the conflict despite attempting to avoid becoming direct combatants. (Reuters)

This makes the war extraordinarily difficult to terminate because there is no single battlefield on which victory can be declared.

So who is winning the Iran war?

If one measures military dominance, the answer is unquestionably the United States and Israel. They can penetrate Iranian territory, destroy infrastructure and impose damage at a level Iran cannot reciprocate conventionally.

If one measures economic damage, Iran is also clearly losing. Its economy is being squeezed far harder than America’s or Israel’s.

But if the original objectives included eliminating Iran’s nuclear programme, neutralising its missile capability, collapsing the Islamic Republic or removing Iran as a major regional security problem, the US–Israeli campaign has not delivered victory.

Iran has survived. Its government remains functional. Its security apparatus has consolidated power. Its nuclear programme has not been verifiably eliminated. It retains the ability to threaten US bases, neighbouring states and global shipping.

A Reuters assessment following the June ceasefire described Iran as battered but intact and noted that the United States had failed to achieve its most ambitious objectives. (Reuters)

The current judgement is therefore almost the reverse of Ukraine:

The United States and Israel are winning the conventional military contest, while Iran is so far winning the more limited strategic contest of avoiding defeat.

Neither amounts to overall victory.

Why are both wars proving so difficult to end?

The two conflicts look radically different, but they share a fundamental characteristic: the stronger military power is trying to convert material superiority into political submission, while the weaker side is trying simply to remain viable long enough to make that submission too expensive.

Russia discovered this in Ukraine. Its military superiority did not make Ukrainians accept Russian political control.

The United States and Israel are discovering something similar with Iran. Destroying air-defence systems, command centres and nuclear facilities does not necessarily compel a large state of more than 90 million people to accept another country’s political terms.

Modern technology also favours survival in unexpected ways. Cheap drones threaten expensive equipment. Missiles can circumvent conventional front lines. Commercial satellites make surprise harder. Distributed production replaces destroyed factories. Electronic warfare changes tactics within weeks. A state that survives the first attack can learn remarkably quickly.

The economics of war have changed as well. Ukraine attacks Russian refineries and logistics. Russia attacks Ukrainian infrastructure. Iran attacks maritime commerce. The United States blockades Iranian exports. Wars are increasingly contests between interconnected industrial, financial, energy and information systems rather than simply armies occupying terrain.

Most importantly, neither losing side yet believes that accepting the opponent’s terms would be preferable to continuing the war.

That is the real reason there is no obvious end date.

Conclusion: who is winning?

In Ukraine, Russia is presently ahead in the most visible metric: territory. It controls approximately one-fifth of Ukraine and retains formidable missile, manpower and industrial advantages. But its original objective of subjugating Ukraine has failed, its territorial advances are extraordinarily slow, casualties and economic costs are immense, and Ukraine has demonstrated an ability to regain ground and conduct increasingly effective deep strikes.

Verdict: slight Russian advantage, but strategic stalemate.

In the US–Israel–Iran war, the United States and Israel possess overwhelming conventional superiority and have inflicted immense physical and economic damage. But Iran has accomplished the minimum requirement for an asymmetric strategic victory: it has not been defeated. Its regime survived the killing of its supreme leader, its nuclear question remains unresolved, its missiles and regional networks remain relevant, and its ability to disrupt Hormuz has imposed costs on the entire world.

Verdict: US–Israeli tactical and military superiority, but no strategic victory; Iran remains battered but undefeated.

The uncomfortable possibility is that both wars could continue for considerably longer.

Russia believes time may eventually fracture Western support for Ukraine. Ukraine believes technological adaptation and the accumulating economic cost of war can make Russia’s present strategy unsustainable. Washington believes military and economic pressure can eventually force Tehran into concessions. Tehran believes endurance, regional escalation and disruption of global energy markets can make continued American involvement politically unacceptable.

Each side therefore possesses a theory explaining why tomorrow may be more favourable than today.

And as long as every major belligerent believes that, compromise remains more frightening than another month of war.

That is why neither conflict presently looks close to ending—and why asking simply who is winning may ultimately be less important than asking which side will first decide that continuing to fight offers less than negotiating from the position it already has.

The key distinction I would retain from the paper is: Russia is currently somewhat ahead in Ukraine because territory is the ultimate bargaining asset, whereas the US and Israel are militarily dominant against Iran but have so far failed to turn that dominance into the political outcome they sought. In neither war would I describe the present leader as being close to victory.

Given how quickly both fronts are moving, I can also monitor them and produce an updated “who is winning?” assessment when the strategic balance materially changes.

The post Two Wars Without an End: Who Is Winning in Ukraine and the US/Israel–Iran Conflict? appeared first on FREENET AFRICA.

Israel’s current official line is maximalist across all fronts: Hezbollah must be disarmed; Gaza must be demilitarised and Hamas disarmed; Israel intends to preserve deep security belts on multiple borders; and Prime Minister Netanyahu has said the Iran war cannot be considered over until Iran’s enriched uranium is removed, proxy support ends, and ballistic-missile capabilities are eliminated. Iran’s current official line is equally hard: the war must end on all fronts, guarantees against renewed attacks must be credible, sanctions and blockades must be lifted, Iran’s enriched uranium should remain in-country, and any renewed attack will trigger broader retaliation. Those positions are not close enough to support a durable peace; they support only coercive bargaining under threat of renewed violence. [2]

The most likely path over the next one to six months is neither comprehensive settlement nor immediate all-out regional war, but an extended period of violent bargaining: rolling ceasefires, selective assassinations, militia attacks, airstrikes, maritime coercion around Hormuz, and periodic crises in Lebanon and Gaza. The best case is a narrow diplomatic stabilisation built around an interim U.S./Iran arrangement, a continued Lebanon truce, and modest improvements in Gaza aid access. The worst case is a second, broader round of direct war involving renewed Israeli and possibly U.S. strikes on Iran, Iranian missile salvos, full Hezbollah re-entry, Iraqi militia attacks on Gulf energy sites and Western bases, and renewed Houthi-style mass disruption in the Red Sea. These scenario judgements are analytic inferences drawn from present red lines, ceasefire fragility, and observed proxy activity. [3]

For Africa, the largest near-term risks are not military contagion in the Levant itself but second-order shocks through shipping, fuel, inflation, remittances, and diplomacy. Egypt is the most exposed large African state because it combines Gaza adjacency, Suez dependence, energy import pressures, and Gulf-linked remittance exposure. Among sub-Saharan importers, Kenya, Tanzania, Ghana, Malawi, Mauritania, and others have already seen visible fuel-price shocks; Morocco has already registered transport-cost inflation from the conflict; Somalia is highly exposed through remittance dependence and Red Sea migration/security channels; and African troop contributors to UNIFIL, though limited in number, face real force-protection risk if Lebanon relapses into war. [4]

Current strategic picture

The current regional picture is best understood as a multi-front coercive equilibrium. Israel is trying to convert battlefield gains in Gaza, southern Lebanon, and the Syrian borderlands into enduring security depth; Iran is trying to convert survival, residual missile leverage, Hormuz disruption, and proxy deterrence into a settlement that preserves regime security and at least some nuclear and regional bargaining assets. Between them sit fragile Arab mediators, damaged proxy networks, and states such as Lebanon, Iraq, and Syria whose sovereignty is increasingly shaped by war spillover rather than by stable internal control. [5]

A key change since 2023 is that the old “shadow war” frame is no longer adequate. The conflict has evolved from proxy harassment and covert operations into repeated direct exchange: Iran’s direct missile-drone attack on Israel in April 2024; Israel’s retaliatory strike on Iranian soil days later; Israel’s June 2025 campaign against Iranian nuclear and military targets; and the much larger U.S.–Israeli war with Iran beginning on 28 February 2026. The present question is therefore not whether Iran and Israel can fall into direct war, but whether the present pause becomes a restrained deterrent balance or collapses into a second, wider round. [6]

Recent official positions

Escalation timeline since 2023

The timeline below condenses the events that moved the regional system from a Gaza-centred war to a multi-front confrontation involving Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, the Red Sea, and direct Iran–Israel war. The key pattern is cumulative: each theatre repeatedly fed the next, and each pause proved narrower than the previous one. [13]

Two features of this timeline matter most for forward assessment. First, escalation has repeatedly jumped theatres: Gaza triggered Lebanon; Lebanon and Syria provided routes and targets for Iran-linked actors; the Damascus strike triggered Iran’s first direct attack; Iran war then re-energised the Lebanon and Gulf fronts. Second, the system now has serial ceasefires without agreed end states, which is why resumption risk remains high even when headline violence falls. [14]

Ceasefires, violations and indicators of renewed fighting

Current status by theatre

Taken together, these ceasefires are operational pauses, not stable political settlements. None of the core disputes has been resolved: Hamas’s future, Hezbollah’s weapons, Israel’s buffer zones, Iran’s uranium stockpile, Hormuz’s status, or Iraq’s militia question. That is why incident rates can fall temporarily without materially reducing strategic risk. [20]

Scenarios for a wider Iran–Israel war

The most useful way to think about “wider Iran–Israel war” now is as a renewed direct phase that reactivates multiple fronts simultaneously. The pathway diagram below summarises the main contagion routes suggested by current activity in Lebanon, Iraq, the Gulf and the Red Sea. [21]

Actor and capability matrix

Scenario matrix

My overall probability judgement is therefore: best case low-to-medium, most likely high, worst case low but dangerous enough to dominate contingency planning. That judgement is an inference, but it is tightly grounded in the present mismatch between political objectives and the repeated failure of ceasefires to convert into durable settlement. [31]

Global implications and Africa

The global strategic stakes are unusually concentrated around two chokepoints. The Strait of Hormuz carried about 20 million barrels per day in 2024, roughly 20% of global petroleum liquids consumption, and around one-fifth of global LNG trade. Meanwhile, the Red Sea/Suez system remains fragile after the shipping disruptions that began in late 2023. By January 2024, UNCTAD said monthly Suez transits were down 49% from peak levels, and the World Bank later found that by October 2024 rerouted cargo and tankers were travelling 48% and 38% farther, respectively, with global supply-chain stress rising to 2.3 million TEUs in December 2024. That means a renewed Iran-centred war would strike both the Gulf energy artery and the Red Sea/Suez trade corridor at once. [32]

That risk is already visible in prices and diplomacy. Reuters reported Brent crude spiking above $126 a barrel on 30 April 2026 as the Iran war deepened, while Qatar, Türkiye and the UAE all warned that renewed fighting would threaten global security, energy markets and freedom of navigation. Reuters has also estimated that the war has already imposed at least $25 billion in corporate costs globally, even before any second round. [33]

Africa impact assessment

Africa’s exposure is highly uneven. Net oil importers face the sharpest near-term pain through fuel, transport, inflation and current-account pressure. Egypt is the single most exposed major African state because it combines direct adjacency to Gaza, reliance on Suez revenues, higher energy import costs, and substantial remittance dependence linked to Gulf labour markets. Some oil exporters, notably Nigeria, may receive a short-run revenue lift, but even there the net benefit is limited by inflation, market volatility and slower global growth. The IMF and Reuters both caution that energy importers have the least room to absorb the shock, while even exporters may not gain in net terms. [34]

Two Africa-specific channels deserve special emphasis. First, the conflict worsens the economics of moving goods to and from Africa. The World Bank found that the South and East Africa/Indian Ocean region accounted for 4.8% of global supply-chain stress in the later phase of the Red Sea crisis, meaning that rerouting around the Cape is not a simple continental windfall; it raises logistics costs even when some southern ports or bunkering points gain traffic. Second, monetary policy becomes harder almost everywhere: Reuters reports African central bankers and analysts warning that oil turbulence could halt easing cycles in Kenya, Ghana, Zambia and Nigeria, while Uganda and Angola were already reacting more cautiously. [43]

Peacekeeping is a smaller but still concrete African exposure. UNIFIL had 7,478 peacekeepers from 47 troop-contributing countries as of 1 May 2026. The February 2026 UN peacekeeping roster shows African contributions in UNIFIL from Tanzania (76 personnel), Kenya (2) and Zambia (2), while Zambia also had 3 personnel in UNDOF. Violence against peacekeepers in Lebanon in March–April 2026 — which Reuters says included deaths from fire linked preliminarily to both Israel and Hezbollah, plus a later attack likely by Hezbollah — demonstrates that a renewed Lebanon war would carry direct force-protection risks for troop contributors, even if current African numbers are modest. [44]

Uncertainties and assumptions

Several important uncertainties remain. Battlefield damage assessment inside Iran is incomplete; Reuters notes uncertainty over how much of Iran’s 60%-enriched uranium stock survived the 2025 strikes, even though the IAEA believes a little over 200 kg may remain at Isfahan. Casualty figures across Gaza, southern Lebanon and Iran are politically contested and often published with delays. Syria’s internal transition remains fluid, and precise current balances between local actors, Israel, Türkiye, former regime networks and residual Iranian influence are harder to quantify than in Gaza or Lebanon. [45]

The scenario judgements in this report therefore rest on three explicit assumptions. The first is that the current public red lines stated by Israel, Iran and mediators are genuine negotiating positions rather than mere tactical noise. The second is that the present ceasefires are best understood as reversible coercive pauses, because they have not settled the core issues of disarmament, buffer zones, sovereignty, uranium, sanctions or maritime control. The third is that Africa’s main exposure remains economic and maritime, not direct combat spillover, unless Red Sea and Horn routes deteriorate much further. These assumptions are contestable, but at present they are the most defensible reading of the evidence. [46]

The bottom line is straightforward: the region is not on a stable path to peace, but neither is it yet locked into immediate total war. The highest-confidence judgement is a prolonged phase of contested ceasefires and intermittent escalation — with the Iran front remaining the principal regional trigger, the Lebanon front the fastest military escalator, Iraq and the Gulf the most plausible routes for geographic widening, and Africa the most exposed external region through fuel, shipping, inflation and remittance channels rather than through direct combat. [47]

[1] [20] [29] https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/board-peace-envoy-warns-un-that-gaza-division-risks-becoming-permanent-2026-05-21/

[2] [7] [31] [46] https://www.gov.il/en/pages/pm-netanyahu-s-statement-on-lebanon-and-iran-16-apr-2026

[3] [19] [28] [47] https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/tehran-reviewing-latest-us-response-trump-suggests-he-can-wait-2026-05-21/

[4] [35] https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/regional-challenges-cost-egypt-around-7-bln-suez-canal-revenues-2024-sisi-says-2024-12-26/

[5] https://www.gov.il/en/pages/statement-from-pm-netanyahu-17-april-2026

[6] https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/iran-israels-open-warfare-after-decades-shadow-war-2024-04-14/

[8] [23] [45] https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/supreme-leader-says-enriched-uranium-must-stay-iran-iranian-sources-say-2026-05-21/

[9] [27] https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/lebanon-president-says-future-deal-will-not-cede-territory-2026-04-17/

[10] [15] https://mofa.gov.qa/en/qatar/latest-articles/latest-news/details/2026/05/18/qatar-deems-recognition-of-nakba-a-key-to-just–lasting-palestinian-peace

[11] https://ina.iq/en/politics/48637-national-security-adviser-says-weapons-control-file-will-be-highly-important-in-next-government-formation.html

[12] https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/uaes-gargash-sees-50-50-odds-us-iran-deal-warns-against-renewed-fighting-2026-05-22/

[13] [14] Israel-Lebanon border warfare: what is the history?

[16] [21] [24] https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-lebanon-agree-extend-ceasefire-by-45-days-us-state-dept-says-2026-05-15/

[17] https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-watching-syria-closely-after-historic-fall-assad-2024-12-08/

[18] [25] https://www.reuters.com/investigations/iran-spent-years-fostering-proxies-iraq-now-many-arent-eager-join-war-2026-03-06/

[22] https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/israel-killed-30-iranian-security-chiefs-11-nuclear-scientists-israeli-official-2025-06-27/

[26] https://www.reuters.com/world/suez-canal-authority-says-stability-returning-red-sea-2025-01-31/

[30] https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/tankers-exit-hormuz-trump-vance-talk-up-iran-deal-prospects-2026-05-20/

[32] https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=65504

[33] https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/oil-prices-extend-gains-us-iran-war-deadlock-keeps-supply-off-market-2026-04-30/

[34] https://www.imf.org/en/blogs/articles/2026/04/22/how-the-middle-east-war-has-affected-oil-exporters-and-importers

[36] https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/kenya-cut-diesel-price-after-protests-against-soaring-energy-costs-2026-05-22/

[37] [38] https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/fuel-prices-surge-africa-iran-war-hits-supply-2026-04-01/

[39] https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/moroccos-inflation-rate-rises-17-april-2026-05-22/

[40] https://blogs.worldbank.org/en/nasikiliza/empowering-somalias-economy-beyond-remittances-for-long-term-stability-afe-0225

[41] [43] https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/099253002102539789/pdf/IDU10b8b59671dbc814cfc19c4a1299ff54854ba.pdf

[42] https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/sp-lifts-nigerias-ratings-improving-macroeconomic-profile-2026-05-15/

[44] https://unifil.unmissions.org/en/unifil-troop-contributing-countries

The post SITREP: West Asia’s Cascading Conflict System & the Impact on Africa appeared first on FREENET AFRICA.

The picture remains fluid, and several claims are disputed. What is clear is that the attacks were among the most serious challenges to Mali’s ruling junta since it turned decisively away from France and Western security partnerships and toward Moscow. The violence hit not only remote northern areas, where insurgent and separatist forces have long operated, but also sensitive sites near Bamako itself, including the garrison town of Kati and areas close to the capital’s international airport. (AP News)

A coordinated strike across the state

The attacks began on 25 April 2026 and involved multiple theatres at once. Reports describe assaults in or around Bamako, Kati, Kidal, Sévaré, Gao and other strategic locations. The attackers reportedly included fighters linked to Jama’at Nusrat al-Islam wal-Muslimin, known as JNIM, an al-Qaeda-linked coalition (CIA), alongside Tuareg separatist elements associated with the Azawad Liberation Front. (AP News)

This was not a routine insurgent raid. It appears to have been designed to stretch the Malian military across several fronts, test the government’s command structure, and create the impression that the state could no longer secure its core institutions. Bamako and Kati matter because they are political and military nerve centres. Kidal matters because it has long been a symbol of northern autonomy, rebellion and the limits of central authority.

The Malian authorities and Russia framed the offensive as a failed coup attempt rather than merely a battlefield escalation. Moscow’s Defence Ministry claimed that Africa Corps units, fighting alongside Malian forces, helped prevent the fall of strategic locations and stopped an operation intended to destabilise the government. Russian sources also claimed the attackers numbered in the thousands, although such figures have not been independently verified. (Reuters)

Goïta reappears and signals continuity

For a period after the attacks began, uncertainty surrounded the status of Mali’s military leader, Assimi Goïta. His absence from public view encouraged speculation about the stability of the junta and whether the attacks had caused deeper disruption inside the state. On 28 April, Goïta reappeared publicly, met Russia’s ambassador in Bamako, and stated that the situation was under control. (AP News)

That appearance was politically important. It allowed the government to signal three things at once: that the leadership had survived, that the army remained functional, and that the Russian partnership remained intact. In a crisis built as much around perception as territory, Goïta’s reappearance was intended to close the door on rumours of collapse.

Yet the government’s claim of control does not mean the crisis is over. Several reports indicate that Kidal either fell to separatist forces or was vacated by Malian and Russian personnel under pressure. Reuters reported that Goïta acknowledged ongoing military operations, while other reporting indicates that armed groups had made gains in the north and centre of the country. (Reuters)

The Africa Corps factor

The Russian Africa Corps is central to the political meaning of this episode. After France’s drawdown and the end of the UN peacekeeping mission in Mali, Russia became Bamako’s most important external security partner. That relationship is not merely military. It is part of a wider geopolitical shift across the Sahel, where juntas in Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger have sought to break with the old French-led security architecture and build new relationships with Moscow.

For Bamako, Russian support offers immediate battlefield value, political protection and a message of sovereignty: Mali will choose its own partners and will not be dictated to by Paris, Brussels or Washington. For Moscow, Mali is a strategic foothold in West Africa, a demonstration that Russia can still project influence outside Europe, and a symbol of the post-French Sahel.

In this crisis, Russia’s Africa Corps claimed a decisive role in preventing the government’s overthrow. Mali’s allies in the transitional authorities also credited the Russian force with helping secure the state. But the battlefield record is more complicated. Reports from several outlets suggest Russian and Malian forces withdrew from Kidal and that Russia may now be forced to concentrate more heavily on defending the capital and key southern corridors rather than projecting control across the north. (The Guardian)

That is the contradiction at the centre of the story. Russia may have helped prevent a political collapse in Bamako, while still suffering a strategic setback in northern Mali.

A blow to the junta’s security promise

Since taking power, Mali’s military leadership has built much of its legitimacy on the promise of restoring sovereignty and security. It expelled or sidelined Western military partners, embraced Russia, and argued that a harder, more sovereign security doctrine would succeed where years of French-led intervention had failed.

The weekend attacks challenge that promise. Even if the government survived, the scale and coordination of the assault show that armed groups retain the ability to strike simultaneously across distant parts of the country. The reported killing of Defence Minister Sadio Camara, a key figure in Mali’s pro-Russian military establishment, adds to the political weight of the event. (Reuters)

The message from the attackers was simple: the state may control Bamako, but it does not control the full country. The message from the government was equally clear: the state still stands, its leadership remains in place, and its Russian-backed security line will continue.

The northern question returns

Kidal has always been more than a town. It is a symbol of the unresolved northern question in Mali: the relationship between Bamako and the Tuareg-majority north, the legacy of rebellion, and the failure of successive governments to build a durable political settlement.

If Kidal is now outside effective government control, even temporarily, this represents a serious reversal. It does not necessarily mean the junta is falling. But it does mean Mali’s war is again splitting along familiar lines: a southern state core around Bamako, a contested centre, and a north where separatist, jihadist and local armed networks compete for influence.

This is why the term “coup attempt” is politically useful but analytically incomplete. The attacks may indeed have been designed to threaten the government. But they were also part of a wider insurgent and separatist campaign to fracture state authority, disrupt supply lines, and prove that Bamako’s Russian-backed military model cannot impose national control.

Russia’s Sahel test

The events in Mali now become a test of Russia’s credibility in Africa. Moscow presents itself as a reliable partner that does not lecture African governments on internal politics and is willing to provide hard security assistance. That message has appeal in parts of the Sahel, especially where populations are frustrated with years of French and Western intervention that failed to end insecurity.

But Russia is discovering the same hard geography and political complexity that frustrated France. Mali’s problem is not only a shortage of soldiers or aircraft. It is a deep state legitimacy crisis, a fragmented national territory, porous borders, ethnic grievances, militant networks, economic strain and unresolved local conflicts.

Africa Corps can help hold strategic positions. It can strengthen the junta’s hand in Bamako. It can provide political theatre and battlefield support. But it cannot, by itself, solve the political architecture of the Malian state.

The wider Sahel balance

This crisis also matters beyond Mali. Burkina Faso and Niger are watching closely. So are Algeria, Mauritania, Senegal, France, Russia, Turkey, China and the United States. Mali sits at the centre of a Sahelian belt where state authority is under pressure and where external powers increasingly compete through security partnerships, mining interests, diplomatic influence and information networks.

The fact that Mali reportedly received new military equipment from China around the same time underscores the diversification of Bamako’s external partnerships. Mali is no longer operating inside a single Western security orbit. It is trying to assemble a multipolar support system: Russia for hard security, China for equipment and infrastructure, and regional alliances through the new Sahel bloc. (defenceWeb)

That may give Bamako more options. It does not automatically give it victory.

What happens next?

The immediate outcome is that the Malian government has survived. Goïta has reappeared. Bamako remains under government control. Russia has reaffirmed its support. The Africa Corps has presented itself as the force that helped prevent a “Syrian scenario” in West Africa.

But the deeper outcome is less comfortable for the junta. The attacks exposed vulnerability, coordination among armed groups, and possible overextension by Malian and Russian forces. If Bamako cannot reassert control in the north, the government may be forced into a more defensive posture: protect the capital, secure key transport corridors, hold major towns, and accept that parts of the north remain contested.

The most likely short-term scenario is not the immediate fall of the government, but a harder, more militarised Mali. Expect more operations, more Russian involvement around strategic zones, stronger rhetoric about foreign interference, and tighter internal security. At the same time, insurgent and separatist forces will likely try to exploit the psychological impact of the weekend attacks.

Mali has not collapsed. But the weekend proved that the war is far from contained. The government and its Russian partners may have stopped an attempted political decapitation, but they have not yet solved the larger strategic problem: a state fighting to prove that it still commands the territory it claims to govern.

The post Mali’s Weekend Shock: Bamako Holds As Wider Sahel Offensive Is Crushed appeared first on FREENET AFRICA.

The war is now best understood as a contest of exhaustion. Russia is still attacking. Ukraine is still defending, adapting and striking deeper into Russian territory. Neither side has achieved its declared political objectives. Russia has not conquered Ukraine or broken its state. Ukraine has not expelled Russia from all occupied territory. The result is not peace, but a brutal equilibrium.

On the battlefield, Russia continues to hold the larger army, greater manpower depth, a bigger industrial base and the ability to absorb losses at a scale Ukraine cannot match. Its method remains attritional. CSIS describes Russia’s approach as one that accepts very high casualties in the hope of wearing down Ukraine’s army and society, using infantry assaults, drones, artillery, glide bombs and stand-off weapons to grind forward. (CSIS)

But Russia’s superiority has not translated into decisive victory. Its advances remain slow, costly and tactically limited. Ukraine’s defensive system — trenches, mines, drones, artillery, mobile reserves and increasingly sophisticated battlefield surveillance — has made every Russian gain expensive. The war now favours the defender, especially in heavily fortified eastern areas where movement near the front is dangerous for vehicles and troops alike. (CSIS)

This creates the central paradox of the war: Russia may be advancing in places, but it is not clearly “winning” in the strategic sense. It has captured territory, but at enormous cost. It has damaged Ukraine, but not destroyed it. It has survived sanctions, but remains locked into a long war economy. It has shown endurance, but not dominance.

Ukraine, meanwhile, is not winning in the classic sense either. It remains dependent on Western military, financial and intelligence support. It faces manpower constraints, air-defence shortages and the constant pressure of Russian missile and drone attacks on cities and infrastructure. Reuters reported recent Russian drone strikes on Odesa and missile and drone attacks on Dnipro, showing that Ukraine’s rear areas remain vulnerable. (Reuters)

Yet Ukraine has also changed the war. Its drone campaign has widened the battlefield into Russia itself. Recent Ukrainian attacks have targeted Russian oil, refinery and industrial infrastructure, including Tuapse and other sites. Moscow calls these attacks strikes on civilian infrastructure; Kyiv sees them as pressure on Russia’s war economy. (Reuters)

This is one reason the war has become harder to categorise. Ukraine cannot easily defeat Russia in a conventional land campaign. Russia cannot easily force Ukraine to capitulate. Both sides are therefore seeking leverage beyond the trench line: energy, diplomacy, sanctions, air defence, long-range strikes, prisoner exchanges, European funding and American political pressure.

The diplomatic picture is equally frozen. Moscow says President Vladimir Putin would meet President Volodymyr Zelenskiy only to finalise an already prepared agreement, not to negotiate from scratch. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said such a meeting would require “political will” from Kyiv and careful preparation. Ukraine, for its part, has asked Turkey to help host a leader-level meeting. (Reuters)

The United States remains involved, but not decisively enough to force an outcome. President Donald Trump said on 26 April that he continues to have “good conversations” with both Putin and Zelenskiy and hopes to settle the war, but Reuters noted that more than a year into his second term the conflict continues. (Reuters)

This matters because the war’s ending is likely to be determined less by a sudden battlefield collapse than by political arithmetic. The question is not simply who controls which village this month. It is whether Moscow, Kyiv, Washington and Europe can accept a settlement that each side can survive politically.

For Russia, the minimum objective is to secure recognition, formal or informal, of its control over occupied territory and prevent Ukraine from becoming a fully integrated Western military platform. Moscow will want neutrality guarantees, sanctions relief, limits on Ukrainian rearmament and acceptance that Crimea and parts of eastern and southern Ukraine are no longer under Kyiv’s control.

For Ukraine, those terms are extremely difficult. Any agreement that openly concedes territory risks looking like surrender. Kyiv needs security guarantees strong enough to prevent Russia from using a ceasefire as a pause before another war. It also needs a path toward Europe, reconstruction funding and continued access to weapons.

For Europe, the problem is strategic credibility. If Russia is seen to gain territory through war and keep it, the lesson for the continent is dangerous. But if Europe insists on total Ukrainian territorial restoration without the means to achieve it, the war may drag on indefinitely. That is why recent European language has begun to sound more pragmatic. Reuters reported that German Chancellor Friedrich Merz suggested Ukraine may have to accept that some territory could remain outside Kyiv’s control in a future peace deal, linking this to Ukraine’s European prospects. (Reuters)

The most likely ending is therefore not a clean peace treaty. It is a ceasefire or armistice: a frozen or semi-frozen conflict with a militarised line of contact, continued non-recognition of Russian annexations by Ukraine and many Western states, gradual reconstruction in Ukrainian-held areas, and a long struggle over sanctions and security guarantees.

This would resemble neither victory nor defeat in simple terms. Russia would claim it had secured territory and blocked NATO expansion. Ukraine would claim it had preserved its state, army, capital, sovereignty and European future. The West would claim Russia failed to conquer Ukraine. Everyone would claim victory because none could admit the full cost of compromise.

Could Ukraine still regain the initiative? Possibly, but only if several factors align: stronger European arms production, sustained American support, improved air defence, successful deep strikes against Russian logistics, and continued Russian overextension. Some analysts argue Ukraine has built momentum through drone warfare and defensive adaptation, but this has not yet produced a decisive strategic reversal. (mickryan.substack.com)

Could Russia still break Ukraine? Also possible, but less likely than Moscow once hoped. Russia can keep grinding, but grinding is not the same as winning. The deeper danger for Ukraine is not a single dramatic breakthrough, but cumulative exhaustion: fewer soldiers, weaker air defence, political fatigue in the West and economic strain at home.

The war has fallen under the media radar because West Asia has produced faster, more spectacular headlines. But in strategic terms, Ukraine remains the hinge of the European order. Its ending will not be a cinematic moment. It will probably be a negotiated exhaustion, dressed up as principle, necessity and victory.

For now, the balance of power is this: Russia has the advantage in mass, endurance and escalation tolerance. Ukraine has the advantage in legitimacy, defensive innovation, Western alignment and national survival. Neither has a decisive path to total victory. That is why the war may be approaching an ending — not because peace has arrived, but because the battlefield is slowly forcing politics to catch up.

The post Ukraine’s Forgotten War: The Endgame Is Nearer, But Not Simpler appeared first on FREENET AFRICA.

The meeting has been seized upon by commentators as evidence of a major geopolitical shift: Iran, having survived the US-Israeli military campaign and retained leverage over one of the world’s most important energy corridors, is now seeking to convert battlefield resilience into diplomatic advantage. The central claim circulating on social media is that Tehran is no longer negotiating merely as a besieged state, but as a regional power setting terms with Russian backing.

Some of that framing remains political interpretation rather than confirmed fact. But the hard diplomatic signals are significant. Putin publicly praised Iran’s resistance to US and Israeli pressure and said Russia would do what it could to help Tehran. Araqchi, for his part, underlined the strategic nature of the Russia-Iran relationship, saying Moscow had consistently supported Iran. Putin also confirmed that he had received a message from Iran’s leadership shortly before the meeting. (RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty)

The talks came after Araqchi’s regional diplomacy through Pakistan and Oman, two states that have become important channels in efforts to manage the crisis. According to reports, the Iranian foreign minister blamed “excessive” US demands for the continuing deadlock, while also indicating that Tehran was reviewing new American proposals. That sequence suggests Iran is widening the negotiating table, ensuring that any settlement is no longer handled solely through Washington and its allies. (RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty)

At the heart of the standoff is the Strait of Hormuz. Before the war, between 125 and 140 ships normally moved in and out of the strait each day. That traffic has collapsed dramatically. Reuters reported that only seven vessels transited in a recent 24-hour period, with none carrying oil bound for the global market. The same report said the strait usually handles around 20% of the world’s daily oil and LNG supply, making its disruption a direct threat to global energy markets. (Reuters)

Iran has imposed restrictions on shipping through the strait, while the United States announced a blockade of Iran-related shipping on April 13. US forces have reportedly turned back dozens of vessels since then. This creates a dangerous dual-control situation: Iran can complicate maritime passage, while the United States can obstruct Iran-linked traffic. The result is not peace, but a tense, controlled paralysis in which both sides are using shipping as leverage. (Reuters)

The maritime problem is not simply political. It is also technical and commercial. Al Jazeera reported that Pentagon officials told US lawmakers it could take months to fully clear the Strait of Hormuz of mines, and maritime insurers warned that even a ceasefire may not be enough to restore normal traffic if the risk cannot be priced with confidence. In other words, even if diplomats announce an agreement, the strait may remain only partially usable until shipowners, underwriters and naval authorities believe the route is reliably safe. (Al Jazeera)

This gives Iran lasting leverage. A formal ceasefire may end open hostilities, but the practical reopening of Hormuz depends on guarantees, inspection, naval coordination and insurance confidence. For Tehran, that means the strait becomes not only a military pressure point, but a bargaining instrument in any wider settlement.

Russia’s role is therefore important. Moscow is not merely expressing sympathy. It is positioning itself as a necessary interlocutor. Putin has raised the possibility of Russia helping to mediate, including around the nuclear dispute, which remains a major obstacle in US-Iran talks. Analysts cited by RFE/RL suggest Russia may try to use its access to Tehran to secure nuclear concessions acceptable to Washington, while also preserving Iran as a strategic partner. (RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty)

At the same time, defence diplomacy is moving in parallel. Russian Defence Minister Andrei Belousov held talks in Kyrgyzstan with Iran’s Deputy Defence Minister Reza Talaei-Nik, according to Reuters. Belousov repeated Moscow’s position that the Iran conflict should be resolved through diplomacy and said he expected Moscow and Tehran to continue supporting one another. Talaei-Nik also travelled to Belarus for talks on the Middle East situation. (Reuters)

The Kyrgyzstan setting matters because it sits within the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation framework, where Russia, China, Iran, Pakistan and India are all present. China’s defence minister Dong Jun also attended the SCO defence meeting and called for deeper defence and security cooperation among member states. Reuters reported that Dong held sideline talks with officials from Iran, Russia, Pakistan and Belarus. (Reuters)

This points to the wider strategic picture. Iran is not only relying on missiles, ports or the Strait of Hormuz. It is embedding itself in Eurasian structures: the SCO, Russian-backed security channels, trade corridors through Pakistan and Central Asia, and the wider North-South and East-West transport logic linking Russia, Iran, India and China. The more these routes develop, the less decisive Western maritime pressure becomes.

The social-media claim that “Iran won the war” is a political judgement, not a settled historical fact. What can be said with more confidence is that Iran has not been isolated in the way Washington may have intended. Instead, the crisis has accelerated the visibility of a Russia-Iran alignment and brought Eurasian powers more directly into the Persian Gulf equation.

The emerging settlement, if one is reached, will therefore not be a simple US-Iran bargain. It will likely involve maritime guarantees, nuclear sequencing, sanctions questions, Russian mediation, Gulf security arrangements and the practical reopening of Hormuz. That is the real chessboard now taking shape: not a single battlefield victory, but a contested diplomatic order in which Iran is trying to convert survival into strategic influence, with Russia standing visibly beside it.

The post Russia Moves Into the Gulf Endgame as Iran Shapes the Post-War Settlement appeared first on FREENET AFRICA.

The narrow waterway between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman is only around 21 miles, or 34 kilometres, wide at its narrowest point. Yet it carries a level of strategic weight almost impossible to exaggerate. The International Energy Agency describes it as a route through which around 20 million barrels of oil per day normally pass, equal to roughly a quarter of global seaborne oil trade, with around 80% of that crude destined for Asia. It also carries a major share of global liquefied natural gas, including most LNG exports from Qatar and the UAE. (IEA)

That makes Hormuz more than a regional maritime passage. It is a global economic organ. When it is obstructed, the effects do not remain in West Asia. They move into petrol prices in Europe, fertilizer costs in Africa, factory inputs in Asia, airline schedules, food prices, inflation figures and household budgets.

Recent reports suggest traffic through the strait remains severely reduced, with Reuters reporting that daily transits have fallen from a normal range of around 125–140 vessels to only a handful in recent days. Oil prices have responded accordingly, with Brent crude reported around $108.68 per barrel and WTI near $96.96 as markets absorb the continuing disruption. (Reuters)

The immediate story is energy. But the deeper story is dependency.

Hormuz is often described as an oil chokepoint, but that understates the issue. Oil is the most visible commodity, but it is not the only one. The strait is also central to LNG flows, petrochemicals, plastics, fertilizer inputs, sulfur, aluminum-related supply chains and other industrial materials. Many of these are not easily rerouted. Pipelines can shift some crude flows, but they cannot replace the maritime movement of ammonia, urea or other bulk inputs needed by agriculture and industry.

That matters because fertilizer is food before it becomes a commodity. Nitrogen fertilizers support a large share of modern agricultural output. If key inputs fail to arrive during planting or application windows, the consequences are delayed but severe: lower yields, higher prices and pressure on already vulnerable food-importing countries.

For import-dependent economies, especially in parts of Africa, South Asia and Latin America, the Hormuz crisis is therefore not just about the cost of fuel. It is about whether fertilizer arrives on time, whether food imports remain affordable and whether governments can absorb another external price shock. Brazil, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and many African countries are especially exposed to fertilizer disruptions because their agricultural systems rely heavily on imported inputs.

Europe is also feeling the shock, particularly in aviation and industry. The head of the International Energy Agency warned in mid-April that Europe had “maybe six weeks” of jet fuel left if supplies remained blocked, with flight cancellations possible if the situation did not improve. (AP News) Lufthansa has already announced cuts to around 20,000 short-haul flights through October, citing soaring jet fuel costs and the need to save fuel. (Al Jazeera)

The aviation impact is only one visible symptom. Higher oil and gas prices feed through refineries, trucking, shipping, chemicals, plastics, construction materials and consumer goods. Energy inflation rarely stays in one sector. It spreads.

This is why the closure or near-closure of Hormuz has the character of a global stress test. It exposes how much of the world economy has been built on the assumption that a few narrow maritime corridors will remain open, insured and navigable. Once insurers withdraw war-risk cover, shipping becomes not merely dangerous but commercially impossible. No insurance means fewer vessels. Fewer vessels mean fewer cargoes. Fewer cargoes mean shortages, price spikes and production delays.

There are signs of limited movement. Reuters reported that an ADNOC-managed LNG tanker recently crossed the strait, appearing off India after weeks without transmitting a signal. But analysts cautioned that one successful crossing does not prove that the route is safe or commercially reliable. (Reuters) That distinction is crucial. A chokepoint does not need to be sealed with concrete to damage the world economy. It only has to become uncertain enough for shipping, insurance and finance to hesitate.

The crisis also underlines a strategic irony. The Gulf states themselves are deeply vulnerable to disruption in the same waterway through which they export energy. Several depend heavily on imported food, consumer goods and industrial supplies. If Hormuz becomes unreliable for outgoing oil and gas, it also becomes unreliable for incoming food and essential materials.

For Asia, the stakes are direct. China, India, Japan, South Korea and other major economies depend on Gulf energy flows. If tanker traffic remains restricted, they face higher import bills, tighter supply and stronger competition for alternative cargoes. For Europe, the shock arrives through fuel, inflation and industrial costs. For the United States, even with larger domestic production, oil is priced globally. A disruption in Hormuz still reaches American petrol pumps.

Goldman Sachs has reportedly lifted its oil price expectations, warning that Brent could move toward $120 per barrel if Gulf exports recover slowly. (marketwatch.com) That is the market’s way of saying what policymakers often avoid saying plainly: the world has no simple replacement for Hormuz.

The most dangerous assumption is that this is only a temporary regional drama. The strait has always been strategic, but the modern economy has made it systemic. A disruption there does not merely interrupt trade. It tests the architecture of globalization itself: just-in-time logistics, concentrated energy supply, specialized fertilizer production, global aviation, food security and inflation management.

The world is discovering that resilience is not the same as efficiency. For decades, economies optimized for low cost, speed and concentration. Hormuz shows the price of that model. A single corridor can connect refineries, farms, hospitals, airports, factories and households across continents. When it closes, the map of dependency becomes visible.

That is the real lesson of the Strait of Hormuz. It is not simply a strip of water between Iran and Oman. It is a global pressure point where energy security, food security, industrial production and geopolitics meet.

And right now, that pressure point is under strain.

The post When Hormuz Stops, the World Stops: Inside the Chokepoint Crisis appeared first on FREENET AFRICA.

If the old American political order is breaking apart, Max Blumenthal believes one issue more than any other has forced the rupture into the open: Israel. In his interview with Glenn Diesen, the Grayzone editor-in-chief lays out a sweeping and explosive argument about how Donald Trump, the war with Iran and the internal fracture of the MAGA movement are all connected. His claim is not merely that Israel exerts influence over Washington, which few serious observers would deny. It is that this influence has become so deep, so personal and so structurally embedded inside Trump’s political world that the current confrontation with Iran cannot be understood as an American policy in the normal sense at all. For Blumenthal, it is the end result of years of cultivation, pressure, patronage and ideological capture.

This is what gives the interview its force. Blumenthal is not discussing one military episode in isolation. He is offering a theory of power. He moves from Trump’s early donor environment and the collapse of the Iran nuclear deal, to the assassination of Qasem Soleimani, to the composition of Trump’s second-term inner circle, to what he sees as an open rebellion inside the movement that once rallied behind “America First”. By the end of the conversation, the argument is stark: the Iran war did not simply reveal a policy disagreement. It exposed a crisis of sovereignty at the heart of American politics.

The argument begins with Trump himself

One of the most striking features of Blumenthal’s account is that he treats Trump’s alignment with Israel not as a sudden shift, but as a long political formation. In his telling, Trump’s world has always been surrounded by pro-Israel billionaires, financiers and operators. This was not only a matter of campaign support. It was part of the wider elite environment in which Trump rose and functioned. Real estate circles, donor networks, media ecosystems and family connections all formed part of the political culture around him.

Blumenthal argues that Trump was not originally fully committed to the hardline pro-Likud worldview. He points to Trump’s early appearances before pro-Israel political audiences, when Trump still imagined himself as a dealmaker capable of producing an agreement between Israelis and Palestinians. That instinct, Blumenthal suggests, was quickly disciplined. The problem was not simply that Trump used clumsy language or upset a room. It was that he hinted at outcomes, including some form of Palestinian statehood, that the strongest Israel-aligned actors around him had spent years working to block.

In Blumenthal’s reading, this mattered because it showed the terms on which Trump would be accepted. He could be useful, powerful and even indispensable, but only if he absorbed the core strategic assumptions of the Israel lobby’s most hardline faction. That process, he suggests, would soon become visible in the campaign against the Iran nuclear deal.

The JCPOA as the first major turning point

For Blumenthal, the assault on the JCPOA was not just another Washington policy fight. It was a preparatory act in a much larger agenda. He recalls Trump appearing at a Capitol Hill rally dedicated to destroying Barack Obama’s signature agreement with Iran and sees that moment as pivotal. The nuclear deal had to be broken, in his telling, because diplomacy itself was an obstacle to war.

This is a key part of Blumenthal’s logic. He does not portray the war posture toward Iran as a response to recent provocations or shifting intelligence. He presents it as the culmination of a long project. First destroy the diplomatic framework. Then replace restraint with escalation. Then fill the administration and media world with people who will normalise confrontation. In that sense, the collapse of the JCPOA becomes the first unmistakable sign that Trump had entered a deeper political bargain.

Blumenthal links this process to the donor world around Trump. He describes a political environment in which major financial support flowed toward candidates willing to take the hardest line on Iran and the most unconditional line on Israel. In his account, the machinery of donor power did not merely reward opinions that already existed. It helped produce them, sharpen them and institutionalise them.

War by personnel

The interview is especially strong when Blumenthal turns from general influence to specific people. His message is simple: personnel is policy. If a White House is filled with figures who are ideologically aligned with Israeli strategic priorities, financially dependent on pro-Israel networks, or politically shaped by those environments, then the policy outcome is not hard to predict.

Blumenthal walks through a series of names around Trump’s second administration and argues that the pattern is unmistakable. He presents the surrounding personnel as even more deeply aligned with Israel’s hardline agenda than in Trump’s first term. Figures who might once have offered some offsetting “America First” caution, he suggests, have either been marginalised or removed altogether. In their place stands a more disciplined pro-Israel camp, shaped by donor pressure, lobbying structures, ideological affinity or personal dependence.

His point is not simply that these officials are sympathetic to Israel. It is that they form a governing environment in which dissent becomes almost impossible. Once that environment is in place, foreign policy decisions are no longer being made in a genuinely open strategic field. The options have already been narrowed before the president even enters the room.

Soleimani and the road to escalation

Blumenthal treats Trump’s assassination of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani as one of the clearest indicators that the path toward a wider war had been set long before the current crisis. In his reading, Soleimani’s killing was not an isolated retaliation or an improvised act of deterrence. It was a deliberate move deeper into an escalation trap.

This matters because it reinforces the interview’s broader thesis. If the same pattern can be seen across multiple turning points, then the war posture toward Iran looks less like a reaction and more like a trajectory. Blumenthal argues that pressure from Benjamin Netanyahu and other Israel-aligned actors was already shaping the strategic horizon of the first Trump administration. By the time Trump returned to office, the conditions for a far larger confrontation had already been laid.

The Situation Room and the meaning of proximity

One of the most vivid parts of the interview is Blumenthal’s account of how decision-making around Iran appeared to split into two camps. He describes a pro-Israel “A-team” physically closer to Trump, while more sceptical or potentially dissenting figures were sidelined elsewhere. Whether one accepts every detail of this framing or not, the political meaning is clear. Proximity to the president becomes a measure of influence, and influence determines the permissible direction of policy.

Blumenthal then describes the extraordinary image of Benjamin Netanyahu entering a Situation Room meeting and, in effect, dictating the urgency of military action. The symbolism here is as important as the substance. For Blumenthal, this is not a normal scene of alliance politics. It is evidence of a hierarchy in which the foreign leader occupies the commanding role while the American president becomes the executor of another state’s strategic priorities.

He pushes the point to its most dramatic conclusion by describing the war as the product of what he calls a coup. He does not mean a coup in the old cinematic sense of generals and armoured vehicles. He means the capture of strategic decision-making by actors whose loyalties and imperatives lie elsewhere. In that reading, constitutional appearances remain intact while real sovereignty has been hollowed out.

From Russiagate to “Israelgate”

Another major strand of the interview is Blumenthal’s argument that American political culture obsessed over the wrong foreign influence story. For years, public discourse was saturated with allegations of Russian control, Russian collusion and Russian manipulation. Blumenthal does not merely reject that narrative. He argues that it displaced attention from what he sees as the more obvious and more materially grounded issue of Israeli influence.

This is where he revives the term “Israelgate”. He points to episodes from Trump-era scandal politics and insists that, when examined closely, many of them turn out to circle back not to Moscow but to Israeli interests. The deeper scandal, he argues, was hidden in plain sight. American elites, he suggests, were willing to entertain almost limitless suspicion of Russian influence while treating Israeli intervention as untouchable, unspeakable or politically forbidden.

Whether readers agree with that judgment or not, it is central to understanding the interview. Blumenthal is arguing not only that the political class has lied about power, but that it has done so selectively and systematically. In his view, this selective blindness is itself part of the power structure.

The ceasefire that was never allowed to hold

The discussion of the ceasefire gives the interview its immediate geopolitical edge. Blumenthal argues that Israel had no intention of allowing Trump to close down the conflict on terms not dictated by Israeli priorities. In his version of events, Lebanon was clearly part of the ceasefire framework under discussion, and subsequent Israeli attacks were designed precisely to wreck that framework before it could settle into anything real.

This is a familiar theme in Blumenthal’s work: ceasefires are announced, only to be reinterpreted, narrowed or violated in ways that preserve Israeli freedom of action while leaving Washington to provide diplomatic cover. In the interview, he presents the attacks on Lebanon as an effort to provoke, sabotage and force the United States back into line. What mattered was not simply the bombing itself, but the demonstration that Israel could still determine the terms of escalation.

For Blumenthal, this is the real lesson of the so-called ceasefire. It was not an expression of American control. It was proof of its absence.

“The first Israeli president”

The most provocative phrase in the interview is Blumenthal’s description of Trump as “the first Israeli president”. He does not mean that previous presidents were independent of Israeli influence. Quite the opposite. He explicitly argues that many of them were deeply compromised by it. What makes Trump different, in his view, is the extent to which the rhetoric, tone and strategic language now sound directly imported from Israeli war politics.

Blumenthal points to expressions about bombing adversaries “back to the Stone Age”, to dehumanising language, and to a preference for regime change and state destruction over diplomacy or containment. In his reading, this is more than alliance behaviour. It is ideological convergence. Trump is not merely doing Israel’s bidding under pressure. He has internalised the worldview.

That is what makes the argument so unsettling. If Blumenthal is right, then the issue is no longer simply one of lobbying or donor capture. It is that an American presidency has absorbed the language, logic and strategic impulses of another state’s governing doctrine.

The MAGA revolt

Yet the interview is not only about Trump’s transformation. It is also about the forces now gathering against it. Glenn Diesen presses Blumenthal on the significance of public dissent from figures associated with the “America First” right, and Blumenthal treats this as one of the most important developments in contemporary US politics.

In his telling, a genuine rupture has opened inside MAGA. Voices who once defended Trump instinctively and relentlessly are now recoiling from the war trajectory. Some are doing so because they oppose foreign wars on principle. Some because they are sick of seeing American politics subordinated to a foreign state. Some because they believe this path will destroy Trump, just as unconditional support for Israel damaged Biden and the Democrats.

Blumenthal sees this fracture as historic. The populist right, in his account, is no longer united by Trump’s charisma alone. It is being forced to confront the contradiction between nationalist branding and foreign dependency. One side still chants “America First” while defending a war policy that Blumenthal says was effectively dictated from abroad. The other side has begun asking whether the slogan means anything at all if it collapses at the point of contact with Israel.

A battle over the right-wing media machine

One of the most controversial sections of the interview comes when Blumenthal turns to the MAGA media ecosystem. He draws a sharp line between those he regards as authentic “America First” dissenters and those he accuses of serving as instruments for pro-Israel messaging. He names commentators, broadcasters and influencers and argues that parts of this media world have been institutionalised through money, contracts, ownership ties and messaging discipline.

This section matters because it expands the argument beyond formal government. For Blumenthal, the battlefield is also cultural and informational. The struggle is not just over what Trump does, but over how his supporters are instructed to understand what he does. Who is being paid? Who is repeating lines handed down from above? Who is genuinely speaking from conviction, and who is reading from a script?

He suggests that this is why the current clash is so important. Once authenticity itself becomes the issue, the populist right enters a more dangerous phase. It is no longer enough to claim insurgency. One must prove independence.

Why this interview matters

The power of the Diesen-Blumenthal exchange lies in the fact that it is not timid. It does not circle cautiously around euphemisms. It names people, motives, structures and contradictions. For supporters of Blumenthal, that directness will feel like intellectual relief after years of evasion by the mainstream press. For critics, it will look like overreach or polemic. But even critics would have to acknowledge that the interview is attempting something larger than routine commentary. It is trying to explain how war, media, donors, ideology and party fracture now fit together.

Its most important contribution may be this: it frames the Iran conflict not as a stand-alone crisis but as a revelation. The war, the ceasefire failures, the MAGA civil war, the donor ecosystem, the media pressure and the changing mood of younger voters all point, in Blumenthal’s telling, to the same conclusion. The old consensus is cracking. The bipartisan assumption that Israel can demand almost anything from Washington without political cost is no longer as stable as it once seemed.

That does not mean the structure has fallen. Far from it. Blumenthal’s point is that it remains powerful enough to drive war. But it is now producing open rebellion as well.

The crisis beneath the crisis

By the end of the interview, Blumenthal has offered more than an analysis of Middle Eastern conflict. He has described a crisis beneath the crisis: the question of whether American political sovereignty still exists in any meaningful sense when the most dangerous strategic decisions appear to be shaped by foreign imperatives, donor power and a media ecosystem designed to discipline dissent.

That is why the interview resonates beyond the immediate headlines. It is about Iran, but also about empire. It is about Trump, but also about the hollowing out of democratic self-government. It is about MAGA, but also about the broader inability of both major US parties to disentangle themselves from an alliance that has become politically and morally corrosive.

Blumenthal’s case is sweeping, controversial and deliberately confrontational. But it is also coherent. Every part of the argument reinforces the rest. The result is a picture of an American political order entering a dangerous new phase, in which the costs of denial are becoming harder to hide and the fractures inside both left and right are growing too visible to suppress.

For readers who want to understand why the Iran war has triggered such an intense reaction inside Trump’s own political world, this interview is essential viewing. Watch the embedded video below and decide for yourself whether Max Blumenthal has identified the defining contradiction of the current American moment.

Follow Max Blumenthal on X:

• X

The post The Persian Gulf War Explained: Israel First and the Fracturing of Trumpism appeared first on FREENET AFRICA.

A ceasefire may still exist on paper between the United States and Iran, but the region itself tells a different story. Zionist strikes on Lebanon, renewed pressure around Iran, and the continuing disruption of shipping through the Strait of Hormuz have stripped away any real sense of calm. Diplomats may still use the language of de-escalation, but the military and economic facts point to something far more brittle: a tense and deeply unstable stand-off.

What is emerging is not peace, but a suspended conflict. The guns have not fallen silent. They have merely shifted rhythm.

Nowhere is that clearer than in the Strait of Hormuz. Although some vessel movement has resumed, the waterway remains far from normal. Shipping traffic is still heavily constrained, insurers remain wary, and operators continue to treat the passage as a live risk zone rather than a restored commercial route. In effect, one of the world’s most important energy chokepoints remains under pressure, with consequences extending from Gulf ports to global fuel markets.

The strategic meaning is unmistakable. Even without a formal declaration of wider war, Iran and its allies have shown that they can continue to exert pressure where it matters most: on energy, shipping, logistics and confidence. That alone is enough to keep markets nervous and governments on edge.

The damage already done to military and energy infrastructure has only sharpened that sense of vulnerability. In Kuwait, the earlier strike on a U.S. military facility linked to the 103rd Sustainment Command has taken on renewed significance as the scale of losses becomes clearer. The attack was not merely symbolic. It exposed the extent to which forward-deployed American assets in the Gulf remain exposed to modern drone and missile warfare, even under the umbrella of supposed deterrence.

For Washington, that is politically uncomfortable and strategically serious. The image of overwhelming control is much harder to sustain when key facilities can be hit, personnel can be killed, and the region’s most expensive defensive architecture still cannot guarantee security.

Saudi Arabia has also felt the pressure. Damage to the East-West pipeline system, especially at a compressor or pumping node, has underlined the fragility of the kingdom’s alternative export routes. That pipeline matters precisely because it offers Riyadh a way to move crude to the Red Sea while reducing dependence on Hormuz. If that network is degraded, even partially, then one of the Gulf’s main fallback options becomes less reliable at the exact moment it is most needed.

This is the deeper story behind the headlines. The conflict is no longer only about dramatic military exchanges or televised political statements. It is about pressure points. The side that can raise costs, slow movement, reduce confidence and expose weakness without tipping the region into all-out war gains enormous leverage.

That is why the current moment feels so dangerous. It is not a settled peace, but a contest of controlled instability.

The political theatre has been no less revealing. Donald Trump’s effort to project influence over events has collided with the hard realities of regional power politics. Reports of mediation efforts and ceasefire understandings have been overshadowed by the Zionist entity’s own actions and Benjamin Netanyahu’s refusal to behave as though Washington alone can set the tempo. That matters, because it reveals a widening gap between American messaging and regional autonomy.

For years, the assumption in much Western analysis was that the United States, whatever its limits, still retained the ability to orchestrate outcomes among allies and contain adversaries through pressure, inducement and force. That assumption now looks badly strained. The Zionist colony continues to calculate according to its own security doctrine. Iran continues to test the outer limits of confrontation. Gulf states remain exposed. And Washington, despite its military reach, increasingly looks like a power reacting to events rather than fully shaping them.

Even the controversy surrounding the missing U.S. Navy MQ-4C Triton drone fits this pattern. Whether the aircraft was shot down or lost for other reasons, the episode has fed a broader perception of American exposure. The Triton is not a minor asset. It is one of the most advanced surveillance platforms in the U.S. arsenal, built for high-end reconnaissance and strategic awareness. Its disappearance over such a sensitive zone is therefore more than a technical incident. It is a symbolic blow, one that reinforces the wider impression of contested skies, contested seas and contested prestige.

And prestige matters. In crises like this, military capability is only half the equation. The other half is perception: who appears strong, who appears in control, who appears able to impose costs without suffering them. Once that balance starts to shift, even subtly, the geopolitical consequences become much larger than any single strike or lost aircraft.

This is also why the economic dimension cannot be treated as secondary. Markets may fluctuate daily, but traders are reading the region correctly. Oil did not simply react to a ceasefire headline and settle. Prices dipped, then recovered as it became clear that the ceasefire had not produced restored normality. Hormuz remains constrained. Saudi infrastructure has been damaged. Shipping remains risky. Diplomacy remains fragile. In other words, the market has begun pricing not peace, but interruption.

That may prove to be one of the most consequential features of this phase of the crisis. West Asia does not need to collapse into a formal regional war to shake the world economy. It only needs to remain unpredictable enough, long enough, to keep energy flows uncertain and freight risk elevated. In a tightly connected global system, ambiguity itself becomes a weapon.

That is what makes the phrase “ceasefire illusion” so resonant. The illusion lies not in the technical existence of a truce, but in the idea that such a truce automatically means stability. It does not. A ceasefire can exist while missiles still fly elsewhere, while shipping lanes remain threatened, while proxy fronts stay active, while allies ignore one another, and while markets continue to signal fear.

That is West Asia today: a battlefield in partial pause, but not at rest.

For the United States, this is a moment of strategic discomfort. For the Zionist colony, it is a moment of continued military assertion. For Iran, it is a moment to demonstrate endurance, leverage and the ability to impose friction without inviting immediate regime-threatening retaliation. For the Gulf monarchies, it is a reminder that infrastructure once assumed protected can still be hit. And for the rest of the world, it is a warning that global order remains deeply vulnerable to a region that is still far from resolved.

So the central reality remains unchanged. There is no true peace. But there is also, not yet, a declared and unrestrained war. Instead there is something in between: a hard, dangerous, unstable middle ground in which all sides continue to test limits while insisting they are avoiding catastrophe.

History shows that such periods can last longer than expected. It also shows they can collapse very quickly.

For now, West Asia remains suspended in that perilous space between diplomacy and escalation, where ceasefires hold just enough to prevent total war, but fail badly enough to keep the region on the brink.

The post Persian Gulf War & the Ceasefire Illusion: West Asia Still on the Brink appeared first on FREENET AFRICA.

Speaking on Dialogue Works on Monday, February 23, 2026, Escobar argued that the escalation is being driven from the top, and that President Donald Trump now owns whatever comes next. “The whole thing was brought by the President of the United States himself,” Escobar said. “So anything that he does, any decision that he makes, it’s on him. It’s his personal responsibility.”

Escobar’s central claim is that Iran is no longer the isolated target Washington once imagined. In his view, Iran is strategically backed by Russia and China and embedded in the trade corridors and energy flows that bind Eurasia together. That changes the meaning of any military strike: it becomes not just a U.S.–Iran clash, but a confrontation that risks “launching a war against three BRICS at the same time” — Iran, Russia, and China.

And if the conflict escalates toward maritime chokepoints like the Strait of Hormuz, Escobar warns the shock could hit the entire global economy.

A crisis with a name on it

Escobar begins with a reminder: Trump previously withdrew from the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Escobar calls it “the Grand Nuclear Deal,” stressing it was agreed in Vienna and “ratified by the UN.” He describes the current moment as the return of a crisis that did not have to exist.

Now, Escobar says, Trump wants a new deal on terms Tehran sees as surrender. “Since he cannot have the deal that he wants, which is basically a capitulation of Iran, this is where we are in this fateful week,” he said.

Escobar described a potential diplomatic meeting in Geneva as a “last chance saloon,” but he expects it to start “on very, very nasty terms” after another ultimatum from Washington. Tehran, he says, has signaled it will only discuss the nuclear file — not its ballistic missile program and not its regional alliances.

That refusal matters because Escobar frames Washington’s demands as a three-part package: nuclear restrictions, missile limitations, and an end to support for the “axis of resistance.” Iran, he says, might talk about one item, but not the other two.

“The decision to attack… has already been made”

Escobar’s most alarming assertion is that Washington has moved beyond debating whether to strike and is now debating how.

“The decision to attack Iran, we still don’t know how, has already been made,” he said, citing what he described as informed signals and analysis “coming from the Beltway.” “So now we are in the how stage.”

He listed possible options: a short, intense bombing campaign in the style of Iraq 2003; a “decapitation strike” aimed at Iran’s top political and security leadership; or attacks subcontracted to Israel to provide Washington plausible deniability. In Escobar’s view, the U.S. could try to hide behind the line “it was the Israelis,” then claim it must intervene to “protect Israel.”

But he insists that tactic would not prevent Iranian retaliation. “It doesn’t matter,” he said. “Because the response from Iran will be there.”

Who is pushing — and why Escobar calls it “capture”

Escobar argues the drivers of escalation are not American national interests but the strategic priorities of pro-Israel hardliners and the system of money and influence behind them. He describes Trump as squeezed between powerful donors, the defense-industrial ecosystem, and a long-standing Washington obsession with regime change in Tehran.

“If he decides not to attack,” Escobar said, “his donors… the international Zionist axis… they’re going to go for him.” He also claimed “literally, practically all the nodes of the industrial military complex… want this attack against Iran,” listing weapons makers, intelligence agencies, the Pentagon, media, think tanks, and academia as part of a broad pro-war machine.

Readers should understand this is Escobar’s framing, not neutral language. He is making a political argument about power. But within his worldview, it explains why escalation persists even when the costs seem obvious.

The “limited strike” illusion

A key question in any crisis is whether there is a “small” option that avoids a bigger war. Escobar is skeptical.

First, he argues that Iran has prepared layered responses tailored to different forms of attack. Second, he believes the region is too interconnected for a strike to remain local. Third, he doubts Washington’s leadership can manage escalation rationally.

Escobar’s portrait of Trump is brutal: a leader surrounded by “mediocre functionaries,” trapped in an echo chamber, consuming TV soundbites rather than intelligence. “He does not read anything,” Escobar said. In that context, he suggests, even a “calibrated” strike can spiral.

And the strategic math, in his view, is ugly: if Trump attacks, he risks a regional fire; if he doesn’t, he risks rebellion from the networks demanding he does.

“Less than zero” national gain

Escobar’s assessment of U.S. objectives is striking: he says there are none that benefit America.

“He doesn’t have objectives,” Escobar said. “The objectives are the Zionist objectives. And there’s only one… Smash Iran as a regional power in West Asia. Period.”

In his view, an unprovoked strike would alienate large parts of the Muslim world, deepen hostility across the Global South, and intensify confrontation with Russia and China. “What does the United States gain…? Less than zero,” he said.

He also suggests domestic U.S. politics would punish Trump. Escobar claims “MAGA is against it,” and says “70% of the American electorate… is against this war.” His conclusion: a war could turn Trump into a “lame duck” quickly and cost him the midterms.

So why do it?

Because, Escobar argues, the U.S. system is under economic stress and war is the empire’s traditional escape hatch. “From the point of view of an empire in extreme distress,” he said, “there’s only one solution… war.” War, in that logic, is used to change the subject, reset the narrative, and shake up global markets — even if the results are unpredictable.

The twist that changes everything: Russia and China

This is where Escobar’s argument becomes the “new axis” thesis: Iran is now tied into serious strategic partnerships with Russia and China, and those ties raise the costs of attacking Tehran.

“If there is a cherry on this incandescent volatile cake,” he said, Trump would be “launching a war against three BRICS at the same time. Not only Iran, but Russia and China.”

Escobar describes Russia–Iran ties as “very serious,” including military and technical cooperation. On China, he stresses something even bigger than arms: energy security and connectivity.

For China, he says, Iran is “a matter of national security” because it supplies energy and sits on the land corridors linking East and West. He points to routes increasingly used through Central Asia into Iran, then onward to Turkey and Europe — especially as sanctions complicate routes through Russia. Iran, in his telling, is not peripheral. It is central.

He also claims Chinese support includes “research ships” and “ultra-high-tech information… passed in real time,” and notes cargo flights arriving in Iran, alongside Russian IL-76 flights. Diplomatically, he adds, Iran is supported through BRICS and could frame any attack as a war against multiple BRICS states and the Global South.

The corridor map behind the war map

Escobar pushes viewers to look beyond the military build-up and see the infrastructure struggle beneath it.

He describes Iran as an ancient bridge between East and West, and suggests Tehran could become “the capital of a new Eurasian project… somewhere between Shanghai and St. Petersburg.”

That isn’t just rhetoric. Escobar ties it to real projects: ports, rail lines, and trade corridors that reduce Eurasia’s dependence on Western-controlled routes and financial chokeholds. He highlights the International North–South Transportation Corridor (INSTC), linking Russia, Iran, and India. He says his recent documentary — produced with Iranian support and extensive access — follows that corridor from the Caspian through Iran to the Persian Gulf and the Sea of Oman.

For Escobar, corridors are power. And that is exactly why Iran matters so much. A strike on Iran is not only about nuclear claims or regional rivalries. It is also about interrupting Eurasian integration.

His slogan is the opposite of war logic: “Make connectivity corridors, not wars.” Or, in his updated protest line: “Make connectivity, not war.”

Hormuz: the fuse to a global economic shock

If Escobar has one warning designed to cut through noise, it is the Strait of Hormuz.

“If the Strait of Hormuz is blocked one way or another,” he said, “this will implode the global economy.” He links that to systemic financial fragility — especially the size of derivatives exposure — and argues a disruption could trigger cascading failures far beyond energy markets.

He also suggests Iran does not need a single dramatic shutdown. It can apply pressure gradually: an incremental blockade, “death by a thousand cuts,” using timing and tactics to disrupt flows, raise insurance costs, and shake confidence.

In other words, Iran’s leverage is global, not local. That is why Escobar believes Washington is playing with fire.

Iran’s posture: calm diplomacy, hard preparation

Escobar repeatedly describes Iranian officials as steady and prepared. He calls the foreign minister “self-confident” and “unflappable,” and says Iran’s security institutions appear psychologically ready for a serious confrontation.

He agrees with the interviewer’s point that Iran does not underestimate U.S. power. Instead, in this framing, Iran expects pain but believes it can endure — and retaliate in ways that make victory impossible for Washington.

Escobar is careful, however, to underline the human cost. He says it is easy to claim you should let an enemy “commit a mistake,” but that mistake will bring “a lot of suffering” and “blood.” War, in his view, is not a chess move. It is tragedy.

The crossroads

Escobar’s bottom line is that the world is approaching a decision point that could “seal what’s going to happen from now on in the major battlefield.”

He describes the battlefield in sweeping terms: on one side, the “empire of chaos” aligned with pro-Israel hardliners; on the other, BRICS and the Global South, building trade routes and strategic partnerships designed to outlast sanctions and coercion.

Whatever one thinks of Escobar’s language, the structure of his argument is consistent:

• Diplomacy is being squeezed by ultimatums and maximal demands.
• Military options are multiplying and may already be chosen inside Washington.
• Iran’s retaliation could expand the war across the region and into global shipping lanes.
• Russia and China’s backing changes the costs and the consequences.
• The deeper struggle is over Eurasian integration: trade corridors versus war corridors.

And that leads to his closing message: while headlines focus on bombing plans, a parallel story is unfolding across Eurasia — a push to build corridors, ports, and connectivity that shift power away from Western control.

Escobar wants readers to understand that Iran is not only a target. It is a hinge. And if Washington strikes it, the shock could travel far beyond Tehran.

The world, he suggests, is being offered two maps. One is a war map. The other is a corridor map. And which one wins may decide far more than the next battle.

“Make connectivity, not war,” he says.

The post New Axis of Power: How Russia and China Changed the Rules for Washington appeared first on FREENET AFRICA.