Que cherchait Mme Nancy Pelosi, troisième personnage de l'État américain, en se rendant début août à Taipei ? Un simple coup de publicité ? Ou voulait-elle provoquer Pékin, obligeant M. Joseph Biden et son gouvernement à accélérer le changement de la politique historique des États-Unis ? Celle-ci combine la reconnaissance d'« une seule Chine » et une certaine protection de Taïwan.
Bien avant que l'avion de la présidente de la Chambre des représentants Nancy Pelosi ne touche le sol taïwanais le 2 août dernier, les relations sino-américaines se trouvaient déjà dans une spirale négative. M. Joseph Biden et son gouvernement s'étaient attachés à tisser un réseau d'alliances hostiles pour encercler la Chine ; de son côté, Pékin multipliait les manœuvres militaires agressives en mer de Chine orientale et en mer de Chine méridionale. Il reste que leurs relations bilatérales ne s'étaient pas détériorées au point de rendre impossible tout dialogue de haut niveau sur le changement climatique ou sur d'autres questions vitales. Pour preuve, les présidents Biden et Xi Jinping ont discuté de ces sujets, lors de leur entretien par visioconférence, le 28 juillet.
En fait, la visite de Mme Pelosi a créé une nouvelle faille dans la relation entre les deux puissances, balayant toute perspective de coopération. Ne subsiste qu'une rivalité militaire exacerbée.
Depuis le rétablissement des relations diplomatiques avec la République populaire de Chine (RPC) en 1978, sous l'administration de James Carter (1977-1981), les dirigeants américains ont toujours adhéré (au moins publiquement) au principe d'une « Chine unique », Taïwan et le continent constituant un seul pays bien que ne dépendant pas nécessairement d'une même entité politique. Ce que résume la célèbre formule adoptée un peu plus tard « Une Chine, deux systèmes ». Dans le même temps, avec le Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) voté par le Congrès en 1979, les États-Unis sont tenus de livrer des armes défensives à Taipei selon ses besoins et de considérer toute tentative chinoise de modifier le statut de l'île par la force comme un fait « extrêmement préoccupant » — une formulation connue pour son « ambiguïté stratégique », dans la mesure où elle ne dit pas clairement si Washington interviendrait ou pas.
Combinés, ces deux préceptes ont jusqu'ici contribué à garantir une forme de stabilité : en laissant supposer l'existence d'un lien intrinsèque entre Taïwan et le continent, le principe d'« une seule Chine » dissuade Pékin de toute tentative précipitée de s'emparer de l'île ; de son côté, l'« ambiguïté stratégique » laisse les Taïwanais comme les Chinois dans l'incertitude sur la réponse américaine en cas de déclaration d'indépendance des premiers ou de projet d'invasion des seconds. De quoi dissuader les uns et les autres de toute prise d'initiative irréfléchie (1).
Même si les dirigeants américains assurent toujours adhérer à ces deux principes, les plus hauts responsables du gouvernement et du Congrès ont donné l'impression ces derniers mois qu'ils s'en étaient éloignés, au profit d'une politique suggérant l'existence de deux États : la Chine d'une part, Taïwan de l'autre (« one China, one Taïwan ») et en faveur d'une plus grande « clarté stratégique ». M. Biden lui-même y a contribué : interrogé sur Cable News Network (CNN) pour savoir si Washington défendrait Taïwan en cas d'attaque chinoise, il a répondu clairement. « Nous sommes tenus de le faire (2) », a-t-il déclaré, bien que ce ne soit pas la ligne officielle.
Le président comme d'autres dirigeants ont aussi suggéré un changement de politique, en cherchant à obtenir de leurs alliés dans la région — l'Australie, le Japon et la Corée du Sud — qu'ils s'engagent à assister les forces américaines, dans le cas où celles-ci seraient impliquées dans une guerre contre la Chine. De plus, le Congrès a encouragé ce processus en apportant un soutien bipartite aux livraisons d'armes à Taïwan, en y organisant à de nombreuses reprises des visites de délégations de niveau élevé et en projetant de modifier le TRA de 1979 pour en finir avec l'« ambiguïté stratégique », laquelle serait remplacée par un engagement ferme à aider l'île à se défendre (3). La Chine a observé ces développements avec un désarroi grandissant. Pour ses dirigeants — et particulièrement pour M. Xi, qui brigue un troisième mandat de cinq ans au poste suprême de premier secrétaire du Parti communiste et de président de la RPC —, la réunification s'est imposée comme l'objectif ultime de la politique gouvernementale, une condition sine qua non de la « renaissance » nationale (4). « Le peuple chinois, fort de plus de 1,4 milliard de personnes, est déterminé à défendre résolument la souveraineté de la Chine et son intégrité territoriale, a-t-il déclaré à M. Biden lors de leur échange du 28 juillet, selon le communiqué chinois. Nul ne peut s'opposer à la volonté du peuple, et quand on joue avec le feu, on finit par se brûler (5). »
Mme Pelosi savait parfaitement que sa visite ne pourrait conduire qu'à aggraver la situation. Les responsables du Pentagone comme ceux de la Maison Blanche l'ont avertie que l'effectuer à ce moment-là susciterait l'ire des dirigeants chinois et provoquerait d'une façon ou d'une autre une réaction cinglante de leur part. Elle a malgré tout fait le choix de se rendre à Taipei — tout en s'assurant d'attirer au maximum l'attention internationale en faisant planer le doute sur sa visite. On ne peut pas ne pas se dire qu'elle a fait le voyage avec la ferme intention de provoquer et d'accélérer le processus d'inflexion de la politique américaine vers la doctrine « la Chine d'une part, Taïwan de l'autre », avec tous les risques que cela comporte.
Si telle était son intention, son entreprise a largement été couronnée de succès. En dépit des efforts déployés par les responsables de la Maison Blanche pour assurer leurs homologues chinois de la séparation des pouvoirs au sein du système politique américain, Pékin a eu du mal à croire que Mme Pelosi ne représentait qu'elle-même — et non le gouvernement des États-Unis. Aux yeux des dirigeants chinois, cette visite n'est que l'aboutissement d'une campagne conjointe du Congrès et de la Maison Blanche pour répudier le principe d'une seule Chine, un premier pas vers la reconnaissance de Taïwan comme État indépendant. L'administration Biden a bien tenté de sauver la situation en soulignant avec insistance qu'« aucun changement » n'était intervenu dans sa politique, mais ces déclarations n'ont pas semblé convaincre.
Le 10 août, une semaine seulement après le voyage de Mme Pelosi, le Bureau d'information du Conseil des affaires d'État (gouvernement) a publié un nouveau Livre blanc sur « la question de Taïwan », réaffirmant la volonté de Pékin de réaliser la réunification de l'île par des moyens pacifiques, sans exclure le recours à des moyens militaires afin de briser toute résistance de la part des forces indépendantistes taïwanaises ou de leurs soutiens étrangers : « Nous sommes prêts à créer un vaste espace [de coopération] afin de parvenir à une réunification pacifique, mais ne céderons pas le moindre pouce de terrain aux activités sécessionnistes, quelle que soit la forme qu'elles puissent prendre, peut-on lire. La question de Taïwan est une affaire intérieure qui concerne les intérêts fondamentaux de la Chine (…), aucune ingérence extérieure ne sera tolérée (6). »
Les déclarations officielles ont été accompagnées de toute une série d'opérations militaires et diplomatiques, visant à démontrer que les dirigeants avaient abaissé leur degré de tolérance à l'égard des « ingérences extérieures » comme celle de Mme Pelosi. Ils ont haussé le niveau de préparation du pays en vue d'un éventuel blocus de l'île ou même de son invasion si celle-ci s'engageait plus loin dans la voie de l'indépendance. Plusieurs mesures préoccupantes reflètent cette nouvelle position.
• Le 4 août, l'Armée populaire de libération (APL) a tiré onze missiles balistiques DF-15 dans les eaux situées à l'est, au nord-est et au sud-est de Taïwan — ce qui laisse entrevoir son intention d'organiser un blocus en cas de crise ou de conflit. Cinq d'entre eux ont atterri dans la zone économique exclusive du Japon, signe que toute guerre liée à Taïwan pourrait s'étendre rapidement à l'archipel nippon, qui abrite de nombreuses bases militaires américaines (7).
• Le 6 août, des représentants du gouvernement chinois ont annoncé que le dialogue entre les responsables de l'APL et ceux de l'armée américaine visant à prévenir toute confrontation involontaire entre leurs forces navales et aériennes respectives était interrompu. Les discussions sur des questions aussi vitales que le changement climatique et la santé mondiale sont, quant à elles, suspendues (8).
• Le 7 août, plusieurs médias d'État chinois ont annoncé que l'APL mènerait désormais « régulièrement » des exercices militaires à l'est de la ligne médiane du détroit de Taïwan (côté taïwanais), alors que les forces chinoises avaient jusqu'ici principalement mené leurs opérations à l'ouest de cette ligne (côté chinois). De quoi accentuer la pression psychologique sur l'île, tout en se donnant la possibilité d'effectuer des simulations d'une invasion.
Toutes ces mesures ont été qualifiées d'« irresponsables » et de « provocatrices » par les Américains. « Nous ne devons pas prendre en otage la coopération sur des sujets d'intérêt mondial, au nom des divergences entre nos deux pays, a déclaré le secrétaire d'État Antony Blinken lors d'une conférence de presse, à Manille, le 6 août. Les autres [pays] attendent de nous, à juste titre, que nous continuions à travailler sur les questions qui touchent à l'existence et aux moyens de subsistance de leurs peuples tout comme des nôtres (9). »
Malheureusement, les propos de M. Blinken comportent une grande part de vérité. Mais il serait erroné de tenir Pékin pour seul responsable de l'impasse dans laquelle se trouve la relation entre les deux pays. Le secrétaire d'État lui-même a consacré la plus grande partie de l'année dernière à nouer des alliances pour tenter de contenir la montée en puissance de la Chine, et à adresser aux dirigeants chinois des ultimatums sur un large éventail de problèmes internes, tels que la persécution des Ouïgours du Xinjiang ou la répression politique à Hongkong — ultimatums auxquels ils ne pouvaient céder. Certes, M. Blinken a aussi appelé à une coopération accrue en matière de changement climatique, mais toujours dans un second temps. Du point de vue chinois, c'est Washington qui prend en otage les discussions sur les sujets à enjeu crucial pour la planète.
N'est-il pas temps de mettre fin à ce petit jeu consistant à rejeter sur l'autre la responsabilité de la situation, et de reprendre des discussions sur les mesures permettant de réduire le risque d'un conflit violent ? Les États-Unis devraient s'engager à ne plus faire transiter leurs navires de guerre par le détroit de Taïwan, et Pékin à ne pas en franchir la ligne médiane avec leurs forces militaires. S'il est impossible de revenir à l'ère de l'avant-visite de Mme Pelosi, tout doit être fait pour empêcher que cette nouvelle configuration ne dégénère en conflit armé.
(1) Lire Michael J. Green et Bonnie S. Glaser, « What is the US “one China” policy, and why does it matter ? », Centre d'études stratégiques et internationales, Washington, DC, 13 janvier 2017.
(2) John Ruwitch, « Would the US defend Taiwan if China invades ? Biden said yes. But it's complicated », National Public Radio (NPR), Washington, DC, 28 octobre 2021, www.npr.org
(3) Cf. Olivier Knox, « Senate looks to update and deepen US-Taiwan relationship », Washington Post, 1er août 2022.
(4) Lire Tanguy Lepesant, « Taïwan, pièce manquante du « rêve chinois » », Le Monde diplomatique, octobre 2021.
(5) « President Xi Jinping speaks with US president Joe Biden on the phone », ministère des affaires étrangères de la RPC, Pékin, 29 juillet 2022.
(6) « The Taiwan question and China's reunification in the new era », Bureau d'information du Conseil des affaires d'État, Pékin, août 2022.
(7) Sam LaGrone et Heather Mongilio, « 11 Chinese ballistic missiles fired near Taiwan, US embarks USS America from Japan », US Naval Institute News, Annapolis (États-Unis), 4 août 2022.
(8) Vincent Ni, « China halts US cooperation on range of issues after Pelosi's Taiwan visit », The Guardian, Londres, 6 août 2022.
(9) « Blinken : China should not hold global concerns “hostage” », Associated Press, 6 août 2022.
An IDF whistleblower has risked his life to blow the whistle on Israel’s involvement in the Charlie Kirk assassination, revealing the TPUSA founder survived the botched assassination at the UVU campus, before he was beheaded [...]
The post IDF Insider Reveals TPUSA ‘Beheaded’ Charlie Kirk Inside SUV After ‘Botched’ Assassination appeared first on The People's Voice.
LewRockwell.com
JD Breen | pretiuminsights.com
Governments, as Murray Rothbard reminded us, are nothing but “armed criminal bands writ large”. The Trump Administration has done all it can to prove Rothbard right.
The United States ceased being a republic 160 years ago. But its government stopped pretending to rule one much more recently. In the 20th century it became an empire. During this one, it’s been a degenerate one.
Yesterday at the UN, the current emperor personified how degraded it has become. He again threatened “annihilation” of the civilization he “Pearl Harbored” almost eight months ago:
“I have a big decision to make. Will a deal be made with Iran that lets them rebuild and create a far greater country than it ever was before? Maybe one of the greatest in the Middle East or even the world. Or do I annihilate the Islamic Republic and do it quickly, never giving them a chance to kill and destroy people and countries again? Do I drive them into Hell with no chance of survival and no hope of future greatness or generations?”
Leaving aside his reflexive use of the word “I”, as if a president has authority to eradicate “future generations”, what “people or countries” has Iran ever destroyed?
For at least a century and a half, Iran hasn’t launched a war against any country. Nor has it instigated a coup against the U.S. government, installed its handpicked dictator, and surrounded America with Persian military bases.
Before this war, the U.S. had about twenty military installations with almost 50,000 personnel around the Middle East. This century alone, the U.S. government has lobbed more than a hundred thousand bombs and missiles on at least eight countries in that region.
It also backed the brutal Iraq war on Iran, which killed up to a quarter million Iranians. And we wonder why they’ve said mean things about Americans! After what the US government has done this year, Iranians have more reason to voice displeasure.
During the sneak attack that started this war (as opposed to the one he launched last year), Donald Trump assassinated the leadership of Iran and murdered almost two hundred school girls. We’d like to think killing the kids was an accident.
But why should we? The administration never apologized for it. Ludicrously, it tried to blame Iran, and then kept threatening that country with complete destruction.
Why would a president who threatens to “annihilate” 90 million innocent people not be willing to take out some children? He and his supporters would simply excuse themselves by blaming Iran, lamenting “collateral damage”, and shrugging that “War is Hell” (as if that weren’t a reason not to start one).
In his address yesterday, the president wasn’t even asking the UN (much less the US Congress) for a resolution allowing him to commit atrocities. He simply told them he’s mulling whether to wipe out a country whose representatives were in the room.
While most of us are numb to Trump being outrageous, how aren’t more public officials appalled by such depravity? Democrats aren’t widely denouncing him, which again reveals how indistinguishable the parties are regarding most things that matter.
This entire catastrophe is incoherent. The president who (ostensibly) waged war to keep Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons his own intelligence said it wasn’t building now hints he’d use nukes to ensure Iran doesn’t get them. This from a guy who partly justified his war as a way to rescue “the Iranian people”.
If Trump were to turn Iran into an ashtray, then what? Notwithstanding the moral enormity of such an outrage, how does making Iran a chaotic wasteland help the U.S.?
It may debilitate proxies and allies such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis. But those organizations are Israel’s problem. None posed a threat to Iowa.
They became America’s concern only because the US intervened on Israel’s behalf, which provoked Houthi attacks on U.S. ships in recent years and the 1983 Hezbollah bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut.
Iran is home to about 40% of the 300 million Shia Muslims around the world. How will the rest of them react? Will Americans be “safer” if a bunch of aggrieved Islamists decide to get even?
Will mass destruction open a strait that wasn’t impeded before Trump unleashed this idiocy? Or will it leave the choke point controlled by hostile renegades with an insatiable vendetta, while creating regional vacuums for Israel to fill?
The U.S. president openly boasts about kidnapping and killing foreign rulers, stealing other countries’ resources, and potentially obliterating civilizations that’ve existed for thousands of years.
He bragged about looting Venezuelan oil by telling the UN (which was supposedly established to thwart such thuggery) that “to the victor goes the spoils”.
Why doesn’t this rationale work when Putin attacks the Ukraine or if China took Taiwan? Do Iranian or Venezuelan borders not have the “sanctity” of the ones Russians crossed or that China might erase?
The administration sold the Venezuela invasion as a fight against illegal immigrants and drugs. Now the president admits it was outright robbery, while lying about the value of the loot. And he’s proud of it. But few others are.
Aside from the dwindling cohort of MAGA cultists, most Americans are repulsed by what their government is doing. They never wanted more wars. Along with controlling immigration and taming inflation, ending them and avoiding new ones were among the main reasons they voted for Trump.
Yet as the administration runs roughshod, Congress sits silent. It should’ve impeached, removed, and imprisoned this president for usurping its powers. Instead, the Republican leadership called a recess till the midterms, forfeiting the last month of its worthless majority.
After starting imbecilic wars and passing boondoggle bills that make food, fuel, and housing prohibitively expensive while bragging about a ballroom and renaming bodies of water, the Republicans deserve to be ousted. [Both sides are an enemy of the people, abolish government altogether]
Among the worst consequences of their malfeasance is that it’ll return power to a party that’s uniformly awful. But such is the state of our “democracy” that cyanide and arsenic are the only options offered.
Source: https://www.pretiuminsights.com/p/a-degenerate-empire-b65
Image: Source
Original Article: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2026/09/no_author/a-degenerate-empire/
Note: Comments placed in [ ] are added by Truth11.com editor. For example; [Flu]
Caught on Tape: AIPAC CEO Boasted of Controlling Trump’s National Security Officials
LewRockwell.com
Paul Craig Roberts | PaulCraigRoberts.org
Elliot Brandt, the Chief Executive Officer of AIPAC–the Israel Lobby-which is privileged by not having to register as a foreign lobby was caught on tape boasting about how easy it is for him to control the President of the United States and Trump’s national security officials–National Security Advisor and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Stephen Miller, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, and others.
In a stunning leaked recording, AIPAC CEO Elliot Brandt is heard openly bragging about how the powerful pro-Israel lobby manipulates key figures in Donald Trump’s national security inner circle, pushing them toward another costly and unpopular war in the Middle East on behalf of Israel.
The audio has ignited outrage online, fueling accusations that U.S. foreign policy is being dictated not by American interests, but by a foreign-aligned lobbying machine with unchecked influence. Critics say the leak is further proof that the United States is not just compromised — it is occupied.
You can listen to it here:
US Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff to four-star general Colin Powell, Secretary of State in the George W. Bush regime, said:
“I watched Mossad take over the Pentagon in 2002. They did not need any identification to get through the river entrance to the building. They went upstairs to Douglas Feith, the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy—the third most powerful man in the Defense Department. Occasionally, they went to Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense.”
Both the 2nd and 3rd most powerful positions in the Pentagon were Zionist Jews supportive of Greater Israel’s hegemony over the Middle East. They were able to put America to war in the Middle East for the Zionist agenda of Greater Israel–from the Nile to the Euphrates, today from the Nile to Pakistan. 9/11 was their orchestrated “Pearl Harbor” that let them launch their “war on terror” which was in reality America’s destruction of Iraq, Libya, and Syria, which were obstacles to Israel’s expansion. At the present time the Israel Lobby has Americans at war with Iran, a war that to date has left Iran the victor.
Trump is smarting under the military defeat he brought to America. He has tried to hide it in his blustering.
Netanyahu knowing that Trump cannot accept defeat has Trump wired up to escape defeat by saving face by nuking Iran. Thus, Trump’s threat on Tuesday, September 22 before the entire world at the UN General Assembly gave Iran until after the US midterm election on November 3 to surrender or be annihilated. Annihilation of Iran requires Trump’s or Israel’s use of nuclear weapons.
What the world witnessed last Tuesday was the total controlling power of Israel over American foreign policy. The Trump regime does not serve America. It does not serve its NATO allies. It does not serve peace or justice. The Trump Regime serves Israel at the expense not only of all Americans but also all of the world.
On November 3, we will find out what percentage of Americans, if any at all, understand this.
Original Article: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2026/09/paul-craig-roberts/the-israeli-lobby-boasts-of-its-rule-of-america/
Um acidente rodoviário grave provocou a morte a um homem de 23 anos e fez mais cinco feridos, esta tarde de domingo, em Santa Maria da Feira. A colisão, que envolveu três veículos automóveis, ocorreu na estrada EN223 (rua do Comércio), no quilómetro 9+,364, em Lobão, em frente à discoteca Hollywood.
O alerta para a ocorrência foi dado por volta das 15h30 aos Bombeiros Voluntários de Arrifana, tendo também sido mobilizadas para o local as equipas de emergência pré-hospitalar da Cruz Vermelha de Sanguedo e a Viatura Médica de Emergência e Reanimação (VMER) da Feira.
Segundo a Guarda Nacional Republicana, da violenta colisão resultou um óbito no local, além de dois feridos graves e três feridos ligeiros.
As causas do acidente estão ainda por apurar, encontrando-se sob investigação a cargo da GNR de Canedo e do Núcleo de Investigação de Crimes em Acidentes de Viação (NICAV) da GNR.
Por: Dino Frazão
Data: 27 de setembro de 2026
Redes sociais
O site OSMONHACAS.COM continuará a acompanhar o desenvolvimento desta notícia.
————————————————–
© 2026 Os Monhacas. Todos os direitos reservados.
Este é um projeto independente de criação de conteúdos.
Se gostou do que leu e ainda não é seguidor, siga a nossa página para ver mais conteúdos!
————————————————–
O conteúdo Acidente grave na EN223 em Santa Maria da Feira provoca um morto e cinco feridos aparece primeiro em OS MONHACAS.
[
SOVRANISMO REALE E INTERESSE NAZIONALE: LA DOTTRINA GEOPOLITICA DI VANNACCI PER UN’ITALIA PROTAGONISTA NEL MONDO MULTIPOLARE
Al di là delle consuete etichette strumentali e delle caricature mediatiche, la visione di politica estera espressa da Roberto Vannacci e sintetizzata nel programma di Futuro Nazionale delinea una rottura profonda con il conformismo diplomatico degli ultimi decenni, ponendo al centro un principio chiaro e non negoziabile: la tutela pragmatica dell’interesse strategico italiano.
Superare il vassallaggio: verso un multipolarismo di equilibrio
La presa d’atto del superamento del vecchio ordine unipolare a trazione statunitense non è una concessione a ideologie altrui, bensì un lucido esercizio di realismo geopolitico. Riconoscere l’avvento di un mondo multipolare significa rifiutare l’idea che Roma debba limitarsi a subire passivamente decisioni prese oltreoceano che spesso danneggiano il tessuto produttivo e la stabilità energetica dell’Europa.
In quest’ottica, la collocazione all’interno dell’Alleanza Atlantica viene ripensata secondo un modello pragmatico, analogo a quello esercitato con successo da potenze regionali come la Turchia, in cui l’adesione al patto non si traduce in subordinazione cieca, ma convive con il perseguimento autonomo della propria agenda nazionale. Analogamente, la disponibilità a comprendere le esigenze di sicurezza della Russia risponde alla logica di evitare escalation permanenti ai confini orientali, comprendendo che la stabilità del continente europeo non può prescindere da canali di distensione e cooperazione strategica.
L’approccio alla polveriera mediorientale si distingue per equilibrio e coraggio politico. Pur riconoscendo la legittimità della reazione di Israele contro le minacce terroristiche, la linea di Vannacci non esita a denunciare gli eccessi di una risposta bellica che definisce sproporzionata e le derive espansionistiche in Cisgiordania, riaffermando il diritto alla tutela delle comunità cristiane storiche, minacciate da entrambi gli estremismi, e aprendo con determinazione alla prospettiva di due Stati distinti, con una divisione equa di Gerusalemme.
Ancora più innovativa è la proposta di architettura di sicurezza per l’area: per garantire una pace durevole e reale, è velleitario pensare a esclusioni a priori. Coinvolgere come garanti potenze globali e attori regionali decisivi, dagli Stati Uniti alla Russia, fino (e qui i futuristi hanno davvero avuto coraggio) alla Repubblica Islamica dell’Iran, costituisce l’unica via per disinnescare conflitti endemici.
Al contempo, la netta condanna delle avventure militari americane in Iran e delle conseguenti tensioni, i cui effetti subiamo tutti quotidianamente, risponde alla necessità vitale di proteggere l’economia e gli approvvigionamenti marittimi ed energetici italiani, evitando che il nostro Paese venga trascinato in guerre per procura dettate esclusivamente da agende esterne.
Una politica estera matura non si misura sul grado di obbedienza a un blocco precostituito, ma sulla capacità di posizionare l’Italia come ponte sovrano, autorevole e indipendente nel nuovo scacchiere internazionale.
——
LINK CANALE: ➡️ https://t.me/realityofwar
LINK GRUPPO: ➡️ https://t.me/+_czEun3omMNiYWQ0
L'articolo Vannacci: il programma di politica estera proviene da Blondet & Friends.
Steve Watson | modernity.news
Britain now has more illegal Channel arrivals under the Labour government, which has been in power two years, than it has soldiers in the British Army.
Almost 90 percent of those intercepted since 2018 have been male; two-thirds are aged 18 to 39
Home Office figures put small-boat arrivals since Labour took office on 4 July 2024 at 83,279. The regular Army stands at 83,000.
On Wednesday alone, 781 people came ashore — the worst single day since Andy Burnham replaced Sir Keir Starmer as prime minister in July. The first three days of the week delivered 1,085 arrivals. Across 809 days of Labour government, that works out at roughly 103 people a day.
Shadow home secretary Chris Philp said the milestone speaks for itself. “Labour has let an entire army-sized population cross the Channel illegally,” he said. “More people have arrived in small boats than we have soldiers defending Britain. That is completely bonkers. Labour has lost control of our borders and seems utterly incapable of getting it back.”
Former Royal Navy officer Chris Parry went further. Labour’s intake, he said, amounts to six-and-a-half divisions of fighting-age men. “That’s more divisions than were in the Allied assault wave on D-Day,” he added, calling the crossings “amphibious operations against our coast.”
The comparison is worse when the rest of the services are brought in. Labour’s small-boat total already sits 15,429 ahead of the Royal Navy and RAF combined, which together field 67,850 full-time personnel. And this is only the post-election slice. Under the Conservatives, around 128,000 people arrived by dinghy. Since records began in December 2018 the running total has blown past 200,000 — higher than the combined strength of the Army, Navy and RAF.
Writing in the Mail after more than 1,200 people crossed from Monday, Reform UK leader Nigel Farage said: “It is utterly insane. And if it wasn’t clear before, the events of the past few days have proved beyond any reasonable doubt that both Border Force and the Home Office have completely lost control.”
He added: “Years ago, I warned the small boats crisis would define this era of British politics. Predictably, the chin-stroking commentariat declared I was exaggerating. Well, look where we are now.”
“Ordinary Britons rightly ask if successive governments cannot stop people from arriving illegally in broad daylight, let alone under cover of darkness without detection, then what exactly is the point of having a border?” Farage asked. His party wants the largest military operation in the Channel since the Second World War and a return of every illegal arrival to France.
Two boats this week reached British beaches without Border Force interception — one at Samphire Hoe between Dover and Folkestone, another near Folkestone the day before. Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood ordered an “urgent review” and said even one uncontrolled landing is “one too many.” Education Secretary Lucy Powell then told GB News that “you can’t stop everything all of the time,” while insisting Mahmood was taking “swift action to find out what’s gone wrong here and make sure it doesn’t happen again.”
Border Force union official Lucy Moreton was less diplomatic. Undetected landings are “absolutely, definitely happening,” she said, with abandoned vessels and reports “all the way down to Falmouth.” “If we don’t look for it, we don’t know it’s happening. We don’t know it’s happening, we don’t have to deal with it.”
Labour’s first act in 2024 was to scrap the Rwanda deterrent. Shadow energy secretary Andrew Bowie said the latest numbers follow from that choice. “We’ve got a government that is oblivious to the scale of the problem we face in the Channel,” he said. “It’s not a surprise, frankly, because the very first thing this Labour government did was get rid of any sort of deterrent to prevent illegal migrants coming into this country.”
Former Home Office borders director Glyn Williams told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that “the consequences of a failing policy… are becoming more and more extreme,” and that “more extreme measures” may now have to be considered.
The official line is that crossings are down 42 percent this year and that summer 2026 was the quietest since 2020. That is the defence ministers reach for while dinghies still beach in Kent and Britain discusses paying France another billion pounds for the next small-boats deal. GB News presenter Patrick Christys called the week “full-on illegal migrant carnage.”
The people coming off those boats do not vanish. They are processed, housed and parked on the public. We have already covered what that looks like on the ground. In Piddington, Oxfordshire — 350 residents, 46 children, no shop, no pub — a Home Office paper for the old MoD depot discussed 3,510 “service users” against an official planning figure of 1,256 single adult males. Ten migrants for every local.
Similar dumps are lined up at Linton-on-Ouse, Barnham and Crowborough as hotels are emptied into former barracks.
The legal machine that then keeps them here is not a refugee system. It is a production line. A Home Office official who has handled thousands of cases put the genuine share at “at best 1 per cent.” Package stories, recycled police letters, staged nightclub photos, modern-slavery claims that cannot be disproved. Grant rates still run in the tens of thousands. Removals do not.
Who helps keep the Channel route open is another story again. NGO networks on the French coast have spent years treating the crossing as a humanitarian project rather than a breach of an island nation’s border.
Migration Watch chairman Alp Mehmet urged “Military-age men are pouring into Britain across the Channel. Illegal Channel crossings are now a major political crisis, and pose a real and present threat to our national security.”
Almost 90 percent of those intercepted since 2018 have been male; two-thirds are aged 18 to 39. People-smuggling gangs have told reporters that Iran has used the route to move operatives in return for a “favour” once on British soil. In 2023, nineteen suspected terrorists linked to Islamic State and al-Shabaab were reported to have arrived the same way.
A country that cannot stop a dinghy in daylight does not have a border policy. It has a ferry service run by criminal gangs, underwritten by hotels, lawyers and a claims system that treats refusal as the hard option.
Labour inherited a failure and then dismantled the one deterrent it had. Burnham now inherits the same beaches, the same numbers, and an actual Army smaller than the cohort that has already washed up on his party’s watch.
Original Article: https://modernity.news/2026/09/26/boat-migrants-who-have-entered-the-country-now-outnumber-british-soldiers/
Related:
Details continue to come in, but police in the United Kingdom have declared a “major incident” and ordered evacuations near RAF Fairford after the arrest of “several men on suspicion of offenses under the explosives act,” the Gloucestershire Constabulary stated.
RAF Fairford is a major hub for U.S. military aircraft in the United Kingdom. It is a regular host of strategic assets, including bombers and U-2 spy planes. It also acts as a pit stop for other aircraft, including fighters, that are being ferried to and from the United States. Bomber strikes launched from Fairford were a central aspect of major U.S. combat operations against Iran earlier this year.
“A number of properties are currently being evacuated in the Whelford area following the declaration of a major incident,” the Gloucestershire Constabulary also announced today in light of the incident.
The evacuations were spurred by the arrests.
“The Army’s specialist explosive ordnance disposal team are currently examining a number of vehicles,” Gloucestershire Constabulary added. “The local residents are being evacuated to a nearby leisure center.”
“A cordon is currently in place, but we’d like to reassure people that we believe this incident is contained,” the law enforcement agency explained. “We are working closely with our partners and are enacting the well-rehearsed plans we have in place.”
The incident began around 12:45 AM local time Sunday “when police received a call relating to three suspicious vehicles traveling towards RAF Fairford,” according to Gloucestershire police Assistant Chief Constable Richard Ocone. “Armed officers responded and subsequently arrested five men in the Whelford area on suspicion of committing offenses under the Explosives Act. The men were taken into custody, where they remain.”
“A 400-meter cordon has been put in place around the vehicles while the army’s explosive ordnance disposal unit examined them,” Ocene continued. “As a precaution, around 85 households have been advised to evacuate while these examinations take place.”
BREAKING:
— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) September 27, 2026
The British authorities issue a first official statement on the suspected terror plot against RAF Fairford
They sent in a local low-ranking policemen to deliver a statement saying 5 men have been arrested and that people shouldn’t speculate about the case.
He… pic.twitter.com/9dD8910Kpw
Video has emerged showing British military explosive ordnance disposal robots reportedly defusing the vans used by the suspects.
Video of British military EOD robots defusing suspected bomb vans near RAF Fairford courtesy of SkyNews. pic.twitter.com/PbrrVH6V1x
— WarMonitor(@WarMonitor3) September 27, 2026
“We are aware of the current reporting, for questions regarding off-base incidents please contact the local authorities,” a U.S. Air Force spokesperson told us in response to our questions about whether the incident had raised force protection levels at RAF Fairford or other installations in the area hosting American forces. Unconfirmed reports by the local aviation spotter community claimed RAF Fairford had been placed under what is called FPCON Delta, the highest level of alert at U.S. military installations.
The incident at RAF Fairford has been escalating overnight, this is what is clear so far.
— Armchair Admiral
Gloucestershire Police has announced that they have arrested multiple men on suspicion of offences under the Explosives Act, and that they have declared a Major Incident.
According to the… https://t.co/vk5N7yUuzB pic.twitter.com/IMHGtKGiC1(@ArmchairAdml) September 27, 2026
“For operational security reasons we will not discuss specific force protection measures,” the Air Force spokesperson added. “The 501st Combat Support Wing and our fellow UK-based Wings remain vigilant and will take appropriate actions to ensure the safety and security of our U.S. service members, civilians, contractors, and their families. We constantly assess a variety of factors that determine what measures we institute or modify to protect our installations, our people and their families.”
It is unclear if airfield operations at RAF Fairford have been affected. U.S. Air Force officials did not immediately respond to our request for comment.
The British Defense Ministry did not immediately provide comment on this unfolding event.
RAF Fairford is a major hub for U.S. military aircraft, with strategic assets, like B-1B Lancer bombers, being forward deployed to the base and tactical and other assets often using it as a pit stop during flights ‘across the pond.’
As mentioned, RAF Fairford played a key role in major combat operations against Iran earlier this year. No connection has been established yet between today’s incident and any particular group, but the base has drawn direct threats from the regime in Tehran in the past.
“The American aggressor army, which used to launch cruise missiles from its vessels in the Indian Ocean in its aggression after the official resumption of the war, with the end of the missile reserves of the aforementioned vessels, yesterday switched to using B1 planes flying from Fairford Air Base, England,” Tasnim News Agency, a quasi-state outlet in Iran with ties to the country’s powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), claimed on Telegram on July 23. “As the officials of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs also stated, any base that is used to invade Iran’s territory is our legitimate goal.”
the enemy must pay the price for its breach of promises, and this time we will not allow America to use deceptive ceasefires to replenish its oil and ammunition stockpiles and then resume attacks once again.
— Press TV(@PressTV) July 23, 2026
Considering its importance to U.S. military operations, the base is a major potential target for nefarious actors, in general. Like other bases across Europe, it is a major potential target for Russia’s ‘hybrid war’ or ‘gray zone’ activities, as well.
Asked about the threats at the time, a British official told us that the country was prepared to defend itself.
“Our Armed Forces are ready to keep the United Kingdom safe from any kind of attacks, whether it’s on our soil or from abroad,” a government official told TWZ. “The UK stands ready 24/7 to defend itself. This includes through operating a layered approach to air and missile defense, provided by Royal Navy, British Army and Royal Air Force assets equipped with a range of advanced capabilities, working closely with our NATO allies.”
“In the Defense Investment Plan we have made air and missile defense a priority after years of underfunding, dedicating £790 million to enhance protection of the UK homeland and overseas bases from air, drone and missile threats,” the official added. “That is complemented by more than £2 billion of funding to deliver further air defense and counter-drone capabilities, and to upgrade and sustain our Typhoon fleet.”
This is a developing story.
UPDATE: 10:49 AM Eastern –
A Temporary Flight Restriction (TFR) has been imposed over Whelford, Gloucestershire, following the incident. It applies to all aircraft, including “any small balloon, any kite, any UAS and any parachute, including a parascending parachute or paramotor,” according to the FAA. “Pilots are forbidden to fly within the designated area without permission.”
The TFR runs through Oct. 5.
Contact the author: howard@twz.com
The post British Police Arrest Men Driving Toward U.S. Bomber Base In The U.K. With Suspected Explosives appeared first on TWZ.
Gasolio a livelli mai visti, petrolio di nuovo oltre i 100 dollari, titoli del Tesoro americano ai massimi dal 2007 e una Fed che torna ad alzare i tassi. Mentre Bruxelles apre al Canada come primo membro associato dell’Unione, Trump minaccia dazi pesantissimi sull’Europa. All’ONU l’Iran fissa le condizioni per riaprire Hormuz, i BRICS rilanciano valute nazionali e riforma del Fondo monetario. E il conto, come sempre, arriva alla pompa e in bolletta. Ne parliamo con Nino Galloni, economista, già direttore generale al Ministero del Lavoro, da decenni voce critica sulla sovranità monetaria e sulla politica industriale del Paese. Intervista a cura di Jeff Hoffman
Dentro l’intervista:
La CIA avverte Italia, Francia e Spagna..
Canada membro associato: emancipazione europea o nuovo recinto atlantico?
Treasury oltre il 5% e Fed al rialzo: il mondo si stanca del debito americano?
Hormuz, blocco navale e beni congelati: la finanza come arma di guerra
BRICS dopo Nuova Delhi: valute nazionali, FMI e divisioni interne
Gasolio record. Eutanasia dell’Unione europea?
Borse: petrolio e difesa in rialzo, famiglie e imprese in affanno
I LIBRI DELL’OSPITE
Il superamento del capitalismo. Il mondo post-angloamericano. Oltre l’economia della moneta a debito, Arianna Editrice, 2025 (postfazione di Roberta Lasi)
Economia quantistica, irrazionalità e coscienza, Byoblu, 2022
La rivolta delle coscienze. Siamo troppi, inutili e dannosi?, Byoblu, 2022
Il grande mutuo. Le ragioni profonde della prossima crisi finanziaria, Editori Riuniti, 2007
La moneta copernicana (con Marco Della Luna), Nexus Edizioni, 2008
La Sicilia protagonista della rivoluzione sovranista costituzionale, Edizioni Arianna
LE INTERVISTE PRECEDENTI
Crisi energetica, che ne sarà del fu Belpaese?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
Statonote e spazi di sovranità
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
Dedollarizzazione controllata
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
I LIBRI DI MARGHERITA FURLAN
BRICS Scacco Matto (disponibile in italiano, inglese, russo)
SOSTIENI CASA DEL SOLE TV
Casa del Sole TV è un progetto di giornalismo indipendente autofinanziato. Nessun editore, nessun partito.
Per donazioni:
IBAN: IT63P0326822300052392596590
Intestato a: La Casa del Sole Edizioni
Causale: Donazione Casa del Sole TV
Membership YouTube:
https://www.youtube.com/@
Analista Multipolare €5/mese
Inviato della Verità €15/mese
Architetto del Futuro €25/mese
Iscrivetevi al canale e attivate la campanella: è grazie a voi che siamo qui ogni sera.
#NinoGalloni #Dazi #Canada #UnioneEuropea #Treasury #Fed #Dollaro #Dedollarizzazione #BRICS #Hormuz #Iran #ONU #CaroCarburanti #Gasolio #Extraprofitti #SovranitàMonetaria #CasadelSoleTV #Multipolarismo 
L'articolo L’America alza il conto proviene da Casa del Sole TV.
Login
