Yemen’s civil war reignited in early October, as Saudi Arabia brought in Turkish and Pakistani military support to fight the Houthi rebels, who have governed much of northern Yemen as a de facto authority and waged a guerrilla war in the country since 2004. Having spent more than a decade fighting Saudi-led forces and enduring […]
The post How non-state alliances are reshaping the global order appeared first on Asia Times.
Hamas mudou completamente o mapa do Oriente Médio, impediu a causa palestina de cair no esquecimento e dificultou a normalização de relações entre Israel e os países muçulmanos.
Junte-se a nós no Telegram 
, X
e VK
.
Escreva para nós: info@strategic-culture.su
Em 7 de outubro de 2023 iniciou-se, a partir de Gaza, uma memorável operação militar, na qual aproximadamente 4 mil homens armados das unidades de elite dos vários movimentos da resistência palestina local (Jihad Islâmica Palestina, FPLP, FDLP, Comitês de Resistência Popular, etc., liderados pelo Hamas) lançaram-se como um copo transbordando sobre os assentamentos sionistas dos arredores.
A ação era, simultaneamente, resposta à intensificação das expropriações de famílias palestinas na Cisjordânia, à pressão crescente sobre a Mesquita Al-Aqsa e à política de apaziguamento dos países árabes, e visava através da captura de militares (ativos e reservas) israelenses forçar a entidade sionista a uma guerra de atrito que pudesse conduzir a um desgaste significativo de Israel, internamente e externamente, e a uma reproposição da questão do Estado Palestino.
Ao que tudo indica, uma das expectativas da liderança do Hamas era de que o Hezbollah e o Irã e, talvez, as organizações militares da Cisjordânia se engajariam, também, brevemente e de forma sustentada, no conflito com Israel. Por uma série de motivos – totalmente diferentes para cada um dos atores – isso não aconteceu, exceto no caso do Hezbollah, e de forma limitada até a invasão terrestre do Líbano e, no caso do Irã, também de forma limitada durante a Guerra dos 12 Dias.
O evento levou a transformações cataclísmicas no Oriente Médio que podemos já descrever e a um panorama que, talvez, seja desconcertante para muitos que previram um cenário de vitória total sionista.
Não é nossa pretensão fazer uma descrição minuciosa dos processos que foram iniciados a partir da Guerra de Gaza, de modo que apenas tentaremos resumir cada um dos cenários em seus principais eventos e panorama atual.
Quanto à Gaza em si, a sua população foi vítima de limpeza étnica. Os números de mortes, se somarmos todas as causas, talvez chegue a 200 mil, ou seja, 10% da população a Faixa de Gaza. Uma parte significativa da liderança do Hamas, por sua vez, foi assassinada durante a guerra. Israel, porém, foi derrotada no conflito, considerando que não conseguiu alcançar os seus objetivos de destruir o Hamas, ocupar permanentemente toda a Faixa de Gaza e deslocar a população palestina. Os danos materiais e sociais para Israel, por sua vez, foram imensos. 60 bilhões de dólares em perdas econômicas gerais, aumento das tensões sociais internas e destruição total – talvez irreversível – da imagem internacional de Israel. Ademais, incapaz de derrotar o Hamas, Israel foi obrigada a aceitar um acordo de paz imposto pelos EUA. Enquanto isso, o Hamas segue com aproximadamente 12 mil soldados ativos e mais 15 mil recrutas jovens em treinamento, de modo que em breve retornará a aproximadamente o mesmo nível de força que antes de 7 de outubro de 2023.
Na frente libanesa, o conflito levou ao deslocamento de mais de 1 milhão de libaneses de suas casas, ao assassinato de Hassan Nasrallah, líder do Hezbollah, e de alguns outros líderes do movimento, à desestabilização política do Líbano, e envolveu a invasão por terra do país por parte do Estado de Israel, que, porém, não conseguiu também alcançar seus objetivos de forçar o governo libanês a desarmar o Hezbollah. O Hezbollah, por sua vez, que foi degradado de forma significativa entre 2023 e 2024 por tentar operar como forças armadas regulares, retornou à guerra de insurgência e com o aumento no uso de drones e novas ferramentas tecnológicas, bloqueou o avanço de Israel em 2026.
Quanto à Síria, testemunhamos o colapso do governo de Bashar Al-Assad e a tomada do país pelas milícias terroristas ligadas à Al-Qaeda, ao ISIS e outros grupos extremistas, os quais levaram à presidência Ahmed Sharrah. Israel se aproveitou do momento para destruir a maior parte do hardware militar sírio e ocupar uma faixa de segurança no entorno das Colinas de Golã, estabelecendo uma tênue aliança com as tribos e milícias druzas da região. A Queda de Assad impôs dificuldade para a logística do Hezbollah, que contava com a Síria para o trânsito de equipamento vindo do Irã. Se Israel esperava ter passagem livre pela Síria, porém, a situação é tornada mais complexa pelo fato de que a região é disputada, enquanto área de influência, com a Turquia, de modo que as tensões entre ambos países segue aumentando.
Os cenários palestino, libanês e sírio permitiam dizer, no início de 2025, por exemplo, que Israel estaria avançando significativamente em seus objetivos delineados no Plano Oded Yinon de desestabilizar e fragmentar os países vizinhos para facilitar a construção da Grande Israel. Teríamos aqui, naquele momento, a derrocada da estratégia do Crescente Xiita e do projeto geopolítico de Qassem Soleimani. Quando acrescentamos os cenários iraquiano e iraniano, bem como o contexto geral do Oriente Médio, a situação muda significativamente.
Porque no espaço entre a Guerra dos 12 Dias e a Guerra do Irã vimos o colapso do poder regional dos EUA no Oriente Médio, a ascensão do Irã a principal pretendente à hegemonia regional e o recuo de Israel para uma posição mais defensiva e de retaguarda.
Sinais de que o projeto israelense era mais frágil do que parecia à primeira vista apareceram já no conflito com o Irã em 2025. Incapaz de derrotar o Irã, que fustigava as defesas e infraestruturas israelenses com enxames de drones e mísseis, Israel teve que apelar por ajuda aos EUA, que realizaram um ataque aéreo majoritariamente simbólico contra instalações nucleares vazias no Irã. Isso não passou despercebido.
A nova rodada de conflito em 2026, iniciando-se no final de fevereiro, apesar de iniciar com o assassinato do Aiatolá Ali Khamenei, levou à eliminação de boa parte das bases dos EUA no Oriente Médio, ao bloqueio do Estreito de Ormuz, à destruição das capacidades antiaéreas israelenses, à evacuação das tropas estadunidenses no Iraque e à destruição do mito da superioridade militar incontestável dos EUA.
De fato, a incapacidade dos EUA de alcançar seus objetivos políticos militarmente no Oriente Médio (após o fracasso da tentativa de revolução colorida de janeiro), mesmo usando 2 porta-aviões (1 dos quais pode ter sido seriamente danificado nas operações), sua incapacidade de proteger seus aliados árabes, a própria incapacidade dos aliados árabes de defenderem a si mesmos, o esgotamento parcial dos estoques de mísseis dos inimigos do Irã, e a capacidade iraniana de rapidamente repor sua liderança e de agir militarmente de forma descentralizada, bem como sua demonstração de que sua capacidade industrial-militar permanecia ativa, mudaram o mapa geopolítico no Oriente Médio.
Em alguma medida, hoje, é o Irã quem dá as cartas. A evacuação do Iraque pelos EUA reabre o país para a penetração da influência iraniana, o que põe em risco até mesmo o domínio da Síria por Ahmed Sharrah.
Para contornar o controle iraniano de Ormuz, os sauditas têm experimentado com usar o Mar Vermelho e rotas terrestres. Se esses esforços fossem bem-sucedidos, a importância de Ormuz diminuiria e, com isso, o poder de barganha do Irã. O problema é que, exatamente quando isso começou a acontecer, o Ansarullah iemenita entrou no tabuleiro, iniciando uma operação militar em larga escala para derrotar os rebeldes apoiados por Riad. A resposta saudita aos avanços houthis levou ao fechamento parcial do Estreito de Bab-el-Mandeb e a ataques não apenas contra as instalações da ARAMCO, mas até mesmo contra poços de petróleo sauditas.
Se retornamos ao panorama geopolítico israelense, enfim, o país se encontra ainda com um problema palestino em Gaza, o Hezbollah ativo no Líbano, sem poder avançar na Síria por causa da ameaça turca e com suas capacidades militares defensivas bastante reduzidas.
Longe da “Pax Judaica” e da “Grande Israel” estamos vendo o reposicionamento dos atores geopolíticos e o ator na posição mais vantajosa é, hoje, o Irã. As negociações recentes entre Israel e os países árabes sunitas não muda significativamente o cenário.
3 anos depois da Operação Dilúvio Al-Aqsa, portanto, não nos é possível dizer se os objetivos de Ismail Hanyeh e Yahya Sinwar foram alcançados, mas é impossível negar que a ousadia do Hamas mudou completamente o mapa do Oriente Médio, impediu a causa palestina de cair no esquecimento e dificultou a normalização de relações entre Israel e os países muçulmanos.
Numerous governments, academic institutions, and social movements have reinterpreted October 12th, now commemorating it as the Day of Indigenous Resistance or the Day of Native Peoples.
RELATED: Brazil Establishes First Indigenous Federal University
This shift reflects a deliberate effort to reframe historical narratives. Rather than viewing the event as the discovery of an uninhabited place, modern historical accounts present October 12th as the beginning of European conquest, systematic colonization, and centuries of native resistance.
Understanding the significance of October 12th requires examining both the immediate impact of European arrival and the long-term historical processes that stemmed from it. Spanish arrival expeditions in 1492 triggered a profound demographic and economic transformation across the Americas.
Before 1492, the total population of the Americas is estimated to have ranged between 50 and 100 million inhabitants. Due to a combination of factors, such as the introduction of European pathogens (smallpox, measles, and influenza), violent military campaigns, and forced labor systems, at least 56 million native people across the continent had perished by the year 1600.
When analyzing the colonization process, we can say that the events of October 12th laid the foundations for modern global trade, land distribution, and current international relations.
Following the fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Empire in 1453, traditional overland trade routes between Europe and Asia became subject to heavy taxation and political restrictions.
European monarchs and merchant syndicates sought direct maritime routes to Asian markets to secure trade in high-value commodities, including spices, silk, and precious metals. The Spanish Crown, under Catholic Monarchs Isabella I of Castile and Ferdinand II of Aragon, financed the expedition led by the Genoese navigator Christopher Columbus to establish a western sea route to Asia.
Upon making landfall in the Bahamas on October 12, 1492, Columbus recorded the event in his ship log, noting the presence of native Taíno people and observing the local geography.
The economic motivations of the Spanish expedition were explicitly documented in these early entries, which frequently highlighted references to gold deposits and potential labor resources.
Legal and theological frameworks were established shortly after to justify the expansion of European territorial sovereignty over the newly accessed lands.
In 1493, Pope Alexander VI issued the papal bull Inter Caetera, which granted the Spanish Crown exclusive rights to lands not ruled by Christian monarchs. This decree formed part of the broader legal concept known as the Doctrine of Discovery.
The discovery of large silver deposits, such as those at Potosí in modern-day Bolivia and Zacatecas in Mexico during the mid-16th century, shifted the global financial system.
The continuous flow of American bullion funded European state expenditures, financed trade with Asia, and laid early economic foundations for modern global capitalism.
In 2002 Chávez declared Oct 12 as Día de la Resistencia Indígena, the Day of Indigenous Resistance. Columbus’ statue was torn down two years later and the colonizer was tried in a court of public justice. Today not a single statue of Columbus remains.pic.twitter.com/40U0Y6hXwa
— Party for Socialism and Liberation (@pslnational) October 12, 2020
The European invasion of the Americas was a combination of military conquest, administrative restructuring, and forced labor systems designed to maximize resource extraction.
Following initial contact in the Caribbean, Spanish forces led by Hernán Cortés entered the Aztec capital of Tenochtitlan in 1519, while Francisco Pizarro launched the conquest of the Inca Empire in the Andes in 1532.
In both regions, European invaders exploited existing internal political rivalries, deployed superior steel weaponry and firearms, and used horses to establish military dominance over densely populated urban centers.
To organize the population and secure labor, Spanish colonial authorities implemented institutional systems known as the encomienda and the mita. Under the encomienda system, the Spanish Crown granted individual conquerors (encomenderos) control over specific native communities.
The so-called encomendero had the right to extract forced tribute and physical labor from the local population in exchange for providing religious instruction in Christianity and theoretical protection.
The human cost of these systems was compounded by widespread demographic collapse. Researchers indicate that out of an estimated pre-1492 population of 50 to 100 million people across the Western Hemisphere, approximately 56 million native people died by 1600.
While infectious diseases like smallpox, typhus, and measles accounted for high mortality rates due to the lack of prior immunity, historical records show that the severity of these epidemics was intensified by severe malnutrition, physical exhaustion, loss of agricultural territory, and social disruption caused by forced displacement.
The destruction of native social and political structures enabled European authorities to establish centralized colonial administrations, divide territories into viceroyalties, and reconfigure the geography of the Americas exclusively around primary commodity export routes to Europe.
Since the beginning, native people responses to colonization included organized military defense, political revolts, and persistent social resistance.
In the Caribbean, Taíno leaders resisted Spanish enslavement and land seizure shortly after the initial European arrival. Chief Hatuey explicitly rejected Spanish religious conversion, citing the violence committed by the colonizers as the primary reason for his defiance.
Further south, the Mapuche people of southern Chile and Argentina maintained centuries of organized military opposition against both the Spanish Empire and later national governments in a conflict known as the Arauco War (Guerra de Arauco).
Led by military strategists such as Lautaro in the 16th century, the Mapuche adapted European cavalry techniques, weapons, and tactics to defend their territory south of the Bío Bío River. Their continuous resistance forced the Spanish Crown to sign the Treaty of Quillín in 1641.
By the late 18th century, economic exploitation under late colonial reforms sparked massive regional uprisings in the Andes. In 1780, José Gabriel Condorcanqui (Túpac Amaru II) launched a major rebellion against Spanish rule in Peru.
Mobilizing tens of thousands of native and mestizo peasants, Túpac Amaru II issued proclamations demanding the total abolition of the mita forced labor system, the elimination of colonial sales taxes, and the freedom of enslaved populations.
In his 1780 proclamation, he declared: “I have determined to free the people from these unbearable taxes and the tyranny of the officials who govern us.”
Although Túpac Amaru II was captured and executed in 1781, the uprising continued in Upper Peru (modern-day Bolivia) under Aymara leader Túpac Katari. Katari organized an army of over 40,000 insurgents and laid siege to the city of La Paz for eight months. Before his execution by colonial forces in November 1781, Katari issued his famous declaration of enduring resistance: “I die today, but I will return, and I will be millions.”
Today, we honour our country's indigenous ancestors who held their ground against great odds, whose fierce resilience kept alive the traditions, histories, and ways of life that define us. 𝐇𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐲 𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐨𝐮𝐬 𝐏𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞𝐬' 𝐑𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐃𝐚𝐲, 𝐁𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐳𝐞! pic.twitter.com/KgUIuvHPna
— Oceana Belize (@OceanaBelize) October 12, 2026
The formal end of European colonial rule across the Americas during the 19th century did not eliminate the structural marginalization of native populations. Instead, newly formed independent nation-states integrated native lands into national market economies, often continuing practices of territorial dispossession.
Throughout the late 19th and 20th centuries, legal reforms in many Latin American and North American nations abolished communal land titles in favor of private property regimes.
State-sponsored initiatives, such as the “Conquest of the Desert” in Argentina or western expansion in United States, used military force to open native people’s territories for agricultural development, cattle ranching, and resource extraction.
Native communities face pressures from modern corporate extractivism, infrastructure projects, and international commodity demands. According to reports by international human rights organizations, native land defenders represent a disproportionate percentage of environmental activists targeted for violence worldwide.
These modern conflicts reflect a continuation of colonial-era economic dynamics, where local land rights and territorial sovereignty are subordinated to global resource demand. Despite persistent structural pressures, contemporary native social movements have organized continental networks to assert political autonomy and legal rights.
These groups have succeeded in securing legal recognition, such as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) in 2007, and have embedded native people’s rights into the constitutions of several American nations.
Spain lost the indigenous support of the Viceroyalty of Peru from the moment it refused to show mercy toward the natives who were enslaved in the mines through the MITA, triggering "the Rebellion of Túpac Amaru II" thanks to those who aided in the fall of the Spanish Empire. 🇵🇪👍 pic.twitter.com/qtcq8KKqU3
— Eren (@Eren15453289846) August 25, 2026
Re-evaluating October 12 as the Day of Indigenous Resistance contextualizes these events within a broader historical continuum rather than isolating them as single historical moments.
1492 remains an active process rather than a closed chapter of history. Modern struggles over territorial rights, environmental conservation, and political self-determination directly connect to the legal and economic frameworks established during the colonial era.
Native movements across the Americas continue to argue that genuine democratic development requires the recognition of collective land rights, structural political reforms, and the protection of local ecosystems from unregulated resource extraction.
Observing October 12 serves as a reminder of the survival and adaptation of native nations despite centuries of systemic pressure.
#Venezuela | Indigenous communities gathered in Caracas to mark the Day of Indigenous Resistance, honoring centuries of anti-colonial struggle through traditional music, floral tributes and cultural ceremonies.#IndigenousRights #Decolonization #teleSUREnglish pic.twitter.com/7MFZ45i0d3
— teleSUR English (@telesurenglish) October 12, 2026
Sources: Alexander Koch – Proclamations of Túpac Amaru II – Declarations of Túpac Katari – The Treaty of Quillín – United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples – Britannica – La Radio del Sur
Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su
On October 7, 2023, a memorable military operation began from Gaza, in which approximately 4,000 armed men from the elite units of the various local Palestinian resistance movements (Palestinian Islamic Jihad, PFLP, DFLP, Popular Resistance Committees, etc., led by Hamas) poured like an overflowing glass over the Zionist settlements in the surrounding areas.
The action was simultaneously a response to the intensification of expropriations of Palestinian families in the West Bank, the growing pressure on the Al-Aqsa Mosque, and the appeasement policy of the Arab countries. It aimed, through the capture of Israeli military personnel (active and reservists), to force the Zionist entity into a war of attrition that could lead to significant exhaustion of Israel, internally and externally, and to a reassertion of the Palestinian State question.
Apparently, one of the expectations of the Hamas leadership was that Hezbollah and Iran, and perhaps the military organizations of the West Bank, would also engage, briefly and sustainably, in the conflict with Israel. For a series of reasons – entirely different for each of the actors – this did not happen, except in the case of Hezbollah, and only in a limited way until the ground invasion of Lebanon, and in the case of Iran, also in a limited way during the 12-Day War.
The event led to cataclysmic transformations in the Middle East that we can already describe, and to a panorama that may be disconcerting for many who predicted a scenario of total Zionist victory.
It is not our intention to provide a detailed description of the processes that were initiated by the Gaza War, so we will only attempt to summarize each of the scenarios in their main events and current panorama.
As for Gaza itself, its population was the victim of ethnic cleansing. The death toll, if we add all causes, may reach 200,000, that is, 10% of the population of the Gaza Strip. A significant part of the Hamas leadership, in turn, was assassinated during the war. Israel, however, was defeated in the conflict, considering that it failed to achieve its objectives of destroying Hamas, permanently occupying the entire Gaza Strip, and displacing the Palestinian population. The material and social damage to Israel, in turn, was immense. 60 billion dollars in general economic losses, increased internal social tensions, and total – perhaps irreversible – destruction of Israel’s international image. Furthermore, unable to defeat Hamas, Israel was forced to accept a peace agreement imposed by the US. Meanwhile, Hamas continues with approximately 12,000 active fighters and another 15,000 young recruits in training, so that it will soon return to approximately the same level of strength as before October 7, 2023.
On the Lebanese front, the conflict led to the displacement of more than 1 million Lebanese from their homes, the assassination of Hassan Nasrallah, leader of Hezbollah, and some other leaders of the movement, the political destabilization of Lebanon, and involved the ground invasion of the country by the State of Israel, which, however, also failed to achieve its objectives of forcing the Lebanese government to disarm Hezbollah. Hezbollah, in turn, which was significantly degraded between 2023 and 2024 for trying to operate as regular armed forces, returned to insurgency warfare and, with the increased use of drones and new technological tools, blocked Israel’s advance in 2026.
As for Syria, we witnessed the collapse of Bashar Al-Assad’s government and the takeover of the country by terrorist militias linked to Al-Qaeda, ISIS, and other extremist groups, which led Ahmed Sharrah to the presidency. Israel took advantage of the moment to destroy most of Syria’s military hardware and occupy a security belt around the Golan Heights, establishing a tenuous alliance with the Druze tribes and militias of the region. The fall of Assad imposed difficulties on Hezbollah’s logistics, which relied on Syria for the transit of equipment coming from Iran. If Israel expected free passage through Syria, however, the situation is made more complex by the fact that the region is disputed, as an area of influence, with Turkey, so that tensions between both countries continue to increase.
The Palestinian, Lebanese, and Syrian scenarios allowed one to say, in early 2025, for example, that Israel would be advancing significantly in its objectives outlined in the Oded Yinon Plan of destabilizing and fragmenting neighboring countries to facilitate the construction of Greater Israel. We would have here, at that moment, the collapse of the Shiite Crescent strategy and of Qassem Soleimani’s geopolitical project. When we add the Iraqi and Iranian scenarios, as well as the general context of the Middle East, the situation changes significantly.
Because in the space between the 12-Day War and the Iran War, we saw the collapse of US regional power in the Middle East, the rise of Iran as the main contender for regional hegemony, and Israel’s retreat to a more defensive and rear-guard position.
Signs that the Israeli project was more fragile than it seemed at first glance appeared already in the conflict with Iran in 2025. Unable to defeat Iran, which was pounding Israeli defenses and infrastructure with swarms of drones and missiles, Israel had to appeal for help from the US, which carried out a largely symbolic airstrike against empty nuclear facilities in Iran. This did not go unnoticed.
The new round of conflict in 2026, beginning at the end of February, despite starting with the assassination of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, led to the elimination of a good part of US bases in the Middle East, the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, the destruction of Israeli air defense capabilities, the evacuation of US troops in Iraq, and the destruction of the myth of the US’s incontestable military superiority.
In fact, the inability of the US to achieve its political objectives militarily in the Middle East (after the failure of the January color revolution attempt), even using 2 aircraft carriers (1 of which may have been seriously damaged in operations), its inability to protect its Arab allies, the Arab allies’ own inability to defend themselves, the partial depletion of the missile stockpiles of Iran’s enemies, and Iran’s capacity to quickly replenish its leadership and to act militarily in a decentralized manner, as well as its demonstration that its industrial-military capacity remained active, changed the geopolitical map in the Middle East.
To some extent, today, it is Iran that calls the shots. The evacuation of Iraq by the US reopens the country to the penetration of Iranian influence, which puts at risk even Ahmed Sharrah’s domination of Syria.
To circumvent Iranian control of Hormuz, the Saudis have been experimenting with using the Red Sea and land routes. If these efforts were successful, the importance of Hormuz would diminish and, with it, Iran’s bargaining power. The problem is that, exactly when this began to happen, the Yemeni Ansarullah entered the board, initiating a large-scale military operation to defeat the rebels supported by Riyadh. The Saudi response to the Houthi advances led to the partial closure of the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait and attacks not only against ARAMCO facilities, but even against Saudi oil wells.
If we return to the Israeli geopolitical panorama, finally, the country still finds itself with a Palestinian problem in Gaza, Hezbollah active in Lebanon, unable to advance in Syria because of the Turkish threat, and with its defensive military capabilities considerably reduced.
Far from the “Pax Judaica” and “Greater Israel,” we are seeing the repositioning of geopolitical actors, and the actor in the most advantageous position is, today, Iran. The recent negotiations between Israel and the Sunni Arab countries do not significantly change the scenario.
3 years after Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, therefore, it is not possible for us to say whether the objectives of Ismail Hanyeh and Yahya Sinwar were achieved, but it is impossible to deny that Hamas’s boldness completely changed the map of the Middle East, prevented the Palestinian cause from falling into oblivion, and hindered the normalization of relations between Israel and Muslim countries.
In a remote part of Utah, the world’s largest data center project—allegedly—is being fast-tracked in secret. Kevin O’Leary of Shark Tank fame was brought in to hype the 40,000-acre complex. But the backlash among Utahns has been strong. Josh Dzieza reports from the front lines of the popular resistance to data centers:
[Brenna] Williams, a former government econometrician and college instructor, speaks methodically in a calm monotone as she enumerates the many reasons why the data center “doesn’t make sense”—a refrain. First among them is the water, an acutely sensitive issue in Utah in part thanks to Gov. Cox himself, who has declared repeated drought emergencies and urged residents to take shorter showers and cut back on watering their lawns. There is no more potent symbol of the state’s water crisis than the Great Salt Lake, which has been shrinking for years, exposing heavy metals on its lakebed that become airborne dust. Now here came a data center on its northern shore, or where its northern shore would have been if it hadn’t receded several miles.
“We have to report on our neighbors if they’re watering at the wrong times or on the wrong days,” Williams says. (There’s a hotline.) “But we have water to cool a power plant and cool the data center? It doesn’t make sense.”
The American withdrawal from Iraq is not an end but a strategic pivot, a calculated transition from direct occupation to remote containment. By pressuring Iraq to disarm its resistance groups, Washington aims to neutralize Iran’s forward defense line and clear the battlefield for a potential full-scale confrontation with Tehran. This gambit risks either delivering Iraq […]
The post The illusion of America’s withdrawal from Iraq appeared first on Asia Times.
In the year of the 250th anniversary of US independence, the bipartisan US Semiquincentennial Commission released “America’s Soundtrack: The Sound of 250 Years.” Perhaps unsurprisingly – because the initiative was planned over the course of a decade with the support of corporations like Amazon, Oracle, and Palantir – the playlist is a romantic ode to the most paternalistic and militaristic sides of the United States.
However, activists have pointed out that there are “Two Americas at 250.” In other words, there is a working-class history and culture that directly contradicts the imperialist project of the billionaire class. Therefore, we must study another soundtrack: one based on the struggles, desires, and traditions of the people. One person that represents this soundtrack is “America’s favorite blues man,” 34-year-old Buffalo Nicols.
Music characterized Carl Nichols’s upbringing in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Though not surrounded by musicians, he always had the sounds of jazz on the radio, his mother‘s music collection, his older brother’s hip-hop, and his older sisters, R&B, punk, and metal. This was the context in which he taught himself to play his sister’s guitar at the age of 12.
Performing with bands throughout high school, Carl found kinship among the West African community. As he played a cheap banjo along with a friend on the instrument known as the xalam, he embraced music as an opportunity to learn about other cultures. Traveling through countries like Senegal, Romania, Hungary, and Ukraine in his early 20s and learning their sonic traditions, motivated him to study Black American music with the same rigor.
Performers like Lead Belly, Pete Seeger, and Woody Guthrie left a lasting mark on him, specifically relating to communal and commercial music. Similarly, the writing of Etheridge Knight, Langston Hughes, Zora Neale Hurston, and Amiri Baraka helped him understand the blues as “a living thing” rather than a set of important names and dates. He said, “There’s always been this connection between activism and folk music because I think trying to exist as an artist in America has been a political thing.”
His 2025 song “Belly of the Beast“ is one example of this because it asks about the responsibility which domestic victims of US imperialism have for protecting victims abroad. Written during the heightened media coverage of the Israeli genocide in Gaza, the song calls attention to the relationship between Black Americans and Palestinians. He conceptualized the song following a period of political education defined by a collection of Malcolm X speeches and Régis Debray’s 1967 “Revolution in the Revolution?”
I live in the belly of the beast
Though I only meant to look into his mouth
It was not opportunity but chains he used to capture me
And every day I’ve tried to get back out
While these lines of the chorus speak from the individual or first person perspective, Nichols uses them to describe a common experience.This is why the song ends with the collective “we live in the belly of the beast.” The song is neither nihilistic or romantic in its allusion to topics like police killings, occupation and ethnic cleansing. Rather, in verse four, the singer puts his hope for change in the hands of the people, saying “we cannot win ’till we get organized.”
Some, who mistake folk music as apolitical, took offense to this song. They attack him in social media comments, direct messages, and hate mail. In the spirit of the blues, Nichols said he laughs at their assumption that they can hurt him. The same minority of listeners attacked him for his 2025 song “Ice Age Blues.”
He wrote the song in response to the second Trump administration’s escalation of ICE terror. Specifically, on the widespread sense of surprise that law-enforcement would use deadly force against the US residents. He said that it reminded him of the same realization among new activists during the 2020 uprising for George Floyd. However, Nichols shows that he was not shocked by the contradiction – he ends the song by asking,
You think all that money is for war fought abroad?
They won’t hesitate to kill you in your own backyard.
They’d be happy to kill you in your own backyard.
Nichols said that political finger pointing will not help identify the common perpetrator of a shared oppression. Instead, he urges readers to understand the state and how it works against the people; to study the basis of its patterns and changes. By doing so, he calls listeners attention to the basis of repression rather than simply what accelerates it.
Similarly, he recommends the new generation of blues people to “return to the root.” That is, to disregard stereotypes about their Black art and study those – like Zora Neal Hurston – who preserved long-standing traditions. By reclaiming their legacy, he said that culture workers can affect consciousness on a mass level.
I know no artist really wants to be a role model or to be representing an entire people but the reality is that Black culture is such a fragile, delicate and important thing that we have to be more mindful of how we share it and how we interact with it.
Buffalo Nichols is currently touring through states like West Virginia, North Carolina, Illinois, and Minnesota.
On Monday, the President of the United States told the people of Ohio, Michigan, Virginia, Arizona, and every other state now fighting hyperscale data centers exactly what he thinks of them. “The only reason that communities throughout the U.S.A. should not want Data Centers is if they want to end up being backward and poor,” he wrote on Truth Social. “If they want to be successful and rich, with far lower taxes and jobs all over the place, let Data Reign.” And then the warning: “If we kill the Golden Goose, you will only have yourselves to blame.”
The context is not subtle. Polling now shows a large majority of Americans oppose new data centers, with complaints centering on rising electricity bills, excessive water usage and industrial noise. Candidates in at least 21 races across 18 states have run television ads on the issue, split almost evenly between the parties. The National Republican Senatorial Committee has warned that data-center opposition in Ohio is, in its own words, the anchor hanging around Senator Jon Husted’s neck in his race against Sherrod Brown.1
A rational political actor facing that landscape might listen. Trump instead did what Technocrats have always done when the public gets in the way of the engineering plan: he redefined the objection as a moral defect. And to seal it, he tied every county commissioner voting against a 500-megawatt campus to Beijing. “China could not be happier with this anti-data center movement,” he wrote. “Actually, they can’t believe it is happening!”2
If that rhetorical move sounds familiar, it should. It is the secular translation of a sermon Peter Thiel has been preaching for two years.
Beginning in the fall of 2024 and culminating in a four-part lecture series delivered to the ACTS 17 Collective in San Francisco in 2025, Thiel laid out a theological-political thesis that has since become the operating theology of the AI buildout. The Antichrist, Thiel argues, will not arrive as a reckless technologist. He will arrive as a safety-minded administrator, exploiting fears of nuclear war, climate collapse and artificial intelligence to install a one-world governance system. His slogan, drawn from 1 Thessalonians 5:3, is “peace and safety.”3
Thiel named names. In the twenty-first century, he told his audience, the Antichrist is “a Luddite who wants to stop all science. It’s someone like Greta Thunberg or Eliezer Yudkowsky.” Climate activists and AI safety researchers are, in his phrase, “legionnaires of the Antichrist,” not because they are consciously evil but because they are building the institutional architecture a future world-state would need. And on the technologies themselves, Thiel was candid: “Maybe these things are good or bad. Stopping them seems far, far worse.”4
Set that beside the Truth Social post and the structure is identical. In Thiel’s register, the person who wants to slow AI is doing the Antichrist’s work. In Trump’s register, the person who wants to slow the data center is “backwards,” “poor,” and objectively serving China. Neither framing permits the position that most of those Ohio voters actually hold, which is not “stop AI” but “do not make my family pay for your grid load.” Economic objections invite cost-benefit analysis and compromise. Apocalyptic and treasonous framings do not. You cannot negotiate with the Antichrist, and you cannot negotiate with a Chinese asset.
Courtenay Turner and I documented in The Final Betrayal (November 2025) how the second Trump Administration became the vehicle by which a cohort of billionaire arch-Technocrats, Thiel foremost among them, moved from the periphery of American power to its center. Thiel financed J.D. Vance’s political career from the ground up. His Palantir alumni and Founders Fund network populate the national-security and technology apparatus. The Dark Enlightenment’s contempt for democratic consent, which we traced through Thiel’s own writings and those of his intellectual circle, is no longer a fringe philosophy. It is staffing policy.
What we argued then, and what Monday’s outburst confirms, is that Trump has not merely hosted these men. He has become the Technocrat-in-Chief. The populist who promised to return power to forgotten communities is now instructing those same communities that their objection to a hyperscale facility next to their children’s school is evidence of backwardness.
Sorry, that is not populism. That is the voice of Howard Scott and Technocracy, Inc. in 1934, telling Americans that their opinions were irrelevant to the requirements of the energy system and that the Technate would allocate resources according to engineering necessity, not democratic preference.
The MAGA movement was told it was getting America First. What it is getting is a federal executive using the full weight of the presidency to override local self-government on behalf of the single most capital-intensive industry in human history.
The historical Technocracy movement made one claim that has never been refuted: the fundamental unit of value in an industrial society is the kilowatt-hour and not the dollar. Scott and his engineers proposed replacing money with energy certificates and allocating energy to every man, woman, and child by expert decree. Thankfully, they failed to seize power in the 1930s. They did not fail to describe the twenty-first century.
Hyperscale data centers are the first industrial class whose product is literally computation purchased with electricity. When a facility draws hundreds of megawatts, the question is not abstract. It is whether the household or the hyperscaler has priority claim on the grid, and who pays for the transmission and generation built to serve the newcomer. Every rate case now pending before a state utility commission is a contest over exactly that. Trump’s post resolves the contest by fiat: the data center wins, and anyone who says otherwise is a traitor to prosperity.
This is resource control transferring from individuals to consolidated institutional actors, which is the definition of Technocracy I have used for two decades. It does not require a world government. It requires only that the people who own the compute also control the political apparatus that decides who gets the power.
Here is the irony Thiel’s disciples never confront. His stated nightmare is a distant regulator overriding local self-government in the name of safety. Yet the actual mechanism now in use is a national executive overriding local self-government in the name of the AI buildout. The tool he warns against is the tool being wielded, pointed the other way. The county that votes no is not the world-state. It is the last unwatched place in the system, and it is being told to shut up and sit down.
And the China card is doing double duty. Trump invokes Beijing as the beneficiary of American resistance in the very month he prepares to host Xi Jinping, the Technocrat-in-Chief of China, at the White House. A congressional committee has demanded an investigation into whether China is stoking the anti-data-center movement; Trump declined to repeat that charge, but said the Chinese “can’t believe it is happening.”5
China is the rhetorical enemy for domestic consumption and the strategic partner in the architecture. Readers who followed my analysis of the Beijing summit in May will recognize the pattern. American and Chinese Technocracy are not at war with each other. They are converging, and the American public is being disciplined to accept the merger.
I have repeated that Free Speech and the First Amendment are on the guillotine in 2026. This may be the last battle that decides our fate.
Certainly, the people of Ohio did not ask for this. They were not consulted. They are being told that their electric bills, their water tables, and their quiet nights are the acceptable price of a race with China whose terms they were never shown. And when they object, the most powerful man in the world calls them backward, foolish, and prone to self-harm.
They should say no anyway. Not because AI is evil, and not because the Antichrist is coming, but because the right of a community to decide what gets built inside its borders is the last practical check on Technocracy that ordinary Americans still hold.
Every local vote against a data center is a vote for the proposition that the people, not the engineers, decide. Thiel calls that heresy. Trump calls it treason. I call it self-government, and it is worth defending precisely because they want it gone.
Mass surveillance technology might be popular with police departments, but for the US public, it’s becoming an increasingly difficult sell.
At least 54 cities across the US have voted to cancel, non-renew, or reject Flock’s automatic license plate reader (ALPRs) since the start of the year, according to data collected by the Washington Examiner. That comes after reporting in February that some 30 cities had done the same since 2025, indicative of the rising backlash against the tech.
In all, the Examiner reports cities in 23 states have shredded their Flock contracts so far this year, led by California and Wisconsin, which each have seven rejections, cancellations, or deactivations. Other heavy hitters include New York, Washington, and Massachusetts with four each, and Virginia with three.
Though Flock has its cameras in over 5,000 US cities as of July 2026, the rise in rejections at the municipal level comes amidst a tidal wave of outrage around issues of privacy and civil rights.
In cities where civic leaders have been slow to respond to these anxieties, citizens have moved quickly to take matters into their own hands by damaging, obscuring, or stealing the surveillance cameras in order to stop them from recording footage. A rise in official cancelations or rejections shows municipal leaders are catching on to the reality that the American populace broadly disproves of the technology, and they aren’t afraid to show it.
Arguably the highest-profile contract cancellation for Flock came when the Los Angeles Police Department decided to non-renew its years-long contract with the company, a decision motivated by a searing internal audit of the company’s technology. The internal report found that, in just two months, Flock’s ALPRs contributed to 161 false stolen-vehicle alerts, resulting in a false-positive rate of 32.3 percent.
With no sign of the outrage settling anytime soon, it’s likely these 54 cities could just be the start.
It takes a lot to get your typical white-bread American riled up enough that they’re willing to go to jail. Getting arrested is a massive pain, bringing court dates, fines, and a record that can shadow your job and housing prospects for the rest of your life.
For most folks, just the threat of jail time is enough to keep them on their best behavior. Yet in 2026, data centers have become one of the rare issues pushing more and more of Americans to risk it anyway.
So far in the US, Futurism has counted at least 37 arrests stemming from protests related to data centers this year. There were an additional 12 cases where police intervened to prevent protestors or speakers from confronting civic leaders, though in reality that number is likely much higher, as these cases aren’t as likely to make the news.
Unlike in other moments of political unrest in recent memory, it’s hard to pigeonhole these anti-data center activists demographically. They range from landowning farmers to physics teachers, zoomers to boomers, rural townspeople to suburban parents.
Despite their differences, the arrestees all have one thing in common: they each felt the actions of democratically elected officials are failing to reflect the wishes of their constituents, instead deferring to massive tech corporations.
Take the case of 42-year old Pablo Payan, a maintenance manager from Indiana. During a public meeting in May held to discuss plans to erect a massive Amazon data center in the city of Hobart, Payan refused to identify himself for the record before speaking, resulting in an attempted removal by police.
As officers were escorting him out, Payan says he asked why he was being removed, which prompted officers to place him under arrest for criminal trespass and disorderly conduct.
“In my opinion, I was kicked out to prove a point that the law is on their side and if people continue to try and express themselves and speak, they will also be intimidated or arrested by law enforcement,” Payan told Fox32 after the fact. “So I think it was a flex of power.”
Far from the “anti-tech extremism” that law enforcement agencies and the Trump administration have warned about, these demonstrations are overwhelmingly peaceful, escalating into physical confrontations only when police lay hands on a person to remove them. Many of the charges come when anti-data center activists break petty clerical rules, like going slightly over the allotted time for a public comment.
Lux Claridge, a physics teacher from Emporia, Kansas, is an exemplar of the absurd ways civic leaders can weaponize police to stifle dissent. At a public meeting earlier this month, Claridge was arrested after clapping in support of another community member speaking out against a proposed 1,000 acre data center campus — running afoul of a commissioner’s rule against “snapping” and “clapping.”
“I am fully of the notion that clapping is a First Amendment right that I have,” Claridge said in an interview with 404 Media after the fact. “I can exercise that as long as I’m not disrupting, and I still argue that I was not disrupting at all.”
“I have a right to clap,” Claridge continued, “and if you want me out, you’re going to have to drag me out.”
Opponents of the rapid buildout of data centers held 142 protests across 42 states on Saturday in the first nationwide effort to channel anger at the AI infrastructure expansion that has ramped up over the past year and roiled local politics.
The protests were coordinated by HumansFirst, co-founded by a former leader of the modern-day Tea Party. She compares growing opposition to data centers to the right-wing populist movement that emerged in 2009 to protest what it saw as excessive taxation and government overreach.
Protesters rallied against what HumansFirst calls the “unaccountable” buildout of data centers and “unacceptable infringement on our liberty.”
In Fredericksburg, Virginia, one young man carried a sign reading, “We thrive on water not data.” In Atlanta, a small knot of protesters wielded signs reading, “Georgia never voted for hyperscale AI data centers.”
Nationwide and city-specific counts of protesters were not immediately available, said Chris Barron, president at Right Turn Strategies, who is handling press relations for HumansFirst.
Attendance was lower than expected in some rural areas and major cities such as Atlanta, local organizers told Reuters. But HumansFirst praised the efforts of community activists. “We were thrilled with the turnout,” Barron said.
Data center opposition is among the few issues uniting Americans across ideological lines, with just a third of Americans approving of the pace of data center construction in the U.S., according to a June Reuters/Ipsos poll. Only 14% of respondents would support a data center being built in their community to support artificial intelligence projects for technology firms such as Meta, Alphabet, Amazon, Microsoft and Elon Musk’s xAI.
“The data center industry is continuing to work with policymakers, stakeholders, and residents to ensure data centers strengthen, not strain, the areas where they operate — while mitigating any negative impacts to households and businesses,” said Josh Levi, president of the Data Center Coalition, the industry’s association and lobbying group.
Although HumansFirst co-founder Amy Kremer compared her current efforts to the Tea Party movement’s early days in 2009, she said the anger against data centers is nonpartisan.
“They just woke up one day and found out they’re going to have this monstrosity in their community, and they don’t want it,” said Kremer, who predicted data centers will be a defining issue in November’s midterm elections and the 2028 presidential race.
Kremer has criticized Republicans for giving Big Tech a “free pass,” but she and some organizers also said they do not support policies like moratoriums on data center approvals like the one adopted by the Democratic state of New York.
Demands made by organizers from the groups involved include transparency in the development process, protection of resources and environmental health, community benefits such as the creation of well-paying union jobs, and a way to hold developers accountable if they break their promises.
The Republican stronghold of Texas, a hotspot for data center development, hosted 18 protest events, the most of any state. The battleground state of Georgia had 11 rallies. Democratic-dominated California had eight, while the swing state of Pennsylvania and the Republican-leaning states of Florida and Indiana came in at seven each.
Saturday’s Atlanta protest, one of a number of similar actions this month, attracted about a dozen participants who traveled from smaller Georgia towns where the largest data centers are being built, said Jake Watts, 26, a volunteer at that event.
Left-leaning Ivan DelSol, 54, helped lead a protest in the California desert’s Imperial County, where a proposed data center project could use 260 million gallons (984 million liters) of water per year from the Colorado River.
“It’s dystopian that you would use this much fresh water for AI,” said DelSol, who later added around 50 people attended despite temperatures that soared above 100 degrees Fahrenheit (38 degrees Celsius).
Although water is frequently cited as a top public concern, especially in water-stressed regions, the data center industry says its water use is not as significant as other industries.
In Tyler, Texas, first-time activist and self-described “political nomad” Eva Cardona, 31, organized a protest that also drew about a dozen people.
“I’ve been hearing about unregulated AI and the rapid growth was alarming me. I wanted to do something more hands-on than just your standard Facebook post,” Cardona said.
Login