Progress made but challenges remain in Geneva discussions

Iran and the US have agreed on main "guiding principles" to address their nuclear program dispute, following indirect talks in Geneva. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi announced the progress but acknowledged further work is needed. The US echoed this sentiment, stating advancement, albeit with unresolved details.

Get the latest headlines in your email

Negotiations and Military Tensions

Facilitated by Oman, the talks aimed to resolve tensions exacerbated by US military threats over Iran's response to anti-government protests and nuclear activities. President Trump expressed hopes for a deal, emphasizing potential consequences if negotiations fail. The US believes Iran may be pursuing nuclear weaponry, a claim Tehran denies.

Focus and Divergence

Iran's focus was on its nuclear program and potential sanction relief, while Washington highlighted additional concerns, including missile development. A US official noted progress but indicated ongoing gaps requiring Iranian proposals in the coming weeks.

Red Lines and Consequences

US Vice-President JD Vance acknowledged both progress and challenges, citing red lines set by Trump that Iran hesitates to address. Trump, hinting at indirect involvement, stressed negotiation urgency, referencing past military actions as leverage.

Military Build-up

Amid the talks, the US reinforced its military presence in the Middle East, with aircraft carriers and additional naval forces near Iran. Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei responded defiantly, challenging US military assertions and accusing them of attempting to dictate negotiation outcomes.

Iran's Show of Force

In response to US military moves, Iran's Revolutionary Guard conducted drills in the strategic Strait of Hormuz, a critical oil export route. Araghchi emphasized Iran's resolve not to yield to threats while seeking a fair agreement.

Outlook and Challenges

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio acknowledged the diplomatic opportunity but cautioned against overestimating success. The first indirect talks in Oman were marked as a positive start, but significant hurdles remain.

Key Takeaways

• Iran and US progress on nuclear talks, but challenges persist.

• Military tensions rise with US presence near Iran, sparking Iranian defiance.

• Both sides express willingness for diplomacy, yet underline difficulties.

Join the discussion?

Already a member?

  Adapted by ASEAN Now · Source · 17 Feb 2026

View full article

Shaping up to look like the old agreement which was

torn up by ... Trump ?

Trump just playing for time to get his big guns in position. Then God help the regime, hopefully wiped out.

Yeah waiting for pentagon and co to give the green light. But it is doubtful that they will getaway with it. Russians and Chinese may have a few surprises for them. Just imagine if a carrier is destroyed or stealth bombers are downed the USA invincibility myth will suffer bigly. Roll the dice big boy😂

3 hours ago, AustinRacing said:

Yeah waiting for pentagon and co to give the green light. But it is doubtful that they will getaway with it. Russians and Chinese may have a few surprises for them. Just imagine if a carrier is destroyed or stealth bombers are downed the USA invincibility myth will suffer bigly. Roll the dice big boy😂

U.S. carriers are extremely resilient (heavy armor, thousands of watertight compartments, layered defenses including Aegis destroyers, electronic warfare, CIWS guns, and fighter CAP). A true sinking would require an overwhelming, coordinated saturation attack (e.g., hundreds of ballistic/cruise missiles + drones + possibly submarines/fast boats) to overwhelm defenses and cause uncontrollable flooding/explosions. A "mission kill" (disabling flight ops without full sinking) is more realistic, but even partial success would be historic—last major U.S. carrier sunk was in WWII.

Sinking a carrier or downing a B-2 would trigger a devastating U.S.-led response that could cripple Iran's military/nuclear ambitions and economy for years, but at huge cost: thousands dead, oil shock, risk of wider war (Israel/Iran full exchange, Gulf chaos)

16 hours ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

U.S. carriers are extremely resilient (heavy armor, thousands of watertight compartments, layered defenses including Aegis destroyers, electronic warfare, CIWS guns, and fighter CAP). A true sinking would require an overwhelming, coordinated saturation attack (e.g., hundreds of ballistic/cruise missiles + drones + possibly submarines/fast boats) to overwhelm defenses and cause uncontrollable flooding/explosions. A "mission kill" (disabling flight ops without full sinking) is more realistic, but even partial success would be historic—last major U.S. carrier sunk was in WWII.

Sinking a carrier or downing a B-2 would trigger a devastating U.S.-led response that could cripple Iran's military/nuclear ambitions and economy for years, but at huge cost: thousands dead, oil shock, risk of wider war (Israel/Iran full exchange, Gulf chaos)

How about a false flag done by the biggest ally of the USA? Apparently you have no idea how infiltrated America is and dependable of Israel in the tech side.

20 hours ago, AustinRacing said:

Yeah waiting for pentagon and co to give the green light. But it is doubtful that they will getaway with it. Russians and Chinese may have a few surprises for them. Just imagine if a carrier is destroyed or stealth bombers are downed the USA invincibility myth will suffer bigly. Roll the dice big boy😂

Russia and China are aligned with Israel. Most of the prime ministers of Israel were born in the ex Soviet Union. The only reason they would attack the USA would be to start the WWIII. Putin is a good friend of Bibi and belongs to the Chabad movement as Trump and Milei.

3 hours ago, GoodieAfterDark said:

How about a false flag done by the biggest ally of the USA? Apparently you have no idea how infiltrated America is and dependable of Israel in the tech side.

You need to stop reading conspiracy theories.

Israel's cyber talent is real—it's an alliance, not infiltration. The U.S. funds, buys, and dominates the tech stack. Saying 'infiltrated' is just a conspiracy cope when two supercarriers, 150+ jets, and B-52s are already flexing in plain sight. Facts over fan fiction, bro.

By "guiding principles' , they meant concept of a plan. How on earth are 2 novices in foreign policy heading 3 peace negotiations at the same time.

1 hour ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

You need to stop reading conspiracy theories.

Israel's cyber talent is real—it's an alliance, not infiltration. The U.S. funds, buys, and dominates the tech stack. Saying 'infiltrated' is just a conspiracy cope when two supercarriers, 150+ jets, and B-52s are already flexing in plain sight. Facts over fan fiction, bro.

So you are OK with the genocide in Gaza? So you don't care about Israel running the American foreign policy? Alliance or blackmail doing thru people like Jeff Epstein? So you think that what Jeff Epstein was doing is just fine and reflect the American moral spirit? So destroy Libya, Iraq, and Syria is just fine?

23 minutes ago, GoodieAfterDark said:

So you are OK with the genocide in Gaza? So you don't care about Israel running the American foreign policy? Alliance or blackmail doing thru people like Jeff Epstein? So you think that what Jeff Epstein was doing is just fine and reflect the American moral spirit? So destroy Libya, Iraq, and Syria is just fine?

That's some impressive whataboutism—jumping from Gulf carriers to Gaza, Epstein, and ancient wars. Stay on topic: The U.S. flex is real hardware, not Epstein fanfic or Israeli "blackmail." If you're genuinely worried about morals, start with Iran's human rights record or proxy wars.

On 2/18/2026 at 6:53 AM, Jim Blue said:

Shaping up to look like the old agreement which was

torn up by ... Trump ?

But now he can claim credit for the new agreement (meet the new deal, same as the old deal),AND take credit for stopping, what is it now, the 27th war?

Worthy of a noble peas price, Shirley, or at least an $80 million docubribamentary entitled "Art of the Taco."

9 minutes ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

That's some impressive whataboutism—jumping from Gulf carriers to Gaza, Epstein, and ancient wars. Stay on topic: The U.S. flex is real hardware, not Epstein fanfic or Israeli "blackmail." If you're genuinely worried about morals, start with Iran's human rights record or proxy wars.

It seems like the USA has a very good human rights record, right? Iraq invasion, non existing WMDs, 1.5 million people killed? Libya is a very prosperous country right now after being destroyed by the US war hardware, same thing with Syria. All countries including Iran part of the Yinon Plan. Iran so called nuclear plan is a joke and is being used by Bib to force Trump, probably under blackmail, to do the dirty job for Israel.

1 hour ago, GoodieAfterDark said:

It seems like the USA has a very good human rights record, right? Iraq invasion, non existing WMDs, 1.5 million people killed? Libya is a very prosperous country right now after being destroyed by the US war hardware, same thing with Syria. All countries including Iran part of the Yinon Plan. Iran so called nuclear plan is a joke and is being used by Bib to force Trump, probably under blackmail, to do the dirty job for Israel.

The U.S. human rights record isn't spotless—far from it.

The Iraq invasion was based on flawed WMD intelligence, leading to a tragic war with civilian deaths estimated at 150,000–650,000 (not your inflated 1.5 million).

But comparing it to Iran's 2025–2026 massacre of over 6,000 protesters (with 42,500 arrested and 1,500 executions in 2025 alone) is laughable hypocrisy.

Iran's regime guns down its own people in the streets, enforces medieval gender apartheid, and sponsors terrorism worldwide—talk about a "very good" record.

Libya and Syria? The U.S. didn't "destroy" them single-handedly. Libya's chaos stemmed from a civil war after Gaddafi's fall, with NATO intervention authorized by the UN to prevent massacres.

Syria's devastation is largely Assad's barrel bombs and chemical attacks, backed by Russia and Iran—your pals who turned it into a graveyard with over 500,000 dead. Blaming America ignores the dictators who started the slaughter.

The "Yinon Plan"? That's a debunked conspiracy theory twisting a 1982 opinion piece by Oded Yinon (not official Israeli policy) into a Zionist plot for Middle East domination.

It's straight from antisemitic playbooks, often tied to 9/11 "Mossad did it" nonsense. No, the U.S. and Israel aren't scheming to carve up the region—it's a fringe myth for those allergic to facts.

Iran's nuclear program a "joke"? Hardly. As of February 2026, Iran has 441kg of 60% enriched uranium—enough for multiple bombs if further processed—despite 2025 U.S./Israeli strikes degrading sites like Natanz and Fordow. It's rebuilding underground, ignoring IAEA inspections.

Bibi "forcing" Trump via Epstein blackmail? Pure tinfoil-hat fiction—no evidence, just recycled QAnon slop to deflect from Iran's real nuclear ambitions and proxy terror.

The U.S. has made mistakes, but it doesn't execute poets, stone women, or fund global jihad like Iran's theocracy. If you're so concerned about human rights, start with Tehran's torture chambers and mass graves. Your "Yinon Plan" fever dream is just a cope for ignoring the real tyrants.

5 hours ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

The U.S. human rights record isn't spotless—far from it.

The Iraq invasion was based on flawed WMD intelligence, leading to a tragic war with civilian deaths estimated at 150,000–650,000 (not your inflated 1.5 million).

But comparing it to Iran's 2025–2026 massacre of over 6,000 protesters (with 42,500 arrested and 1,500 executions in 2025 alone) is laughable hypocrisy.

Iran's regime guns down its own people in the streets, enforces medieval gender apartheid, and sponsors terrorism worldwide—talk about a "very good" record.

Libya and Syria? The U.S. didn't "destroy" them single-handedly. Libya's chaos stemmed from a civil war after Gaddafi's fall, with NATO intervention authorized by the UN to prevent massacres.

Syria's devastation is largely Assad's barrel bombs and chemical attacks, backed by Russia and Iran—your pals who turned it into a graveyard with over 500,000 dead. Blaming America ignores the dictators who started the slaughter.

The "Yinon Plan"? That's a debunked conspiracy theory twisting a 1982 opinion piece by Oded Yinon (not official Israeli policy) into a Zionist plot for Middle East domination.

It's straight from antisemitic playbooks, often tied to 9/11 "Mossad did it" nonsense. No, the U.S. and Israel aren't scheming to carve up the region—it's a fringe myth for those allergic to facts.

Iran's nuclear program a "joke"? Hardly. As of February 2026, Iran has 441kg of 60% enriched uranium—enough for multiple bombs if further processed—despite 2025 U.S./Israeli strikes degrading sites like Natanz and Fordow. It's rebuilding underground, ignoring IAEA inspections.

Bibi "forcing" Trump via Epstein blackmail? Pure tinfoil-hat fiction—no evidence, just recycled QAnon slop to deflect from Iran's real nuclear ambitions and proxy terror.

The U.S. has made mistakes, but it doesn't execute poets, stone women, or fund global jihad like Iran's theocracy. If you're so concerned about human rights, start with Tehran's torture chambers and mass graves. Your "Yinon Plan" fever dream is just a cope for ignoring the real tyrants.

Your knowledge about of the subject is very limited. You picked your first source of information called "Wikipedia" or you are using AI. Even the Washington Post mention in an article of 2021 that at least half million people were killed since the Iraq war. Quote:

Two such reports on Iraq came out in the prestigious The Lancet medical journal, first in 2004 and then in 2006. The 2006 study estimated that about 600,000 Iraqis were killed in the first 40 months of war and occupation in Iraq, along with 54,000 non-violent but still war-related deaths.

In June 2007, a British polling firm, Opinion Research Business (ORB), conducted a further study and estimated that 1,033,000 Iraqis had been killed by then.

While the figure of a million people killed was shocking, the Lancet study had documented steadily increasing violence in occupied Iraq between 2003 and 2006, with 328,000 deaths in the final year it covered. ORB’s finding that another 430,000 Iraqis were killed in the following year was consistent with other evidence of escalating violence through late 2006 and early 2007.

Just Foreign Policy’s “Iraqi Death Estimator” updated the Lancet study’s estimate by multiplying passively reported deaths compiled by British NGO Iraq Body Count by the same ratio found in 2006. This project was discontinued in September 2011, with its estimate of Iraqi deaths standing at 1.45 million.

Taking ORB’s estimate of 1.033 million killed by June 2007, then applying a variation of Just Foreign Policy’s methodology from July 2007 to the present using revised figures from Iraq Body Count, we estimate that 2.4 million Iraqis have been killed since 2003 as a result of our country’s illegal invasion, with a minimum of 1.5 million and a maximum of 3.4 million.

I am sure you know who General Wesley Clark is.

Quote:

In October, 2007, Gen. Wesley Clark gave a speech to the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco:

Six weeks later, I saw the same officer, and asked: “Why haven’t we attacked Iraq? Are we still going to attack Iraq?”

He said: “Sir, it’s worse than that. He said – he pulled up a piece of paper off his desk – he said: “I just got this memo from the Secretary of Defense’s office. It says we’re going to attack and destroy the governments in 7 countries in five years – we’re going to start with Iraq, and then we’re going to move to Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran.”

15 hours ago, GoodieAfterDark said:

Your knowledge about of the subject is very limited. You picked your first source of information called "Wikipedia" or you are using AI. Even the Washington Post mention in an article of 2021 that at least half million people were killed since the Iraq war. Quote:

Two such reports on Iraq came out in the prestigious The Lancet medical journal, first in 2004 and then in 2006. The 2006 study estimated that about 600,000 Iraqis were killed in the first 40 months of war and occupation in Iraq, along with 54,000 non-violent but still war-related deaths.

In June 2007, a British polling firm, Opinion Research Business (ORB), conducted a further study and estimated that 1,033,000 Iraqis had been killed by then.

While the figure of a million people killed was shocking, the Lancet study had documented steadily increasing violence in occupied Iraq between 2003 and 2006, with 328,000 deaths in the final year it covered. ORB’s finding that another 430,000 Iraqis were killed in the following year was consistent with other evidence of escalating violence through late 2006 and early 2007.

Just Foreign Policy’s “Iraqi Death Estimator” updated the Lancet study’s estimate by multiplying passively reported deaths compiled by British NGO Iraq Body Count by the same ratio found in 2006. This project was discontinued in September 2011, with its estimate of Iraqi deaths standing at 1.45 million.

Taking ORB’s estimate of 1.033 million killed by June 2007, then applying a variation of Just Foreign Policy’s methodology from July 2007 to the present using revised figures from Iraq Body Count, we estimate that 2.4 million Iraqis have been killed since 2003 as a result of our country’s illegal invasion, with a minimum of 1.5 million and a maximum of 3.4 million.

I am sure you know who General Wesley Clark is.

Quote:

In October, 2007, Gen. Wesley Clark gave a speech to the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco:

Six weeks later, I saw the same officer, and asked: “Why haven’t we attacked Iraq? Are we still going to attack Iraq?”

He said: “Sir, it’s worse than that. He said – he pulled up a piece of paper off his desk – he said: “I just got this memo from the Secretary of Defense’s office. It says we’re going to attack and destroy the governments in 7 countries in five years – we’re going to start with Iraq, and then we’re going to move to Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran.”

Oh dear....Your reply is a classic Gish gallop—throw a bunch of cherry-picked numbers, old quotes, and conspiracy framing at the wall hoping something sticks. Let’s cut through the crap.

Iraq death toll

You cite Lancet (2006), ORB (2007), and Just Foreign Policy’s multiplier game to reach 1.5–2.4 million. Those figures have been heavily criticized for methodological flaws:

• Lancet 2006 used cluster sampling that produced wide confidence intervals and was accused of bias/overestimation by multiple peer-reviewed critiques.

• ORB’s 1 million figure was based on a telephone poll with tiny sample size and self-reported deaths—widely dismissed by demographers.

• Just Foreign Policy simply multiplied Iraq Body Count (passive reporting, known to undercount) by the disputed Lancet ratio—circular reasoning, not evidence.

Mainstream estimates today (after 20+ years of review):

• Iraq Body Count: ~200,000–250,000 violent civilian deaths.

• Costs of War Project (Brown University): ~275,000–306,000 civilian deaths from direct violence (2003–2023), plus ~500,000–1 million indirect (disease, malnutrition, infrastructure collapse).
  Your 1.5–3.4 million is outlier territory, not consensus. Even the highest credible figures don’t approach your numbers.

Wesley Clark quote

Yes, Clark said that in 2007. He claimed a Pentagon officer told him in 2001 about a memo listing seven countries to be taken out in five years.
Problem: There is zero corroborating evidence—no memo, no document, no other whistleblower, no leak in 25 years. Clark himself never produced proof and later said it was hearsay from one conversation.
It’s become a staple of “neocon plan for world domination” lore, but it remains an uncorroborated anecdote—not policy, not a smoking gun.

Yinon Plan & “destroying” countries

Already addressed: Yinon was a 1982 opinion piece by one analyst, not Israeli government policy.
Libya: NATO intervened under UN Resolution 1973 to protect civilians from Gaddafi’s threatened massacre—chaos followed because of internal factions and no post-conflict plan, not because the U.S. wanted to “destroy” Libya.
Syria: Civil war started with Assad’s brutal crackdown on peaceful protests in 2011—hundreds of thousands killed by his barrel bombs, chemical weapons, and starvation sieges, with Russia and Iran as his main backers. The U.S. role was limited (mostly anti-ISIS airstrikes after 2014). Blaming Washington for the entire catastrophe is factually absurd.

To summarize.

The U.S. has blood on its hands from bad decisions—Iraq was a disaster based on false premises. But inflating death tolls to cartoon levels, treating unproven anecdotes as gospel, and pretending Iran’s theocracy (which hangs poets, stones women, and funds global terrorism) is the victim of some grand Zionist plot is not analysis—it’s propaganda. Which you obviously love, together with conspiracy theories.

If you want to talk real human rights, start with Iran’s 2025–2026 crackdown: 6,000+ protesters killed, 42,500 arrested, 1,500 executions in one year. That’s not “resistance”—that’s a regime murdering its own people to stay in power.

You don’t get to wave around inflated numbers and decade-old rumors while ignoring the actual body count of the regime you’re defending, or at least trying to defend and doing a bad job!

On 2/19/2026 at 9:28 PM, Smokey and the Bandit said:

Oh dear....Your reply is a classic Gish gallop—throw a bunch of cherry-picked numbers, old quotes, and conspiracy framing at the wall hoping something sticks. Let’s cut through the crap.

Iraq death toll

You cite Lancet (2006), ORB (2007), and Just Foreign Policy’s multiplier game to reach 1.5–2.4 million. Those figures have been heavily criticized for methodological flaws:

• Lancet 2006 used cluster sampling that produced wide confidence intervals and was accused of bias/overestimation by multiple peer-reviewed critiques.

• ORB’s 1 million figure was based on a telephone poll with tiny sample size and self-reported deaths—widely dismissed by demographers.

• Just Foreign Policy simply multiplied Iraq Body Count (passive reporting, known to undercount) by the disputed Lancet ratio—circular reasoning, not evidence.

Mainstream estimates today (after 20+ years of review):

• Iraq Body Count: ~200,000–250,000 violent civilian deaths.

• Costs of War Project (Brown University): ~275,000–306,000 civilian deaths from direct violence (2003–2023), plus ~500,000–1 million indirect (disease, malnutrition, infrastructure collapse).
  Your 1.5–3.4 million is outlier territory, not consensus. Even the highest credible figures don’t approach your numbers.

Wesley Clark quote

Yes, Clark said that in 2007. He claimed a Pentagon officer told him in 2001 about a memo listing seven countries to be taken out in five years.
Problem: There is zero corroborating evidence—no memo, no document, no other whistleblower, no leak in 25 years. Clark himself never produced proof and later said it was hearsay from one conversation.
It’s become a staple of “neocon plan for world domination” lore, but it remains an uncorroborated anecdote—not policy, not a smoking gun.

Yinon Plan & “destroying” countries

Already addressed: Yinon was a 1982 opinion piece by one analyst, not Israeli government policy.
Libya: NATO intervened under UN Resolution 1973 to protect civilians from Gaddafi’s threatened massacre—chaos followed because of internal factions and no post-conflict plan, not because the U.S. wanted to “destroy” Libya.
Syria: Civil war started with Assad’s brutal crackdown on peaceful protests in 2011—hundreds of thousands killed by his barrel bombs, chemical weapons, and starvation sieges, with Russia and Iran as his main backers. The U.S. role was limited (mostly anti-ISIS airstrikes after 2014). Blaming Washington for the entire catastrophe is factually absurd.

To summarize.

The U.S. has blood on its hands from bad decisions—Iraq was a disaster based on false premises. But inflating death tolls to cartoon levels, treating unproven anecdotes as gospel, and pretending Iran’s theocracy (which hangs poets, stones women, and funds global terrorism) is the victim of some grand Zionist plot is not analysis—it’s propaganda. Which you obviously love, together with conspiracy theories.

If you want to talk real human rights, start with Iran’s 2025–2026 crackdown: 6,000+ protesters killed, 42,500 arrested, 1,500 executions in one year. That’s not “resistance”—that’s a regime murdering its own people to stay in power.

You don’t get to wave around inflated numbers and decade-old rumors while ignoring the actual body count of the regime you’re defending, or at least trying to defend and doing a bad job!

Are you serious that your source is the MSM? I will trust MSM because they were absolutely right about the last terrible "pandemic" that killed millions, if not billions. MSM warned me day and night about that terrible "virus". Brown University that just happened to receive donations from Jeff Epstein, more specifically this guy: Cohen, director of development for computer and data science at Brown, was placed on leave in September.(2020)

well, nothing wrong about receiving donations from Epstein, possible Israel's intel.

Quote:

The US and UK governments dismissed the report, saying that the methodology was not credible and that the numbers were hugely exaggerated. In countries where Western military forces have not been involved, however, similar studies have been accepted and widely cited without question or controversy. Based on advice from their scientific advisers, British government officials privately admitted that the 2006 Lancet report was “likely to be right,” but precisely because of its legal and political implications, the U.S. and British governments led a cynical campaign to discredit it.

I am sure if you invaded a country based on a lie, the famous WMDs, you would try to defend and justify your actions. And do not come up with the flawed intelligence excuse. There is a video of Donald Rumsfeld lying about the Afghanistan high tech caves of Bin Laden. Another intelligence flaw, right?

So you think that General Clarke should have kept the memorandum? So why would Clarke lie about that? And all the wars and invasions against those countries were just a coincidence, right? Nothing to see here.

I know people that traveled thru Iran and they say a different history. Iran has a lots drugs, sex, homosexuals and many other things very common in the West world. Jews are free to come and go. I have met many Jews from Iran in America. They even had a Jewish Minister. This excuse to attack Iran based on human rights violation is pure bs as the Iran's nuclear program that has been used by Bibi for many years.

It is exactly what is happening today. Coincidence!

Quote:

The rise of neoconservative thought in the United States in the late 20th century, often advocating for regime change in Arab countries, reflects shared ideological ground with Oded Yinon’s views. Israeli leaders like Sharon found a counterpart in this worldview, which furthered Israel’s expansionism within the framework of strategic cooperation with the United States. In fact, the Zionist regime’s fragmentation strategy, as a means to ensure its survival amid regional geopolitical challenges, has been consistently reiterated. This strategy is inherently tied to Israel’s goal of expanding its borders and influence, particularly in addressing threats from countries like Iraq, Iran, and Jordan. Yinon’s perspective also called for the systematic weakening of nationalist Arab states. He viewed the creation of small sectarian states as a way to establish a buffer zone where Israel could control its neighbors while promoting instability in those countries. The strategic focus on Iraq as a case study in the Yinon Plan is notable, with the 2003 U.S.-led invasion resulting in chaos and severe sectarian and religious divisions, aligning with the goals outlined in Yinon’s analysis. It can be concluded that U.S. foreign policy, influenced by neoconservative ideologies, often aligns with Israel’s aspirations to control the Middle East, exacerbating conflicts rather than resolving them.