What is the ultimate goal?
Where these Kurdish terror groups in the northwest and southeast fit into this scenario?, what the role of celebrities is, and how Iran’s regions and provinces factor into the situation are among the questions raised.
According to the possible objectives of the West and the israelis, after America attacks Iran, the first and most important goal would be gaining control of the skies.
During the previous attack by israel, the attrition of the air force and the distance between israel and Iran meant that between the waves of israeli attacks, Iranian forces in all military branches, from the army to the Aerospace Force of the IRGC, had the opportunity to launch drones, cruise missiles, and ballistic missiles.
As a result, the inability to overcome the distance in the air caused israel to pay the price in its streets, where massive destruction occurred in israeli cities. Although in some waves of attacks control was gained over parts of Iran’s skies, the skies over israel also became a highway for Iranian missiles, and Iran struck wherever it decided, despite some differences in impact.
This was israel’s experience from the previous war, and attempts were made to compensate for it in a future conflict. But the experience on the Iranian side showed that there was no transformative air force with dozens of upgraded fighter jets connected in a strong aerial network with long-range air-to-air missiles, and in fact such a capability still does not exist.
However, on the ground good work has been carried out, a series of purchases has been made, and in the event of war these may fill gaps in air defense, electronic warfare, and projectiles.
israel transferred its unsuccessful experience in maintaining permanent control over Iran’s skies to the American side. Because of this, America has sent many tanker aircraft and fighter jets so that at the very first moment of war, with massive bombardment using all kinds of munitions and through air and air-defense suppression, permanent control over Iran’s skies could be achieved and the launch of missiles by the Aerospace Force could be prevented. The reason for deploying so many aerial refueling aircraft is to maintain a continuous presence over Iran’s skies.
The question of whether the capability exists to achieve that objective arises. With some reflection and effort, the answer presented in the analysis is yes. This is something that israel might not be able to achieve even after decades, which explains the reliance on American military superiority and the involvement of Trump in the equation.
At that point, America and israel would begin targeted and massive bombardments, focusing mainly on military, law enforcement, and security centers.
If control over #Iran’s skies, which is considered the main goal of America, is achieved, even a single mistake by the Americans would mean the collapse of America’s prestige. Even the opportunity for dozens of missiles to be launched would mean the end of America’s aura. It would be enough for those missiles to hit locations where America intends to move logistics; that scenario would signify the end of American influence in West Asia and would also severely damage israel.
In any case, if control over Iran’s skies is achieved by America and israel, airborne operations and heliborne landings by American forces would become possible. According to the analysis, nuclear facilities, missile cities, and the coast of the Strait of Hormuz could be among the targets.
From the American perspective, after the final suppression and weakening of the central government’s power structure, America would withdraw and the second phase of hybrid interventions would begin.
Kurdish groups would enter from the northwest and start creating military insecurity there, clashing with security forces.
@enemywatch
Where these Kurdish terror groups in the northwest and southeast fit into this scenario?, what the role of celebrities is, and how Iran’s regions and provinces factor into the situation are among the questions raised.
According to the possible objectives of the West and the israelis, after America attacks Iran, the first and most important goal would be gaining control of the skies.
During the previous attack by israel, the attrition of the air force and the distance between israel and Iran meant that between the waves of israeli attacks, Iranian forces in all military branches, from the army to the Aerospace Force of the IRGC, had the opportunity to launch drones, cruise missiles, and ballistic missiles.
As a result, the inability to overcome the distance in the air caused israel to pay the price in its streets, where massive destruction occurred in israeli cities. Although in some waves of attacks control was gained over parts of Iran’s skies, the skies over israel also became a highway for Iranian missiles, and Iran struck wherever it decided, despite some differences in impact.
This was israel’s experience from the previous war, and attempts were made to compensate for it in a future conflict. But the experience on the Iranian side showed that there was no transformative air force with dozens of upgraded fighter jets connected in a strong aerial network with long-range air-to-air missiles, and in fact such a capability still does not exist.
However, on the ground good work has been carried out, a series of purchases has been made, and in the event of war these may fill gaps in air defense, electronic warfare, and projectiles.
israel transferred its unsuccessful experience in maintaining permanent control over Iran’s skies to the American side. Because of this, America has sent many tanker aircraft and fighter jets so that at the very first moment of war, with massive bombardment using all kinds of munitions and through air and air-defense suppression, permanent control over Iran’s skies could be achieved and the launch of missiles by the Aerospace Force could be prevented. The reason for deploying so many aerial refueling aircraft is to maintain a continuous presence over Iran’s skies.
The question of whether the capability exists to achieve that objective arises. With some reflection and effort, the answer presented in the analysis is yes. This is something that israel might not be able to achieve even after decades, which explains the reliance on American military superiority and the involvement of Trump in the equation.
At that point, America and israel would begin targeted and massive bombardments, focusing mainly on military, law enforcement, and security centers.
If control over #Iran’s skies, which is considered the main goal of America, is achieved, even a single mistake by the Americans would mean the collapse of America’s prestige. Even the opportunity for dozens of missiles to be launched would mean the end of America’s aura. It would be enough for those missiles to hit locations where America intends to move logistics; that scenario would signify the end of American influence in West Asia and would also severely damage israel.
In any case, if control over Iran’s skies is achieved by America and israel, airborne operations and heliborne landings by American forces would become possible. According to the analysis, nuclear facilities, missile cities, and the coast of the Strait of Hormuz could be among the targets.
From the American perspective, after the final suppression and weakening of the central government’s power structure, America would withdraw and the second phase of hybrid interventions would begin.
Kurdish groups would enter from the northwest and start creating military insecurity there, clashing with security forces.
@enemywatch
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
🇮🇳🏴☠🇺🇸 Modi: "Israel" is the fatherland, and #India, the motherland
@stayfreeworld
#Zionism #GreaterIsraelProject #India #IMEC #Hindutva
@stayfreeworld
#Zionism #GreaterIsraelProject #India #IMEC #Hindutva
The India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (#IMEC) Project was signed at the G20 Summit in New Delhi in 2023, it held significant geopolitical and economic implications for India.
The project forms part of the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment (PGII).
Recent Timeline ( Articles from The Cradle)
US gives India six-month deadline to withdraw from key Iranian port
Putin vows ‘uninterrupted’ energy flow to India after New Delhi visit
India defies Washington, increases Russian oil imports: Report
India, Israel sign new investment pact
Pakistan, India announce immediate ceasefire after 'largest dogfight since WW2'
India–Pakistan war: The winners and the losers
UAE inks defense pact with India to enhance nuclear cooperation, double trade
EU turns to India for defense cooperation as US ties fracture
A new Red Sea axis: Israel, India, UAE, Ethiopia converge in Somaliland
#India
The project forms part of the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment (PGII).
Recent Timeline ( Articles from The Cradle)
US gives India six-month deadline to withdraw from key Iranian port
Putin vows ‘uninterrupted’ energy flow to India after New Delhi visit
India defies Washington, increases Russian oil imports: Report
India, Israel sign new investment pact
Pakistan, India announce immediate ceasefire after 'largest dogfight since WW2'
India–Pakistan war: The winners and the losers
UAE inks defense pact with India to enhance nuclear cooperation, double trade
EU turns to India for defense cooperation as US ties fracture
A new Red Sea axis: Israel, India, UAE, Ethiopia converge in Somaliland
#India
The REAL agenda behind the release of “secret files” – OffGuardian
This won’t stop.
They’re gonna keep releasing “the truth” for a while, they’re gonna tell you about JFK and UFOs and MKUltra and the moon landing and 9/11 and on and on.
Operation Nightingale. Operation Paperclip. Operation Mockingbird.
…the US has no shortage of skeletons in its closet, after all, so there’s a lot of truth to tell.
Or rather “truth”, because it won’t be the real truth. It will be processed chunks of partial truth, designed to serve two functions :
@offguardian
#NWO
This won’t stop.
They’re gonna keep releasing “the truth” for a while, they’re gonna tell you about JFK and UFOs and MKUltra and the moon landing and 9/11 and on and on.
Operation Nightingale. Operation Paperclip. Operation Mockingbird.
…the US has no shortage of skeletons in its closet, after all, so there’s a lot of truth to tell.
Or rather “truth”, because it won’t be the real truth. It will be processed chunks of partial truth, designed to serve two functions :
@offguardian
#NWO
Media is too big
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
LEAKED: CIA Docs Reveal Mind Control Vaccines
New documents reveal a #CIA program by the name "Project #Artichoke" which aimed to use vaccines as a form of mind control.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsYC9Kt6Kng
#safe #effective #MKUltra #bioweapons
New documents reveal a #CIA program by the name "Project #Artichoke" which aimed to use vaccines as a form of mind control.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsYC9Kt6Kng
#safe #effective #MKUltra #bioweapons
“Special Research for Artichoke” outlines plans to develop behavior-altering drugs, including long-term influence agents, disguised as medical treatments such as vaccinations or injections.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-15585657/cia-project-artichoke-mind-control.html
https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/SPECIAL%20RESEARCH%20FOR%20ARTI%5B12885524%5D.pdf
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-15585657/cia-project-artichoke-mind-control.html
https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/SPECIAL%20RESEARCH%20FOR%20ARTI%5B12885524%5D.pdf
Mail Online
CIA files reveal plans to manipulate minds through covert drugging
A newly released CIA file has exposed a top secret program that developed methods to control behavior using drugs in food, cigarettes and even vaccines.
🇭🇺🇺🇦 Viktor Orban has released an open letter to #Zelensky, sharply criticizing #Kiev’s actions.
Orban says Zelensky has refused for four years to accept Hungary’s sovereign position on the Russia–Ukraine war and has tried to drag Hungary into the conflict with Brussels’ backing and the support of the Hungarian opposition. He accuses Kiev, Brussels, and Hungary’s opposition of coordinating efforts to install a pro-Ukraine government in Budapest.
#Orban also states that Ukraine has shut down the Druzhba oil pipeline, a key route for Hungary’s energy supply, putting Hungarian families at risk of higher costs and insecurity.
We Hungarians are not responsible for #Ukraine’s situation. We sympathize with the Ukrainian people, but we do not want to take part in the war. We do not want to finance the fighting or pay more for energy.
I call on you to immediately reopen the #Druzhba oil #pipeline and refrain from further attacks on Hungary’s energy security.
Show more respect for #Hungary.”
@DDGeopolitics
Orban says Zelensky has refused for four years to accept Hungary’s sovereign position on the Russia–Ukraine war and has tried to drag Hungary into the conflict with Brussels’ backing and the support of the Hungarian opposition. He accuses Kiev, Brussels, and Hungary’s opposition of coordinating efforts to install a pro-Ukraine government in Budapest.
#Orban also states that Ukraine has shut down the Druzhba oil pipeline, a key route for Hungary’s energy supply, putting Hungarian families at risk of higher costs and insecurity.
We Hungarians are not responsible for #Ukraine’s situation. We sympathize with the Ukrainian people, but we do not want to take part in the war. We do not want to finance the fighting or pay more for energy.
I call on you to immediately reopen the #Druzhba oil #pipeline and refrain from further attacks on Hungary’s energy security.
Show more respect for #Hungary.”
@DDGeopolitics
https://keepandroidopen.org/open-letter/
Re: Mandatory Developer Registration for #Android App Distribution
Date: February 24, 2026
To: Sundar Pichai, Chief Executive Officer, #Google
To: Sergey Brin, Founder and Board Member, Google
To: Larry Page, Founder and Board Member, Google
To: Vijaya Kaza, General Manager for App & Ecosystem Trust, Google
CC: Regulatory authorities, policymakers, and the Android developer community
We, the undersigned organizations representing civil society, nonprofit institutions, and technology companies, write to express our strong opposition to Google’s announced policy requiring all Android app developers to register centrally with Google themselves in order to distribute applications outside of the Google Play Store, set to take effect worldwide in the coming months.
While we do recognize the importance of platform security and user safety, the Android platform already includes multiple security mechanisms that do not require central registration. Forcibly injecting an alien security model that runs counter to Android’s historic open nature threatens innovation, competition, privacy, and user freedom. We urge Google to withdraw this policy and work with the open-source and security communities on less restrictive alternatives.
Our Concerns
1. Gatekeeping Beyond Google’s Own Store
Android has historically been characterized as an open platform where users and developers can operate independently of Google’s services. The proposed developer registration policy fundamentally alters that relationship by requiring developers who wish to distribute apps through alternative channels — their own websites, third-party app stores, enterprise distribution systems, or direct transfers — to first seek permission from Google through a mandatory verification process, which involves the agreement to Google’s terms and conditions, the payment of a fee, and the uploading of government-issued identification.
This extends Google’s gatekeeping authority beyond its own marketplace into distribution channels where it has no legitimate operational role. Developers who choose not to use Google’s services should not be forced to register with, and submit to the judgement of, Google. Centralizing the registration of all applications worldwide also gives Google newfound powers to completely disable any app it wants to, for any reason, for the entire Android ecosystem.
2. Barriers to Entry and Innovation
Mandatory registration creates friction and barriers to entry, particularly for:
Individual developers and small teams with limited resources
Open-source projects that rely on volunteer contributors
Developers in regions with limited access to Google’s registration infrastructure
Privacy-focused developers who avoid surveillance ecosystems
Emergency response and humanitarian organizations requiring rapid deployment
Activists working on internet freedom in countries that unjustly criminalize that work
Developers in countries or regions where Google cannot allow them to sign up due to sanctions
Researchers and academics developing experimental applications
Internal enterprise and government applications never intended for broad public distribution
Every additional bureaucratic hurdle reduces diversity in the software ecosystem and concentrates power in the hands of large established players who can more easily absorb such compliance costs.
3. Privacy and Surveillance Concerns
Requiring registration with Google creates a comprehensive database of all Android developers, regardless of whether or not they use Google’s services. This raises serious questions about:
What personal information developers must provide
How this information will be stored, secured, and used
Whether this data could be subject to government requests or legal processes
Re: Mandatory Developer Registration for #Android App Distribution
Date: February 24, 2026
To: Sundar Pichai, Chief Executive Officer, #Google
To: Sergey Brin, Founder and Board Member, Google
To: Larry Page, Founder and Board Member, Google
To: Vijaya Kaza, General Manager for App & Ecosystem Trust, Google
CC: Regulatory authorities, policymakers, and the Android developer community
We, the undersigned organizations representing civil society, nonprofit institutions, and technology companies, write to express our strong opposition to Google’s announced policy requiring all Android app developers to register centrally with Google themselves in order to distribute applications outside of the Google Play Store, set to take effect worldwide in the coming months.
While we do recognize the importance of platform security and user safety, the Android platform already includes multiple security mechanisms that do not require central registration. Forcibly injecting an alien security model that runs counter to Android’s historic open nature threatens innovation, competition, privacy, and user freedom. We urge Google to withdraw this policy and work with the open-source and security communities on less restrictive alternatives.
Our Concerns
1. Gatekeeping Beyond Google’s Own Store
Android has historically been characterized as an open platform where users and developers can operate independently of Google’s services. The proposed developer registration policy fundamentally alters that relationship by requiring developers who wish to distribute apps through alternative channels — their own websites, third-party app stores, enterprise distribution systems, or direct transfers — to first seek permission from Google through a mandatory verification process, which involves the agreement to Google’s terms and conditions, the payment of a fee, and the uploading of government-issued identification.
This extends Google’s gatekeeping authority beyond its own marketplace into distribution channels where it has no legitimate operational role. Developers who choose not to use Google’s services should not be forced to register with, and submit to the judgement of, Google. Centralizing the registration of all applications worldwide also gives Google newfound powers to completely disable any app it wants to, for any reason, for the entire Android ecosystem.
2. Barriers to Entry and Innovation
Mandatory registration creates friction and barriers to entry, particularly for:
Individual developers and small teams with limited resources
Open-source projects that rely on volunteer contributors
Developers in regions with limited access to Google’s registration infrastructure
Privacy-focused developers who avoid surveillance ecosystems
Emergency response and humanitarian organizations requiring rapid deployment
Activists working on internet freedom in countries that unjustly criminalize that work
Developers in countries or regions where Google cannot allow them to sign up due to sanctions
Researchers and academics developing experimental applications
Internal enterprise and government applications never intended for broad public distribution
Every additional bureaucratic hurdle reduces diversity in the software ecosystem and concentrates power in the hands of large established players who can more easily absorb such compliance costs.
3. Privacy and Surveillance Concerns
Requiring registration with Google creates a comprehensive database of all Android developers, regardless of whether or not they use Google’s services. This raises serious questions about:
What personal information developers must provide
How this information will be stored, secured, and used
Whether this data could be subject to government requests or legal processes
keepandroidopen.org
An Open Letter to Google regarding Mandatory Developer Registration for Android App Distribution
Open Letter to Google Regarding Mandatory Developer Registration for Third-Party App Distribution
To what extent developer activity is tracked across the ecosystem
What this means for developers working on privacy-preserving or politically sensitive applications
Developers should have the right to create and distribute software without submitting to unnecessary surveillance or scrutiny.
4. Arbitrary Enforcement and Account Termination Risks
Google’s existing app review processes have been criticized for opaque decision-making, inconsistent enforcement, and limited appeal mechanisms. Extending this system to all Android certified devices creates risks of:
Arbitrary rejection or suspension without clear justification
Automated systems making consequential decisions with insufficient human oversight
Developers losing their ability to distribute apps across all channels due to a single un-reviewable corporate decision
Political or competitive considerations influencing registration approvals
Disproportionate impact on marginalized communities and controversial but legal applications
A single point of failure controlled by one corporation is antithetical to a healthy, competitive software ecosystem.
5. Anticompetitive Implications
This requirement allows Google to collect intelligence on all Android development activity, including:
Which apps are being developed and by whom
Alternative distribution strategies and business models
Competitive threats to Google’s own services
Market trends and user preferences outside of Google’s ecosystem
This information asymmetry provides Google with significant competitive advantages, allows it to preempt, copy, and undermine competing products and services, and may open many questions about antitrust.
6. Regulatory concerns
Regulatory authorities worldwide, including the European Commission, the U.S. Department of Justice, and competition authorities in multiple jurisdictions, have increasingly scrutinized dominant platforms’ ability to preference their own services and restrict competition, demanding more openness and interoperability. We additionally note growing concerns around regulatory intervention increasing mass surveillance, impeding software freedom, open internet and device neutrality.
We urge Google to find alternative ways to comply with regulatory obligations by promoting models that respect Android’s open nature without increasing gatekeeper control over the platform.
Existing Measures Are Sufficient
The Android platform already includes multiple security mechanisms that do not require central registration:
Operating system-level security features, application sandboxing, and permission systems
User warnings for applications that are directly installed (or “sideloaded”)
Google Play Protect (which users can choose to enable or disable)
Developer signing certificates that establish software provenance
No evidence has been presented that these safeguards are insufficient to continue to protect Android users as they have for the entire seventeen years of Android’s existence. If Google’s concern is genuinely about security rather than control, it should invest in improving these existing mechanisms rather than creating new bottlenecks and centralizing control.
Our Petition
We call upon Google to:
Immediately rescind the mandatory developer registration requirement for third-party distribution.
Engage in transparent dialogue with civil society, developers, and regulators about Android security improvements that respect openness and competition.
Commit to platform neutrality by ensuring that Android remains a genuinely open platform where Google’s role as platform provider does not conflict with its commercial interests.
Over the years, Android has evolved into a critical piece of technological infrastructure that serves hundreds of governments, millions of businesses, and billions of citizens around the world.
What this means for developers working on privacy-preserving or politically sensitive applications
Developers should have the right to create and distribute software without submitting to unnecessary surveillance or scrutiny.
4. Arbitrary Enforcement and Account Termination Risks
Google’s existing app review processes have been criticized for opaque decision-making, inconsistent enforcement, and limited appeal mechanisms. Extending this system to all Android certified devices creates risks of:
Arbitrary rejection or suspension without clear justification
Automated systems making consequential decisions with insufficient human oversight
Developers losing their ability to distribute apps across all channels due to a single un-reviewable corporate decision
Political or competitive considerations influencing registration approvals
Disproportionate impact on marginalized communities and controversial but legal applications
A single point of failure controlled by one corporation is antithetical to a healthy, competitive software ecosystem.
5. Anticompetitive Implications
This requirement allows Google to collect intelligence on all Android development activity, including:
Which apps are being developed and by whom
Alternative distribution strategies and business models
Competitive threats to Google’s own services
Market trends and user preferences outside of Google’s ecosystem
This information asymmetry provides Google with significant competitive advantages, allows it to preempt, copy, and undermine competing products and services, and may open many questions about antitrust.
6. Regulatory concerns
Regulatory authorities worldwide, including the European Commission, the U.S. Department of Justice, and competition authorities in multiple jurisdictions, have increasingly scrutinized dominant platforms’ ability to preference their own services and restrict competition, demanding more openness and interoperability. We additionally note growing concerns around regulatory intervention increasing mass surveillance, impeding software freedom, open internet and device neutrality.
We urge Google to find alternative ways to comply with regulatory obligations by promoting models that respect Android’s open nature without increasing gatekeeper control over the platform.
Existing Measures Are Sufficient
The Android platform already includes multiple security mechanisms that do not require central registration:
Operating system-level security features, application sandboxing, and permission systems
User warnings for applications that are directly installed (or “sideloaded”)
Google Play Protect (which users can choose to enable or disable)
Developer signing certificates that establish software provenance
No evidence has been presented that these safeguards are insufficient to continue to protect Android users as they have for the entire seventeen years of Android’s existence. If Google’s concern is genuinely about security rather than control, it should invest in improving these existing mechanisms rather than creating new bottlenecks and centralizing control.
Our Petition
We call upon Google to:
Immediately rescind the mandatory developer registration requirement for third-party distribution.
Engage in transparent dialogue with civil society, developers, and regulators about Android security improvements that respect openness and competition.
Commit to platform neutrality by ensuring that Android remains a genuinely open platform where Google’s role as platform provider does not conflict with its commercial interests.
Over the years, Android has evolved into a critical piece of technological infrastructure that serves hundreds of governments, millions of businesses, and billions of citizens around the world.