China is now sending missiles to Iran, according to US intelligence agencies

MANPAD missileTHERE IS MOUNTING EVIDENCE to suggest that the government of China may be supplying missiles to the Iranian armed forces, according to American intelligence agencies. Combined with prior reports about alleged Russian intelligence assistance to Iran, these latest indicators may demonstrate that China and Russia are aiding the Iranian military in a systematic and coordinated fashion in order to contribute to an American strategic defeat in the Middle East.

On Saturday, the US-based international television network CNN cited “three people familiar with recent intelligence assessment” in reporting that China was preparing to deliver to Iran several shipments of shoulder-fired anti-air missile systems, known as MANPADs. These missile systems are highly prized in both low- and high-intensity conflicts because they give individual soldiers a cheap, portable way to destroy multimillion-dollar aircraft. Their low cost and ease of concealment allow ambush-style attacks that are difficult to detect, forcing enemy pilots to fly higher or avoid certain areas. Thus, if utilized appropriately, MANPAD weapons can effectively strip an opponent of their low-altitude air superiority.

Later on Saturday, a report in The New York Times claimed that United States intelligence agencies have obtained evidence that China may have already sent at least one shipment of MANPADs to Iran. The paper noted that the intelligence collected is “not definitive” and that there is no evidence to suggest that the Iranians have received the shipment of missiles from China, or that they have deployed these weapons on the battlefield.

If it is verified, however, the intelligence may indicate that the Chinese are abandoning their traditional reluctance to supply Iran with finished or fully assembled weapons systems—especially for use against the United States armed forces. In the past, China has used a number of state-controlled export companies to supply Iran with fuel, chemicals and hardware components that can, under certain circumstances, be used to aid Iran’s military effort.

If China were to begin to systematically supply Iran with missiles and other weapons systems, it could significantly alter the course of the ongoing conflict between the Islamic Republic and the United States-Israeli alliance. Much of the course of this war depends on the ability of each side to maintain its supply of weapons—especially offensive and defensive missiles, or other interceptor ammunition.

Author: Joseph Fitsanakis | Date: 13 April 2026 | Permalink

Opinion: The Mossad’s plan to overthrow the regime in Iran was leaked

Iran Kharg IslandON SUNDAY MARCH 22, The New York Times reported that the United States and Israel launched the war in Iran with a central strategic assumption: that external military pressure on Iran could trigger internal unrest and bring about regime collapse. According to the paper, this expectation was shaped in part by Israeli intelligence assessments, particularly from Israel’s external intelligence agency, the Mossad, which argued that Iranian society was sufficiently discontented to rise up if given the right catalyst. This failed concept, which was chiefly propagated by Mossad Director David Barnea, gained traction within the U.S. administration of Donald Trump and became embedded in broader war planning assumptions, according to The Times.

In Israel, reactions to the article focused primarily on the question of who had an interest in leaking this information to The Times. The leak, which Israeli national security analysts confirmed as accurate, seemed intended to find a scapegoat. It aimed to hold the head of the Mossad responsible in the eventuality that the war did not achieve its goals. Some thought Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu himself may have been behind the leak.

This impression may have been fueled by Netanyahu’s typical behavior since the October 7, 2023, blunder. The Israeli prime minister has tended to appropriate the Mossad’s operational successes—including the 2024 electronic device attacks targeting the Lebanese paramilitary group Hezbollah. In contrast, his conduct during the war against Hamas in Gaza has been wildly different. He has evaded responsibility for all shortcomings and has placed blame for the intelligence failures on Ronen Bar, head of the Israeli Security Agency (ISA), and for the lack of a rapid response by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) on IDF Chief of Staff Herzi Halevi.

The situation is more complex in the case of Iran. So far, Mossad head Barnea has been largely shielded from negative media reports reportedly linked to Prime Minister Netanyahu’s circle. Analysis of The New York Times article suggests two possible sources for the leak: senior American officials, or members of the Israeli security establishment—which might reflect internal tensions.

The first—and more probable—possibility is that the leaks originate from Netanyahu’s own office. This may reflect reputed internal rivalries between the IDF and the Mossad. Within the IDF, military leaders have attempted to describe Israel’s war effort as divided into two camps. One camp consists of the IDF, which includes the Air Force and the Military Intelligence Directorate (MID), both of which are responsible for war operations. The other camp consists of the Mossad, whose purported task in this effort has been to provoke mass demonstrations insider Iran. According to optimistic Mossad assessments, these protests would precipitate the regime’s overthrow and its replacement with a more moderate, Western-friendly leadership. Apparently, however, in talks with the Israeli cabinet and the CIA, the Mossad never fully guaranteed that the Iranian regime would fall—and certainly not quickly. Read more of this post

The Real War Is About To Begin: Iran Transitions to Full-Scale Insurgency

Iran War 2026THE IRAN WAR OPENED with a shock. In minutes, the United States and Israel struck deep into Iran’s command structure, killing nearly fifty senior figures—among them the Supreme Leader and much of the military high command. It was a ruthless display of intelligence, surveillance, and targeting at a level rarely seen in modern warfare. Russian forces only wish they could have achieved even a fraction of this effect in Ukraine in 2022. Had they done so, the war’s trajectory might have unfolded very differently. But this kind of operational success is exceptionally hard to deliver in warfare.

And yet, as Carl von Clausewitz cautioned centuries ago, the outcome of war is not governed by formulaic calculus. No matter how astounding, operational sophistication and technological prowess do not guarantee success. Instead of an immediate collapse, the decapitation of the Iranian regime appears to have produced a series of unpredictable second-order effects. At the very least, it physically eliminated Iran’s few pragmatic leaders who have historically favored restraint. Their demise effectively handed over power to the hardliners of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Moreover, the war appears to have paralyzed Iran’s domestic opposition, whose adherents may despise the regime but—unlike the U.S. and Israel—do not want to see their country break up into ethnic statelets.

Most importantly, the February 28 decapitation strike convinced Iran’s surviving leaders that this is an existential fight—not a limited confrontation like the Twelve-Day War. Today’s ruling Principalists in Iran differ sharply from the cosmopolitan, Western-educated elite of the 1960s and 1970s. They are largely provincial in origin, domestically rooted, and lack the international ties that once offered pathways of exit. They do not hold dual citizenships, do not maintain Q Quoteforeign residences, and few of them possess the linguistic or social capital to relocate abroad. Simply put, they have no viable exit. For them, defeat is not exile—it is annihilation. Under such conditions, the expectation is not capitulation, but resistance to the very end.

Activating the Iranian Asymmetric Doctrine

Starting in 2001, the campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq offered Iranian war planners a prolonged and unusually comprehensive vantage point from which to study the American way of war in their immediate neighborhood. For over two decades, the Iranians analyzed these methods, learned from them, and internalized their logic into their own asymmetric warfare doctrine. And now, having survived the February 28 decapitation attack, the Iranian regime has put that doctrine into operation. Iran’s asymmetric doctrine channels the state’s military, civilian, economic, and informational assets into a multi-domain, protracted insurgency campaign designed to inflict maximum pain on its enemies. In doing so, it rests on what is perhaps the Islamic Republic’s greatest asset: its asymmetric patience—i.e., its capacity to endure more physical and emotional torment than its Western opponents and their allies.

The Iranians refined their asymmetric patience skills during what they refer to as the “War of Holy Defense” (1980-1988), one of the 20th century’s longest conflicts and the deadliest conventional war ever fought in the developing world. The then-newly formed Islamic Republic suffered over 500,000 casualties—many of those due to exposure to chemical warfare—but managed to bring Saddam Hussein’s Western-backed Iraq into a standstill and force it into a truce. To do so, they even resorted to so-called “human wave assaults”, large masses of mostly unarmed youth who swarmed enemy positions and overwhelmed them by the sheer power of their number. That was largely how the Basij, the Iranian regime’s paramilitary street gangs that continue to operate in modern-day Iran, were initially formed.

Iran’s “Economy of Resistance”

On March 28, the Telegram channel belonging to the Iranian Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei issued an infographic titled “The Path to Defeating the Enemy in the Economic War”. The infographic reflects the Islamic Republic’s concept of “economy of resistance”, which was first developed in 2014 by Mojtaba Khamenei’s father, the late Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. The central idea behind this concept is restructuring the Iranian economy, not simply to reduce its susceptibility to Western-imposed sanctions, but to allow it to stabilize and even develop. The goal of the economy of resistance is to prevent the destruction of the Islamic Republic and the Westernization of Iranian society. Through the economy of resistance doctrine, and with crucial help by China and Russia, Iran has largely managed to insulate its economy from the global economic system that is now reeling under Iran’s own asymmetric attacks. Read more of this post