Given the Trump administration's shift from a military campaign against Iran to primarily one that seeks economic 'strangulation' and isolation - there's been a big diplomatic push by the White House to get regional allies on board.
But the early case remains that reactions from other Gulf allies have so far been muted, after Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent earlier confirmed that Trump has been phoning world leaders to join him in isolating Iran.
via Mehr NewsBut this is what makes images coming out Monday from a place further to the east so resounding, symbolic, and defiant: Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian is busy getting the red carpet treatment while attending the annual Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) Summit.
Chinese President Xi Jinping, his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi have arrived in Kyrgyzstan's capital Bishkek for the annual Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) Summit - the primarily China/Russia founded Eurasian political, economic and international security organization which is now made up of ten member states
The bold defiance in terms of the optics will surely not be missed by Washington:
Chinese President Xi Jinping, his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi have arrived in Kyrgyzstan’s capital Bishkek for the annual Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) Summit.
Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian is also attending the summit, which marks 25 years of its existence.
Also in attendance for the two-day summit which kicked off Monday, and which has already included a Putin-Xi meeting on the sidelines, are the leaders of Uzbekistan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and others.
"Uncertainty grows against the backdrop of unprecedented changes" — China's Xi Jinping tells Vladimir Putin
Notably, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is also there, and United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres.
🇮🇷 Kyrgyz people welcomed President Pezeshkian with traditional sweets.
During his visit to Kyrgyzstan, in addition to participating in and delivering a speech at the summit of heads of state of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and the "SCO plus" format, President… pic.twitter.com/wL4a6dFSy2
Warm greetings between Iranian and Pakistani leaders...
#VIDEO: Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif meets Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian in Bishkek on the sidelines of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit. pic.twitter.com/XdU0IBBcbP
— Saudi Gazette (@Saudi_Gazette) August 31, 2026It must be remembered that Pakistan is a long-running nuclear-armed Washington ally... so this is awkward to say the least, for the US.
But Islamabad has also been a key mediator throughout the now 6-month long Iran war. Whenever its officials get dispatched to Tehran, the relationship with Iranian officials seems chummy and warm. This has already been on display at the SCO conference...
Meeting between the Prime Minister and the President of Iran on the sidelines of SCO CHS Meeting in Bishkek.
Prime Minister Muhammad Shehbaz Sharif held a meeting with the President of Islamic Republic of Iran, H.E. Dr. Masoud Pezeshkian today, on the sidelines of SCO Council of… pic.twitter.com/liQazEaA1R
Tehran is hoping that its membership and active involvement in regional accords such as the SCO as well as BRICS can be a key to weathering the US-led economic storm and strong sanctions regimen.
Earlier this month, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian reaffirmed in a statement that cooperation between China and Iran "has always been conducted within the framework of international law and should not be interfered with or disrupted." So far, US Treasury sanctions have yet to take direct aim at significant Chinese financial institutions.
Tyler Durden Mon, 08/31/2026 - 21:20Authored by Jonathan Turley via Jonathan Turley,
Below is my column in The Hill on the latest controversy from the chambers of Judge Indira Talwani. While the court could be upheld in halting the executive order on mail-in balloting in this case, Talwani is one of a number of jurists who have been habitual blockers of executive reforms and policies. Talwani has been criticized in the past as something of a one-stop option for forum-shoppers. Her record reaffirms the rationale for justices in using the emergency docket, or so-called "shadow docket," to deter gaming the system.
Here is the column:
This week, the Trump administration found itself in a familiar position: facing an injunction from Judge Indira Talwani of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Indeed, it had just secured an order from the Supreme Court on its emergency docket lifting her earlier injunction on the U.S. Postal Service requiring voting lists to confirm U.S. citizenship.
The case against the executive order on mail-in ballots has reasonable arguments on both sides, although (as I have said previously) the challengers are likely to prevail in defeating the rule or at least delaying the policy until after the midterm elections. The Constitution gives states the primary responsibility over "the times, places, and manner of holding elections."
However, the U.S. Postal Service is a federal agency, and the federal government does have a role in the funding and regulation of federal elections. More importantly, the Trump administration is arguing that it is not barring mail-in voting but merely imposing "modest informational requirements." Non-citizens cannot vote in federal elections, and the new rule "does not displace a single state election law. And it need not and should not prevent a single voter from voting by mail."
The controversy over Talwani is not necessarily the merits of her decision that the rule convenes the constitutional framework. Indeed, the Supreme Court did not rule on the merits and could well rule in favor of her interpretation.
The controversy is the pattern of sweeping injunctions by Talwani and a few other judges.
Litigants have been accused of forum-shopping by going to liberal, Democratically appointed judges to prevent Trump policies from being implemented in a wide array of areas, including immigration, elections, reduction in government bureaucracies, and foreign aid.
Like her colleague in Boston, U.S. District Court Judge Brian Murphy, Talwani is viewed by many as a one-stop-shop judge for forum-shopping. Both have issued hair-trigger injunctions, and both have been repeatedly reversed.
Talwani was reversed on Aug. 24 for imposing an injunction against the mail-in balloting policy. Her injunction was taken to be premature and without a legal injury, since the administration had not issued a formal rule. The truth is, the challengers had her at hello. She did not wait for a showing of a cognizable injury before issuing another injunction, because the decision appeared made before the case hit her own docket.
Previously, Talwani showed the same inclination in other cases.
For example, she issued an injunction against revoking the humanitarian parole program for hundreds of thousands of immigrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela. Her order was lifted on appeal.
She also issued an injunction to stop the Trump Administration from defunding Planned Parenthood. That order was also set aside on appeal.
Regardless of the outcome of this latest injunction, Talwani has offered the strongest case in favor of the expanded use of the emergency docket, also known as the "shadow docket." Liberal law professors and litigants have bewailed the expanded use of this docket at the Supreme Court to resolve cases without the need for a long briefing and oral argument. However, judges like Talwani have created legitimate concerns over the use of the appellate system to slow or freeze new policies. This is why the "shadow docket" has become more prominent.
This year, confidential memoranda were leaked from the court on the use of the emergency docket and published by the New York Times. It was only the latest such strategic leak from a court that was once the paragon of confidentiality and civility.
The internal exchanges of the justices were illuminating as to the majority's underlying reason for allowing this fast-track review. The immediate issue was a move by the Environmental Protection Agency to impose unlawful regulatory burdens on electric utilities despite a countervailing earlier ruling in Michigan v. EPA. Chief Justice Roberts believed (as did many) that the EPA was using the ongoing litigation to force utilities to spend billions of dollars to comply with new regulations that the Supreme Court had already rejected.
"In other words," Roberts wrote, "the absence of stay allowed the agency to effectively implement an important program we held to be contrary to law."
As with the national injunctions that plagued the Trump administration in its first year, this tactic was all too familiar. Litigants would go to liberal judges in Washington, Boston, and other blue cities to secure injunctions that would take years to fully litigate. That approach effectively allowed individual judges to pursue their own preferred policies or to prevent a president from carrying out promises made during an election. At most, the president might have a year left after these cases slogged through the conventional appellate process. It is an administrative version of the old adage that "justice delayed is justice denied."
What concerned the justices was that many of these injunctions directly contravened earlier precedent, exposing the cynical purpose of these orders. For a president to be able to carry out major changes, he had to run a gauntlet of hundreds of judges, any one of whom could effectively negate reforms. In response, the Supreme Court ramped up the use of the emergency docket and cracked down on national injunctions, quickly reversing the rapidly increasing number of injunctions against the Trump administration.
With the midterm elections rapidly approaching, the odds favor challengers in either running out the clock or prevailing on the merits on the mail-in ballots. But Talwani and some other judges have reinforced suspicions of the Roberts court that some courts are willing allies of partisan groups in seeking to gum up the system.
Ironically, Roberts is one of the most likely conservative justices to be concerned with the Trump administration's effort to force election integrity reforms on the states. Either way, it is the shadow of these judges, not the docket, that is casting the most ominous concern for many of the Supreme Court justices.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the best-selling author of "Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution."
Tyler Durden Mon, 08/31/2026 - 20:55A number of US military top generals have taken the rare step of formally registering warnings to Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth over potential plans for a new phase of strikes against a non-compliant Iran.
The warnings reportedly emerged through the Secretary of Defense Orders Book, which enumerates the availability of US military resources and force posture around the world - with direct input from American regional commanders.
via ReutersThe book is typically published twice a month, but this time it was reportedly filled with pushback by those overseeing operations in Latin America, Europe and Asia - who have seen training missions canceled, and ships and aircraft diverted to the Middle East for counter-Iran operations.
The Washington Post reported over the weekend that a chief complaint by the top officers was that the Iran conflict "has degraded their ability to fulfill homeland-defense obligations."
Amid fresh troop movements based on new orders reportedly issued in mid-August, commanders made clear they do not agree with the new force trajectory, but are ready to carry out the Commander-in-Chief's orders regardless.
Still, the leaking of this information, and such a rare public airing of grievances, has Hegseth and the Trump administration furious. The Washington Post reports:
The Aug. 14 orders book directs some troops deployed in the Middle East to remain there through September and some others into 2027, said those familiar with the document. The prospect of extending those forces further compelled military leaders to voice their concern, these people said.
Leaders of the U.S. European Command, the U.S. Pacific Command and the U.S. Southern Command, along with the Navy’s top admiral, responded with what is characterized in the SDOB as a “non-concur,” those familiar with the assessment said — meaning they disagree with the secretary’s order to extend their forces but will execute it nevertheless.
Another key line from generals cited in the WaPo reporting is that the Iran war - which the Trump White House early on had promised would be 'swift' - has been "too much for too long".
Some pundits are warning that this alleged rare leak is an alarming sign Trump could be preparing to do something 'big'...
I'm telling you guys and gals here: Trump is getting ready to something batshit crazy--which is why the generals and admirals are leaking SDOB to the WaPo. They're FREAKING OUT because it's obvious that Trump and his team are going to make them do something nutty. https://t.co/nc0tLcj0b6
— Brandon Weichert (@WeTheBrandon) August 31, 2026That section from the WaPo report reads as follows:
Army and Air Force leadership concurred with Hegseth’s desire to extend their deployed forces, but each emphasized that doing so would come with significant risk, these people said.
Overall, the tenor from the military leadership is that the ongoing Iran operation, having reached the six-month mark, has been “too much for too long,” said one person familiar with the assessment.
The military’s warning to Hegseth, which has not been previously reported, offers new insight into the administration’s dilemma as Trump seeks to end the conflict on terms favorable to the United States while Iran, cognizant of the war’s unpopularity with most Americans and its mounting toll on the U.S. arsenal, refuses to capitulate.
As expected, the Pentagon has responded by calling it fake news and saying that leakers of classified information will be sought and dealt with.
"This fake news, poorly sourced reporting is full of inaccuracies," Chief Pentagon Spokesman Sean Parnell said in a statement. More from Parnell on X:
Publishing highly classified assessments from the Secretary’s orders book is a crime.
It’s a betrayal of the force.
And much of what they’re publishing is inaccurate.
Of course, we demand candid military advice. Non-concurs are standard. The Secretary sees them constantly. That’s… https://t.co/Jgc4GzdXcU
He added: "Decisions regarding the scope and duration of specific force commitments to any Combatant Command are made based on the current threat assessment, strategic priorities established by the President, and the advice of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Combatant Commanders. However, the Department of War does not discuss internal operational processes, including the Secretary of War Orders Book (SWOB), or specific concurrences, non-concurrences, or risk assessments provided by the Services or Combatant Commands during force allocation deliberations."
But the reality is that this conflict is a full six months in, and the generals are perhaps keenly aware it is now in quagmire stage, with no plans for an exit or final strategic 'mission accomplished' vision in sight. Meanwhile, every escalation in the Persian Gulf tends to beget more escalation. What's the endgame here?
Tyler Durden Mon, 08/31/2026 - 20:30