The graph is really telling. More sanction than ever and the US has maybe never seen it’s enemies and nonaligned states more cooperative (atleast since the days of the USSR although that’s debatable). This is probably the biggest shortcoming of the Biden admin foreign policy, the rise of BRICS and stuff like that.

ETA: biggest shortcoming strategically not morally, that would be Gaza obviously.

Same as it ever was (ever meaning the past 2 years atleast).

https://isis-online.org/isis-reports/detail/iranian-breakout-timeline-now-at-zero/

It would still take months to build a detonator though.

I genuinely do not care who owns the factory as long as it creates jobs.

BRICS is less about alliances, in fact the UAE and Iran are enemies to the level of the US and Russia. It’s more about reducing the influence of Western sections on global politics. Basically anyone not reliant on the West financially would benefit from joining BRICS since it reduces the leverage the West has over them.

ETA: it’s a similar concept to OPEC where many countries are outright enemies.

So the argument from Assange was that all relevant information from the cache was already public from previous publication. The entire cache was public when FP published the article you’re referring to so they could have pointed out what was actually worth reporting if there was anything.

Here’s the article for everyone else:

https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-leaks-on-russian-government-during-u-s-presidential-campaign/

The point about the 2012 Syria emails is more interesting, but the whole point about Wikileaks running cover for Russia never made a lot of sense to me since they have published damaging info about Russia.

ETA: I’d be remiss not to mention that the discussion of Assange’s biases is a red herring to the real problem which is the US’s attempt to criminalize publication of state secrets.

Whatever you think of Assange, you should know why the US government wants to prosecute him. He published this among other things:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8xhH0FkCQg

Context: that’s a US gunship firing on Reuters journalists among other civilians including kids.

Is there a reason they can’t use a conventional warhead to destroy a satellite? Even if they wanted to use it to attack a surface there isn’t a lot of evidence that a normal ICBM can be reliably intercepted so I doubt them being in space will change much.

Edit: *surface target

So they didn’t throw out the case nor did they order an end to military operations. Consider the can kicked, not that it’s a surprising outcome. Tough to parse the legalspeak at this point so I don’t have the whole picture.