Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Trump Revolution? Diplomacy Toward Yemen, Iran, Russia & China

Larry Johnson with Glenn Diesen
Glenn Diesen | March 26, 2025

Larry Johnson, a former CIA Intelligence Analyst, argues that Trump’s international diplomacy may be derailing. JD Vance recognised in private messages that bombing Yemen was a mistake and contradicted the America First platform, although the attacks nonetheless took place. Is America returning to its forever wars?

March 26, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Video, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Explainer: What does Iran’s newly-unveiled largest subterranean ‘missile city’ reveal?

By Ivan Kesic | Press TV | March 26, 2025

The Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) on Tuesday unveiled its largest underground missile city at an undisclosed location, sending a powerful message to enemies about Iran’s growing military prowess and complete readiness for any eventuality.

The subterranean facility was revealed in the presence of Chief of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces, Major General Mohammad Bagheri, and IRGC Aerospace Commander, Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh.

Its unveiling comes amid escalating threats and blatant warmongering from the Donald Trump administration and the Israeli regime, prompting Iran to showcase its military preparedness to defend the homeland.

Just three days prior, the IRGC had unveiled new missile systems on three strategic islands in the Persian Gulf, capable of striking enemy bases, vessels, and assets across the region.

In recent years, the IRGC has released images of various underground bases, but this latest facility stands out as the largest yet, both in scale and firepower.

What ballistic missiles are stored in this underground base?

During the latest unveiling, it was revealed that a wide array of ballistic missiles—including Kheibar Shekan, Haj Qasem, Emad, Sajjil, and Ghadr-H, as well as Paveh cruise missiles—are stored in this missile city.

In a single frame, at least 78 Kheibar Shekan or Haj Qasem missiles were visible, with additional footage showing tunnels filled with dozens more, suggesting that the base houses at least hundreds, if not thousands, of missiles.

Some of these missiles, such as Kheibar Shekan, Ghadr, and Emad, were used in the True Promise I and II retaliatory operations against the Zionist entity last year that sent shockwaves across the world.

These operations demonstrated Iran’s capability to strike Israeli military and intelligence targets with high precision, penetrating much-hyped and advanced Israeli and American air defense systems.

During his visit to the facility, Major General Bagheri emphasized that “Iran’s iron fist is far stronger today than before,” stating that the current missile capacity is ten times greater than during past operations.

He further asserted that “the enemy will definitely fall behind in this balance of power,” signaling Iran’s continued advancement in missile development and underground military infrastructure.

What is the purpose of underground bases?

Iran’s underground missile bases are fortified military facilities constructed beneath the Earth’s surface to store, maintain, and launch ballistic missiles of short (SRBM), medium (MRBM), and intermediate range (IRBM).

Often referred to as “missile cities” by Iranian officials, these bases form a key component of Iran’s defense strategy, designed to shield its vast and burgeoning missile arsenal from detection and destruction during conflicts.

In addition to offering natural protection against aerial threats, these underground bases allow military operations to be carried out in complete secrecy, avoiding exposure to aerial reconnaissance.

The exact number of these facilities remains a closely guarded secret, but estimates suggest there are dozens of them, mostly located in the western mountainous regions.

Brigadier General Hajizadeh in a TV interview recently commented on the vast number of missile bases in the country, stating, “If we unveil a missile city every week for the next two years, it will still not be finished.”

The IRGC has frequently released footage from these underground bases, and analysis of tunnel shapes and weaponry confirms that they are distinct facilities.

In 2018, the IRGC announced the relocation of missile factories to underground bases, marking the first time images from a subterranean ballistic missile production plant were publicly released.

Beyond missile bases, Iran has also constructed underground air bases for jet fighters, underground naval bases for speedboats and missiles, and underground drone facilities.

How protected are these underground bases?

With modern satellite, reconnaissance, and intelligence technology, fully concealing the locations of such underground bases is impossible, particularly due to excavation debris and construction logistics.

However, this does not make them vulnerable, as they are typically carved into mountains, with depths reported to reach up to 500 meters, providing protection against airstrikes and nearly all bunker-busting munitions.

All critical facilities are located hundreds of meters inside the mountains and are practically indestructible, with multiple entrances and exits being their only potential weak points.

To mitigate this, each base has up to several dozen entrances. The destruction of one or even a few does not cause significant damage, as they are typically hundreds or thousands of meters apart, separated by multiple tunnel gates.

Iran has refined camouflage techniques and the creation of false entrances to ensure operational continuity, even under complete enemy air dominance.

Based on published images and videos, these bases feature arched tunnel designs, optimal for load distribution, arranged in either linear or grid formations.

Tunnels range from 6 to 12 meters in width, sometimes reinforced with concrete ceilings, and serve as corridors, missile storage areas, and parking spaces for transporter-erector launchers (TELs).

In some cases, high halls are visible, suggesting the utilization of natural caves to reduce excavation costs and complicate hostile intelligence assessments based on excavation debris.

How are ballistic missiles stored in these bases launched?

Ballistic missiles stored in these bases are launched in two ways: either by deploying the transporter-erector launcher into the open or using vertical silos.

Each base contains numerous silos—often several dozen—as they, along with entrances, are potential vulnerabilities.

Once a silo is used, the hot exhaust trail from rocket engines irreversibly reveals its position, making it a prime target for aerial bombs or cruise missiles.

To counter this, Iran has developed unique underground launch methods to enhance both effectiveness and stealth.

In 2020, Iran released footage of an underground missile system capable of launching multiple ballistic missiles from a single silo in rapid succession.

In other countries with underground missile bases—where such facilities are typically used for bulky intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) within nuclear deterrence strategies—each silo usually holds only one missile.

By contrast, Iran’s system functions more like a “semi-automatic” magazine-fed launcher, rather than a “single-shot” silo.

Footage shows five Emad missiles positioned for vertical launch on a single rail car, which then moves down a high tunnel toward the launch site.

The tunnel’s length and rail system suggest it can rapidly launch dozens of missiles before a potential counterstrike, with multiple silo openings likely enabling continuous barrages.

That same year, during the Payambar-e-A’azam (The Great Prophet) 14 drills, Iran demonstrated a unique camouflaged underground ballistic missile launch, bypassing conventional platforms and equipment.

Brigadier General Hajizadeh stated that Iran was the first country in the world to achieve such a launch capability, posing significant challenges to enemy intelligence agencies.

The released video shows two missiles launching from different locations on what appears to be an untouched surface, suggesting that the vertical launch tubes were constructed from below rather than being dug from above and later camouflaged.

This demonstration signaled that Iran’s underground missile bases, often covering dozens of square kilometers, may house countless concealed silos.

March 26, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , | Leave a comment

Oxford city council passes boycott divestment, sanctions motion

Press TV – March 26, 2025

The Oxford City Council has passed a motion supporting the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel, in accordance with International Court of Justice (ICJ) rulings.

On Monday, the members of Oxford City Council unanimously voted for an “ethical investment and procurement” process against Israel.

The motion calls on the Oxford City Council to avoid cooperation and trade with entities complicit in human rights violations and international law.

In January 2024, the ICJ delivered an interim ruling that said it was plausible that Israel was committing genocide in Gaza. The court called on Israel to refrain from impeding the delivery of aid into Gaza

Amongst other orders, ICJ also ordered Israel to avoid acts of genocide in the besieged enclave and punish incitement to genocide.

The Israeli regime not only has continued to ignore the ICJ’s rulings but also has committed numerous acts of genocide against the people of Palestine, including the restriction of the delivery of international aid into the besieged enclave.

Given Israel’s disregard for the Court’s orders, Oxford councilor Hosnieh Djafari-Marbini said councilors had “unanimously passed a boycott and divestment motion citing the ICJ rulings on Palestine.”

One of the motion’s proponents, councilor Barbara Coyne, said in a press release, “I hope this motion will be thoroughly implemented, and that its passage may pave the way for other councils to take decisive action.”

In addition, the Council has called on the Oxfordshire Investment Fund to divest more than 157 million pounds from companies complicit in the Israeli regime’s apartheid, genocide, occupation, and settler colonialism.

The people of Palestine have long called for boycott, divestment, and sanctions, including an arms and energy embargo, against the occupying regime.

The BDS movement demands that Israel, under international law, withdraw from the occupied territories, remove the separation barrier in the West Bank, and respect the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties.

March 26, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Solidarity and Activism, War Crimes | , , , , , | Leave a comment

War, doublethink and the struggle for survival: the geopolitics of the Gaza Genocide

By Ramzy Baroud | MEMO | March 26, 2025

In a genocidal war that has spiralled into a struggle for political survival, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s coalition and the global powers supporting him continue to sacrifice Palestinian lives for political gain. The sordid career of Israel’s extreme far-right National Security Minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir, epitomises this tragic reality.

Ben-Gvir joined Netanyahu’s government coalition following the December 2022 election. He remained in the coalition after 7 October, 2023, and the start of Israel’s war and the Gaza Genocide, with the understanding that any ceasefire in Gaza would force his withdrawal from the government. As long as the killing of Palestinians and the destruction of their cities continued, then Ben-Gvir stayed on board. Neither he nor Netanyahu had any real “next-day” plan, though, other than to carry out some of the most heinous massacres against a civilian population in recent history.

On 19 January, Ben-Gvir left the government immediately when a ceasefire agreement came into effect, which many argued would not last. Netanyahu’s untrustworthiness, along with the collapse of his government if the war ended completely, made the ceasefire unfeasible.

Ben-Gvir duly returned to the coalition when the genocide resumed on 18 March. “We are back, with all our might and power!” he tweeted.

Israel lacks a clear plan because it cannot defeat the Palestinians.

While the Israeli army has inflicted suffering on the Palestinian people like no other force has against a civilian population in modern times, the Gaza Genocide endures because the Palestinians refuse to surrender.

And yet, Israel’s military planners know that a military victory is no longer possible. Former Defence Minister Moshe Ya’alon added his voice to the growing chorus recently, saying during an interview on 15 March that, “Revenge is not a war plan.”

The Americans, who supported Netanyahu’s violation of the ceasefire — and gave the green light for the resumption of the killings — also understand that the war is almost entirely a political struggle, designed to keep extreme far-right figures like Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich in Netanyahu’s coalition.

Although “war is the continuation of politics by other means,” as Prussian General Carl von Clausewitz once surmised, in Israel’s case, the “politics” behind the war is not about Israel as a state, but about Netanyahu’s own political survival. He is sacrificing Palestinian children to stay in power, while his extremist ministers do the same to expand their support among right-wing, religious and ultra-nationalist constituencies.

This logic — that Israel’s war on Gaza reflects internal politics, ideological warfare and class infighting — extends to other political players as well. The Trump administration supports Israel as payback for the financial backing it received from Netanyahu’s supporters in the US during the past few presidential election campaigns. Britain, meanwhile, remains steadfast in its commitment to Tel Aviv, despite the political shifts in Westminster, thus continuing to align with US-Israeli interests while disregarding the wishes of its own population. Meanwhile, Germany, it’s said, is driven by the guilt of its past crimes, while other Western governments pay lip service to human rights, all the while acting in ways that contradict their stated foreign policies.

This mirrors the dystopian world of George Orwell’s book 1984, wherein perpetual war is waged based on cynical and false assumptions; where “war is peace… freedom is slavery… and ignorance is strength.”

These elements are indeed reflected in today’s equally dystopian reality.

However, Israel substitutes “peace” with “security” (its own; nobody else’s), the US is motivated by dominance and “stability”, and Europe continues to speak of “democracy”.

Another key difference is that Palestinians do not belong to any of these “super states”. They are treated as mere pawns, their deaths and enduring injustice used to create the illusion of “conflict” and to justify the ongoing prolongation of the war.

The number of Palestinians killed — now more than 50,000 — is reported widely by mainstream media outlets, yet rarely do they mention that this is not a war in the traditional sense, but a genocide, carried out, financed and defended by Israel and Western powers for domestic political reasons. Palestinians continue to resist because it is their only legitimate option in the face of utter destruction and extermination.

Netanyahu’s war, however, is not sustainable in the Orwellian sense either. For it to be sustainable, it would need infinite economic resources, which Israel, despite US generosity, cannot afford. It would also need an endless supply of soldiers, but reports indicate that at least half of Israel’s reserves are not rejoining the army.

Furthermore, Netanyahu does not merely seek to sustain the Gaza Genocide; he aims to expand it. This could shift regional and international dynamics in ways that neither Israeli leaders nor their allies fully understand.

Aware of this, Arab leaders met in Cairo on 4 March to propose an alternative to the Netanyahu-Trump plan to ethnically cleanse Palestinians from Gaza. However, they have yet to take meaningful action to hold Israel accountable if it continues to defy international and humanitarian laws, as it has since the Arab summit.

The Arab world must escalate its response beyond mere statements.

If they don’t, then the Middle East may endure further wars, all to prolong Netanyahu’s coalition of extremists a little longer.

As for the West, the crisis lies in its moral contradictions. The situation in Gaza embodies Orwell’s concept of “doublethink”, holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously and accepting both. Western powers claim to support human rights while simultaneously backing genocide. Until this dilemma is resolved, the Middle East will continue to endure suffering for years to come.

March 26, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , , , | Leave a comment

How Syria’s HTS is quietly dismantling the Palestinian cause

The Cradle | March 25, 2025

Since the fall of the Syrian government on 8 December, the direction of the new interim administration, headed by Ahmad al-Sharaa, has become increasingly clear. Politically, militarily, and legally, Damascus now appears aligned with Washington’s long-standing vision of dismantling the Palestinian cause.

This alignment is taking shape on three key fronts: first is the Palestinian Authority (PA), resistance factions such as Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), and other factions splintered from the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). Second, is the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) tasked specifically to aid Palestinian refugees in the region, and third, are the camps housing Palestinian refugees and displaced Syrians.

Two developments underscore this shift. First, both Turkiye and Lebanon have blocked Palestinians holding Syrian documents from returning to Syria on the same basis as Syrian nationals. Second, US media has revealed ongoing talks between Washington and Damascus over the possibility of Syria absorbing tens of thousands of displaced Gazans, in exchange for sanctions relief or a broader political arrangement, particularly in the aftermath of the Coastal Massacres earlier this year.

Front 1: The PA and the resistance factions

More than four months into the transition to new governance, one thing is clear: former Al-Qaeda affiliate leader Ahmad al-Sharaa, now Syria’s president, is keeping Hamas at arm’s length. Despite repeated requests by Khaled Meshaal – head of Hamas’s political bureau abroad – to visit Damascus, the interim authorities have stalled, aiming to avoid direct confrontation with Israel or the US.

This new Syrian posture takes place in the midst of an ongoing genocide against the Palestinian people and the occupation state’s aim to eliminate their Islamic resistance.

The Cradle has learned that communication between Hamas and the new authorities is largely being channelled through Turkish intermediaries. Ankara is reportedly facilitating the relocation of several Hamas military officials to Idlib, the stronghold of Sharaa’s Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) militants.

In contrast, Sharaa – who met with Palestinian Prime Minister Mohammad Mustafa in January – has formally opened channels with the PA’s diplomatic mission in Damascus, recognizing it as the official representative of the Palestinian people.

The visiting delegation included senior officials from Fatah and the PLO, most notably Mahmoud Abbas’s son, who arrived to reclaim properties previously held by anti-Fatah factions under former Syrian president Bashar al-Assad’s government.

On the night the Assad government collapsed, Popular Front–General Command (PFLP-GC) Secretary-General Talal Naji and Palestine Liberation Army (PLA) Chief-of-Staff Akram al-Rifai sought refuge at the PA embassy. Palestinian ambassador Samir al-Rifai reportedly received a sharp rebuke from Abbas for granting them shelter. As for the rest of the faction leaders, each of them remained at home.

The day after HTS forces entered Damascus, they launched a wave of closures targeting Palestinian faction offices. Those belonging to Fatah al-Intifada, the Baath-aligned Al-Sa’iqa movement, and the PFLP-GC were shuttered, with their weapons, vehicles, and real estate seized.

The Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP), which had maintained a lower profile during the Syrian war, was allowed to continue operating – though under observation.

On 11 and 12 December, several faction leaders convened at the Palestinian embassy in the presence of PLA leader Rifai to discuss their future. They attempted to arrange a formal meeting with Sharaa via Syria’s Foreign Ministry. Instead, a messenger from HTS – identified as Basil Ayoub – arrived at the embassy and demanded full disclosure of all faction-owned assets, including real estate, bank deposits, vehicles, and weapons. No political engagement would be possible, he said, until a comprehensive inventory had been submitted.

The factions complied by drafting a letter declaring that their holdings were lawfully acquired and that they were prepared to limit their activity to political and media outreach, in full alignment with Syria’s new posture. The fate of the letter to Sharaa and its response are unknown.

Decapitation campaign: arrests, confiscations, and settlements

What followed was a systematic decapitation of the Palestinian factional structure in Syria.

In early February, Fatah al-Intifada’s Secretary-General Abu Hazem Ziad al-Saghir was arrested at his home. After hours of interrogation and a raid on his office – where documents reportedly linked him to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) – he was released.

A week later, he was re-arrested and held at a newly established detention site behind the Abbasid Stadium. A financial settlement was reached: $500,000 in exchange for his release and deportation to Lebanon. At the request of the committee, the movement’s Central Committee issued a statement terminating Saghir’s duties and dismissing him from the movement. However, Saghir issued a counterstatement from Lebanon, transferring the movement’s General Secretariat there and dismissing those who had made the decision to remove him.

The Palestinian Baathist faction, Al-Sa’iqa, fared no better. Its Secretary-General Muhammad Qais was interrogated and stripped of the group’s assets. Though he was not in command during the Battle of Yarmouk and thus escaped harsher punishment, HTS ordered the removal of the term “Baath” from all official materials. A statement soon emerged from within the occupied territories denouncing Qais as a “regime remnant,” suggesting a growing internal split.

HTS also clamped down hard on the PFLP-GC, whose Secretary-General, Talal Naji, was placed under house arrest and interrogated multiple times. All the group’s offices, vehicles, and weapons were confiscated, their headquarters shuttered, and its members beaten and humiliated. Their radio station, Al-Quds Radio, was seized, and their Umayyah Hospital is reportedly next in line.

The “Nidal Front” – a breakaway faction of the Palestinian Popular Struggle Front (PPSF), a left-wing group within the PLO – was the most controversial of its dealings. At the beginning of the events, Khaled Meshaal was able to mediate for the Front’s Secretary-General, Khaled Abdul Majeed, and protect him and his organization. However, in February, Abdul Majeed fled to the UAE.

His personal residence and vehicles – reportedly privately owned – were seized along with 50 million Syrian pounds (less than $5,000) in assets. Forced to resign by HTS, he handed over authority to a central committee operating out of Damascus and Beirut.

The DFLP has so far escaped the brunt of these purges, and its offices and vehicles remain untouched by the new administration, possibly because it had no ties to Iran or Hezbollah. The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine’s (PFLP – different from the PFLP-GC) main office in the Taliani area of Damascus remains open but inactive, while the rest of its offices have been shut down.

As of now, the PIJ, whose fighters have been on Gaza’s frontline battling Israel since 7 October 2023, remains in its Syrian offices. The faction’s representative has not been summoned for questioning, despite Israel bombing an apartment used by the group’s Secretary-General, Ziad al-Nakhala.

However, key PIJ military figures relocated to Baghdad on the night Damascus fell to HTS. Their activities inside Syria appear largely to have been reduced to conducting funerals for fighters who were killed in battle in southern Lebanon, albeit exclusively inside Palestinian refugee camps.

The Yarmouk camp in Damascus had already witnessed a series of protests in the first days of February, most notably gatherings demanding the closure of the headquarters of pro-regime organizations and the accountability of those involved in the arrest and killing of camp residents. The events escalated into an attempt to set fire to the headquarters of the PIJ’s Quds Brigades, with some youths and children throwing firecrackers at the building. Meanwhile, a demonstration erupted in protest against the decision to reopen the offices of the Al-Sa’iqa brigades in the Al-A’edin camp,

Front 2: Palestinian refugee camps in Syria

The crackdown on political groups has created a leadership vacuum in Syria’s Palestinian camps. Living conditions – already dire – have deteriorated further. In early February, protests erupted in several camps over Israel’s brutal attacks on the occupied West Bank’s Jenin Camp, following the PA delegation’s visit and the Syrian government’s formal recognition of Ramallah’s authority. Many feared this shift would accelerate plans for permanent resettlement of the refugees. At the same time, residents say they were coerced into public rallies in support of Sharaa’s self-declared presidency.

On 24 February, the Community Development Committee in Deraa began collecting detailed personal data from camp residents under the pretext of improving service delivery. A similar census was launched days earlier in Jaramana, but the purpose and funders of these efforts remain unclear.

Into this vacuum stepped Hamas. Through affiliated organizations like the Palestine Development Authority, Hamas began distributing food and financial aid, often via operatives embedded within HTS. This effort came as services once offered by the PIJ – including transportation, communal kitchens, and medical support – were halted. Even the Palestinian-Iranian Friendship Association’s headquarters in Yarmouk was taken over and repurposed by HTS elements.

Other actors, such as the Jafra Foundation and the Palestinian Red Crescent, continue to operate despite significant constraints. Their efforts have been insufficient to meet demand, particularly as the local economy continues to collapse. Most refugees rely on informal work, and with much of the economy paralyzed, daily survival has become precarious.

Of particular concern is a reported settlement proposal, conveyed through Turkish mediation. It allegedly offers Palestinians in Syria three options: Syrian naturalization, integration into a new PA-affiliated “community” under embassy supervision, or consular classification with annual residency renewals. The implicit fourth option is displacement, mirroring what happened to Palestinians in post-US invasion Iraq.

Front 3: UNRWA, sidelined and undermined

Though the new Syrian authorities have not openly targeted UNRWA, their lack of cooperation speaks volumes. UNRWA no longer appears to be viewed as the primary institution responsible for Palestinian affairs in Syria.

In Khan Eshieh Camp, a local committee working with the new administration petitioned the Damascus Governorate to prepare a municipal plan for rehabilitating the camp’s infrastructure. The implication was clear: Syrian authorities are preparing to take over camp management from UNRWA, following the Jordanian model.

Meanwhile, the Immigration and Passports Department resumed issuing travel documents for Palestinian refugees in January, a bureaucratic move that revealed the new government’s intention to reassert control. Around the same time, the Palestinian Arab Refugee Association in Damascus suspended its operations following a break-in that reportedly disrupted pension payments to retired refugees.

Despite limited resources, Hamas and the PIJI remain a point of concern for the occupation state. A recent Yedioth Ahronoth report claimed that both groups are attempting to rebuild military capacity inside Syria, with the intention of targeting settlements near the occupied Golan Heights and northern Galilee. While the report acknowledged no confirmed troop movements south of Damascus, it warned that operational planning is underway.

A close examination of Sharaa’s behavior and the new regime in Damascus reveals no apparent dissolution of these two organizations’ operations, as the Israelis claim. All that is taking place are temporary measures until a “big deal” is reached with the Americans, one of whose provisions will be the official and popular status of the Palestinians. Unless the country descends into chaos, one of the expected outcomes will be a clear Israeli ground military intervention under the pretext of removing the Palestinians from the border.

March 26, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The High Price of War with Iran: $10 Gas and the Collapse of the US Economy

By Dennis J. Kucinich | March 25, 2025

Israel is currently in turmoil, marked by widespread protests demanding Netanyahu’s resignation. Critics accuse him of prolonging war for political gain, while his dismissal of top security officials and ongoing attacks on the judiciary have further intensified the unrest.

Meanwhile, Washington DC’s drumbeat for war never stops. It’s always at the expense of a decent and secure standard of living for people in this country and abroad.

The Trump Administration, after the series of heady airstrikes against Yemen, is at this moment being beseeched by Netanyahu and his associates to prepare for a seemingly consequence-free nuclear strike against Iran, completing the trifecta of Netanyahu’s long-standing dream.

I have consistently warned against the consequences of an attack on Iran, delivering 155 speeches to the House, 63 presentations alone in the 109th Congress, between 2005 and 2007, when the Bush Administration deliberated using nuclear “bunker-busters” as a means of bringing Iran to heel.

I understood the politics then and I understand them today. I warned hundreds of times that it was not in America’s interests to go to war against Netanyahu’s hit list: Iraq, Iran, Libya…

IRAQ

In 2002, the Bush Administration caused Americans grieving over 9/11 to believe Iraq had a direct role in the attacks which took over 3,000 lives. Except, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

Bush claimed Iraq was pursuing nuclear weapons and other “Weapons of Mass Destruction” (WMDs) and was an imminent threat to the U.S. Iraq did not have WMD’s. Iraq was not a threat to the U.S. Iraq had no ability to attack America. Didn’t matter.

The war against Iraq began 22 years ago and lasted eight years. One million innocent Iraqi men, women and children perished because of lies. They were killed in relentless bombings and aggressive ground operations.

At least 4,443 U.S. servicemen and women were killed, and an estimated 32,000 wounded during “Operation Iraqi Freedom,” because of lies.

The lies cost U.S. taxpayers at least $3 trillion. Three trillion hard-earned tax dollars of the American people were spent to pay for the destruction of the people of Iraq while Americans struggled to pay bills for housing, health care, and education and the nation went further into debt.

Remember this diabolical playbook: Create a pretext. Lie to the American people about a threat. Hype the threat. Create irrational fear. Tell them military action is needed to eliminate the threat, and their fears. Bombs away.

On September 12, 2002, as a Member of Congress, I grilled then-former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during a congressional hearing entitled, “An Israeli Perspective on Conflict with Iraq” (video and transcript link below). Despite evidence to the contrary, he testified that Iraq and its leader, Saddam Hussein, were a direct threat to America due to an alleged pursuit of WMDs including a nuclear weapon. He urged the U.S. to take military action against Iraq.

I inquired of him who else he would have the United States attack.

“Iran and Libya,” he said.

I spoke to Mr. Netanyahu outside the hearing room and asked him that if he was so convinced those countries were a threat, why didn’t Israel commence the attacks?

“Oh no,” he responded. “We need you to do it.”

On October 10, 2002, the House of Representatives, by a vote of 296-133, authorized the use of military force against Iraq. I led the opposition. The war bill passed the Senate the next day, 77-23, and was signed into law by President Bush on October 16, 2002.

On March 20, 2003, the President describing Iraq as part of an “Axis of Evil,” commenced a “Shock and Awe” onslaught by American warships, aircraft and submarines, launching cruise missiles and “precision guided bombs” roundly murdering people in Baghdad. Iraq was destroyed. Saddam was deposed, captured and hung.

Libya

On March 19, 2011, despite lacking formal congressional authorization, President Barack Obama authorized an attack on Libya to depose Muammar Gaddafi. I led the opposition. Hillary Clinton’s State Department, the EU, NATO, the UK and France to name but a few, lobbied Congress hard to accelerate actions against Libya.

That country’s leaders were dumbfounded as to why, considering that they had done everything America had asked, such as open markets to foreign investment. I held up the bombing for some time by building a bi-partisan coalition of Members of Congress to vote no.

Alas, Obama and the Clinton State Department prevailed. Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner negotiated a redraft of the authorization bill and the Republicans fell in line.

The U.S., with NATO allies, joined forces, wreaking destruction and havoc upon Libya. Gaddafi was deposed, captured and killed, at an estimated cost of over a billion dollars. Obama admitted years later that this was the worst decision of his Presidency.

Iran

On July 25, 2024, Prime Minister Netanyahu, (while under a criminal investigation by the Israeli judiciary), addressed the U.S. Congress concerning Iran, which he characterized as not only a deadly enemy of Israel, but also of the United States.

“Iran’s axis of terror confronts America, Israel and our Arab friends,” Netanyahu declared.

The interests of Israel and America were and are inseparable, he proclaimed – to 58 standing ovations. One could take that heroic reception as rubberstamping an authorization for war. As Netanyahu had told me years ago, “…we need you [the U.S.] to do it.”

Today, the Houthis of Yemen continue their attacks on Israeli shipping interests in the Red Sea, in protest to the Netanyahu government’s genocidal attack on Gaza.

President Trump, ever sensitive to and allegiant to Israel, views the Houthis as proxies of Iran. The President directed America’s air forces to rain down fire and brimstone upon Yemen, a nation of teenagers. The median age in Yemen is 18.4 years. The country spends about 1/1000 of the U.S. military budget for its own defense.

Trump threatened the Iranian government: “Every shot fired by the Houthis will be looked upon from this point forward, as being a shot fired from the weapons and leadership of IRAN (his emphasis). And IRAN will be held responsible, and suffer the consequences, and those consequences will be dire.”

The Administration followed up with Executive Order (E.O.) 13902, which, according to the U.S. Treasury Department was part of a “campaign of maximum pressure” which “targets Iran’s petroleum and petrochemical sectors and marks the fourth round of sanctions targeting Iranian oil sales…”

The first Trump Administration withdrew from a Joint Plan of Action agreement (JCPOA) which provided Iran relief from sanctions in exchange for accepting limitations which would preclude nuclear weaponization.

President Trump ordered the assassination by drone strike of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, considered the second most powerful person in Iran, at the Baghdad airport, underscoring his determination to strike at Iran.

Iran has consistently asserted its nuclear research is for peaceful purposes. There has been a long-standing formal prohibition in Islamic law, a fatwa, issued by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran, against the development or use of nuclear weapons.

Recently, President Trump said he would love a deal to prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapon, “I would love to make a deal with them without bombing them.”

At the same time, U.S. B-52 bombers, capable of delivering nuclear bunker-busting bombs, were engaged in joint exercises with the Israeli Air Force, in preparation for a potential strike at Iran’s underground nuclear sites.

These joint maneuvers were reminiscent of the cooperation and interoperability exercises that took place between the UK and French forces in preparation for a real-world offensive against Libya in 2011.

Ayatollah Khamenei replied “…threats will get them (the Americans) nowhere,” and refused talks under such conditions as “deceptive.” Iranian Brigadier General Kiumars Heidari added, for emphasis, “Iran is ready to crush its enemies if it makes mistakes.”

The dialectic of conflict is escalating.

It was not in America’s interest then, nor is it now, to go to war with Iran, a nation of 90 million people, a technologically advanced society, with nearly a million-person army.

President Trump should not be misled. War with Iran would be the end of his presidency. Here is why:

Iran supplies 3% of the world’s oil. If the U.S. goes to war with Iran, crude oil prices per barrel (currently ranging from $68.86 (West Texas Intermediate) – $72.28 (Brent Crude), could rise to $200 per barrel.

The Strait of Hormuz, a major conduit for the transport of oil would be disrupted. Iran has the capability retaliate by targeting Gulf oil infrastructure, including Saudi Arabia. Market panic would ensue.

The price of a gallon of gas, currently averaging $3.13, would double, approach $7 a gallon, and in some cases, reach $10 a gallon, in states with higher fuel taxes. (This is based on historical data which calculates that every $1 increase in crude oil per barrel translates to about a 2 to 3 cent increase per gallon at the pump).

Attempts to manage supply disruptions and market distortions through the release of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve would do little to offset panic buying and stockpiling by consumers. Nor would an increase in U.S. domestic drilling be sufficient to offset lost Middle East oil supplies, due to supply shortage, infrastructure constraints and limitations on refining capacity.

Major disruptions, including high inflation, recession risks, and market instability would hit the US economy. Consumer retail spending would sink while prices rose for food and other goods, as energy costs for manufacturing, agriculture and transportation spiraled out of control.

Slower economic growth would push the U.S. into a recession, with the Fed forced to try to maintain control over inflation by hiking interest rates well beyond the current 4.25% – 4.50 % range.

Auto sales would take a hit. Corporate profits in transportation, airlines, trucking would nosedive. The Dow Jones and S& P 500 would be in shock, with major selloffs. America would arrive at stagflation, high inflation rates and negative growth as it did during the 1973 Oil Embargo.

The multiple economic impacts of the 2008 subprime meltdown and subsequent financial crash which cost the US economy $16 to $20 trillion dollars would become the morbid benchmark for the descent of the American economy.

Now contemplate this concatenation: War with Iran, reciprocal high tariffs, massive cuts in the federal workforce and domestic federal spending and you have an economy in a tailspin, with high inflation, rising unemployment, falling consumer spending, leading to an economic contraction requiring a system of government intervention which is currently being dismantled. Then there is the permanent restructuring of the tax code to accelerate wealth upwards. These conditions create political combustibility.

In the end, Iran will never crush Donald Trump. The U.S. will crush itself trying to wipe out Iran.

The economic effects of war with Iran could spell the end, not only of the viability of the Trump Presidency, but of the Republican House and Senate, a political turnaround the likes of which has not been seen in American politics since the 1932 sweep led by Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the New Deal.

In 1928 Republican Herbert Hoover took 58.2% of the popular vote and defeated Democrat Al Smith 444-87 in the Electoral College. Amidst a complete rejection of Republican economic policies and the Depression, Roosevelt took 57.4% of the popular vote in 1932 and defeated Hoover in the Electoral College 472-59.

The 270-164 advantage which House Republicans held in 1928 evaporated in 1932 as Democrats crushed Republicans with a 313-117 majority.

There has not been another turnaround like this in American political history and it was driven by the economic forces which overwhelmed a Republican Administration, followed by a program of promised reform which the new Administration delivered.

While the Administration is at the fullness of its expression of unbridled power, it faces a fateful decision regarding Iran which will determine whether the mandate received by Trump in 2024 evaporates as quickly as did Hoover’s in 1932.

Israel itself is in turmoil, with mass protests calling for Netanyahu’s resignation, charges he is prolonging the war for his political benefit, his firing of top security officials and his attacks on the judiciary.

Netanyahu is on shaky ground, pummeled by his fellow countrymen and women who worry, far from ensuring the future of Israel, his deadly policies threaten it.

One could imagine Trump, considering his own and America’s interests, could call Netanyahu and say, “Bibi, we are friends ‘til the end. This is the end.”

Links: 2002 Congressional Hearing “Conflict in Iraq: An Israeli Perspective” video and transcript

March 26, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Talk of US-Iran war is all a load of baloney

By M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | Indian Punchline | March 26, 2025

The air is thick with the prognosis that a military confrontation between the US and Iran is now just a matter of time. Going by the pattern of such scare mongering in the past decades, Israeli media management skills are self-evident. There is a sense of de javu. Of course, therein lies the danger of miscalculations by the protagonists but that is unlikely to happen. 

There are no takers among the regional states for a military conflagration in the Gulf region. The old US-led anti-Iran front has unravelled following the shift in the Iranian and Saudi policies towards reconciliation and amity and the display of strategic autonomy by even those countries who still remain close allies of the US (in particular, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar.) 

In a recent interview with the famous American podcaster Tucker Carlson, Qatar’s Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani drew an apocalyptic scenario that his country and the Persian Gulf Arab states will run out of water within three days if Iran’s nuclear facilities are targeted by the US or Israel! Does that occur to anyone? 

The big question is, what are the intentions of the Trump administration. An underlying assumption here is that President Donald Trump is under obligation to the Jewish-Israeli lobby who funded his election campaign to be supportive of Netanyahu all the way through thick and thin. This assumption is untested yet and may never be, perhaps, given Trump’s complex personality as a deal maker. 

According to a recent poll from YouGov, 52% of Americans think Trump will have a shot at a third term; former White House strategist Steve Bannon is convinced that Trump will run and win in 2028. Indeed, Trump himself has not ruled out a 2028 White House bid. This is an X factor, given the historical legacy that the Iran question ultimately proved to be the nemesis of Jimmy Carter’s presidency. Trump, a connoisseur of past American presidencies, cannot be unaware that he ought to tread with great circumspection.

In an interview with Tucker Carlson last week, Trump’s Middle East special envoy Steve Witkoff underscored that regional stabilisation in West Asia demands addressing Iran. In his words, “I would say the goal begins with how do we deal with Iran? That’s the biggie. So the first is nuclear… If they were to have a bomb that would create North Korea in the GCC, we cannot have that… we can never allow someone to have a nuclear weapon and have outsized influence. That doesn’t work. So if we can solve for that, which I’m hopeful that we can.

“The next thing we need to deal with Iran is they’re being a benefactor of these proxy armies because we’ve proven that … they’re not really an existential risk… But if we can get these terrorist organisations eliminated as risks. Not existential, but still risks. They’re destabilising risks. Then we’ll normalise everywhere. I think Lebanon could normalise with Israel, literally normalise, meaning a peace treaty with the two countries. That’s really possible.

“Syria, too, the indications are that Jelani is a different person than he once was. And people do change. You at 55 are completely different than how you were at 35, that’s for sure… So maybe Jelani in Syria is a different guy. They’ve driven Iran out.

“Imagine if Lebanon normalises, Syria normalises, and the Saudis sign a normalisation treaty with Israel because there’s a peace in Gaza. They must have that as a — without question — as a prerequisite. That’s a condition precedent to Saudi normalising. But now you’d begin to have a GCC that all work together. I mean, that would be, it would be epic.” 

Does this ‘big picture’ envisage the destruction of Iran as a prerequisite? Not even remotely. And if anyone should know what he is talking about, it is Witkoff. 

Later, towards the end of the interview, Carlson drew out Witkoff specifically with regard to Trump’s recent communication addressed to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Excerpts of Witkoff’s remarks are reproduced below: 

“Look, he [Trump] sent a letter to the Iranians. Usually it would be the Iranians sending a letter to him…They’re open to attack today. Yeah, they’re a small country compared to ours… If we used overwhelming force, it would be very, very bad for them…

“So under those circumstances, it would be natural for the Iranians to reach out to the President to say, I want to diplomatically solve this. Instead, it’s him doing that. Now, I can tell you that he’s not reaching out because he’s weak, because he is not a weak man. He is a strong man… Maybe the strongest man I’ve ever met in my life…

“So with that all said, he wrote that letter. And why did he write that letter? It roughly said, ‘I’m a president of peace. That’s what I want. There’s no reason for us to do this militarily. We should talk. We should clear up the misconceptions. We should create a verification program so that nobody worries about weaponisation of your nuclear material. And I’d like to get us to that place because the alternative is not a very good alternative.’ That’s a rough encapsulation of what was said…

“The Iranians have reached back out, and I’m not at liberty to talk about specifics, but clearly, through back channels, through multiple countries and multiple conduits, they’ve reached back out. 

“I think that it has a real possibility of being solved diplomatically, not because I’ve talked to anybody in Iran, but just because I think logically it makes sense that it ought to be solved diplomatically. It should be.

“I think the President has acknowledged that he’s open to an opportunity to clean it all up with Iran, where they come back to the world and be a great nation once again and not have to be sanctioned and being able to grow their economy. Their economy—I mean, these are very smart people. Their economy was once a wonderful economy. They’re being strangled and suffocated today. There’s no need for that to happen.

“They can join the League of Nations and we can have a better relationship and grow that relationship… That’s the alternative he’s presenting… he wants to deal with Iran with respect. He wants to build trust with them if it’s possible. And that’s his directive to his administration. And hopefully, that will be met positively by the Iranians.

“And I’m certainly hopeful for it. I think anything can be solved with dialogue by clearing up misconception and miscommunication and disconnects between people… And the president is a president who doesn’t want to go to war, and he’ll use military action to stop a war … In this particular case, hopefully it won’t be necessary. Hopefully, we can do it at the negotiating table…”

Again, do such remarks sound like war mongering? Curiously, in the interview, Witkoff openly welcomed an opportunity to serve as Trump’s special envoy to Iran to navigate the dialogue and peaceful resolution of issues. 

To my mind, Iranians understand the meaning of Trump’s letter. They are now in an engaging mood as back channels are clocking hours. A commentary by Nour News, a mouthpiece of the Iranian security establishment, rather playfully titled as Analysis of Trump’s Letter to Iran from a Game Theory Perspective, speaks for the mood in Tehran. Read it here.

Make no mistake that Iran and the US are seasoned adversaries who have absolute mastery over the guardrails that contain tensions from escalating in their complicated relationship.

March 26, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | 2 Comments

Chinese Embassy in Canada refutes allegations of China’s interference in Canadian elections

Global Times | March 26, 2025

In response to a media question regarding claims by an official from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) that China might attempt to interfere in Canada’s elections, a spokesperson of the Chinese Embassy in Canada stated that China firmly opposes the baseless slander and defamation of China without factual evidence.

It has been reported that an official from the CSIS stated that Canada’s elections could face the threat of foreign interference and the CSIS is closely monitoring China, Russia, India, and Pakistan, when questioned on this, the spokesperson of the Chinese Embassy in Canada said that the Chinese side has repeatedly stated its position on the so-called issue of foreign interference, firmly opposing the baseless slander and defamation of China without factual evidence.

China follows the principle of non-interference in other countries’ internal affairs and has never, nor has any interest in, interfering in Canada’s internal affairs. The label of “foreign interference” will never be placed on China, the spokesperson said.

The Canadian election is a domestic issue for Canada and is not related to China. However, the Chinese side firmly opposes linking Canada’s internal affairs with China-related factors and firmly opposes using China as a topic in this context, the spokesperson added.

March 26, 2025 Posted by | Sinophobia | , | Leave a comment

Even Realists Overstate the ‘China Threat’

By Joseph Solis-Mullen | The Libertarian Institute | March 26, 2025

Perusing the most recent edition of Foreign Affairs, which was typically dreadful, one piece caught my eye. In “The Taiwan Fixation,” Stephen Wertheim and Jennifer Kavanagh argued that a full-scale U.S. military intervention over Taiwan would be catastrophic, and that Washington should seek to balance building up Taiwan’s defense while insulating its own broader Indo-Pacific strategy from Taipei’s fate.

Their critique of full-blown interventionism is, of course, well-founded, and was a welcome sight, but their core assumptions remain unfortunately rooted in the flawed logic of American primacy. Even as they downplay alarmist rhetoric, they still accept an overstated vision of China’s potential threat and Washington’s supposed stake in Taiwan.

At its core, “The Taiwan Fixation” fails to escape the same errors that underpin most discussions on U.S.-China relations. It assumes that Taiwan is of critical strategic importance to American security, that China’s control of the island would be an unacceptable shift in the regional balance of power, and that some level of U.S. intervention remains necessary. But as I argued in The Fake China Threat, these claims are fundamentally weak. The United States has no compelling strategic interest in Taiwan, Beijing has little incentive to disrupt regional trade routes, and Taipei itself seems far more interested in lobbying Washington for protection than in seriously investing in its own defense.

Wertheim and Kavanagh attempt to position Taiwan as strategically valuable but stop short of the full-blown liberal internationalist and neoconservative argument that its loss would be a geopolitical catastrophe. Instead, they argue that while Beijing’s control over Taiwan wouldn’t transform China into an immediate hegemon, it would complicate U.S. military operations and potentially embolden China in the region.

This claim doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. Taiwan is not a vital interest of the United States. The U.S. does not need Taiwan for trade, military positioning, or economic security. As Wertheim himself concedes, Taiwan’s loss wouldn’t fundamentally alter the balance of power in Asia. The idea that China could use Taiwan as a springboard for wider expansion is speculative at best—especially when Japan, India, and other regional actors already have strong incentives to counterbalance China regardless of what happens in Taipei.

One of the article’s weakest points is its flirtation with the classic “credibility” argument—the notion that if the United States fails to defend Taiwan, allies like Japan or the Philippines will start doubting Washington’s commitments. This argument has been trotted out since the Cold War to justify interventions from Vietnam to Afghanistan, and it remains just as flimsy today.

Japan’s leaders have already signaled that Taiwan is not a make-or-break issue for them. Despite constant American warnings, no Asian country is poised to abandon its alliance with Washington over Taiwan’s fate. India and Japan, the two regional powers most capable of countering Beijing, already have their own deep-seated strategic reasons to oppose Chinese expansionism. Their security policies aren’t contingent on what Washington does in Taiwan.

If anything, it’s the United States that risks undermining its own credibility by committing to a fight over Taiwan. The more Washington signals an absolute commitment to Taipei’s defense, the more pressure it creates for itself to intervene—setting up a scenario where its own rhetoric forces it into an unnecessary war.

Wertheim and Kavanagh advocate for the “porcupine” strategy—arming Taiwan with asymmetric capabilities like sea mines, missile batteries, and drone fleets to make an invasion costly for China. Superficially, this seems like a clever alternative to direct U.S. intervention. In reality, it risks provoking the very war it is meant to prevent.

If Washington floods Taiwan with weapons and escalates military cooperation, Beijing may conclude that peaceful reunification is no longer viable. As Wertheim himself acknowledges, Taiwan arming itself “too well” could force China’s hand, making an invasion more likely rather than deterring it. This isn’t just theoretical. The logic follows from the same security dilemmas that have fueled arms races throughout history: the more one side hardens its defenses, the more the other feels compelled to strike before it loses its window of opportunity.

This isn’t just a U.S.-China issue—it’s also a question of Taipei’s own incentives. Taiwan has consistently underinvested in its own defense, spending only about 2.5% of its GDP on the military, despite claiming existential threats from Beijing. Why? Because it has calculated—correctly—that lobbying Washington is far cheaper than paying for its own defense. As Ben Freeman has pointed out, Taipei has spent tens of millions lobbying Congress and funding think tanks that push for greater U.S. military commitments. Why spend hundreds of billions on weapons when you can spend a fraction of that buying influence in Washington?

Wertheim and Kavanagh criticize Taiwan for failing to reorient its defense spending but still assume that Washington should step in and “encourage” (i.e., coerce) Taipei into adopting a more robust posture. But if Taiwan itself is unwilling to make the necessary sacrifices, why should American taxpayers foot the bill? The answer is simple: they shouldn’t.

Perhaps the most glaring omission in “The Taiwan Fixation”—one that even realists like Wertheim often overlook—is that Taiwan is not a separate state in the conventional sense. It remains, officially and historically, a part of China. The Chinese Civil War never formally ended, and U.S. intervention in the Taiwan issue has always been an act of interference in a domestic Chinese conflict.

Imagine if, at the height of the American Civil War, Britain had not only recognized the Confederacy but armed it and promised to fight the Union on its behalf. That’s essentially the position Washington has taken with Taiwan. The United States has no legitimate role in deciding the island’s future. Every time it sells weapons to Taipei or conducts military exercises in the Taiwan Strait, it is actively inserting itself into a conflict where it has no rightful place.

The logical conclusion of this reality should be clear: Taiwan is China’s problem, not Washington’s. Wertheim does acknowledge that American policy should aim for “competitive coexistence” rather than outright confrontation. But he stops short of drawing the real conclusion, one that follows naturally from his own arguments: the United States should be preparing to disengage from Taiwan entirely, not reinforcing its involvement.

Wertheim and Kavanagh offer a more grounded view of Taiwan policy than the usual Beltway hawks, but their analysis still rests on faulty assumptions. They recognize that Taiwan’s fate doesn’t justify war, yet they continue to insist that some American involvement is necessary. They acknowledge that China wouldn’t become a global hegemon even if it took Taiwan, yet they still assume that its loss would significantly damage U.S. interests. They see the dangers of arming Taiwan too aggressively, yet they continue to endorse the porcupine strategy.

Ultimately, their view of Taiwan remains a product of Washington’s obsession with maintaining primacy rather than accepting a multipolar reality. The United States does not need to “fix” Taiwan policy—it needs to let it go. The alternative is continued entanglement in a conflict that serves no vital American interest and risks dragging Washington into an unwinnable war.

The real China threat isn’t a military one—it’s the threat of policymakers manufacturing crises where none need exist. If the U.S. truly wants to avoid war, it should stop making Taiwan a battlefield of its own choosing.

March 26, 2025 Posted by | Book Review, Militarism | , | Leave a comment

President Putin: 25 Years of Resisting the US Deep State and European Globalists

By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – March 26, 2025

Since winning on March 26, 2000, Putin has fought to protect Russia’s sovereignty—standing up to George Soros, the Rothschilds, and Western elites. Read more to see how he did it.

2025: Putin signaled readiness for dialogue with the US administration on Ukraine, while Donald Trump exposed USAID‘s financial abuses and vowed to target US deep state actors and globalists.

2016: Putin signed a law banning the cultivation and breeding of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in Russia, as well as the import of products containing or produced using GMOs.

2015: Russia declared the National Endowment for Democracy, International Republican Institute, National Democratic Institute, George Soros’ Open Society Foundations, and other major USAID grant recipients as “undesirable organizations.”

2012: USAID was banned from operating in Russia. Additionally, Russia introduced its “foreign agents” law to regulate foreign-funded NGOs.

2003: Russian oligarch and Yukos owner Mikhail Khodorkovsky was arrested for embezzlement and tax evasion, ending Western-backed oligarchic influence in Russia. Later, he revealed Lord Jacob Rothschild as his powerful backer and Yukos’ “protector.”

2003: George Soros, who condemned Khodorkovsky’s arrest, shut down his Russia funds. His exit coincided with a surge in color revolutions, but Putin’s Russia resisted the globalist push.

March 26, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Russophobia | , , , | Leave a comment

Russia’s GDP exceeds $2.3tn in 2024, almost doubling in 4 years

Al Mayadeen | March 26, 2025

Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin stated that Russia’s GDP reached 200 trillion rubles ($2.3 trillion) in 2024, nearly doubling over the past four years.

Addressing the State Duma, he said, “GDP breached the 200 trillion rubles mark in nominal terms in 2024 for the first time, having almost doubled since 2020.”

“Domestic demand, both investment and consumer, fueled growth,” the premier said, adding that “fixed investment gained almost 7.5% in a year.”

On a related note, Russia’s crude oil exports have surged to their highest level in five months, even as US-led negotiations continue to broker a ceasefire in Ukraine.

According to recent data revealed on March 25, Russian crude oil flows from all ports rose to 3.45 million barrels per day in the four weeks ending March 23, marking the highest level since October 20. This increase came despite a weekly decline in shipments, primarily due to lower flows from the Baltic and Black seas.

Russian GDP grows by 5%

Last year, Mishustin announced on July 12 that the GDP of Russia has grown 5% in the first five months of the year – higher than expected.

During a meeting on economic issues, he said, “Today, we will discuss the current situation in the economy. The dynamics remains high – in May growth accelerated slightly compared to April to 4.5%.”

He added, “If we take the statistics for five months, the gross domestic product increased by 5% compared to the same period last year. This is significantly higher than forecasts, despite all attempts from outside to stop us.”

Mishustin revealed his belief that the data in the real sector of the economy are also positive as he stated that from January to May, the manufacturing sector grew by nearly 9%, citing machine building as one of the key factors in this area, “which showed double-digit growth rates.”

March 26, 2025 Posted by | Economics | | Leave a comment

Western support won’t secure victory for Kiev – US intelligence

RT | March 26, 2025

Western military aid to Kiev and sanctions against Russia cannot shift the balance of power in the Ukraine conflict, according to the US Intelligence Community’s 2025 Annual Threat Assessment.

The intelligence community’s official coordinated evaluation of an array of threats lists Russia, China, North Korea and Iran as countries which represent a challenge to US interests.

Moscow holds the advantage on the battlefield, having adapted to outside efforts to assist Ukraine, the report’s authors explain. The “grinding war of attrition” is expected to further weaken Kiev, “regardless of any US or allied attempts to impose new and greater costs on Moscow.”

While the conflict has taken a significant toll in terms of manpower, the assessment notes that it has also afforded Moscow “a wealth of lessons regarding combat against Western weapons and intelligence in a large-scale war.”

This experience probably will challenge future US defense planning, including against other adversaries with whom Moscow is sharing those lessons learned.

Russia has proven to be “adaptable and resilient” during what it views as a Western proxy war, enhancing its military capabilities across several domains, including unmanned systems, electronic warfare, and the integration of cyber operations with conventional military maneuvers, the report explains.

It warns that Western efforts to undermine the Russian economy “have accelerated its investments in alternative partnerships and use of various tools of statecraft to offset US power, with China’s backing and reinforcement.”

Beijing considers the US use of unilateral sanctions illegal under international law and rooted in a “Cold War mentality.” The US assessment states that major non-Western nations are poised to align with Russia in order to pursue policies that challenge American dominance, such as de-dollarization.

The continuation of the Ukraine conflict risks unintentional escalation, the document cautions. Russia is prepared for such scenarios, armed with a substantial strategic arsenal that includes both conventional and nuclear weapons, as well as cyber-warfare and anti-satellite operations capabilities.

“Russia’s air and naval forces remain intact, with the former being more modern and capable” than at the start of direct hostilities, the report states.

The US intelligence community posits that both Moscow and Kiev may have reasons to avoid a hasty resolution on unfavorable terms. Russian President Vladimir Putin perceives that “positive battlefield trends allow for some strategic patience,” while Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky likely fears that a clear defeat could “prompt domestic backlash.”

March 26, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment