Should parents, students and employees be allowed to claim religious exemptions from vaccine mandates? That’s the question an increasing number of state lawmakers are being asked to decide as they consider a new wave of proposed bills.
Arizona is one of eight states that have introduced bills during the 2025 legislative session to establish or expand exemptions to school vaccine mandates, according to Dawn Richardson, advocacy director for the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC).
“Vaccine mandates for school and childcare attendance and their corresponding vaccine exemptions have been in state law for decades,” Richardson said. But this year, “more states have bills to expand these exemptions than to restrict or remove them.”
In 2010, Richardson created and launched the NVIC Advocacy Portal, which provides free information about proposed state vaccine laws. Since then, she and her team have analyzed, tracked and issued positions on over 1,000 vaccine-related bills across the U.S.
“Until medical mandates are a relic of history — and that day is coming — religious exemptions are the primary way to avoid medical coercion,” said Children’s Health Defense CEO Mary Holland.
According to Richardson, only three states — Hawaii, Massachusetts and New Jersey — proposed legislation this year attempting to remove school vaccine mandate exemptions. However, Hawaii lawmakers, under pressure from constituents, voted last month to table the bill, which would have repealed the state’s religious exemption from vaccine mandates.
Meanwhile, other states are advancing legislation that strengthens or expands vaccine exemptions. For instance, Alabama lawmakers on April 3 passed a bill that specifies that a parent or guardian’s written declaration is “sufficient documentation” to exempt his or her child from a vaccine requirement for religious reasons.
Alabama lawmakers are also considering a bill that would require private and church schools to accept religious exemptions to vaccine requirements.
On March 26, Utah’s governor signed into law a measure to ensure that public school students’ vaccine exemption forms don’t expire and that they travel with them when the students transfer to another school.
Some of the state bills proposed this year focus on exemptions from vaccine mandates in the workplace rather than at school.
For example, Texas lawmakers are considering a law that would require healthcare facilities that have vaccine mandates to honor exemptions for “reasons of conscience, including a religious belief.”
Texas also introduced three other bills related to expanding or improving vaccine exemptions, according to legislative data Richardson shared with The Defender.
‘Momentum is gaining to remove vaccine mandates’
Holland noted that a handful of states allow only medical exemptions, not religious exemptions. Those states are California, New York, Connecticut and Maine. “They make even legitimate medical exemptions virtually impossible to obtain.”
“The good news,” Holland said, “is that Idaho just became the first medical freedom state, by outlawing any medical intervention mandates that prohibit people from participating in social life based on medical status. Likely, this will be a template for other states going forward.”
Idaho Gov. Brad Little signed the law almost a week after he vetoed a previous version of the bill, citing concerns it would have prohibited schools from sending home “sick students with highly contagious conditions.”
The new version of the bill clarifies that schools and businesses can turn away students, employees or customers who are sick, but they cannot require a medical intervention, including a vaccine.
The new version also specified that schools cannot exclude unvaccinated children during an outbreak of a contagious disease they are not vaccinated against.
Bills that outright prohibit vaccine mandates ‘much preferable’
Richardson said bills like the one passed in Idaho are part of a positive trend she and her team are seeing across recent legislative sessions, including this one.
“Momentum is gaining to remove vaccine mandates,” she said, “but medical trade and pharmaceutical lobbyists are working against medical freedom and informed consent.”
“This is why it is so important for people to speak with their legislators about how prohibiting vaccine mandates and requiring informed consent to vaccination without penalty for saying ‘no’ is very important to them,” Richardson said.
Bills that outright prohibit vaccine mandates — rather than just ensuring that a person can apply for an exemption — are “much preferable” in Richardson’s view because they “make vaccine exemptions not even necessary.”
“As we saw with school vaccine exemptions,” Richardson said, “sometimes [exemptions] can get taken away as evidenced in recent years in California, Connecticut, Maine, New York and Vermont.”
‘People are waking up’
NVIC’s mission is to prevent vaccine injuries through public education and to advocate for informed consent protections in medical policies and public health laws.
Commenting on state legislative action since 2010, NVIC’s Executive Director Theresa Wrangham said she has seen a shift toward more proposed legislation to protect informed consent and people’s choice to vaccinate or not vaccinate without penalty.
When NVIC first began, Wrangham said she saw a “lot of movement to try to restrict exemptions.” But overall, that’s changed. “I think people are waking up …That’s grassroots. That’s people getting involved.”
Wrangham said it’s important for families to educate themselves about vaccine risks versus benefits as they make their decisions.
There is no “risk-free” option, she said. “There’s just the ability to make a decision — an informed decision around what risk you’re willing to take. That’s really what informed consent is about. Let’s make sure everybody has good information. Let’s not let our fear run us.”
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
April 15, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties | Human rights, United States |
Leave a comment
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s latest trip to Washington was no ordinary visit. The consensus among Israeli analysts, barring a few remaining loyalists, is that Netanyahu was not invited; he was summoned by US President Donald Trump.
All of the evidence supports this assertion. Netanyahu rarely travels to the US without extensive Israeli media fanfare, leveraging his touted relationships with various US administrations as a “hasbara” opportunity to reinforce his image as Israel’s strongman.
This time, there was no room for such propaganda.
Netanyahu was informed of Trump’s summons while on an official trip to Hungary, where he was received by Hungarian President Viktor Orban with exaggerated diplomatic accolades. This was a signal of defiance against international condemnation of Netanyahu, an alleged war criminal wanted by the International Criminal Court (ICC). Orban’s open arms welcome portrayed him as anything but an isolated leader of an increasingly pariah state.
The capstone of Netanyahu’s short-lived Hungarian victory lap was Orban’s announcement of Hungary’s withdrawal from the ICC, a move with profoundly unsettling implications.
It would have been convenient for Netanyahu to use his Washington visit to divert attention from his failed war in Gaza and internal strife in Israel. However, as the Arabic saying goes, “The wind often blows contrary to the ship’s desires.”
The notion that Netanyahu was summoned by Trump rather than invited, is corroborated by Israeli media reports that he attempted to postpone the visit under various pretexts. He failed, and flew to Washington on the date determined by the White House. Initially, reports circulated that no press conference would be held, denying Netanyahu the platform to tout for Washington’s unwavering support for his military actions and to expound on the “special relationship” between the two countries.
A press conference was held, although it was dominated largely by Trump’s contradictory messages and typical rhetoric. Netanyahu spoke briefly, attempting to project the same confident body language observed during his previous Washington visit, where he sat straight-backed with legs splayed out, as if he was in full command of all around him.
This time, though, Netanyahu’s body language betrayed him.
His eyes shifted nervously, and he appeared stiff and surprised, particularly when Trump announced that the US and Iran were about to begin direct talks in Oman.
Trump also mentioned the need to end the war in Gaza, but the Iran announcement clearly shocked Netanyahu. He desperately tried to align his discourse with Trump’s, referencing Libya’s disarmament under Muammar Gaddafi. But that was never part of Israel’s official regional plan. Israel has advocated consistently for US military intervention against Iran, despite the certainty that such a war would destabilise the entire region, potentially drawing the US into a conflict far more protracted and devastating than the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Further evidence of the US divergence of views from Israel’s regional ambitions — which are centred on perpetual war, territorial expansion and geopolitical dominance — lies in the fact that key political and intellectual figures within the Trump administration recognise the futility of such conflicts. In leaked exchanges on the encrypted messaging platform Signal, Vice President JD Vance protested that escalating the war in Yemen benefits Europe, not the US, a continent with which the US is increasingly decoupling, if not actually engaging in a trade war.
The Yemen war, like a potential conflict with Iran, is perceived widely as being waged on Israel’s behalf.
Figures like Tucker Carlson, a prominent commentator, articulated the growing frustration among right-wing intellectuals in the US, tweeting that, “Anyone advocating for conflict with Iran is not an ally of the United States, but an enemy.”
Trump’s willingness to challenge Netanyahu’s policies openly remains unclear. His conflicting statements, such as calling for an end to the Gaza war while simultaneously advocating for the expulsion of Palestinians, add to the ambiguity. However, recent reports suggest a determined US intention to end the war in Gaza as part of a broader strategy, linking Gaza to Yemen, Lebanon and Iran. This aligns with Washington’s need to stabilise the region as it prepares for a new phase of competition with China, requiring comprehensive economic, political and military readiness.
Should Trump prove capable of doing what others could not, will Netanyahu finally submit to American pressure?
In 2015, the Israeli leader demonstrated Israel’s unparalleled influence on US foreign and domestic policy when he addressed both chambers of Congress. Despite a few insignificant protests, Republican and Democratic policymakers applauded enthusiastically as Netanyahu criticised the then President Barack Obama, who did not attend and appeared to be isolated by his own political class.
However, if Netanyahu believes that he can replicate that moment, he is mistaken. Those years are long gone. Trump is a populist leader who is not beholden to political balances in Congress. Now in his second and final term, he could, in theory, abandon America’s ingrained reliance on the approval of Israel and its aggressively influential lobby in Washington.
Moreover, Netanyahu’s political standing is diminished. He is perceived as a failed political leader and military strategist, unable to secure decisive victories or extract political concessions from his adversaries. He is a leader without a clear plan, grappling with a legitimacy crisis unlike any faced by his predecessors.
Ultimately, the outcome hinges on Trump’s willingness to confront Netanyahu. If he does, and sustains the pressure, Netanyahu could find himself in an unenviable position, marking a rare instance in modern history where the US dictates the terms, and Israel listens. Is the unthinkable about to happen? Let’s wait and see.
April 15, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | Iran, Israel, Middle East, Palestine, United States, Zionism |
1 Comment
Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas met with the EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Kaja Kallas, in March. The meeting was replete with the usual hyperbole that still clings to the defunct two-state paradigm, the PA’s reform and funding for this purpose.
Yesterday, Reuters reported that the EU will be funding the PA with a three-year package worth $1.8 billion to support reform. According to European Commissioner for the Mediterranean Dubravka Suica, “We want them to reform themselves because without reforming, they won’t be strong enough and credible in order to be an interlocutor, not for only for us, but an interlocutor also for Israel.”
The reasoning is warped.
It only spells one thing clearly: the EU wants the PA to be strong enough to act against the Palestinian people and prevent them from being their own interlocutors in a political process that concerns them much more than the PA.
Speaking about the EU funding for the PA, Kallas said, “This will reinforce the PA’s ability to meet the needs of the Palestinian people in the West Bank and prepare it to return to govern Gaza once conditions allow.” No time frames, of course, because the conditions will always depend on Israel. Funding buys time for Israel’s genocide in Gaza. Meanwhile, the PA, which has not only neglected the needs of Palestinians in the occupied West Bank, but also exacerbated their humanitarian and political neglect as evidenced in Jenin, for example, can rest assured of some more years of EU support. That is, as long as the humanitarian paradigm remains relevant to the illusory state-building funded by Brussels.
From the allocated budget, the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) will receive €82 million per year.
The most telling clause in the European Commission’s statement detailing its assistance is found right at the end. “This designation shall not be construed as recognition of a State of Palestine and is without prejudice to the individual positions of the Member States on this issue.”
France’s announcement that it might recognise the State of Palestine by June this year, symbolic as the gesture is, only shows the EC’s urge to detach itself from all possibilities, no matter how remote, of Palestinian independence. Which brings one back to the big question:
Why is the EU really funding the PA’s state-building to prevent the eventual formation of a Palestinian state?
Funding a Palestinian entity for Israeli and EU purposes does not bode well for Palestinians, who are still only spoken of in terms of humanitarian matters. The political purpose is reserved only for Israel’s allies, the PA being one of them, as seen in many instances of its collaboration with the occupation state.
But Western diplomats would do well to recall that one major democratic implementation postponed repeatedly by Abbas – democratic legislative and presidential elections – has not featured once in the EU’s vision of a post-war Gaza, determined as it is to have the PA take over political authority in the enclave and bring Palestinians under different forms of misery. How scared is the EU of having Palestinians being allowed to vote freely and possibly electing alternatives that have nothing to do with the current Fatah-Hamas bipolarisation? Funding the PA indeed serves a purpose; that of destroying Palestinian democracy.
April 15, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Corruption, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Progressive Hypocrite | European Union, Human rights, Israel, Palestine, Zionism |
Leave a comment
The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights announced Tuesday that Israeli airstrikes have killed at least 71 civilians in Lebanon since the November 27 ceasefire came into effect, in what it described as an ongoing Israeli assault on Lebanese territory.
Among the victims were 14 women and 9 children, according to the UN rights office, which added that fear continues to grip the population, and over 92,000 people remain displaced from their homes.
UN human rights spokesperson Thameen al-Kheetan told reporters in Geneva that the southern suburb of Beirut was bombed in two separate incidents since the ceasefire was struck. He noted that both strikes targeted areas near schools.
On the morning of April 1, an Israeli airstrike hit a residential building in the area, killing two civilians and causing serious damage to nearby buildings, he said.
Just two days later, on April 3, Israeli airstrikes destroyed a newly constructed medical center operated by the Islamic Medical Association in the southern town of Naqoura. The strike also damaged two ambulances.
Deadly Israeli strikes
Between April 4 and 8, Israeli airstrikes reportedly killed at least six more people in various towns across southern Lebanon.
Al-Kheetan said Israeli strikes have repeatedly hit civilian infrastructure since the ceasefire was declared, including residential buildings, medical facilities, roads, and even a café in the town of Aita al-Shaab.
The latest report comes amid continued Israeli violations of the ceasefire agreement, with repeated attacks on southern Lebanon, the Bekaa region, and Beirut’s southern suburb, alongside the ongoing Israeli occupation of five disputed points along the border.
Targeting of civilians
Earlier today, one person was killed and three others, including a child, were injured in an Israeli airstrike targeting a vehicle in the town of Aitaroun, in the Bint Jbeil district of southern Lebanon.
On a related note, MP Hassan Fadlallah of the Loyalty to the Resistance bloc emphasized in parliament last week that expelling the Israeli occupation from Lebanese territory, liberating Lebanese prisoners, halting “Israel’s” aggression and violations of sovereignty, and rebuilding what it has destroyed are responsibilities that fall on all loyal Lebanese citizens, as well as on the state and its institutions.
He emphasized that the defensive strategy is a purely internal Lebanese matter to be agreed upon by those who believe in these principles and who recognize “Israel” as Lebanon’s enemy.
“As for those who do not view Israel as an enemy of Lebanon, who incite internal division, and who promote, justify, and market for the enemy — such individuals are unfit to take part in any internal dialogue focused on building the components of national strength to protect sovereignty,” Fadlallah indicated.
April 15, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Illegal Occupation, War Crimes | Israel, Lebanon, Zionism |
Leave a comment
With US support, UAE proxy militias in Yemen are planning a ground offensive to take the port city of Hodeidah from the Ansarallah-led Yemeni government and armed forces, The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported on 15 April, in a move that would reignite the country’s devastating civil war.
“Private American security contractors provided advice to the Yemeni factions on a potential ground operation, people involved in the planning said. The United Arab Emirates, which supports these factions, raised the plan with American officials in recent weeks,” the WSJ wrote.
The ground offensive seeks to take advantage of the recent US bombing campaign targeting the Yemeni Armed Forces (YAF).
US officials speaking with the newspaper said Washington has launched more than 350 strikes during its current campaign against Yemen and claim that the YAF has been weakened as a result.
While the Ansarallah-led National Salvation Government controls Yemen’s most populous areas, including the capital, Sanaa, and the strategic port city of Hodeidah, other parts of the country have remained in control of UAE and Saudi-supported factions since the end of the civil war in 2022.
Under the plan being discussed, factions of the UAE-backed Southern Transitional Council (STC) would deploy their forces north to the western Yemeni coast and try to seize the Red Sea port of Hodeidah, pro-UAE Yemeni sources said.
If successful, the ground operation would push the YAF back from large parts of the coast from where they have launched attacks on Israeli-linked ships transiting the Red Sea.
The YAF began targeting Israeli-linked ships in November 2023 in response to Israel’s genocide of Palestinians in Gaza. The US launched a war against Yemen and the YAF on Israel’s behalf shortly thereafter.
Capturing Hodeidah would be a “major blow” to the Ansarallah-led Yemeni government, “depriving them of an economic lifeline while also cutting off their main route to receive arms from Iran,” the WSJ wrote.
“A major ground offensive risks reigniting a Yemeni civil war that has been dormant for years and that spurred a humanitarian crisis when a Saudi–Emirati coalition supported local ground forces with a bombing campaign,” the WSJ added.
Officials from Saudi Arabia, which supports another Yemeni faction, the Presidential Leadership Council (PLC), have privately said they will not join or help a ground offensive in Yemen.
During the civil war, the Saudi-led coalition, alongside the UAE, conducted a major bombing campaign in Yemen that killed nearly 15,000 people, while the Saudi navy blockaded Yemen’s major ports, causing a humanitarian crisis that killed hundreds of thousands more.
In 2018, the Saudi Kingdom launched three operations against Ansarallah in an attempt to capture Hodeidah, yet failed.
Ansarallah forces retaliated by launching ballistic missile and drone attacks on Saudi cities, including striking a Saudi Aramco oil storage facility in Jeddah, which threatened to devastate the kingdom’s oil production and exports.
The YAF also responded to the UAE’s aggression on Yemen by launching its first drone and missile attacks on Abu Dhabi in January 2022, targeting three oil trucks and an under-construction airport extension infrastructure.
Both the UAE and Saudi Arabia allegedly cooperated with and recruited fighters from the local Al-Qaeda affiliate, known as Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), to assist in their proxy war against Ansarallah.
April 15, 2025
Posted by aletho |
War Crimes, Wars for Israel | al-Qaeda, Saudi Arabia, UAE, United States, Yemen |
Leave a comment
Iran is ready to provide assurances that it is not seeking to weaponize its nuclear program in exchange for US sanctions relief, the country’s top diplomat has said, as quoted by the Tehran Times. Seyed Abbas Araghchi headed the Iranian delegation during indirect talks with US envoy Steve Witkoff in the Omani capital, Muscat on Saturday.
The meeting was the first diplomatic engagement between Washington and Tehran in years, with discussions focusing on Iran’s nuclear program and the potential easing of US sanctions.
According to the news outlet, Araghchi stated that Iran wants a “win-win agreement” and “would not, under any circumstances, agree to dismantle its nuclear program.”
He said, however, that the country is “willing to take steps to provide assurances against the militarization of its nuclear activities.” This would include allowing the International Atomic Energy Agency access to the country’s nuclear sites.
In return, Tehran wants US sanctions on several sectors to be removed without the possibility of being brought back “under other pretexts,” according to the Tehran Times.
The publication said it learned that Witkoff acknowledged that the US needs to make concessions. During the talks, the envoy reportedly did not mention the potential dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear program, nor did he reference the original deal, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which US President Donald Trump withdrew from in 2018 during his first term in office.
In an interview with Fox News on Monday, Witkoff stopped short of calling for Tehran to dismantle its nuclear program, despite demands from other US officials, including White House National Security Adviser Mike Waltz.
“The conversation with the Iranians will be much about two critical points,” Witkoff said. The first is the verification of uranium enrichment, “and ultimately verification on weaponization, that includes missiles, type of missiles that they have stockpiled there, and it includes the trigger for a bomb.”
The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), however, has since insisted that Iran’s military capabilities are off limits.
“National security and defense, and military power are among the red lines of the Islamic Republic of Iran, which cannot be discussed or negotiated under any circumstances,” IRGC spokesman Ali Mohammad Naini said on Tuesday, as cited by various media outlets.
The next round of talks between Iran and the US is expected to take place on April 19.
April 15, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Wars for Israel | Iran, Sanctions against Iran, United States |
Leave a comment
Al Mayadeen’s correspondent in southern Lebanon reported on Tuesday that an Israeli occupation drone targeted a car in the town of Aitaroun in the Bint Jbeil district of southern Lebanon, near the border with occupied Palestine.
The Lebanese National News Agency reported that the Israeli aggression was carried out with three guided missiles, while Lebanon’s Ministry of Health reported one martyr and three wounded, including a child.
Also, according to the National News Agency, the Israeli occupation forces opened fire with machine guns on the eastern neighborhood of Mays al-Jabal.
The occupation continues to breach the ceasefire agreement with Lebanon through repeated assaults on the South, the Bekaa, and Beirut’s southern suburbs, as well as by maintaining control over the five disputed points.
On a related note, MP Hassan Fadlallah of the Loyalty to the Resistance bloc emphasized in parliament last week that expelling the Israeli occupation from Lebanese territory, liberating Lebanese prisoners, halting “Israel’s” aggression and violations of sovereignty, and rebuilding what it has destroyed are responsibilities that fall on all loyal Lebanese citizens, as well as on the state and its institutions.
He emphasized that the defensive strategy is a purely internal Lebanese matter to be agreed upon by those who believe in these principles and who recognize “Israel” as Lebanon’s enemy.
“As for those who do not view Israel as an enemy of Lebanon, who incite internal division, and who promote, justify, and market for the enemy — such individuals are unfit to take part in any internal dialogue focused on building the components of national strength to protect sovereignty,” Fadlallah indicated.
April 15, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | Israel, Lebanon, Zionism |
Leave a comment
The rhetoric surrounding a potential US–Israeli strike on Iran has intensified, fueled by veiled threats, media leaks, and what appeared to be an unofficial ultimatum from the Trump administration to Tehran. While no concrete consequences were outlined, the implication of direct military action looms large.
Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution – and especially after the Iran–Iraq War – Iran has lived under constant threat of US-led military intervention. These threats have fluctuated depending on regional dynamics and shifting US priorities.
In the aftermath of the illegal US invasion of Iraq in 2003, Iran and Syria appeared to be next in line for American-style regime-change. But the protracted insurgency in Iraq and the cost of occupation deterred further US military adventures – particularly against a civilization-state like Iran, whose size and geography pose significant challenges.
Republican leaders, and especially US President Donald Trump, have typically leaned toward employing open threats and economic strangulation policies against perceived US adversaries, rather than pursuing quiet diplomatic solutions. Today, they sense a unique opportunity to strike a deadly blow against Tehran given the recent weakening of Iran’s allies, particularly Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Syrian state, both of which have faced military setbacks and political isolation under western pressure and US-backed Israeli aggression.
Hezbollah, long viewed as Iran’s forward line of defense, now faces internal Lebanese constraints and sustained Israeli aggression, limiting its capacity to act preemptively should Iran be targeted. Meanwhile, Syria’s logistical value to the Axis of Resistance has diminished under sanctions, military exhaustion, and the toppling of former president Bashar al-Assad’s government by foreign-backed extremists under its self-appointed Al Qaeda-linked President Ahmad al-Sharaa.
Exploiting the regional moment
With the Axis of Resistance on the defensive, Washington and Tel Aviv see a fleeting opportunity to consolidate their gains. Yet despite their saber-rattling, Iran retains significant deterrence capabilities and appears prepared to retaliate if provoked.
Trump’s strategy, it must also be noted, extends well beyond Iran and its indigenous nuclear program. These foreign policy postures are part of a broader bid to isolate China, reset regional conflicts, distance Beijing from Moscow, and redirect global energy flows and prices, all while propping up Israel as Washington’s local enforcer.
In this context, West Asia becomes both a proving ground and a potential quagmire. Trump seeks to finalize the so-called “normalization” process between Israel and Arab states, neutralize Palestinian resistance, and pressure Iran to concede its regional role.
While he casts himself as a pragmatist open to deals, this posture serves a dual purpose: securing domestic political capital and forging a regional alliance rooted in US dependency.
Still, for such a deal to materialize, Iran would have to abandon core ideological and strategic pillars – namely, its regional alliances and missile deterrence. This is unlikely. Iran knows that surrendering these elements would strip the Islamic Republic not only of its ideological foundation but of any meaningful regional influence.
Iran’s multi-layered deterrence
Tehran’s defense strategy rests on several pillars. First is its alliance network stretching from Iraq to Yemen and Lebanon, forming a buffer against western hegemony. Second is its growing arsenal of precision missiles, drones, and domestically developed air defense systems. Third is geography: Iran’s control over key chokepoints in the Persian Gulf and its capacity to disrupt global oil supply grants it substantial leverage.
The final line of defense remains Iran’s nuclear program. While officially peaceful, there have been sporadic signals that suggest Tehran may recalibrate its doctrine in response to a major direct attack. Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, particularly at Fordow – a fortified facility deep beneath a mountain – underscores this strategic depth.
Despite recent blows, Hezbollah is unlikely to remain passive if Iran faces an existential threat. Likewise, US interests in Iraq and bases in the region, particularly Djibouti, could become targets for retaliatory strikes from Yemen’s Ansarallah movement.
Iran’s weapons development program has made extraordinary strides post-2011, with multiple lines of ballistic missiles like the Khyber Shakan and Fattah series, and more basic but highly producible systems like Imad and Radwan.
Meanwhile, Iran’s drones have proven effective in theaters from Ukraine to the Red Sea, while its layered air defenses – Khordad, Power-373, and Majid systems – make sustained air campaigns costly for adversaries. Its naval strategy hinges on asymmetric warfare and control of the Strait of Hormuz, a lifeline for global energy trade.
American options – and constraints
The US maintains around 60,000 troops across West Asia, mainly in Persian Gulf bases, and has shifted assets – including aircraft carriers and Patriot systems – from the Pacific to the region. Washington can certainly initiate a campaign to damage Iran’s infrastructure, but sustaining it would be difficult.
All regional US bases are within range of Iranian missiles, meaning any engagement could mark the first conventional war for the US with real counter-fire in decades.
Expect Washington to lean heavily on cyberwarfare and covert operations targeting civilian and military infrastructure alike to sow chaos inside Iran. Yet, a limited strike risks triggering a protracted conflict – something Iran is arguably more prepared for.
Iran’s strategy of attrition suits its asymmetric strengths and the fragility of US supply chains for munitions such as Patriots, SM-series interceptors, and cruise missiles.
The ongoing engagement in the Red Sea has already strained American resources. US aircraft carriers are operating from positions well beyond effective range, and stockpiles of precision munitions are running low – many earmarked for future conflict with China.
Manufacturing limitations, not cost, are the real bottleneck in sustaining a prolonged campaign. Despite these constraints, the US could still inflict serious initial damage. But sustaining such an operation, especially in the face of regional retaliation, would exact a high political and economic cost.
Between brinkmanship and bargaining
Both sides have much to lose – and much to bargain with. For Washington, a limited conflict could serve immediate strategic aims. For Tehran, dragging the US into a drawn-out war could shift pressure back onto American decision-makers already grappling with economic turbulence at home.
While the rhetoric of war dominates headlines, the path to direct conflict remains uncertain. Much depends on the outcome of indirect negotiations, particularly the recent round of indirect talks in Muscat, Oman.
Trump’s theatrics – threats, military build-up, and erratic messaging – are better understood as negotiating tactics than a clear march to war. Notably, Trump’s insistence that the occupation state should take the lead in any war on Iran reveals his reluctance to entangle the US in yet another West Asian quagmire.
His preference remains a deal, on his terms, allowing him to parade a foreign policy ‘win’ without bloodshed. In sum, war is neither inevitable nor necessarily decisive. The US needs a strategic pause in West Asia to refocus on other global priorities.
Iran, meanwhile, seeks time to rebuild internally and block Israel from exploiting current momentum. The coming weeks may decide whether this standoff ends in confrontation, or compromise.
April 15, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Wars for Israel | Iran, Israel, Middle East, United States, Zionism |
Leave a comment
Hanna Schiller, a German art student charged with attempted murder and membership of the notorious far-left “Hammer Gang,” has been awarded the 27th Federal Prize for Art Students — a prestigious state-sponsored honor carrying €30,000 in prize money and additional production support.
Schiller has been in pre-trial detention since May 2024 and has been formally charged for her role in violent assaults carried out by the Antifa-affiliated gang, including in Budapest, where the gang severely beat nine people they suspected of being right-wing back in 2023.
The indictment states Schiller and others pinned one of the victims down during the attack while others beat him unconscious with a baton, which prosecutors say could have resulted in death.
Despite these charges, Schiller was nominated by the Academy of Fine Arts Nuremberg, where she remains a registered student. The nomination came months after her arrest and appears to have been made in full knowledge of the legal proceedings.
The prize is ultimately awarded by the Federal Ministry of Education and the German Students’ Union after assessing nominations from respective institutions.
As reported by Tichys Einblick, the prize jury praised Schiller’s work for its “precise political images” and its focus on “structural violence and power,” referencing pieces made from women’s hair as examples of her exploration of contemporary sociopolitical issues. The official announcement made no mention of the charges or her imprisonment.
Academy officials have defended the nomination, citing a commitment to the principle of presumption of innocence. “The AdBK Nuremberg treats her like any other student until the verdict is announced,” the school said in a written response to inquiries.
The academy does, however, state in its mission statement that it is “for openness, tolerance and against any kind of extremism and violence.”
Still, critics say the award signals an unacceptable tolerance for violent extremism, pointing to Schiller’s alleged crimes, which include premeditated assaults using hammers and pepper spray. The gang’s targets were reportedly individuals believed to be right-wing, whom they ambushed and beat without warning. Prosecutors say Schiller was directly involved in restraining and attacking several victims during the assaults, one of whom received over 15 blows to the head.
Other members of the gang have already been convicted. Lina Engel was sentenced to five years and three months in prison by a Dresden court back in June 2023, while three of her associates received lesser sentences. Another member was sentenced to three years in a Hungarian prison the following January.
After years on the run, Johann Guntermann, the 31-year-old suspected head of the extremist group, was arrested by German police after being apprehended near Leipzig in November last year.
In addition to the €30,000 prize money, Schiller also received a scholarship of €18,000 to fund an art exhibition scheduled to open in November at the exhibition planned from November 2025 at the Bundeskunsthalle in Bonn.
Commenting on the news, Alternative for Germany (AfD) co-leader Alice Weidel claimed Schiller’s violent activism may have actually been a key reason for her receiving the award.
“Left-wing extremist Hanna S., allegedly part of the ‘Hammer Gang,’ receives a state-sponsored art prize worth 30,000 euros, possibly not despite, but precisely because of, her ‘activism.” No taxpayer money for violent left-wing extremism!” Weidel wrote on X.
With the trial ongoing in Munich, the Ministry of Education and the Nuremberg Academy have yet to revise their position or address the appropriateness of awarding a national prize to an individual currently facing charges for attempted murder and violent extremism.
It is unclear whether the prize and subsequent funds will be revoked pending a conviction.
April 15, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Subjugation - Torture | Germany, Human rights |
Leave a comment
Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky has submitted a bill to extend martial law in the country by another 90 days, which would rule out any chance of a new presidential election being held in the foreseeable future.
Zelensky – whose presidential term expired almost one year ago – has repeatedly cited martial law as a pretext for refusing to hold a new election. Russia has declared Zelensky “illegitimate” as a leader, insisting that the Ukrainian parliament remains the only legal authority in the country.
On Tuesday, Zelensky introduced draft legislation in the Ukrainian parliament proposing a three-month extension of martial law and general mobilization starting from May 9. According to Ukrainian law, elections cannot be held while martial law is in effect, meaning the presidential vote will remain suspended.
If martial law were lifted, parliamentary elections could be held within 60 days after the end of the restrictions, and presidential elections within 90 days.
The submitted bills are expected to be approved by parliament between April 15 and 18, Ukrainian MP Yaroslav Zheleznyak has said.
Zelensky’s potential run for reelection has been the subject of much media speculation, particularly after Steve Witkoff, US President Donald Trump’s special envoy to the Middle East and a key figure in negotiating a settlement of the Ukraine conflict, claimed in late March that “there will be elections” in the country, although without providing a timeline. His comments also came after Trump himself called Zelensky “a dictator without elections.”
A later report by The Economist claimed that Zelensky and his team were gearing up for a blitzkrieg election campaign to “catch [his] rivals off guard” and win the vote before the opposition could muster its strength.
However, Ukrainian officials have dismissed any plans to hold an election anytime soon. David Arakhamia, the head of Zelensky’s faction in the parliament, said that “all parliamentary parties and groups have agreed that elections should be held six months after the lifting of martial law.”
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said that European NATO members are making every effort to make sure that Zelensky retains power. Even if he fails to do so, Kiev’s backers would seek to maintain “the same Nazi and overtly Russophobic regime” in Ukraine by installing a new “half-Fuhrer” in Zelensky’s stead, Lavrov stated.
April 15, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Militarism | Ukraine |
Leave a comment
Recently, The National Interest published a call for a reconfiguration of U.S.-Russia relations, and the proposal to establish an economic partnership signals a subtle but significant shift in Washington’s strategy. After years of hybrid warfare, sanctions, and failed attempts to isolate Moscow, some sectors of the American establishment seem to finally acknowledge the obvious: the U.S. tends to gain much more from reconciliation than Russia does. And most importantly — unlike in the 1990s, Moscow is in no hurry.
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, U.S.-Russia relations have been marked by a clear asymmetry. The 1990s and 2000s were defined by a weakened Russia attempting to integrate into the international system on Western terms. The result was a series of strategic humiliations, broken promises—such as NATO expansion—and ongoing efforts at containment. Today, that scenario is completely reversed. Moscow negotiates from a strengthened position, guided by long-term strategic interests and a clear vision of a multipolar world.
The American think tank calls for economic rapprochement do not occur in a vacuum. On the contrary, they reflect the ineffectiveness of sanctions as a tool for political change. Over the past decade, the U.S. has used sanctions as a primary foreign policy method, refining their use to target specific individuals, companies, and strategic sectors while attempting to minimize collateral damage. However, even this “surgical” approach has failed.
In Russia’s case, sanctions not only failed to alter Moscow’s stance but also reinforced its internal resilience and political cohesion. The Russian economy adapted, built alternative logistical, industrial, and financial systems, and deepened ties with powers such as China, India, and Iran. More than that, the sanctions regime stimulated the development of an independent foreign policy, consolidating Russia’s role as a pivotal power in the transition toward a multipolar order.
It is in this context that the U.S. now seeks to replace war and sanctions with other methods of deterrence and engagement—primarily economic in nature. The bet is simple: an economically integrated, cooperative, and stable Russia would better serve Washington’s strategic interests than a confrontational and self-sufficient power. On paper, Moscow could serve as a useful counterweight to China, help relieve economic and migratory pressures in Europe, and potentially shift its focus toward internal economic development instead of geopolitical challenges.
However, this vision ignores a fundamental element: Russia does not simply want to return to being part of a “rules-based international order”—a phrase now synonymous with American hegemony. Moscow wants to end that paradigm. Russia’s strategic interest lies in replacing this unilateral order with a new international structure governed by treaties, pragmatism, and mutual respect between sovereign powers. This is not about returning to the “reset” of the Obama era, but about negotiating new terms for global coexistence—terms that Russia now has the power to impose.
In this scenario, rapprochement with the U.S. only interests Russia if it is based on a realistic, long-term cooperation agenda. Moscow will not accept unilateral conditions or asymmetric concessions. Its goal is clear: to consolidate multipolarity, weaken unilateral structures of domination, and establish relations based on mutual benefits. The geopolitics of force gives way to the diplomacy of interest.
If Washington truly wants a “reset,” it must accept it on the terms of a new world—not as an uncontested leader, but as one among several poles of power. Russia is willing to engage in dialogue, but not in submission. And this time, it’s not Moscow that needs the conversation most—it’s Washington.
April 15, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Economics | Russia, United States |
1 Comment
Democrats in the US House of Representatives have introduced the Ukraine Support Act, aiming to force President Donald Trump’s administration to give Kiev security funding, reconstruction aid and slap heavy sanctions on Russia.
“It clearly appears to be an attempt seriously to encroach upon the President’s powers in the area of foreign relations,” says Stephen B. Presser, leading American legal historian and Professor of Law at Northwestern University.
The move is “an attempt to micro-manage what the President does in his efforts to arrive at a means of ending the conflict between Russia and Ukraine,” he adds.
The bill is unlikely to pass a Republican-controlled House or Senate and is “an abysmal idea,” the academic says.
“One can only guess what motivates the bill’s authors, but Ukraine lobbyists are likely involved,” Presser notes.
With peace talks at a delicate stage, the bill’s timing couldn’t be worse. But if it passes, the pundit expects the courts to overturn it.
April 15, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Militarism, Russophobia | United States |
Leave a comment
Aletho News 