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
Medical journals have became enforcers of orthodoxy—retracting genuine hypotheses while protecting proven fraud
As a scientific writer and researcher, I’ve witnessed the decline of medical journals firsthand. Once forums for open debate and intellectual rigour, they’ve morphed into gatekeepers, more concerned with preserving a narrow orthodoxy than pursuing truth.
My previous work has exposed how journals suppress uncomfortable questions, avoid studies that challenge dominant narratives, and operate under a peer-review system distorted by bias and external influence.
But never have I seen a more absurd example of this decay than the retraction of a hypothesis paper—yes, a hypothesis—authored by Dr. Sabine Hazan in Frontiers in Microbiology.
Her 2022 article hypothesised that ivermectin might mitigate Covid-19 severity by promoting the growth of Bifidobacterium, reducing inflammation via the gut-lung axis.
She cited preliminary observations in 24 hypoxic patients who recovered without hospitalisation after combination therapy including ivermectin.
Dr Sabine Hazan, ProgenaBiome, Ventura, CA
She made no claims of definitive proof. Instead, she proposed a mechanism worth investigating. That’s the point of a scientific hypothesis.
But in May 2023—more than a year after the article was peer-reviewed and published—the journal retracted the paper following a series of complaints on PubPeer, offering only a vague explanation about “scientific soundness.”
Seeking clarity, I contacted both the journal’s editorial office and the editor who handled the paper, Professor Mohammad Alikhani at Hamadan University.
Prof Mohammad Alikhani, Department of Microbiology, Hamadan University
Specifically, I sought an explanation for retracting a ‘hypothesis’, but I did not receive a response.
This silence is damning.
Retraction is a serious step, historically reserved for cases of fraud or clear ethical misconduct. But here, no such claim was made—nor could one be substantiated.
The journal simply erased the paper, offering no transparent justification, no engagement with the scientific process, and no accountability.
In fact, it violated the very guidelines that journals are supposed to follow.
The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) advises that publications should only be retracted if they contain seriously flawed or fabricated data, or plagiarism that cannot be addressed through a correction.
Hazan’s paper was transparent about its speculative nature. In a January 2023 tweet, Hazan challenged her critics.
“It’s a hypothesis. PROVE ME WRONG,” she wrote.
After all, that’s the essence of science. But the journal’s decision to retract sends a message that even theoretical propositions are now intolerable.
Having tasted blood, Hazan’s critics kept digging. In January 2025, Future Microbiology retracted another of her studies—this one examining ivermectin-based multidrug therapy.
Hazan, her co-author Australian immunologist Dr. Robert L. Clancy, and others strongly disputed the decision after the journal failed to conduct a meaningful investigation into the alleged data integrity issues.
The irony is palpable.
While pundits argued over ivermectin’s efficacy during the pandemic, Hazan was one of the few actually doing the hard work to test its effects—collecting data, proposing mechanisms, engaging with the science. And yet she’s the one being silenced!
Which begs the question – why?
Is there professional jealousy in the microbiome space? Are pharmaceutical companies, threatened by low-cost alternatives like ivermectin, pressuring journals to kill competing narratives?
If so, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) should investigate. Suppressing research that could affect investor decisions—by inflating the perceived value of antivirals or vaccines—could amount to securities fraud.
While there’s no definitive evidence, the pattern is hard to ignore: two retractions, no clear misconduct, and a growing campaign to discredit a scientist whose work challenges a profitable status quo.
Whether coordinated or not, the outcome is the same – the erasure of inconvenient data.
The spinelessness of journals in these episodes is unmistakable. Why do they capitulate so readily?
Just follow the money.
Many journals are financially entangled with the pharmaceutical industry—relying on drug ads, sponsorships, and profitable reprint sales. That financial tether distorts editorial independence.
Editors, often underpaid and overstretched, are understandably risk-averse. They fear litigation. They fear social media outrage. They fear becoming the next target.
Pharmaceutical companies, meanwhile, don’t hesitate to use legal threats to silence dissent because their pockets are deep—as in the case of Covaxin.
In July 2024, Bharat Biotech International Limited sued 11 authors—six of them students—and the editor of Drug Safety, Nitin Joshi, over a peer-reviewed article questioning the safety of their Covaxin vaccine.
The journal, under legal duress, retracted the paper. The authors were left to fend for themselves.
Journals are supposed to stand on principle. But, increasingly, they serve as enforcers of orthodoxy—vulnerable to financial pressure and online activists.
Let’s be honest, the trolls are part of the strategy. Anonymous complaints, often from individuals with no expertise, are weaponised to trigger retractions and smear reputations.
That’s not peer review. That’s mob rule.
The SEC must take a closer look at this ecosystem. If research is being suppressed to protect corporate revenue or manipulate investor confidence, that’s not just unethical—it’s illegal.
During his presidential campaign, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. addressed this very issue, declaring that journals colluding with pharmaceutical companies might be subject to charges under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.
“We’re gonna… file some racketeering lawsuits if you don’t start telling the truth in your journals,” he warned in 2023. It was provocative, yes—but it struck a chord with those of us watching the machinery of science betray its mission.
Retractions have become so casually executed, they’ve lost all meaning. What was once a mark of serious fraud is now a tool of reputational management.
Today, many papers are retracted not because they’re wrong, but because they’re inconvenient.
How else can one explain the demonstrably fraudulent studies funded by industry that remain published?
Whistleblower Dr. Peter Wilmshurst has spent years trying to get the MIST trial retracted—published in Circulation. It’s riddled with false claims, undeclared conflicts, and unreported adverse events, yet the journal continues to protect it.
This exposes the rot. These decisions have nothing to do with science.
They are political, financial, and reputational tools—used selectively to punish dissent.
There’s a growing list of researchers penalised—not for bad science, but for exploring uncomfortable truths.
Journals must reclaim their role as platforms for robust scientific debate. COPE must enforce its standards, not just cite them. Editors must be held accountable for vague or retaliatory retractions. And if corporate suppression of research is distorting public markets, then the SEC must act.
Because what I’m witnessing isn’t scientific curiosity—it’s narrative control. And the death of curiosity is the death of science itself.
April 14, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Corruption, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | United States |
Leave a comment
Millions of people around the world were at the edge of their seats over the weekend, waiting to hear whether Trump special envoy Steve Witkoff’s indirect talks with the Iranian foreign minister would ratchet down tensions or would break down and bring on a major Middle East war.
If it seems bizarre that the outcome of a meeting between a US president’s designated negotiator and a foreign government minister could determine whether we plunge into possibly our biggest war since World War II, that’s because it is bizarre. In fact, this is an excellent example of why our Founders were so determined to keep warmaking authority out of the Executive Branch of government. No one person – much less his aide – should have the power to take this country to war.
That is why the Constitution places the authority to go to war firmly and exclusively in the hands of the representatives of the people: the US Congress. After all, it is the US people who will be expected to fight the wars and to pay for the wars and to bear the burden of the outcome of the wars. When that incredible power is placed in the hands of one individual – even if that individual is elected – the temptation to use it is far too great. Our Founders recognized this weakness in the system they were rebelling against – the British monarchy – so they wisely corrected it when they drafted our Constitution.
Unless the US is under direct attack or is facing imminent direct attack, the Constitution requires Congress to deliberate, discuss, and decide whether a conflict or potential conflict is worth bringing the weight of the US military to bear. They wanted it harder, not easier, to take us to war.
When wars can be started by presidents with no authority granted by Congress, the results can be the kinds of endless military engagements with ever-shifting, unachievable objectives such as we’ve seen in Afghanistan and Iraq.
We are currently seeing another such endless conflict brewing with President Trump’s decision to start bombing Yemen last month. The stated objectives– to end Houthi interference with Israeli Red Sea shipping – are not being achieved so, as usually happens, the bombing expands and creates more death and destruction for the civilian population. In the last week or so, US bombs have struck the water supply facilities for 50,000 civilians and have apparently blown up a civilian tribal gathering.
Starting a war with Iran was the furthest thing from the minds of American voters last November, and certainly those who voted for Donald Trump were at least partly motivated by his promise to end current wars and start no new wars. However, there is a strange logic that to fulfill the promise of no new wars, the US must saber rattle around the world to intimidate others from crossing the White House. This is what the recycled phrase “peace through strength” seems to have come to mean. But the real strength that it takes to make and keep peace is the strength to just walk away. It is the strength to stop meddling in conflicts that have nothing to do with the United States.
That is where Congress comes in. Except they are not coming in. They are nowhere to be found. And that is not a good thing.
April 14, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Militarism, Wars for Israel | Iran, Israel, Middle East, United States, Yemen |
Leave a comment
Al Mayadeen has obtained a copy of the Israeli proposal submitted to mediators and subsequently conveyed to Hamas regarding negotiations for a permanent ceasefire in Gaza.
In March, “Israel” reneged on a ceasefire that brought two months of relative calm and resumed its war on the Gaza Strip.
The document outlines that Hamas would release captive Edan Alexander on the first day as a special gesture to the United States, signaling goodwill at the onset of the discussions.
The Israeli proposal includes a clear demand for the complete disarmament of the Gaza Strip, setting forth a framework for a 45-day temporary ceasefire. This ceasefire would encompass the cessation of military operations, the delivery of humanitarian aid, and the exchange of prisoners.
On the second day of the truce, Hamas would release five living captives in exchange for 66 Palestinian prisoners serving life sentences and 611 detainees from Gaza.
The proposal stipulates that any release of captives must occur without public displays or ceremonial proceedings.
Moreover, the proposal calls for the establishment of a mutually agreed-upon mechanism to ensure that humanitarian aid reaches civilians exclusively.
Following the release of the five captives, the document allows for the entry of humanitarian aid and necessary shelter equipment to assist displaced persons in Gaza.
Additionally, the Israeli military would begin its “redeployment” in the Rafah area and northern Gaza Strip following the release of the captives.
On the third day, negotiations are set to begin on “the day after,” which would center on disarmament efforts and the formal declaration of a permanent ceasefire.
By the seventh day, Hamas would release four captives in exchange for 54 Palestinian prisoners serving life sentences, as well as 500 detainees held since October 7, 2023.
The proposal specifies that after the seventh day, the Israeli military would begin “redeploying” east of Salah al-Din Street.
On the 10th day, Hamas would be required to provide comprehensive information about all remaining living captives in exchange for corresponding information on Palestinian detainees
On the 20th day, Hamas would release 16 dead captives in exchange for 160 Palestinians who have been killed, with both groups to be released simultaneously.
The Israeli proposal further outlines that negotiations for a permanent ceasefire must be finalized within 45 days. It also specifies that once a ceasefire agreement is reached, the remaining live and dead captives will be released.
If a temporary ceasefire is successfully agreed upon, the proposal indicates that it could be extended under mutually agreed-upon conditions and for a duration to be determined by both parties.
Finally, the document underscores that the guarantors of the deal—Egypt, Qatar, and the United States—would continue to exert efforts to ensure the continuation of negotiations and the eventual establishment of a permanent ceasefire agreement.
Resistance leader details Gaza proposal, Hamas’ stance
Earlier on Monday, a Palestinian Resistance leader speaking to Al Mayadeen outlined the key points of the latest Israeli proposal, which includes the redeployment of Israeli occupation forces to positions held before March 2, a 45-day term for halting military operations, the opening of crossings, and the entry of humanitarian aid—but all under Israeli-imposed conditions.
According to the source, the proposal fails to meet Hamas’ core demands of a permanent ceasefire and a complete Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, he added.
The leader further warned that the Israeli plan appears designed to gradually strip Hamas of its leverage by extracting captives without securing meaningful concessions.
He further told Al Mayadeen that the Israeli proposal seeks to disarm Hamas and ensure it does not return to power in Gaza.
April 14, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | Hamas, Israel, Palestine, Zionism |
Leave a comment
Aletho News 