Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

John Mearsheimer: Trump’s Fooling Himself

Daniel Davis / Deep Dive | July 14, 2025

Daniel Davis Deep Dive Audio Podcasts

July 16, 2025 Posted by | Video | , , , | Leave a comment

Connecticut Passes Law Mandating Water Fluoridation at Existing Levels in Move to Preempt Federal Changes

By Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. | The Defender | July 16, 2025

Connecticut Gov. Ted Lamont on Tuesday signed legislation requiring public water systems to continue fluoridating drinking water at the levels currently recommended by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

In the press release, Lamont said current recommended levels of water fluoridation have been proven to be “safe and effective for many decades.”

The new law will ensure that “this public health standard continues in Connecticut regardless of whatever political decisions are made at the federal level,” Lamont said.

Previous state law mandated that water be fluoridated at levels recommended by HHS. Currently, the agency recommends 0.7 milligrams per liter, but it may reexamine that recommendation.

The law mandates that the amount of fluoride that must be added to the state’s water supply remains at the HHS-recommended level of 0.7 milligrams per liter.

Pro-fluoridation lobbyists, including the American Dental Association (ADA) and state dental associations, celebrated the news. The ADA said it was pleased that Connecticut “has taken a proactive approach to protecting community water fluoridation.”

The Fluoride Action Network (FAN), which educates the public about the dangers of fluoridation, criticized the move. “Change is hard,” it posted on X. “Connecticut has stubbornly fossilized current fluoridation levels into law.”

In a press release, Lamont’s office cited outdated statistics claiming water fluoridation reduces cavities by 25%. It also quoted Connecticut senators, the state’s public health commissioner, and several dental organizations who affirmed the importance and safety of fluoridation. It didn’t cite any evidence to back those claims.

A growing body of research showing fluoride’s toxic effects, particularly for pregnant women and children, gained national attention when a federal judge in September 2024 ruled against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in a landmark lawsuit brought by the FAN, Mothers Against Fluoridation, Food & Water Watch and others.

U.S. District Judge Edward Chen ruled that water fluoridation at current levels of 0.7 milligrams per liter posed an “unreasonable risk” to children’s health and must be regulated.

Chen’s 80-page decision outlined the scientific evidence that fluoride exposure is linked to reduced IQ in children.

The decision to fluoridate water is usually made by local governments. However, fluoridation infrastructure typically has state funding, and a handful of states require fluoridation, usually for communities of a certain size.

Trump administration gives mixed signals on water fluoridation

Since the September federal court ruling, more than 60 communities, towns and states — including Florida, the third most populous state — have voted to stop adding fluoride to their water systems.

Water fluoridation has been practiced in the U.S. since the 1940s. At the time of the lawsuit ruling, 200 million Americans were drinking water treated with fluoride.

Water fluoridation hasn’t always been a partisan issue. In the early 2010s, Democratic cities such as Portland, Oregon, and Santa Fe, New Mexico, voted to end water fluoridation over concerns about the chemical’s toxic effects.

However, the issue became more politicized in November 2024, after Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a longtime fluoride critic, said the incoming Trump administration would advise local water systems to stop fluoridating water. Kennedy was confirmed as HHS secretary in February.

Since then, Democratic politicians and the mainstream press have vocally supported water fluoridation and attacked critics — including even CNN and Washington Post health commentator Dr. Leana Wen.

However, the Trump administration has given mixed signals on its approach to water fluoridation.

In April, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced plans to “expeditiously review” new science on the possible health risks of water fluoridation. Also that month, Kennedy said he planned to tell the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to stop recommending water fluoridation nationally.

However, that recommendation has not happened.

Instead, last week, Michael Connett, attorney for the plaintiffs in the landmark fluoride lawsuit, announced on X that the EPA plans to appeal Chen’s decision ordering the agency to address the risks of water fluoridation.

The agency is expected to file its appeal later this week.

In 2015, President Barack Obama’s Surgeon General Vivek Murthy officially lowered the recommended dosage for water fluoridation from 0.7-1.2 milligrams per liter to 0.7 milligrams per liter after considering “adverse health effects” along with alleged benefits.

The original draft version of Murthy’s revised water fluoridation recommendations included a summary of research on fluoride’s impact on IQ and other neurological issues, with a statement saying further research was needed on the topic. Those statements were not present in Murthy’s final draft.

Related articles in The Defender

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.

July 16, 2025 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

Massie Proposes to Make COVID Vaccine Makers Liable for Injuries, Opening Door for Thousands of Lawsuits

By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | July 16, 2025

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) on Tuesday introduced legislation to repeal the “sweeping” liability shield that exempts COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers from responsibility for serious injuries or death caused by their products.

The liability protection amounts to “medical malpractice martial law,” Massie said in a press release.

The PREP Repeal Act (H.R.4388) would revoke the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act of 2005, a law that provides legal immunity to “covered persons” who manufacture or administer countermeasures during a public health emergency.

“Covered persons” under the PREP Act include vaccine makers, manufacturers of masks and other personal protective equipment, and physicians, nurses and pharmacists who administer vaccines.

The Biden administration ended the COVID-19 public health emergency in May 2023. However, the public health emergency, declared in January 2020 by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under the PREP Act, remains in effect.

In December 2024, HHS extended the liability protections through 2029. It was the 12th extension since 2020.

Massie’s bill would strip away these protections, repealing the PREP Act’s liability shield and restoring civil remedy rights for people harmed by products covered under the act.

“Τhe ability of citizens to seek redress for injury or harm is a fundamental principle of justice and due process,” the bill states, adding that the PREP Act’s liability shield has “undermined public trust and accountability” and “enabled regulatory capture.”

“The 2005 PREP Act prevents people from holding corporations accountable for the pain and suffering they cause during Presidentially declared emergencies. Americans deserve the right to seek justice when injured by government-mandated products. The PREP Repeal Act will restore that right,” Massie said in the press release.

In an interview today on the “Brian Thomas Morning Show,” Massie said the bill would apply to all COVID-19-related countermeasures, not just vaccines.

“If somebody made a mask that had cancer particles on it, and you inhaled those … too bad, they’re covered by the PREP Act,” Massie said. “I don’t like lawsuits, but they do keep corporations sort of in check. There’s this incentive not to harm people if you’re going to have to pay for it, if it becomes unprofitable.”

Attorney Ray Flores, senior outside counsel for Children’s Health Defense and an expert on the PREP Act, said:

“The ‘sweeping liability protections’ extend far beyond manufacturer shields to condone every conceivable medical atrocity. If Massie’s bill passes, the pandemic assembly line would be dismantled. It would be goodbye liability protections, goodbye mandates and goodbye mass-human experimentation.”

According to Flores, repeal of the PREP Act would also end other current public health emergencies, including mpox (monkeypox), pandemic influenza, anthrax and Zika.

Dr. Meryl Nass, founder of Door to Freedom, said the bill “will stop another COVID vaccine fiasco and also stop the widespread use of unproven tests such as the COVID-19 PCR tests, which were also issued under emergency use authorizations (EUA).”

Wayne Rohde, author of “The Vaccine Court: The Dark Truth of America’s Vaccine Injury Compensation Program” and “The Vaccine Court 2.0,” said the bill contains “nonspecific language” and gaps that require attention. Rohde said this includes:

“How to wind down the Act, address all of the amendments added to the Act over the last 4 years, covered persons, how to handle the covered countermeasures such as medical devices, medications, drugs and personal protective equipment, and, of course, the elephant in the room, the vaccines used and their future legal liability.”

Legislation would open the door to thousands of lawsuits previously blocked by PREP Act

Massie’s proposed legislation would apply to all current and future lawsuits challenging the PREP Act, including pending appeals.

Attorney Rick Jaffe said the proposed legislation is retroactive to March 10, 2020, “reopening the courthouse doors to thousands of injured individuals whose claims were previously blocked by PREP’s sweeping liability shield.”

The legislation would allow claimants to sue COVID-19 vaccine makers directly, Jaffe said:

“The bill, if passed, allows people injured by the COVID shots to sue, presumably, the manufacturers as well as those who administered the shots, and that would be a big and much unwanted thing from the perspective of the manufacturers and pharmacy chains which administered the shots.”

Massie told Brian Thomas he believes the PREP Act is unconstitutional, as it preempts state medical malpractice laws.

“Here’s why I call the PREP Act medical malpractice martial law,” Massie said. “It’s a federal law that says none of the state laws apply, and I think it’s a violation of the 10th Amendment. There’s nowhere in the Constitution that lets the federal government say that all state laws dealing with liability are null and void.”

Most, but not all, courts have so far sided against vaccine injury lawsuits challenging the PREP Act’s liability shield.

In March, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court upheld a lower court ruling that school medical staff who gave a COVID-19 vaccine to a minor without obtaining parental consent cannot be held liable under the PREP Act.

The Maine ruling came one week after the U.S. Supreme Court refused to review a lower court’s ruling in a similar lawsuit in Vermont. In that case, a school administered a COVID-19 vaccine to a 6-year-old boy despite his and his parents’ objections. Last year, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that the PREP Act shielded school officials from liability.

At least two recent lawsuits challenging the PREP Act have cleared initial judicial hurdles but remain pending.

In March, the Supreme Court of North Carolina ruled that a lawsuit filed by the mother of a 14-year-old boy given a COVID-19 vaccine at school without consent can proceed. The court ruled the PREP Act does not preempt state law requiring parental consent for vaccination.

In November 2024, a federal court ruled that a lawsuit filed by a woman injured by AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine during a U.S. clinical trial can continue.

According to the complaint, AstraZeneca’s consent form for trial participants promised enrollees medical treatment in the event of illness or injury suffered during the study. The court rejected the drugmaker’s claim that a federal liability shield protects it from breach-of-contract claims.

Bill would end ‘dismal’ PREP Act vaccine injury compensation program

Massie’s proposed bill also rescinds unused federal funds earmarked for injury claims under the PREP Act.

Such claims are heard by the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP), a government-run COVID-19 vaccine injury compensation program established under the PREP Act.

CICP has faced criticism for its slow pace of resolving claims and the limited compensation it offers.

Jaffe said:

“The PREP Act created a legal black hole where traditional tort rights and due process protections disappeared, replaced by a virtually unreviewable administrative compensation program — the CICP — that has denied nearly every COVID-related claim. In effect, Americans injured by federally endorsed products were stripped of their constitutional right to seek redress. This bill restores that right.”

According to the most recent CICP data, of the 13,836 claims related to COVID-19 countermeasures filed to date, 75 were found eligible for compensation. As of June 1, 39 of those have been compensated. The overwhelming majority of claims were denied (4,338) or are “pending review or in review” (9,423).

Dr. Joel Wallskog, an orthopedic surgeon injured by COVID-19 vaccines and co-chair of React19, an organization advocating on behalf of vaccine-injury victims, said CICP strips claimants of their constitutional rights to due process and a jury trial.

“The CICP program was intended to be the safety net for those Americans injured by the emergency countermeasures, such as the COVID-19 shots. However, the program is a dismal failure with over a 98% denial rate,” Wallskog said.

If the proposed legislation passes, Flores said, the most likely outcome would be attempting to move COVID-19 injuries into the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), which covers injuries from vaccines routinely administered to children and pregnant women.

However, such a move may face obstacles, including complications regarding how to handle claims pending before the CICP.

Rohde said:

“Money obligated for current operations would not be affected [but] how do you determine the monetary need for pending CICP petitions? How to handle the CICP petitions already received and what about the future claims? Do you move all the CICP vaccine petitions into the VICP? That creates all sorts of new problems.”

In May, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) changed its recommendations on COVID-19 vaccines for healthy children. The CDC now recommends that parents of healthy children consult their pediatricians and together make decide whether to vaccinate against the virus.

According to Flores, “Now that these injections are not on the routine recommended schedule for healthy children and pregnant women, they wouldn’t qualify” for compensation from the VICP.

‘It will probably only pass if Americans get behind it in a big way’

Massie’s proposed legislation is similar to a bill introduced last year that would allow Americans to sue the manufacturers of COVID-19 vaccines for vaccine-related adverse events, including deaths, by removing the vaccine makers’ liability shield.

The Let Injured Americans Be Legally Empowered Act, or the LIABLE Act (H.R.7551), has since languished in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Wallskog said Massie’s bill faces “an uphill battle to make it to the Congressional floor and get to a vote.”

Flores was less optimistic about the bill’s future because it would allow claimants to sue COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers directly.

“The bill, in theory, is just what we need. However, implementing it would cause utter chaos,” Flores said. “Absent a miracle, the prospects [of passage] are slim to none.”

Nass said public awareness and support are crucial for the bill’s success.

“It will probably only pass if Americans get behind it in a big way,” Nass said.

Wallskog said if the legislation is passed, it would be more far-reaching than a declaration by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. removing COVID-19 countermeasures from the PREP Act.

“Executive orders can simply be reversed by the next HHS secretary. Legislative change is much more powerful with more staying power,” Wallskog said.

This has not occurred to date, which Flores said is “the greatest indication of the forces that Kennedy and Rep. Massie are up against.”

Related articles in The Defender

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.

July 16, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , , | Leave a comment

Soft power, hard cash: How the UK secretly buys influencers

By Timur Tarkhanov | RT | July 16, 2025

There is something profoundly grotesque about a government that funds “freedom campaigns” through secret payments to social media stars, complete with non-disclosure agreements forbidding them to reveal who’s really pulling the strings.

Yet that’s precisely what Britain’s Foreign Office has been caught doing. A recent investigation by Declassified UK revealed that the UK government covertly paid dozens of foreign YouTube influencers to promote messages aligned with British foreign policy – under the familiar, pious banners of “democracy support” and “combating disinformation.”

Of course, those slogans sound wholesome enough. Who wouldn’t be in favour of democracy or against lies online? But this framing is the point: it launders raw geopolitical interests into the comforting language of values. In reality, this is simply propaganda. Slick, decentralised, modernised – but propaganda nonetheless.

This covert campaign didn’t happen in a vacuum. It’s merely the latest incarnation of Britain’s longstanding approach to managing inconvenient narratives abroad. During the Cold War, the UK ran the notorious Information Research Department (IRD) from the bowels of the Foreign Office, quietly subsidising global news wires, encouraging friendly academics, even feeding scripts to George Orwell himself. Back then, it was about containing Soviet influence. Today, the rhetorical targets have shifted – “Russian disinformation,” “violent extremism,” “authoritarian propaganda” – but the machinery is strikingly similar.

Only now, it’s all camouflaged beneath glossy behavioural science reports and “evidence-based interventions.” Enter Zinc Network and a clutch of similar contractors. These are the new psy-ops specialists, rebranded for the digital age. Zinc, in particular, has become a darling of the UK Foreign Office, winning multi-million-pound tenders to craft campaigns in Russia’s near abroad, the Balkans, Myanmar and beyond. Their operational blueprint is remarkably consistent: conduct meticulous audience research to understand local grievances, find or build trusted social media voices, funnel them resources and content, and ensure they sign binding agreements not to disclose their British backers.

A few years ago, leaked FCDO documents exposed exactly this approach in the Baltics. There, the British government paid for contractors to develop Russian-language media platforms that would counter Moscow’s narratives – all under the pretext of strengthening independent journalism. They weren’t setting up local BBC World Service equivalents, proudly branded and transparent. They were building subtle, local-looking channels designed to mask their sponsorship. The goal was not to encourage robust pluralistic debate, but to ensure the debate didn’t wander into critiques of NATO or London’s chosen regional allies.

This is the moral sleight-of-hand at the core of such projects: democracy is not the intrinsic end, it’s the vehicle for achieving Western policy objectives. When the UK says it’s “building resilience against disinformation,” it means reinforcing narratives that advance British strategic interests, whether that’s undermining Moscow, insulating Kiev, or keeping critical questions off the table in Tbilisi. Meanwhile, any rival framing is instantly demonised as dangerous foreign meddling – because only some meddling counts, apparently.

It is deeply revealing that the YouTubers enlisted by the Foreign Office were compelled to sign NDAs preventing them from disclosing the ultimate source of their funding. If this were truly about open civic engagement, wouldn’t the UK proudly brand these campaigns? Wouldn’t London stand behind the principles it professes to teach? Instead, it resorts to precisely the covert playbook it decries when wielded by adversaries.

In truth, “disinformation” has become an incredibly convenient term for Western governments. It carries an aura of technical objectivity — as if there’s a universal ledger of truth to consult, rather than a constantly contested arena of competing narratives and interests. Once something is labelled disinformation, it can be suppressed, countered, or ridiculed with minimal scrutiny. It is the modern equivalent of calling ideas subversive or communist in the 1950s.

Likewise, “freedom” in these projects means nothing more than the freedom to align with Britain’s worldview. This is a freedom to be curated, not genuinely chosen. And so local influencers are groomed to shape perceptions, not to foster independent judgment. The fact that these influencers look indigenous to their societies is the whole point – it’s what gives the campaigns a deceptive organic legitimacy. This is why Zinc’s approach hinges on meticulous audience segmentation and iterative testing to find precisely which messages will most effectively shift attitudes. The aim is to secure agreement without debate, to achieve consent without the messy business of authentic local deliberation.

This should worry us. When liberal democracies resort to covert influence, they hollow out their own moral authority. They also undermine public trust at home and abroad. If London can so easily rationalise deception in Tallinn or Tashkent, why not someday in Manchester or Birmingham? Already, parts of the behavioural “nudge” industry that grew out of these foreign adventures have found eager domestic clients in public health and law enforcement.

The biggest casualty in all of this is genuine democratic discourse – the thing that such operations claim to protect. Because what these programmes actually protect is a carefully policed marketplace of ideas, where uncomfortable questions are outflanked by well-funded, astroturfed consensus. And so long as Britain continues to cloak its strategic propaganda efforts in the soft language of freedom and resilience, citizens everywhere will remain less informed, less empowered, and more easily manipulated.

If that’s what modern democracy promotion looks like, maybe we should be honest and call it what it is: camouflage propaganda, draped in the rhetoric of liberty, but designed to ensure populations think exactly what Whitehall wants them to think.

July 16, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Progressive Hypocrite | | Leave a comment

RT journalist interrogated by UK police

RT | July 16, 2025

The head of RT’s Lebanon office, Steve Sweeney, has been detained and interrogated by the British police over his work for the Russian state-funded broadcaster, its editor-in-chief Margarita Simonyan has reported.

In a post on her Telegram channel on Wednesday, she said the British journalist had been apprehended on arrival in his home country. According to Simonyan, the UK authorities told Sweeney they “suspected him of terrorist activities [and] took away all his phones [and] laptop and interrogated at length regarding his work for RT.”

“They asked [the journalist] whether RT management forces him to say what he doesn’t want to say [and] whether instructions are being handed down to him,” RT’s editor-in-chief detailed.

Simonyan also stated that police officers had asked Sweeney whether he has links to the Lebanese Hezbollah Shiite militant group.

She said that after the questioning was finished, British officials let the journalist go, noting that “Steve… plans to continue working for RT.”

Sweeney is a seasoned war-correspondent, who has covered hostilities in Iraq among other conflicts.

Back in February, the Austrian authorities similarly detained independent British journalist Richard Medhurst, known for his pro-Palestinian stance. The apprehension came months after a run-in with the UK police.

Austrian officials told the reporter that he was suspected of “disseminating propaganda [and] encouraging terrorism,” according to Medhurst’s own account of the events. He claimed that the Austrian police might have acted at the behest of their British colleagues.

Last October, the UK police raided the London home of an associate editor of the pro-Palestinian Electronic Intifada website, Asa Winstanley, over “possible offenses” related to his social media posts.

Following the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in February 2022, the UK, the EU and several other Western nations banned RT and prohibited social media platforms from distributing its content, citing the need to combat “misinformation.”

Moscow has argued such actions demonstrate a lack of commitment to free speech and reflect a willingness to suppress narratives that challenge Western viewpoints.

July 16, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | 1 Comment

Israeli-linked lawyer told ICC chief prosecutor: Drop Gaza case or be ‘destroyed’

MEMO | July 16, 2025

“They will destroy you and they will destroy the court,” an Israeli ICC lawyer connected to Benjamin Netanyahu warned Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan while urging him to drop the war crimes probe against the Israeli Prime Minister and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant.

The warning was delivered during a private meeting in The Hague on 1 May by Nicholas Kaufman, a British-Israeli lawyer who currently defends former Philippines president Rodrigo Duterte at the ICC. According to an internal note seen by Middle East Eye, Kaufman told Khan he had spoken to Netanyahu’s legal adviser and had been “authorised” to propose a confidential solution to help the prosecutor “climb down the tree”, meaning to back away from the case discreetly.

Kaufman advised Khan to reclassify the case files as confidential so that Israel could respond to the allegations in private, rather than through public proceedings. But he also issued a warning: if Khan were to pursue further charges, such as for far-right Israeli ministers, Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir, “all options would be off the table.” He then added, “They will destroy you and they will destroy the court.”

Khan and his wife, who was present at the meeting, both understood the words as a direct threat. Kaufman later denied issuing any threat and claimed he was acting on his own initiative, not on behalf of the Israeli government.

The case at the heart of this controversy concerns the ICC’s investigation into war crimes committed during Israel’s ongoing military assault on Gaza. On 20 May 2024, Khan formally applied for arrest warrants against Netanyahu and Gallant for alleged crimes including the starvation of civilians and the targeting of protected populations. Six months later the court issued arrest warrants for the Israeli leaders.

This attempt at intimidation is not an isolated incident. It follows a pattern of pressure, threats and political interference aimed at protecting Israel from international accountability. In February, the US imposed personal sanctions on Khan, revoking his visa and freezing his assets. His family was also barred from entering the US. In June, four ICC judges who approved the arrest warrants were similarly sanctioned.

Shortly after the 1 May meeting with Kaufman, allegations of sexual misconduct were leaked to the media against Khan. While the ICC initially closed its investigation due to the lack of cooperation by the complainant, the allegations re-emerged in the press through anonymous sources, prompting a new probe. Khan has denied all allegations. Although the proximity of events has prompted speculation, there is said to be no evidence to suggest a connection between the allegations against Khan and his meeting with Kaufman.

These efforts mirror tactics used against Khan’s predecessor. Fatou Bensouda, the former ICC chief prosecutor, has publicly revealed that she too faced threats and surveillance when she began investigating Israeli war crimes. In an interview with The Guardian, she described “thug-style tactics” that included hacking, harassment of her family and threats that she would “pay the price” for her work.

Israel’s allies in the West have also played a key role in undermining the court’s independence. Then British Foreign Secretary David Cameron reportedly warned Khan in April 2024 that issuing arrest warrants against Israeli officials would be “like dropping a hydrogen bomb.” Around the same time, US Senator Lindsey Graham threatened ICC staff with further sanctions if they moved forward.

The ICC is not the only international body under fire. Francesca Albanese, the UN Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories, has also been targeted. In July, the US imposed sanctions against her, citing her “direct engagement” with the ICC’s investigation into Israeli war crimes.

Albanese has faced sustained smear campaigns and death threats—part of what observers describe as a broader effort to silence those demanding accountability for Israel’s genocide in Gaza. Rights groups and UN experts have condemned the sanctions as an attack on the independence of international human rights mechanisms and a chilling warning to other officials who might support the ICC’s work.

July 16, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , , | 1 Comment

Yemen’s naval blockade forces closure of Israel’s only Red Sea port

Press TV – July 16, 2025

Israel says its only Red Sea port in Eilat will shut down next week, as a deepening debt crisis—triggered by a months-long naval blockade by Yemen’s Ansarullah movement—brings the strategic facility to a standstill.

The regime’s Ports and Shipping Authority said in a statement Wednesday that the port will permanently close on July 20.

Authorities acknowledged that the crippling blockade by Yemeni forces has effectively paralyzed operations at Eilat, once a key hub for maritime trade.

“Due to the shutdown of the Port of Eilat and its deteriorating financial situation amid the ongoing crisis, the Eilat Municipality has notified port management of the seizure of all bank accounts over unpaid debts,” Israel’s National Emergency Authority said in a memo.

“As a result, the Shipping and Ports Authority announced that the port will cease all operations starting this Sunday.”

Local media described the move as “a dramatic step” that could severely undermine Israel’s maritime logistics in the Red Sea.

Situated at Israel’s southernmost tip, the Port of Eilat has long functioned as a vital alternative to the Suez Canal. But since late last year, after Yemen’s Ansarullah resistance movement imposed a naval blockade in response to Israel’s war on Gaza, commercial activity at the port has come to a halt.

Shortly after the Gaza war began in November 2023, Ansarullah enforced a blockade on key maritime routes—the Red Sea, Gulf of Aden, and Arabian Sea—aimed at disrupting military shipments to Israel.

Yemeni forces have since stepped up drone and missile attacks on Israeli and commercial vessels, vowing that operations will not stop until Israel ends its devastating war on Gaza.

July 16, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Solidarity and Activism | , , , , | Leave a comment

Cairo rejects Rafah plan, says it violates peace treaty

MEMO | July 16, 2025

Egypt has officially informed the United States and Israel of its firm rejection of a proposed plan to establish humanitarian camps in the border city of Rafah, according to Egyptian diplomatic sources quoted by the the Lebanese newspaper Al-Akhbar on Tuesday.

The sources said Cairo warned that the plan could violate terms of the peace treaty’s security agreement with Israel, which prohibits any breach of agreed security arrangements in the border areas.

The report, titled “Rafah Ghetto concerns Cairo”, said Egypt may reconsider several regional arrangements, stressing that “all scenarios are on the table, including those beyond the diplomatic level.”

Meanwhile, Israeli Channel 13 reported that Egypt views the proposed “tent city” as a “ticking human time bomb” near the Egypt-Gaza border, warning that the relocation of hundreds of thousands of displaced Palestinians to the area poses a serious threat, according to RT Arabic

In addition, Israeli Channel 7 reported that Egypt’s security delegation, currently involved in mediation efforts, strongly opposed Israel’s latest military deployment map, arguing that such plans threaten Egypt’s national security, as reported by Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper website.

July 16, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , , | Leave a comment

Deal or sanctions: West threaten Iran ahead of August deadline

Al Mayadeen | July 16, 2025

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, along with the foreign ministers of France, Germany, and the United Kingdom, has agreed to set an end-of-August deadline for reaching a new nuclear agreement with Iran.

The decision, discussed during a joint call on Monday, could trigger a full reimposition of United Nations sanctions if no deal is reached, Axios reported, citing three sources familiar with the matter.

If Iran fails to meet the so-called “deadline,” the European trio plans to activate the “snapback” mechanism, an automatic reinstatement of all UN Security Council sanctions that were lifted under the 2015 nuclear agreement. The mechanism is intended to respond to ‘Iranian noncompliance’ and is set to expire in October.

The move is time-sensitive. The snapback process takes 30 days to complete, and European diplomats are keen to initiate it before Russia assumes the rotating presidency of the UN Security Council this October. Western officials see the snapback as both a diplomatic pressure tool and a contingency plan if ongoing negotiations collapse, as per the report.

Iran, however, maintains there is no legal basis for the snapback and has warned that triggering it could prompt Tehran to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty altogether.

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian reiterated on Tuesday his administration’s continued commitment to a peaceful resolution and diplomatic engagement. In a post published Monday night on X, Pezeshkian stated: “To open new horizons, we must take a critical look at the past. What will lead us toward a better future is rebuilding hope, being ready to learn and change, and forging a new path through consensus, empathy, and rational thinking.”

He added that Tehran still believes diplomacy is a viable path forward and is committed to pursuing it seriously.

July 16, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Italy won’t buy US arms for Ukraine – media

RT | July 16, 2025

Italy’s budget doesn’t allow it to participate in US President Donald Trump’s plan to supply American arms to Ukraine, the Italian newspaper La Stampa reports, citing anonymous sources.

On Monday, Trump authorized new weapons deliveries to Ukraine, given that European NATO members provide funding, calling it a “very big deal.”

La Stampa said in an article on Wednesday that the strategy of German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who has already agreed to purchase several Patriot surface-to-air missile systems for Ukraine, “will not be pursued by Italy.”

According to the paper’s sources, Rome will be opting out of the scheme “not only because our weapon systems already handed over to Kiev have other technological configurations, but above all because – unlike Germany – the budget that Italy can allocate to such an operation is practically non-existent.”

The only arms purchase from the US currently planned by Italy is the delivery of a batch of F35 fighter jets scheduled for the 2030s, the sources added.

Politico reported on Tuesday, citing two French officials, that Paris would not be purchasing US weapons for Kiev as France is looking to invest in its own defense industry to meet European security needs.

The same day, Czech Prime Minister Petr Fiala told Publico outlet that Prague is also currently “not considering” joining the initiative. The country “is focusing on other… ways to help Ukraine,” he explained.

EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas earlier welcomed Trump’s pledge to send more weapons to Ukraine, but urged Washington to “share the burden” in terms of financing the deliveries. Washington, meanwhile, has threatened to impose secondary US tariffs of up to 100% on Russia’s trading partners unless progress toward a peace agreement between Moscow and Kiev is made within 50 days.

July 16, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

Trump’s New Aid to Ukraine Amounts to ‘Very Little’ Militarily, US Stocks Drawn Down – Expert

Sputnik – 16.07.2025

US President Donald Trump’s latest announcement regarding new military aid to Ukraine is expected to have limited military impact due to constrained US stockpiles, Jennifer Kavanagh, a US military expert who advocates the “America First” foreign policy Trump campaigned for, told Sputnik.

Trump, alongside NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, announced a plan on Monday to provide Ukraine with additional military aid, including Patriot air defense missiles. This initiative involves European allies purchasing billions of dollars’ worth of US military equipment, including Patriots, for transfer to Kiev. Trump stressed that the US would manufacture these weapons, with European nations covering 100% of the cost, aligning with his “America First” policy by avoiding direct US taxpayer funding.

“Although the details are still a bit unclear, it seems like Europe will buy weapons from the United States to send to Ukraine. These weapons will be a mix of materiel from US stocks and from new production. But the benefits for Ukraine and effects on the battlefield will be limited. What can be drawn from US stockpiles will be constrained in quantity because US weapons reserves have been drawn down already. New production, on the other hand, won’t arrive for some time — possibly years,” Kavanagh, a senior fellow and director of military analysis at US think tank Defense Priorities, told Sputnik.

She further elaborated on specific limitations, noting, “Overall, global stockpiles of Patriot interceptors are low. Only about 600 are produced per year. It is hard to say how many more the United States will be willing to provide Ukraine, but the number will be rather small in the near term.”

The expert noted Trump avoided further escalation by not sending offensive systems to Ukraine, observing, “so far the focus appears to be on defensive systems only.”

She added that the new announcement is largely “political theater” for Trump to calm nerves regarding the air defense pressure Ukraine is facing.

“Yes, much of this is political theater. The announcement amounts to very little militarily, in my estimation,” the pundit said.

The United States had committed more than $66.5 billion in security assistance to Ukraine since the beginning of the Biden administration, including approximately $65.9 billion since the conflict began on February 24, 2022, according to the latest fact sheet from the US Department of Defense.

July 16, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , | Leave a comment