Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Paulo Nogueira Batista: Decline of the IMF & Rise of the BRICS New Development Bank

Glenn Diesen | November 20, 2025
Rumble
Paulo Nogueira Batista Jr. is a former Executive Director at the IMF (2007-2015) and the founding Vice President of BRICS’ New Development Bank. Batista discusses how the IMF is used as a hegemonic instrument of power, and why the BRICS New Development Bank is more suited for the multipolar world.
Follow Prof. Glenn Diesen:
Substack: https://glenndiesen.substack.com/
X: https://x.com/Glenn_Diesen
Patreon:   / glenndiesen  

November 20, 2025 Posted by | Aletho News | Leave a comment

The new kill zone: Gaza’s borders after the ‘ceasefire’

By Ramzy Baroud | MEMO | November 20, 2025

The so-called Gaza ceasefire was not a genuine cessation of hostility, but a strategic, cynical shift in the Israeli genocide and ongoing campaign of destruction.

Starting on 10 October, the first day of the announced ceasefire, Israel transitioned tactics: moving from indiscriminate aerial bombardment to the calculated, engineered demolishing of homes and vital infrastructure. Satellite images, corroborated by almost hourly media and ground reports, confirmed this methodical change.

As direct combat forces seemingly withdrew to the adjacent “Gaza envelope” region, a new vanguard of Israeli soldiers advanced into the area east of the so-called Yellow Line, to systematically dismantle whatever semblance of life, rootedness, and civilisation remained standing following the Israeli genocide. Between 10 October and 2 November, Israel demolished 1,500 buildings, utilising its specialized military engineering units.

The ceasefire agreement divided Gaza into two halves: one west of the Yellow Line, where the survivors of the Israeli genocide were confined, and a larger one, east of the line, where the Israeli army maintained an active military presence and continued to operate with impunity.

If Israel truly harbored the intention of, indeed, evacuating the area following the agreed-upon second phase of the ceasefire, it would not be actively pursuing the systematic, structural destruction of this already devastated region. Clearly, Israel’s motives are far more insidious, centered on rendering the region perpetually uninhabitable.

Aside from leveling infrastructure, Israel is also carrying out a continuous campaign of airstrikes and naval attacks, relentlessly targeting Rafah and Khan Yunis in the south. Later, and with greater intensity, Israel also began carrying out attacks in areas that were, in theory, meant to be under the control of Gazans.

According to the Palestinian Ministry of Health in Gaza, 260 Palestinians have been killed and 632 wounded since the commencement of the so-called ceasefire.

In practice, this ceasefire amounts to a one-sided truce, where Israel can carry out a relentless, low-grade war on Gaza, while Palestinians are systematically denied the right to respond or defend themselves. Gaza is thus condemned to relive the same tragic cycle of violent history: a defenseless, impoverished region trapped under the boot of Israel’s military calculations, which consistently operate outside the periphery of international law.

Before the existence of Israel atop the ruins of historic Palestine in 1948, the demarcation of Gaza’s borders was not driven by military calculations. The Gaza region, one of the world’s most ancient civilisations, was always seamlessly incorporated into a larger geographical socio-economic space.

Before the British named it the Gaza District (1920-1948), the Ottomans considered it a sub-district (Kaza) within the larger Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem – the Jerusalem Independent District.

But even the British designation of Gaza did not isolate it from the rest of the Palestinian geography, as the borders of the new district reached Al-Majdal (today’s Ashkelon) in the north, Bir al-Saba’ (Beersheba) in the east, and the Rafah line at the Egyptian border.

Following the 1949 Armistice Agreements, which codified the post-Nakba lines, the collective torment of Gaza, as illustrated in its shrinking boundaries, began in earnest. The expansive Gaza District was brutally reduced to the Gaza Strip, a mere 1.3 per cent of the overall size of historic Palestine. Its population, due to the Nakba, had explosively grown with over 200,000 desperate refugees who, along with several generations of their descendants, have been trapped and confined in this tiny strip of land for over 77 years.

When Israel permanently occupied Gaza in June 1967, the lines separating it from the rest of the Palestinian and Arab geography became an integral, permanent part of Gaza itself. Soon after its occupation of the Strip, Israel began restricting the movement of Palestinians further, sectionalising Gaza into several regions. The size and location of these internal lines were largely determined by two paramount motives: to fragment Palestinian society to ensure its subjugation, and to create military ‘buffer zones’ around Israeli military encampments and illegal settlements.

Between 1967 and Israel’s so-called ‘disengagement’ from Gaza, Israel had built 21 illegal settlements and numerous military corridors and checkpoints, effectively bisecting the Strip and confiscating nearly 40 percent of its land mass.

Following the redeployment, Israel retained absolute, unilateral control over Gaza’s borders, sea access, airspace, and even the population registry. Additionally, Israel created another internal border within Gaza, a heavily fortified “buffer zone” snaking across the northern and eastern borders. This new area has witnessed the cold-blooded killing of hundreds of unarmed protesters and the wounding of thousands who dared to approach what was often referred to as the “kill zone.”

Even the Gaza sea was effectively outlawed. Fishermen were inhumanely confined to tiny spaces, at times less than three nautical miles, while simultaneously surrounded by the Israeli navy, which routinely shot fishermen, sank boats, and detained crews at will.

Gaza’s new Yellow Line is but the latest, most egregious military demarcation in a long, cruel history of lines intended to make the lives of the Palestinians impossible. The current line, however, is worse than any before it, as it completely suffocates the displaced population in a fully destroyed area, without functioning hospitals and with only trickles of life-saving aid.

For Palestinians, who have been battling confinements and fragmentation for generations, this new arrangement is the intolerable and inevitable culmination of their protracted, multi-generational dispossession.

If Israel believes it can impose the new demarcation of Gaza as a new status quo, the next few months will prove this conviction devastatingly wrong. Tel Aviv has simply recreated a much worse, inherently unstable version of the violent reality that existed before 7 October and the genocide. Even those not fully familiar with the deep, painful history of Gaza must realise that sustaining the Yellow Line of Gaza is nothing more than a dangerous, bloody illusion.

November 20, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , , | Leave a comment

A Mandate for Force: What the UNSC’s Gaza Resolution Means in Practice

By Robert Inlakesh | The Palestine Chronicle | November 19, 2025

The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) passed a regime change resolution against Gaza this Monday, effectively issuing a mandate for an invasion force to enter the besieged coastal enclave and install a US-led ruling authority by force.

Passing with 13 votes in favour and none in defiance, the new Security Council resolution has given the United States a mandate to create what it calls an “International Stabilization Force” (ISF) and “Board of Peace” committee to seize power in Gaza. US President Donald Trump has hailed the resolution as historic, as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government has stood in opposition to an element of the resolution that mentions Palestinian Statehood.

In order to understand what has just occurred, it requires a breakdown of the resolution itself and the broader context surrounding the ceasefire deal. When these elements are combined, it becomes clear that this resolution is perhaps one of the most shameful to have passed in the history of the United Nations, casting shame on it and undermining the very basis on which it was formed to begin with.

An Illegal Regime Change Resolution

In September of 2025, a United Nations commission of inquiry found Israel to have committed the crime of genocide in the Gaza Strip.

For further context, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the most powerful international legal entity and organ of the UN, ruled that Israel is plausibly committing genocide and thus issued orders for Tel Aviv to end specific violations of international law in Gaza, which were subsequently ignored.

Taking this into consideration, the UN itself cannot claim ignorance of the conditions suffered by the people of Gaza, nor could it credibly posit that the United States is a neutral actor capable of enforcing a balanced resolution of what its own experts have found to be a genocide.

This resolution itself is not a peace plan and robs Palestinians of their autonomy entirely; thus, it is anti-democratic in its nature. It was also passed due in large part to threats from the United States against both Russia and China, that if they vetoed it, the ceasefire would end and the genocide would resume. Therefore, both Beijing and Moscow abstained from the vote, despite the Russian counterproposal and initial opposition to the resolution.

It also gives a green light to what the US calls a “Board of Peace”, which will work to preside over governing Gaza during the ceasefire period. The head of this board is none other than US President Trump himself, who says he will be joined by other world leaders. Former British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, who launched the illegal invasion of Iraq, has been floated as a potential “Board of Peace” leader also.

On February 4 of this year, President Trump vowed to “take over” and “own” the Gaza Strip. The American President later sought to impose a plan for a new Gaza, which he even called the “Gaza Riviera”, which was drawn up by Zionist economist Joseph Pelzman. Part of Pelzman’s recommendations to Trump was that “you have to destroy the whole place, restart from scratch”.

As it became clear that the US alone could not justify an invasion force and simply take over Gaza by force, on behalf of Israel, in order to build “Trump Gaza”, a casino beach land for fellow Jeffrey Epstein-connected billionaires, a new answer was desperately sought. Then came a range of meetings between Trump administration officials and regional leaderships, aimed at working out a strategy to achieve their desired goals in Gaza.

After the ceasefire was violated in March by the Israelis, leading to the mass murder of around 17,000 more Palestinians, a number of schemes were being hatched and proposals set forth. The US backed and helped to create the now-defunct so-called “Gaza Humanitarian Foundation” (GHF) program, which was used to privatize the distribution of aid in the territory amidst a total blockade of all food for three months.

Starving Palestinians, who were rapidly falling into famine, flocked to these GHF sites, where they were fired upon by US private military contractors and Israeli occupation forces, murdering over 1,000 civilians. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia and France were busy putting together what would become the “New York Declaration” proposal for ending the war and bringing Western nations to recognize the State of Palestine at the UN.

Suddenly, seemingly out of nowhere, here came Trump’s so-called “peace plan” that was announced at the White House in October. This plan appeared at first to be calling for a total end to the war, a mutual prisoner exchange and the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza in a phased approach.

From the outset, Trump’s “20-point plan” was vague and impractical. Israel immediately violated the ceasefire from the very first day and has murdered nearly 300 Palestinians since then. The first phase of the ceasefire deal was supposed to end quickly, ideally within five days, but the deal has stalled for over a month.

Throughout this time, it has become increasingly clear that the Israelis are not going to respect the “Yellow Line” separation zone and have violated the agreement through operating deeper into Gaza than they had originally agreed to. The Israeli-occupied zone was supposed to be 53% of Gaza; it has turned out to be closer to 58%. Aid is also not entering at a sufficient rate, despite US and Israeli denials; this has been confirmed by leading rights groups and humanitarian organizations.

In the background, the US team dealing with the ceasefire deal that is headed by Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff has been juggling countless insidious proposals for the future of Gaza. Even publicly stating that reconstruction will only take place in the Israeli-controlled portion of the territory, also floating the idea that aid points will be set up there in order to force the population out of the territory under de facto Hamas control. This has often been referred to as the “new Gaza plan”.

As this has all been in the works, including discussions about bringing back the disastrous GHF, the Israelis have been working alongside four ISIS-linked collaborator death squads that it controls and who operate behind the Yellow Line in Gaza.

No mechanisms have been put in place to punish the Israelis for their daily violations of the ceasefire, including the continuation of demolition operations against Gaza’s remaining civilian infrastructure. This appears to be directly in line with Joseph Pelzman’s plan earlier this year to “destroy the whole place”.

The UNSC resolution not only makes Donald Trump the effective leader of the new administrative force that will be imposed upon the Gaza Strip, but also greenlights what it calls its International Stabilization Force. This ISF is explicitly stated to be a multi-national military force that will be tasked with disarming Hamas and all Palestinian armed groups in the Gaza Strip.

The US claims it won’t be directly involved in the fighting with “boots on the ground”; it has already deployed hundreds of soldiers and has been reportedly building a military facility, which they deny is a base, but for all intents and purposes will be one. Although it may not be American soldiers killing and dying while battling Palestinian resistance groups, they will be in charge of this force.

This is not a “UN peacekeeping force” and is not an equivalent to UNIFIL in southern Lebanon; it is there to carry out the task of completing Israel’s war goal of defeating the Palestinian resistance through force. In other words, foreign soldiers will be sent from around the world to die for Israel and taxpayers from those nations will be footing the bill.

The only reason why Israel has reservations about this plan is because it included a statement claiming that if the Palestinian Authority (PA) – that does not control Gaza and is opposed by the majority of the Palestinian people – undergoes reforms that the West and Israel demand, then conditions “may finally be in place for a credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood.” A keyword here is “may”, in other words, it is not binding and was simply added in to give corrupted Arab leaderships the excuse to vote yes.

Hamas and every other Palestinian political party, with the exception of the mainstream branch of Fatah that answers to Israel and the US, have opposed this UNSC resolution. Hamas even called upon Algeria to vote against it; instead, the Algerian leadership praised Donald Trump and voted in favor. Typical of Arab and Muslim-Majority regimes that don’t represent the will of their people, they all fell in line and bent over backwards to please Washington.

It Won’t Likely Work

As has been the story with every conspiracy hatched against the people of Gaza, this is again destined to fail. Not only will it fail, but it will likely backfire enormously and lead to desperate moves.

To begin with, the invasion force, or ISF, will be a military endeavour that will have to bring together tens of thousands of soldiers who speak different languages and have nothing in common, in order to somehow achieve victory where Israel failed. It is a logistical nightmare to even think about.

How long would it take to deploy these soldiers? At the very least, it’s going to take months. Then, how long would this process take? Nobody has any clear answers here. Also, what happens if Israel begins bombing again at any point, for example, if there is a clash that kills Israeli soldiers? What would these nations do if Israeli airstrikes killed their soldiers or put them in harm’s way?

Also, tens of thousands of soldiers may not cut it; if the goal is to destroy all the territory’s military infrastructure, they may need hundreds of thousands. Or if that isn’t an option, will they work alongside the Israeli military?

It is additionally clear that nobody knows where all the tunnels and fighters are; if Israel couldn’t find them, then how can anyone else? After all, the US, UK, and various others have helped the Israelis with intelligence sharing and reconnaissance for over two years to get these answers.

Finally, when Arab, European, or Southeast Asian soldiers return to their nations in body bags, how do their regimes justify this? Will the President or Prime Minister of these nations have to stand up and tell their people… “sorry guys, your sons and daughters are now in coffins because Israel needed a military force capable of doing what they failed to do, so we had to help them complete their genocidal project”. Also, how many Palestinian civilians are going to be slaughtered by these foreign invaders?

As for the plan to overthrow Hamas rule in Gaza, the people of the territory will not accept foreign invaders as their occupiers any more than they will accept Israelis. They are not going to accept ISIS-linked collaborators as any kind of security force either. Already, the situation is chaotic inside Gaza, and that is while its own people, who are experienced and understand their conditions, are in control of managing security and some administrative issues; this includes both Hamas and others who are operating independently of it, but inside the territory under its de facto control.

Just as the Israeli military claimed it was going to occupy Gaza City, laying out countless plans to do this, to ethnically cleanse the territory and “crush Hamas”, the US has been coordinating alongside it throughout the entirety of the last two years. Every scheme has collapsed and ended in failure.

It has been nearly a month and a half, yet there are still no clear answers as to how this Trump “peace plan” is supposed to work and it is clear that the Israelis are coming up with new proposals on a daily basis.

There is no permanent mechanism for aid transfers, which the Israelis are blocking. There is no clear vision for governance. The “two Gazas” plan is not even part of the ceasefire or Trump plan, yet it is being pursued in an incoherent way. The ISF makes no sense and appears as poorly planned as the GHF. Hamas and the other Palestinian factions will not give up their weapons. There is no real plan for reconstruction. The Israelis are adamant that there will be no Palestinian State and won’t allow any independent Palestinian rule of Gaza, and the list of problems goes on and on.

What it really looks like here is that this entire ceasefire scheme is a stab in the dark attempt to achieve Israel’s goals while also giving its forces a break and redirecting their focus on other fronts, understanding that there is no clear solution to the Gaza question for now.

The United Nations has shown itself over the past two years to be nothing more than a platform for political theatre. It is incapable of punishing, preventing, or even stopping the crime of all crimes.

Now that international law has suffocated to death under the rubble of Gaza, next to the thousands of children who still lie underneath it, the future of this conflict will transform. This UNSC vote demonstrates that there is no international law, no international community, and that the UN is simply a bunch of fancy offices, which are only allowed to work under the confines of gangster rule.

If the Palestinian resistance groups feel as if their backs are against the wall and an opportunity, such as another Israeli war on Lebanon, presents them the opportunity, then there is a high likelihood that a major military decision will be made. In the event that this occurs, it will be this UNSC resolution that is in large part responsible.

When the suffering in Gaza finally ends, whether that is because Israel obliterates all of its regional opposition and exterminates countless other civilians in its way, or Israel is militarily shattered, the UN should be disbanded as was the League of Nations. It is a failed project just as that which preceded it. Something new must take over from it.

– Robert Inlakesh is a journalist, writer, and documentary filmmaker. He focuses on the Middle East, specializing in Palestine. He contributed this article to The Palestine Chronicle.

November 20, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , , , | Leave a comment

How Saudi F-35s would not erode Israeli air superiority: Report

By Ali Halawi | Al Mayadeen | November 19, 2025

The Trump administration’s move to advance a potential sale of Lockheed Martin F-35s to Saudi Arabia might mark a significant turning point in regional military dynamics. Yet the central question remains: would the acquisition truly grant Riyadh a decisive edge, or will “Israel’s” deeply entrenched air superiority remain firmly intact?

The announcement, made as Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) visited Washington, does not itself consummate a transfer. Any sale would require formal notification to, and likely scrutiny by, the US Congress, and would reopen the fraught question of how Washington preserves “Israel’s” qualitative military edge (QME) while exporting one of the world’s most advanced fighter aircraft. While the operational edge of Israeli pilots and aircrew is evident, the US retains the ability to constrain Saudi F-35 capabilities through technical and software-based controls.

The deal on the table and the road to congressional approval

When a US president signals willingness to sell F-35 aircraft, the next formal step is notification under the Arms Export Control Act and a review period during which Congress can raise objections or seek certifications. For decades, US administrations have treated QME for “Israel” as a legal and political constraint on certain arms transfers; that tradition has informed reviews of past F-35 discussions with the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Any proposed sale to Riyadh will therefore be judged not only on price and offset packages but on assurances that “Israel’s” operational superiority will remain intact; a determination that is both technical and political and could trigger contentious hearings. Members of both parties have in the past conditioned or slowed high-end sales over human-rights concerns, counter-proliferation assessments, and explicit demands to preserve the QME.

However, competing pressures further complicate Washington’s calculus as the Trump administration attempts to solidify its strategic partnership with Saudi Arabia, secure a landmark normalization agreement with one of West Asia’s most influential powers, and counter the expanding Russian and Chinese footprint in the Kingdom’s defense and technology sectors.

Who in the region flies fifth-generation aircraft today

As of today, the Israeli Air Force is the only air force in West Asia operating the F-35s.

Abu Dhabi negotiated for the aircraft in 2020 but later suspended the talks; other Gulf air forces operate advanced fourth-generation fighters but not fifth-generation stealth airframes.

The practical consequence is that a US sale to Riyadh would not simply add another modern fighter to the region; it would introduce a category of capability that, until now, has been regionally singular.

Why the airframe is only half the story

It is important to separate the aircraft’s physical attributes from the invisible systems that make it decisive in combat. The F-35’s important advantages include low observable design or stealth, powerful sensors, sensor fusion, and integrated electronic warfare, which enable pilots and commanders to detect, identify, and engage threats at ranges and with a fidelity earlier generations cannot match.

Much of the F-35’s real combat power does not lie in the airframe but in the software stack that governs nearly everything the jet does:

  • Mission-data files (MDFs)
  • Electronic-warfare threat libraries
  • Radar-emitter databases
  • Electronic-attack and jamming profiles
  • Sensor-fusion logic
  • Weapons-employment algorithms

Most critically, the US controls every layer of this ecosystem for all export customers, except “Israel”.

“Israel’s” F-35I “Adir” has a special agreement allowing the integration of sovereign Israeli-made sensors, electronic warfare systems, and locally developed software add-ons. While the core flight software remains a US product, “Israel” can add its own “plug-and-play” systems and has the authority for some domestic maintenance and upgrades, giving it a level of independence not afforded to other customers. In practice, the platform’s combat potential is as much a product of data and code as it is of metal and jet engines.

This creates a built-in mechanism for Washington to tilt the operational balance decisively toward “Israel,” even if other states receive the same aircraft on paper.

Update priority, withholding certain mission-data libraries, limiting weapons-integration permissions, and controlling sustainment services are all practical mechanisms to maintain an advantage for one operator over another.

“Israel’s” F-35I “Adir” and operational freedom

Israel negotiated an unusually broad set of privileges for the Adir. Unlike most customers, the Israeli regime has been permitted deep customization, integration of indigenous sensors and weapons, unique mission-data development, and a degree of independence from the US sustainment cloud that most operators use.

Those permissions give the Israeli Air Force both practical freedom of operation and a pathway to maintain and evolve its fleet in ways other buyers cannot match.

Israeli mission data files are infused with intelligence drawn from decades of regional aggression. Their electronic-warfare tuning reflects specific threat libraries, and the backlog of locally developed weapons integrations further differentiates the Adir from standard F-35As.

The aircraft can fire the Israeli Python‑5 and Derby/Derby‑ER air‑to‑air missiles, giving it a sovereign engagement capability independent of US munitions. It also carries advanced stand‑off strike weapons such as the SPICE‑1000 and SPICE‑2000 precision‑guided kits and the Delilah loitering cruise missile, enabling deep, accurate attacks against heavily defended targets. Added to this is a bespoke Israeli C4I architecture and a classified electronic‑warfare suite installed directly into the aircraft’s systems, granting the Israeli Air Force full control over threat libraries, jamming profiles, and data links.

The airframe itself has also been adapted to support these systems. The Israelis received rare permission to incorporate custom apertures, access points, and internal wiring channels into the fuselage in coordination with Lockheed Martin, enabling installation and maintenance of its electronics. In addition, “Israel” is the only country known to operate F‑35s equipped with Conformal Fuel Tanks (CFTs), which add 600–800 gallons of fuel along the fuselage without compromising stealth or weapons capacity. These tanks extend the Adir’s operational range, reduce reliance on aerial refueling, and allow longer, deeper-strike missions, providing a level of flexibility and endurance unavailable to any other F‑35 operator.

Software and sustainment

The F‑35’s combat edge lies less in its airframe than in the software, mission-data, and sustainment systems that govern nearly every aspect of its operations. Historically, the US has used software-centric restrictions to preserve the advantage of favored partners, ensuring that certain operators maintain a decisive qualitative edge.

Key instruments include mission-data files (MDFs), which encode threat signatures, radar and SAM profiles, and geospatial threat maps. Operators with richer, bespoke MDFs detect and classify threats more quickly and respond more effectively. Denying or limiting MDF depth to a buyer is therefore a direct mechanism to sustain another operator’s superiority. Similarly, restricting electronic-warfare software, including emitter libraries, advanced jamming and deception modes, and the timing of mission-data updates, can materially degrade an F‑35’s ability to detect, classify, and suppress hostile radars. The operational effect is slower threat identification, narrower jamming envelopes, and less accurate geolocation for Suppression of enemy air defenses (SEAD) operations, giving the Israeli Air Force a persistent edge even if both sides operate the same airframe.

These fundamental differences could prove decisive in a theoretical Saudi-Israeli confrontation. An export-restricted Saudi F-35, with its potentially downgraded software, might detect Israeli emitters seconds later and with reduced precision. In contrast, the Israeli F-35I Adir, equipped with bespoke software, proprietary threat libraries, and its electronic warfare systems, could identify, geolocate, and suppress Saudi radar networks first.

These software controls illustrate how the US could maintain Israeli superiority should the Saudi deal move forward. While technically effective, such safeguards carry grave political and operational costs for the buyer, the same concerns Abu Dhabi cited when it stepped back from F‑35 talks in 2021.

Basing, geography, Israeli red lines

Unlike the UAE, whose main airbases are distant from Israeli interests, parts of Saudi Arabia lie relatively close to Israeli settler populations and military centers. Israeli officials have publicly signalled concern that basing F-35s in western Saudi Arabia would materially shorten flight times into Israeli airspace and therefore elevate risk perceptions in Tel Aviv. Reports also indicate “Israel” is pressing Washington to condition any sale on formal normalization and legally binding basing limits.

Those basing preferences are intimately linked to the software and sustainment controls described above. Even if Riyadh accepted software tiering, “Israel” still wants to condition the basing of F-35 jets to be outside Western Saudi Arabia airstrips.

Why Abu Dhabi balked despite normalization

The UAE’s experience is a near-perfect case study for what Riyadh may face. Abu Dhabi negotiated a package in 2020 under a broader normalization agreement but informed US officials in December 2021 that it would suspend discussions, citing “technical requirements, sovereign operational restrictions, and cost-benefit analysis” as reasons.

Three interlocking fault lines explain why. First, as explained, export conditions on software, weapons, and mission systems sharply limit a buyer’s operational autonomy. Doing anything beyond the approved list requires US authorization and often a long, costly certification process. For a state that prizes independent strike options and rapid operational adaptation, those limits impose real political and tactical costs.

Second, sustainment architecture locks customers into US logistics and updates ecosystems. The F-35’s logistics and health-monitoring systems (ALIS originally, now the ODIN framework) and the global sustainment enterprise mean that maintenance and updates become levers Washington can control.

Third, and more prosaically, the practicalities of preserving stealth require specialized sustainment. Low-observable coatings, seam integrity, and specialized repairs demand trained personnel, approved materials, and certified processes; many of those tasks are regulated and performed under Lockheed-approved protocols or at regional hubs designated by the program. Buyers often cannot fully sustain the low-observable characteristics that make the jet survivable without continuing contractor or US support.

Finally, political and geostrategic concerns compounded the technical ones. Washington’s scrutiny of buyers’ ties to third parties, notably China, and congressional insistence on preserving “Israel’s” QME raised further strings the UAE found difficult to accept, from restrictions on sensitive supply-chain partners to conditioned access to high-end sustainment and software features.

“The Americans want to sell the Emiratis the planes but they want to tie their hands,” a Gulf source told Reuters at the time. The source, speaking on condition of anonymity, said defense deals include requirements for purchasing nations, but that the restrictions in this deal made it unfeasible.

Geopolitical considerations, only amplified by Riyadh’s larger strategic weight and geography, will determine whether Saudi Arabia accepts comparable limits, if imposed by Washington, or walks the same path as Abu Dhabi.

November 20, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

Iran moves to terminate Cairo agreement with IAEA

The Cradle | November 20, 2025

Iran notified the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on 20 November that it is terminating the cooperation agreement signed in Cairo in retaliation for the UN nuclear watchdog adopting a new resolution demanding expanded access and information on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Iran’s envoy to the agency, Reza Najafi, said the resolution “will not add anything to the current situation” and described it as “counterproductive” shortly after the Board of Governors approved the text.

He warned that it would have “a negative impact on the cooperation that has already started between Iran and the agency.”

According to diplomats who attended the closed session, the 35-member board passed the resolution with 19 votes in favor, three against, and 12 abstentions.

The text requires Iran to report “without delay” on the status of its enriched uranium stock and on its nuclear sites that were bombed by Israel and the US during the 12-day war on Iran in June.

It also urges Iran to “comply fully and without delay” with its obligations under UN Security Council (UNSC) resolutions and to provide all information and access requested by the agency.

Western members of the board stated that “Iran must resolve its safeguards issues without delay” and called for “practical cooperation through access, answers, restoration of monitoring.”

Iran maintains that its nuclear program is peaceful and had earlier cautioned that the resolution would “adversely affect” ongoing cooperation. Najafi noted that Iran had already granted access to “all undamaged facilities,” while inspectors have not been to sites such as Fordow and Natanz since they were hit in the June war.

The agency says verification of Iran’s uranium stock is “long overdue,” and that it cannot inspect the bombed facilities until Tehran submits updated reports.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said the IAEA resolution was “unlawful and politically motivated,” initiated by the US and the European troika, and pushed through despite the 15 members voting against or abstaining.

He said the move ignored Iran’s goodwill, undermined the agency’s credibility and independence, and would disrupt cooperation.

The Foreign Minister had previously said that the Cairo agreement with the IAEA was defunct after Europe triggered snapback sanctions, but added that a negotiated solution remains possible if the opposing side acts in good faith.

Araghchi confirmed that he informed IAEA chief Rafael Grossi in a formal letter that the agreement is now considered terminated.

When Israeli attacks began in June, the IAEA estimated Iran held 440.9 kilograms of uranium enriched up to 60 percent.

Iran and several allied states argued that issuing another resolution would jeopardize efforts to advance dialogue.

Tehran has declared that the September inspection agreement with the IAEA is void, and Najafi said the new resolution “will have its own consequences,” adding that Iran would announce them later.

November 20, 2025 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Ukrainian MP publishes purported terms of new peace deal

RT | November 20, 2025

Ukrainian opposition MP Aleksey Goncharenko has published the text of a purported peace plan reportedly presented to Kiev by the US administration this week.

The lawmaker posted on social media what appeared to be screenshots of a Ukrainian-language electronic document detailing the 28-point peace plan to end the hostilities between Moscow and Kiev.

Earlier in the day, Vladimir Zelensky’s office confirmed the US presented Kiev with its new draft plan. The Ukrainian administration did not elaborate on its contents, only expressing a willingness to discuss it and stating that “in the American side’s assessment” the plan “could help reinvigorate diplomacy.”

Here’s the full text of the post:

1. Ukraine’s sovereignty will be confirmed.

2. A full and comprehensive non-aggression agreement will be concluded between Russia, Ukraine, and Europe. All ambiguities of the past 30 years will be considered resolved.

3. It is expected that Russia will not invade neighbouring countries and that NATO will not expand further.

4. A dialogue will be conducted between Russia and NATO, mediated by the United States, to resolve all security issues and create conditions for de-escalation, thereby ensuring global security and increasing opportunities for cooperation and future economic development.

5. Ukraine will receive reliable security guarantees.

6. The size of the Armed Forces of Ukraine will be limited to (6)00,000 personnel.

7. Ukraine agrees to enshrine in its constitution that it will not join NATO, and NATO agrees to include in its statutes a provision that it will not accept Ukraine in the future.

8. NATO agrees not to deploy troops in Ukraine.

9. European fighter aircraft will be stationed in Poland.

10. US Guarantees: The United States will receive compensation for the guarantee. If Ukraine invades Russia, it will lose the guarantee. If Russia invades Ukraine, in addition to a decisive coordinated military response, all global sanctions will be reinstated, recognition of new territories and all other benefits of this deal will be revoked. If Ukraine without cause launches a missile at Moscow or Saint Petersburg, the security guarantee will be considered invalid.

11. Ukraine retains the right to EU membership and will receive short-term preferential access to the European market while the issue is under consideration.

12. A powerful global package of measures for the reconstruction of Ukraine, including but not limited to:
a. Creation of a Ukraine Development Fund to invest in high-growth sectors, including technology, data-processing centres, and artificial intelligence.
b. The United States will cooperate with Ukraine on the joint reconstruction, development, modernization, and operation of Ukraine’s gas infrastructure, including pipelines and storage facilities.
c. Joint efforts to restore war-affected territories, including the reconstruction and modernization of cities and residential areas.
d. Infrastructure development.
e. Extraction of minerals and natural resources.
f. The World Bank will develop a special financing package to accelerate these efforts.

13. Russia will be reintegrated into the global economy:
a. The lifting of sanctions will be discussed and agreed upon gradually and on an individual basis.
b. The United States will conclude a long-term economic cooperation agreement aimed at mutual development in the fields of energy, natural resources, infrastructure, artificial intelligence, data-processing centres, rare-earth mining projects in the Arctic, and other mutually beneficial corporate opportunities.
c. Russia will be invited to return to the G8.

14. Frozen assets will be used in the following way: $100 billion of frozen Russian assets will be invested in US-led reconstruction and investment efforts in Ukraine. The United States will receive 50% of the profits from this undertaking. Europe will add another $100 billion to increase the total investment available for Ukraine’s reconstruction. Frozen European assets will be unfrozen. The remaining frozen Russian assets will be invested in a separate American-Russian investment vehicle that will implement joint American-Russian projects in areas to be determined. This fund will be aimed at strengthening bilateral relations and increasing shared interests in order to create strong motivation not to return to conflict.

15. A joint American-Russian working group on security issues will be established to facilitate and ensure the fulfilment of all provisions of this agreement.

16. Russia will legislatively enshrine a policy of non-aggression toward Europe and Ukraine.

17. The United States and Russia will agree to extend the validity of treaties on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and arms control, including START-1.

18. Ukraine agrees to remain a non-nuclear state in accordance with the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

19. The Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant will be restarted under IAEA supervision, and the generated electricity will be split equally between Russia and Ukraine (50:50).

20. Both countries undertake to introduce educational programmes in schools and society that promote understanding and tolerance of different cultures and the elimination of racism and prejudice:
a. Ukraine will adopt EU rules on religious tolerance and protection of linguistic minorities.
b. Both countries agree to lift all discriminatory measures and to guarantee the rights of Ukrainian and Russian media and education.
c. All Nazi ideology and activity must be rejected and prohibited.

21. Territories:
a. Crimea, Lugansk, and Donetsk will be recognized de facto as Russian, including by the United States.
b. Kherson and Zaporozhye will be frozen along the line of contact, which will mean de facto recognition along the line of contact.
c. Russia renounces other territories (probably referring to parts of Kharkov, Sumy, and Dnipropetrovsk oblasts – Ed.) that it controls outside the five regions.
d. Ukrainian forces will withdraw from the part of Donetsk oblast they currently control; this withdrawal zone will be regarded as a neutral demilitarized buffer zone, internationally recognized as territory belonging to the Russian Federation. Russian forces will not enter this demilitarized zone.

22. After future territorial arrangements are agreed, both the Russian Federation and Ukraine undertake not to change these arrangements by force. Any security guarantees will not apply in the event of violation of this commitment.

23. Russia will not obstruct Ukraine’s commercial use of the Dnepr River, and agreements will be reached on the free transportation of grain across the Black Sea.

24. A humanitarian committee will be created to resolve outstanding issues:
a. All remaining prisoners and bodies will be exchanged on the “all-for-all” principle.
b. All civilian detainees and hostages will be returned, including children.
c. A family reunification programme will be implemented.
d. Measures will be taken to alleviate the suffering of conflict victims.

25. Ukraine will hold elections 100 days after the agreement is signed.

26. All parties involved in the conflict will receive full amnesty for actions committed during the war and will undertake not to file claims or pursue complaints in the future.

27. This agreement will be legally binding. Its implementation will be monitored and guaranteed by a Peace Council headed by President Trump. Predetermined sanctions will apply in the event of violations.

28. Once all parties have agreed to and signed this memorandum, the ceasefire will enter into force immediately after both sides withdraw to the agreed positions so that implementation of the agreement can begin.

November 20, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

NATO has turned Baltic Sea into ‘confrontation zone’ – Moscow

The bloc’s attempts to oust Russia from the region will fail, Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has said

RT | November 20, 2025

NATO has turned the Baltic Sea into an area of military confrontation, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has said, lamenting that the bloc is unwilling to discuss de-escalation in the region.

Her remarks come amid rising anti-Russian rhetoric and military activity among NATO members, especially Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, which all border Russia and the Baltic Sea.

Zakharova said the region had long been a space of trade and peaceful cooperation, but that the balance has been dismantled by NATO’s military buildup.

“This part of Europe has been turned into a zone of confrontation, which sharply escalated as a result of Finland and Sweden joining the bloc,” she told Russian media on Thursday.

The diplomat pointed to NATO’s 2025 launch of the ‘Baltic Sentry’ mission, calling it an attempt to impose new navigation rules and turn the sea into the bloc’s “internal waters” – ambitions she said are doomed to fail. She insisted that Russia will remain a full-fledged member of the “Baltic community.”

NATO claims ‘Baltic Sentry’ protects critical undersea infrastructure after recent incidents involving energy and communications cables. It has deployed warships, submarines, and aircraft to the region, conducting regular patrols and drills. Moscow views the buildup as a direct threat.

”It is very difficult to see any potential for dialogue aimed at reducing tensions. And NATO countries… are not showing openness to an honest discussion on ways to de-escalate,” Zakharova said.

Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania have adopted an increasingly confrontational stance toward Russia since the Ukraine conflict escalated in 2022. Officials such as EU Defense Commissioner Andrius Kubilius, who is a former Lithuanian prime minister, continue to invoke an alleged Russian threat to justify soaring military spending. Kubilius warned this week of a possible conflict with Russia within two to four years.

Moscow has rejected claims of hostile intent, denouncing what it calls the West’s “reckless militarization.” Zakharova stressed that Russia will use all available legal instruments to safeguard its national security and interests.

November 20, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

French General: We Must Be Ready To ‘Lose Our Children’ in War with Russia

By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | November 20, 2025

The head of the French armed forces said his country must be prepared to send its children to die in a war with Russia.

“Russia is convinced that the Europeans are weak. However, we are strong, fundamentally stronger than Russia,” Chief of the French Defense Staff General Fabien Mandon said. “We have all the knowledge, all the economic and demographic strength to dissuade Moscow’s regime. What we are lacking, and that is where you have a major role, is the strength of soul to accept pain to protect what we are.”

He added, “If our country is weak because it is not ready to accept losing its children — because it’s better to say things clearly — [and] to suffer economically because the priority will be the defence sector, then we are at risk.”

He made the remarks earlier this week at the congress of the Association of Mayors of France. He urged the local leaders in attendance to inform their constituents of his assessment.

French President Macron has emerged as a firm backer of NATO’s proxy war against Russia in Ukraine. European leaders have warned that Moscow is planning to reconstitute the Soviet Union and invade NATO countries.

However, Russian forces only control about 20% of Ukraine, and President Vladimir Putin has offered to end the war with Ukraine only ceding the Donbas and parts of two southern provinces.

Ukrainian President Zelensky met with European leaders in France earlier this week. A significant issue that was discussed is the bloc’s attempt to cover a massive budget deficit in Ukraine. The President of the European Commission said that the EU would need to provide Kiev with $150 billion over the next two years.

Zelensky also signed an agreement to buy 100 Rafael fighter jets from France over the next two years. Paris said it would take at least three years to train Ukrainian pilots.

November 20, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , , | Leave a comment

EU rejects US-proposed Ukraine peace plan

EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas. © Getty Images / Thierry Monasse / Contributor
RT | November 20, 2025

The European Union has pushed back against the latest US-proposed plan to end the Ukraine conflict, saying any settlement must reflect the positions of both Brussels and Kiev.

The 28-point draft framework agreement, which Western media claim was developed in coordination with Moscow, would reportedly require Ukraine to withdraw from the parts of the new Russian regions in Donbass still under Kiev’s control, cut its armed forces by at least half, surrender some weaponry and abandon its NATO ambitions. Kiev on Thursday confirmed receiving the proposal, with Vladimir Zelensky saying he hopes to discuss it with US President Donald Trump “in the coming days.”

The draft plan has drawn criticism from Kiev’s supporters in the EU, who appear to have been caught off guard and convened a meeting in Brussels on Thursday. EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas insisted that any peace arrangement must reflect the positions of both the bloc and Ukraine, arguing that the US proposal offered “no concessions” from the Russian side. French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot was quoted by Reuters as saying that any agreement must not amount to a “capitulation,” while several other ministers reportedly said they had not seen the document and would need clarification before commenting.

Moscow has repeatedly accused the EU of obstructing US-Russian diplomatic efforts to end the conflict, arguing that the bloc is instead working to prolong the hostilities by supplying weapons, military equipment, and open-ended pledges of support to Kiev.

According to Germany’s Kiel Institute, the EU has committed over €65 billion ($75 billion) in aid to Ukraine since the escalation of the conflict in 2022, with total pledges nearing €98 billion.

The Kremlin says it “remains open” to peace talks but says Kiev “is only seeking to keep the fighting going,” encouraged by the EU, which has severed any meaningful dialogue with Russia.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said that EU states are now trying to elbow their way into the peace process despite what he called their openly hostile stance toward Russia – a “position of revanchism” that he believes should preclude the bloc from having a seat at the negotiating table.

November 20, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , | 4 Comments

EU says Ukraine needs €135 billion fast, Orbán laughs off funding proposals for corrupt Zelensky regime as ‘absurd’

Remix News | November 20, 2025

The letter sent by European Commission head Ursula von der Leyen to EU leaders urging swift action on Ukraine’s “pressing financing needs” for 2026-2027 has now been leaked for all to view.

Calling its financial gap “significant,” the EU commission leader calls for rapid, flexible and sustainable financing, with the first payments to be available  “by the beginning of the second quarter of 2026.”

“There should be fair burden sharing with international partners,” the letter, leaked by Politico, adds.

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has called the letter “absurd,” especially as Ukrainian President Zelensky is facing a massive corruption scandal, amounting to close associates of his having robbed the country of some $100 million, with at least one, Timur Mindich, fleeing to Israel. Other top ministers have been implicated, including the country’s justice minister, who has been suspended from his role.

Zelensky’s polling numbers have reportedly fallen to below 20 percent, there are calls for the entire government to resign, and even ardent supporter Poland is seeing MPs draft resolutions for Ukrainian aid to end.

Meanwhile, Brussels is expecting EU member states to pony up more cash, fast.

Von der Leyen gave three possible solutions to do this: non-repayable grants from member states, a preferential loan from EU credit market sources, and a “compensation loan” linked to frozen Russian assets.

She especially emphasizes that the security of all of Europe is linked to that of Ukraine.

“The bottom line is that Europe needs a sufficiently strong defense posture to credibly deter its adversaries, as well as respond to any aggressions. An essential and inevitable pillar of this defense posture is the security and the strength of Ukraine,” she said.

According to the EU commission, Kyiv expects a total financial deficit of €135.7 billion over the next two years, on top of the aid already promised. However, even before the latest bombshell scandal, EU and German authorities were pointing out rampant corruption across Ukraine, with even polling from Ukraine itself showing the vast majority of Ukrainians blame Zelensky for the corruption issues facing the wartime country.

According to IMF forecasts, the Ukrainian economy will need significant external resources even if the war ends in 2026.

The commission describes in detail the three financing options: direct support from EU member states would require “€45 billion per year, i.e. at least €90 billion;” the EU credit market facility would require mandatory member state guarantees; and the model based on frozen Russian assets would risk contagion of financial and legal risks, especially if it were interpreted as “confiscation” by third parties.

The letter also discusses using all three options separately or in combination, as long as Ukraine gets what it needs when it needs it.

Von der Leyen closes her letter with a call to “rapidly reach a clear commitment on how to ensure that the necessary financing for Ukraine will be agreed at the next European Council meeting in December.”

Orbán had a terse response to all three options and the letter in general, which he posted on X. Calling the “magic trick” of joint borrowing “absurd,” he dismissed money tied to Russian assets as a path filled with “lengthy legal wrangling, a flood of lawsuits and the collapse of the euro.”

As to member states offering up funds, the Hungarian prime minister laughed it off: “As if they had nothing better to do.”

“So let’s choose common sense. Let’s stop funding a war that cannot be won, alongside the corrupt Ukrainian war mafia, and focus our strength on establishing peace,” he concluded.

November 20, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

Sandu ‘following the same instructions’ as Zelensky – former Moldovan president

By Lucas Leiroz | November 20, 2025

The recent corruption scandal in Ukraine has many people who reflect on the danger of having their countries allied with the regime of Vladimir Zelensky. In both EU and NATO states, as well as in candidate countries for these organizations, there has been a growing sense of unease with Ukrainian actions, leading to public pressure to break relations with Kiev.

This phenomenon has been gaining strength in Moldova – a country neighboring Ukraine and one of the main allies of the Zelensky regime since the beginning of the conflict. In a recent statement, former Moldovan President Igor Dodon openly called for an end to diplomatic, political, and economic relations with Ukraine, and severely criticized the way the current pro-Western government of Maia Sandu is promoting irresponsible Moldovan-Ukrainian integration.

Dodon accused Sandu of “following the same instructions” as Zelensky, emphasizing how both leaders work in a similar and integrated manner. Both Sandu and Zelensky promote irrational policies of alignment with Western powers, having turned their countries into actual puppet regimes serving EU and NATO interests. Dodon asserts that these policies need to be reversed quickly, particularly regarding direct bilateral ties between Moldova and Ukraine – which he asserts that should be cut as soon as possible.

“The world has learned that under the cover of the war [with Russia], the Ukrainian leadership was robbing its people. Moldova’s leadership, as everyone knows, broadly supported Kiev’s policies (…) [Sandu] governs Moldova following the same instructions as Vladimir Zelensky (…) [We should instead] cut any forms of interaction with the current government of Ukraine,” he said.

Dodon’s sentiments are not uncommon. The Kiev regime has increasingly caused unease among its own allies. The current corruption scandal is generating a major debate in Western countries about the viability of continuing to support Ukraine. Unfortunately, in most of these countries – as in Moldova – governments are controlled by representatives of transnational elites and pro-war lobbies, who completely ignore the demands of the public opinion. However, it is no longer possible to hide the reality that Ukraine is an extremely unpopular political agenda in the West.

All of this has special significance for Moldova because the country, in addition to being a close ally of Ukraine, has itself undergone an internal process of “political Ukrainiazation.” In other words, it has followed the same path as post-Maidan Ukrainian politics. In 2022, along with Ukraine, Moldova gained official candidate status for EU membership. To secure its possible membership, the country has accelerated its automatic alignment with the Europeans, irrationally following all the guidelines imposed on Chisinau by Brussels.

Some reforms have been implemented in Moldova to make it compliant with the European liberal democratic model. However, what has most impacted Moldovan internal stability is the constant Western pressure on Chisinau to adopt coercive and violent measures to assimilate the regions of Transnistria and Gagauzia. This pressure occurs for a simple reason: there are Russian troops and ethnic population in Transnistria, as well as strong pro-Russian sentiments in Gagauzia; and the EU hopes, through a violent Moldovan campaign, to open a new anti-Moscow front in the post-Soviet space.

Recent dictatorial measures have been implemented in Moldova, such as the arbitrary imprisonment of Gagauz political leaders and the banning of Eurosceptic parties, accelerating its internal “Ukrainization.” Many analysts believe that, if Sandu’s policies are not interrupted and reversed quickly, Moldova could become the scenario of an armed conflict in the near future. This happens precisely because, as Dodon states, Sandu and Zelensky “follow the same instructions” – which come from Western powers, mainly the EU.

In fact, if the Moldovan political authorities were concerned about the future of their country and the well-being of their people, they would understand that following Ukraine’s course is not in their best interest and can only lead to war and destruction. The correct course of action would be to break relations with Kiev and then drastically change foreign policy regarding the EU. Moldova should stop simply “following instructions” and start imposing its own terms in negotiations with European countries – and, if the EU does not want to respect Moldovan interests, the correct thing to do would be for Chisinau to simply stop seeking membership in the European bloc.

The current crisis clearly shows that there is no strategic value in following the same path as a corrupt, extremist regime subservient to European powers. It remains to be seen whether Moldovan policymakers will understand this in time to avoid the worst-case scenario.

Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert.

You can follow Lucas on X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram.

November 20, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Russophobia | , , | 1 Comment

BBC Editors Blocked Story on Latest Fluoride Science Over ‘Scaremongering’ Concerns, Former Reporter Says

By Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. | The Defender | November 19, 2025

A former BBC health correspondent said editors repeatedly prevented him from reporting on emerging scientific debates over the safety of water fluoridation, dismissing the story as “scaremongering.”

Michele Paduano spent three decades reporting for the BBC from the West Midlands, the first region in the U.K. to fluoridate its water supply, in 1964.

At a Fluoride Action Network (FAN) press conference on Tuesday, Paduano said he became interested in water fluoridation after reviewing the landmark 2024 decision by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

The court found that the U.S. fluoridation level of 0.7 milligrams per liter (mg/L) posed an “unreasonable risk” to children’s health. The West Midlands fluoridates its water at 1 mg/L, about 30% higher than the recommended U.S. level.

Paduano said professor Vyvyan Howard, a pathologist specializing in toxicology and a long-time collaborator, alerted him to several major cohort studies in top academic journals linking water fluoridation to lower IQ in children.

Paduano said mainstream media rebuttals were “so strong and absolute” that he knew publishing a story on the findings would be difficult.

He said he pursued the story only after reading the September 2024 court decision, which cited new evidence pointing to potential neurodevelopmental risks at lower fluoride concentrations.

“At that point, it felt like my public duty to tell people in the West Midlands that there was potentially a problem,” he said.

BBC editors rejected story as ‘scaremongering’

Paduano said he pitched the fluoride story through the BBC’s planning process and arranged an interview with West Midlands anti-fluoridation campaigner Joy Warren. Senior online and television editors abruptly cancelled the interview.

“They told me the story was scaremongering,” he said. Internal BBC scientists and public-health staff insisted there was no credible new evidence. Paduano said he challenged the decision and urged editors to read the U.S. court judgment, but they instead accused him of bias.

“As a BBC journalist, impartiality is fundamental. But impartiality also means reporting new evidence when it emerges,” he said.

Paduano continued investigating the issue and spoke with professor John Fawell, a leading U.K. pro-fluoridation expert and adviser to the World Health Organization (WHO).

As a result of their conversation, Paduano said Fawell acknowledged that recent research should prompt the U.K. to consider lowering fluoridation levels to match U.S. and Canadian guidance. Fawell, who co-authored a book on fluoridation’s oral health benefits, urged U.K. officials to reexamine the country’s dosage and consider aligning it with the U.S.

“If somebody who is a leading pro-fluoride proponent adjusts their position, that is a story,” Paduano said. But he said BBC editors still refused to let him cover it.

Paduano said he then emailed CEO of BBC News and Current Affairs Deborah Turness and BBC Director-General Tim Davie, but the response was “radio silence.” He then took his concerns to Nicholas Serota, a BBC board member responsible for editorial standards.

In the meantime, Paduano said he learned of planned BBC coverage in the North East about proposed fluoridation expansion, and he told Serota that failing to mention the U.S. court decision would constitute “significant censorship.”

Paduano said the article on the North East fluoridation expansion that eventually appeared briefly mentioned the U.S. judgment. He continued arguing that the West Midlands — which has fluoridated its water for decades — should also have reported on the new developments.

The editorial board refused to cover the story. “Concern was that we would be scaremongering, we would frighten people and that the science wasn’t there,” Paduano said.

Paduano said frustrations over fluoride reporting, along with broader concerns about the broadcaster’s impartiality and its close relationship with government, ultimately pushed him to leave the BBC.

Soon after, the BBC published an article about a recommendation by Worcestershire public health officials to expand fluoridation countywide. In what Paduano described as “the ultimate bias,” the article didn’t refer to the U.S. judgment or related research.

After leaving the BBC, Paduano contacted The Independent, which published his story on Fawell’s changing position on water fluoridation.

Paduano said he again approached the BBC, arguing that national coverage proved the issue’s newsworthiness, but editors held their ground and directed him to the complaints process — which he says has resulted in little progress.

‘We should avoid worrying our audiences unduly,’ BBC says

The BBC has not responded publicly to Paduano’s allegations, and it did not respond to The Defender’s request for comment.

The organization did reply to complaint letters from Howard and FAN’s science adviser Paul Connett, Ph.D., author of “The Case Against Fluoride: How Hazardous Waste Ended Up in Our Drinking Water and the Bad Science and Powerful Politics That Keep It There.” The letters urged the BBC to show “objectivity and professionalism on the latest research into the risks of water fluoridation” and to investigate Paduano’s claims.

In its initial response, the BBC complaints team said it had “provided a fair and appropriate view” of the water fluoridation issue.

In a follow-up response to Connett and Howard, the BBC defended its decision not to mention recent science linking fluoride exposure to neurodevelopmental issues in children.

The BBC said its reporting reflects “the majority view — from the World Health Organisation, US Centre for Disease Control, the American Dental Society [sic] and others,” and argued that it maintains a “higher bar for publishing stories around health risk.”

The BBC cited its editorial guidelines:

“The reporting of risk can have an impact on the public’s perception of that risk, particularly with health or crime stories. We should avoid worrying our audiences unduly and contextualise our reports to be clear about the likelihood of the risk occurring. This is particularly true in reporting health stories that may cause individuals to alter their behaviour in ways that could be harmful.”

Kevin Silverton, who signed the letter, said the complaints team could not continue corresponding and that further concerns should be taken to the BBC’s Executive Complaints Unit.

BBC reporting on fluoride ‘can’t be trusted’

Connett told The Defender he was “shocked” when the BBC justified its position by citing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the American Dental Association (ADA) and the WHO as representing the majority expert view. He said:

“As you well know, the CDC oral health division’s mission was to promote fluoridation, and the ADA has avidly promoted it for years — so much so that any study that found any harm was immediately dismissed as being bad science, and the WHO has not looked at fluoride’s neurotoxicity for many years, if ever. It is incredible to me that this very large government-funded body should rely on such one-sided, essentially partisan.”

Connett said the public and local officials rely on the BBC for accurate information, but on fluoride, “it can’t be trusted.” He said:

“When a major media entity gets involved, you would hope that they would do their homework and review the science when it is available for them. In this case the issue should have been easy because it did not entail slogging through all the studies themselves. They had a major review by a government entity, the National Toxicology Program, and they also had the judgment of a judge in a seven-year lawsuit.

“In short, the BBC is abusing the public’s trust on this important health issue, and that is shocking. Scientists like myself have an obligation to speak out. In our case, we were lucky to have a journalist to give us an inside view of the censorship that went on. We are often not that lucky.”

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.

November 20, 2025 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment