Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Epstein, Dershowitz, and the secret war to discredit Mearsheimer-Walt Israel lobby study

By David Miller | Press TV | December 9, 2025

In 2006, Jeffrey Epstein exchanged emails with his lawyer, Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz, in an attempt to support Dershowitz’s criticism of John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, who had just published a groundbreaking essay on the Israel lobby.

Some commentators argue that this incident ironically confirms the Israel lobby thesis by revealing the lobby’s backlash against the essay. But does it really?

Recently released emails reveal that convicted sex offender and Israeli intelligence agent Jeffrey Epstein collaborated with Dershowitz to discredit the landmark 2006 study by Mearsheimer and Walt titled ‘The Israel Lobby’, which was later published as a book the following year.

In early April 2006, Epstein received multiple early drafts of an article by Dershowitz titled “Debunking the Newest — and Oldest — Jewish Conspiracy.” In this piece, Dershowitz, who also served as Epstein’s lawyer, accused Mearsheimer and Walt of recycling “discredited trash” from neo-Nazi and so-called “Islamist” websites, alleging they authored a modern counterpart to the ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zionists’.

Epstein responded enthusiastically to Dershowitz’s email, writing, “terrific… congratulations.”

Part of the email exchange between Epstein and Dershowitz

Later, Epstein received another message from Dershowitz’s email address asking him to help circulate copies of the attack article. Epstein replied affirmatively: “Yes, I’ve started.”

While Mearsheimer has spent his entire career at the University of Chicago, his co-author Stephen Walt has been a professor of international relations at the Harvard Kennedy School since 1999.

Epstein and Harvard

Epstein was a powerful figure at Harvard, having spent years cultivating relationships at the university and donating over $9 million between 1998 and 2008.

Despite being convicted on sex charges involving a minor in Florida, Epstein visited Harvard more than 40 times afterward. The New York Times reported in 2020 that, although Epstein had no official affiliation with the university, he maintained his own office, key card, and Harvard phone line.

Following an internal investigation, Harvard placed Professor Martin A. Nowak on paid administrative leave due to findings related to Epstein. Nowak had received significant donations from Epstein and had provided him with office space and access.

His suspension was lifted in March 2021, and he remains in his position today.

Epstein positioned himself as a fixer and patron for prominent academics, including Dershowitz and economist Larry Summers, who was then Harvard’s president.

Summers recently apologized for his connections to Epstein and announced he would “stop teaching and step back as director of the Mossavar-Rahmani Center for Business and Government at the Harvard Kennedy School.”

At the time, Epstein also served as trustee and president of the family financial office of Jewish billionaire Leslie Wexner, whose foundation donated nearly $20 million to the Kennedy School between 2000 and 2006. The Wexner Foundation’s contributions supported core operating expenses and funded a visiting scholar program that allowed ten officials from the Zionist regime to attend the Kennedy School annually for a one-year master’s degree.

Leslie Wexner is one of the most influential supporters of the Zionist colony. In 1991, he co-founded the Mega Group, a philanthropic organization of Jewish billionaires that channels significant resources to support the colony’s agenda.

The group reportedly maintained contacts with the Israeli spy agency Mossad and was described by Israeli intelligence officials as a vehicle for influence operations in the United States.

Among its initiatives, the Mega Group supported the creation of the racist Birthright Israel program, a radicalization effort targeting Jewish schools, and the revitalization of Hillel International, a Zionist student organization that now operates over 1,000 branches worldwide, including 50 outside the US.

According to a 1998 Wall Street Journal report, when Hillel needed refinancing in 1994, a small group of members committed to a combined $1.3 million annual donation over five years. Later, six members contributed $1.5 million each to help launch the $18 million Partnership for Jewish Education, funding matching grants for Jewish day schools.

Charles Bronfman and Michael Steinhardt, a former hedge fund manager and Mega Group member, also worked on the Birthright Project, which aims to send any young Jew born worldwide to Israel if they wish.

In this context, Epstein’s collaboration with Dershowitz appears to link key figures in the ‘Israel lobby’ to efforts aimed at discrediting the very idea of a powerful Israel lobby. Stephen Walt, who remains at Harvard, declined to comment on it.

Mearsheimer remarked, “I’m not surprised to see these emails, because Dershowitz and Epstein were close and both have a passionate attachment to Israel.”

Many have noted the irony of these emails’ emergence, as they seem to confirm the central thesis of the 2006 Israel Lobby study. In their later book, the lobby was described as “a loose coalition of individuals and organizations that actively work to shape foreign policy.”

The landmark study by Mearsheimer and Walt published in 2007.

But does the book’s definition truly match the reality described above? The Mega Group, founded in 1991 by Les Wexner, former CEO of the lingerie chain Victoria’s Secret, and publicly revealed in 1998, reportedly includes around 50 billionaires and influential Zionist figures such as Les Wexner, Charles and Edgar Bronfman, Charles Schusterman, Ronald Lauder, and Laurence Tisch.

These oligarchs, along with Epstein’s involvement as part of the Mega Group, suggest layers of Zionist manipulation and intrigue.

However, these particular elements are not central to Mearsheimer and Walt’s book. Among the oligarchs mentioned, only the Bronfmans receive fleeting mention in the book’s index. The bulk of the book focuses on a narrowly defined Israel lobby that exerts political influence.

Notably, the top ten most cited organizations in the book, with one exception, are all Israel lobby groups rather than formal components of the broader Zionist movement.

This distinction highlights a more focused analysis in the book, which does not fully encompass the wider network of Zionist power and influence exemplified by groups like the Mega Group.

In order of citation (number of citations in brackets), they are:

  1.  AIPAC (47);
  2. ADL (30);
  3. Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations (25);
  4. WINEP (19);
  5. Zionist Organisation of America (ZOA) (15);
  6. Israel Policy Forum (13);
  7. JINSA (11);
  8. American Jewish Committee (10)
  9. Americans for Peace Now(7)
  10. Christians United for Israel (CUFI) (7)

AIPAC, the ADL, the Conference of Presidents, the AJC, Americans for Peace Now, and Christians United for Israel are traditional Israel lobby groups.

Others like WINEP, IPF, and JINSA also engage in lobbying but are more commonly considered think tanks. The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) is the only group on the list formally affiliated with the American Zionist Movement, the US branch of the World Zionist Organization.

Notably, two of the four major pillars of the Zionist movement are entirely absent from the book’s index: the American Zionist Movement itself and the Jewish National Fund, the US affiliate of the agency responsible for Zionist land appropriation.

The other two pillars, the Jewish Agency for Israel, which organizes settlers to occupy stolen land, and the Jewish Federations of North America, which raises funds to support settlers and land acquisition, appear only three times and once, respectively.

It’s important to emphasize that, beyond the ZOA, the American Zionist Movement includes around 45 other member organizations, only a handful of which are mentioned in the book’s index.

This suggests a narrower focus in the book that does not fully address the broader institutional structure of the Zionist movement.

Grant Smith’s partial corrective – Big Israel, 2016.

In a partial corrective to the narrow focus of Mearsheimer and Walt, Grant F. Smith’s Big Israel: How Israel’s Lobby Moves America, published in 2016, takes a much broader approach.

Smith argues, “Some identify only one organization, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), as ‘the lobby’ citing its influence on Capitol Hill. This is wrong. Many interconnected organizations channel their power and influence through AIPAC in Congress.”

“Hundreds more ‘mini-AIPACs’ coordinate with AIPAC and their own national offices to lobby state legislatures to pass model legislation and spending authorizations benefiting Israel—without publicly disclosing most of their lobbying activities. Others operate quietly, policing what is allowed to appear in mainstream news media and channeling ‘hush money’ to civil rights organizations to keep them out of grassroots pro-Palestinian movements,” he adds.

This represents a significant advance over the more limited Mearsheimer and Walt thesis, as it casts a much wider net, encompassing a full range of Israel lobby groups.

Smith’s analysis extends beyond lobbying efforts to include organizations that police public discourse and manipulate civil society.

However, even Smith’s work shows some myopia. While he analyzes an impressive 674 separate organizations, far more than Mearsheimer and Walt, the scope still doesn’t fully capture the entire network.

Smith’s data reveal an eye-popping estimated budget of over $6.7 billion in 2020, supported by more than 14,000 staff and over 350,000 volunteers, underscoring the vast scale of these interconnected groups.

Data from Smith, 2016, reproduced on Powerbase.

The impressive number of groups documented in Big Israel still represents only a small fraction of the broader Zionist movement, which includes the Israel lobby and many additional organizations not captured in the data. Here’s a brief overview of some major omissions:

1. Many formal Zionist groups engaged in education, indoctrination, and radicalization are missing. For example, the American Zionist Movement (AZM), the official US affiliate of the World Zionist Organization, has 46 member organizations, only 13 of which appear in Big Israel’s data, leaving 33 unaccounted for.

2. None of the Israeli firms that disclose lobbying expenditures in the US are included. Between 2000 and 2023, 18 such firms reported spending over £30 million.

3. Eleven organizations—including the Jewish Agency, the World Zionist Organization (WZO), and the NSO Group (makers of Pegasus spyware)—have registered as Foreign Agents between 2016 and 2023, disclosing spending over £161 million in that period.

4. Although two Chabad-Lubavitch foundations are included, official figures show around 1,274 Chabad-Lubavitch groups in the US (IRS data lists 1,313), many of which likely have ultra-Zionist agendas. Despite not being formally affiliated with the WZO, Chabad’s influence is significant and cannot be overlooked.

5. B’nai B’rith International, one of the oldest Zionist groups in the US and a former AZM member, is included in the data, but its youth wing, B’nai B’rith Youth Organization (BBYO), is not. Together, the IRS data lists over 1,500 branches for these two groups across the US.

6. Hillel, the Zionist student organization, appears only once in Smith’s data and not at all in the index of The Israel Lobby, despite now having over a thousand branches.

7. Lastly, numerous Zionist family foundations that fund many groups in the wider movement,l likely numbering in the hundreds or thousands, are excluded. Some notable examples include Adelson Family Foundation, Allegheny Foundation, Anchorage Charitable Fund, Castle Rock Foundation, Earhart Foundation, John M. Olin Foundation, Klarman Family Foundation, Paul E. Singer Foundation, Smith Richardson Foundation, Sarah Scaife Foundation, Scaife Family Foundation, The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, and William Rosenwald Family Fund.

Given these seven brief examples, which are in no way exhaustive, it is likely that there are in excess of 10,000 Zionist organisations in the US in total. It would not be surprising to learn that this was a very conservative figure. Therefore, a full analysis of the US Zionist movement needs to do a lot more to explore even the formal and informal elements of the movement.

Missing oligarchs, family foundations, spooks and infiltrators

Taking both The Israel Lobby and Big Israel together, they largely overlook the critical role of oligarchs, foundations, and intelligence-linked operatives who use blackmail and threats to exert influence.

They omit the involvement of Zionist intelligence agencies themselves, including the extensive network of Sayanim (Mossad’s “little helpers”), and make no mention of Unit 8200, Israel’s signals intelligence agency that has deeply penetrated the tech and media industries.

Ultimately, The Israel Lobby focuses almost exclusively on the most visible elements of Zionist infiltration, ignoring the movement’s powerful engines of radicalization—responsible for producing thousands of radicalized genocidaires each generation.

These engines include organizations like the Mega Group (through Jewish education initiatives shown to increase support for the Zionist colony), Hillel, and Birthright Israel.

The books also fail to address the massive infiltration of Zionists throughout the US government apparatus, a process ongoing since at least the Reagan administration in the 1980s.

The involvement of Laurence Tisch in the Mega Group further illustrates the close ties between Zionist oligarchs and infiltration efforts. His granddaughter, Jessica Tisch, is a noted Zionist extremist and the current Commissioner of the NYPD.

The NYPD notably opened an office in the Zionist colony in 2012 and collaborates with Zionist entities, as do many other US police departments, some of which receive training both in the US and in Israel.

Lessons from the Epstein/Dershowitz affair?

The affair reveals that Zionist radicalization and infiltration are far more serious and organized than the “informal” and “loose” coalition described by the Israel Lobby thesis.

Just because coordination is covert or hidden does not mean it doesn’t exist. This is evident in the evolving stories about coordination efforts led by Israel’s Ministry of Strategic Affairs and its network of front groups and private companies, including the recent campaign coordinated by Voices of Israel through its proxy, the Combat Antisemitism Movement, funded partly by a US Zionist foundation.

We also see this in the revelations about the Sayanim, Mossad’s global network of helpers, and Unit 8200’s infiltration of technology firms. Above all, the infiltration of governmental institutions across the US, UK, and numerous other countries underscores the deep and systematic nature of this network.

December 9, 2025 Posted by | Book Review, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , | 1 Comment

Washington’s ‘Waiver On, Waiver Off’ Game at Chabahar

By Salman Rafi Sheikh – New Eastern Outlook – December 9, 2025

In recent months, Washington has swung from revoking to restoring India’s sanctions waiver for operating Iran’s Chabahar port. The ‘waiver on, waiver off’ routine, however, comes with a clear strategic intent.

The move is not just leverage over New Delhi as trade talks loom; it’s also a signal to Central Asian states that their economic futures — including access to Chabahar — depend on aligning their foreign policies with US preferences.

In September 2025, the United States pulled the rug out from under one of India’s most carefully nurtured strategic ventures: the Chabahar Port in Iran. Long viewed by New Delhi as a critical gateway to Afghanistan and Central Asia, Chabahar suddenly became a high-stakes chess piece in Washington’s policy game. On September 16, the US Department of State announced it would revoke the special exemption granted in 2018 under the Iran Freedom and Counter-Proliferation Act (IFCA), with the revocation taking effect September 29. Overnight, Indian companies, shippers, insurers, and banks involved in the port’s operations were cast into uncertainty: their assets could be frozen, their access to the US financial system curtailed, and their commercial contracts imperilled.

This move did not occur in isolation. At the same time, New Delhi was itself involved in a high-stakes game with the US over bilateral trade. Specifically, it is resisting US pressure to halt oil imports from Russia. By targeting Chabahar, Washington signaled that it was willing to leverage unrelated strategic projects to enforce compliance elsewhere, effectively turning Indian economic and geopolitical interests into bargaining chips. Yet the situation shifted quickly: reports emerged on October 28 that Indian firms had halted Russian oil imports, and the very next day, the US issued a fresh six-month waiver, allowing Chabahar operations to continue without immediate penalty.

The rapid “waiver on, waiver off” cycle exposes the transactional and unpredictable logic of US sanction policy. A project that represents over $120 million in Indian investment, long-term regional connectivity, and painstaking diplomacy is reduced to a geopolitical pawn, its fate dictated less by commercial or developmental imperatives and more by Washington’s strategic calculus. This particular calculus, however, is not meant for India only. The politics of granting and restricting waivers is also tied very closely to Washington’s relationship with Central Asia.

The Central Asian gamble

Chabahar port is important not only for India but also for the landlocked states of Central Asia, offering a rare direct link to the Indian Ocean and a potential route to India that bypasses Pakistan. Several Central Asian states have expressed interest in using Chabahar Port for this purpose. Tajikistan has emerged as the most active player, signing a formal cooperation agreement with Iran in early 2025 and committing to developing a logistics hub with terminals and storage facilities. Uzbekistan has held discussions about utilising the port for trade and storage. While a lot of this is still far from being fully operational, there is little denying that a major roadblock has been the US sanctions.

In the same vein, the waiver also signals to Afghanistan, where India has recently become very active. The Taliban regime is currently involved in a border standoff with Pakistan. Kabul has suspended its trade with Pakistan, and the reopening of this route remains highly uncertain. At the same time, Washington has been pressuring the Taliban to come to terms with handing over the Bagram airbase to the US military for its potential operations against China. In this context, if Afghanistan wants to continue—and even expand—its trade with Central Asia and other countries beyond the region, i.e., with India itself, as an alternative to Pakistan, its best route goes through the Chabahar Port.

Beyond this, the US decision to grant the waiver—and unless it restricts it again in the future—also puts it in a position where it can influence several other regional trade and connectivity projects, including the Trans‑Caspian and broader International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC) projects. By granting or revoking waivers, the US is signalling that it can create opportunities and or introduce uncertainty for companies and governments contemplating investment or trade through corridors that touch Iran.

For example, Central Asian states considering cargo flows via Chabahar—or via the Caspian Sea to Azerbaijan and beyond—must now weigh the risk that US sanctions could suddenly be applied, making insurance, financing, or banking services problematic and/or unavailable. Even if the Trans‑Caspian route itself does not pass through Iran, the interconnected nature of regional logistics networks means that a disruption at Chabahar could ripple across supply chains, raising costs or forcing alternative routing through Russia, Turkey, or China.

In essence, the waiver policy acts as a geopolitical lever. Its application is meant to put pressure on countries and companies so that they align their foreign and trade policies with US preferences, discouraging full exploitation of alternatives like the Trans‑Caspian corridor that could reduce American influence. The US has, for some time, been trying to expand its geopolitical footprint in Central Asia. Its ability to strangulate or allow Chabahar helps it signal its continued relevance. On the whole, the uncertainty imposed by such sanctions creates a risk premium, slows governmental and private investment, and subtly nudges regional actors toward pathways that the US finds strategically acceptable, even if they are less efficient or commercially less viable.

Salman Rafi Sheikh, research analyst of international relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs

December 9, 2025 Posted by | Economics | , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Deep State Targets Thomas Massie

By Matt Wolfson | The Libertarian Institute | December 9, 2025

With the retirement next month of Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) in the face of vociferous attacks from President Donald Trump, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) is the only member of any of the three branches of our government who consistently and on principle opposes American empire—and who also opposes the taxes, debt, and interventions that come with it. In a little over a year, he may not be.

For the first time in his seven-term congressional career, Massie is being challenged by a formidable primary opponent. That opponent is Ed Gallrein, a former Navy Seal who during his thirty years of meritorious service earned four Bronze Stars and whose extended family of small business owners is a multi-generational staple of Kentucky’s 4th District. As the last line in Gallrein’s X bio has it, he is “Trump-endorsed to defeat Thomas Massie and Deliver America First for Kentucky”—and, given the popularity Trump still enjoys among Republican voters as well as Gallrein’s sterling military reputation, and despite Massie’s strong endurability, Gallrein may succeed in realizing his goal.

Whether Gallrein’s election would actually mean delivering America first is a very different question. Putting America first presumably means putting the soldiers sworn to protect Americans, those individuals with whom Gallrein so valorously served, first as well. But a closer examination of the agenda Gallrein is running on makes clear that, unlike Massie’s prudent America first constitutionalism, it does not accomplish that goal. Instead it is the latest iteration, this time under Donald Trump, of a long-running play where small networks of ideologues ensconced in Washington’s military-corporate complex use America’s armed forces to run imperial plays for profit and power. The people running this version—connected Zionists tied to Trump’s re-election bid and now to his White House—are using Gallrein’s military service, which one might think would end up aiding our men and women in uniform, as an excuse to do the opposite. They are funding a decorated veteran to act as a front for imperial plays that mis-serve our armed forces and the Americans they’re sworn to protect.

Understanding the conditions that allowed this operation to happen and their consequences means going back to the creation of the current armed forces at the hands of the military-corporate complex after 1945—and tracing its abuses and misuses at the hands of a small number of players whose inheritors are now backing Trump and targeting Massie.

Americans’ rightful and deep respect for the men and women of our armed forces obscures an essential fact about the organization they serve: in its current form, it was never intended to exist. From Thomas Jefferson and James Madison to Dwight Eisenhower, people concerned for our liberties saw a large and expanding standing army and its support systems as inherent threats to our constitutional republic. These men were not unrealistic about the need for an armed forces—Jefferson founded West Point, and Eisenhower commanded D-Day—but they knew that an essentially defensive army equipped for a republic was very different than an aggressive army serving empire. In their view, this latter type of army would become a version of the British Army which Jefferson’s revolutionaries had fought against: an aggressive tool of imperial operators to use for power and profit.

With the start of the Cold War and the beginning of an arms race with the Soviet Union, Jefferson’s and Madison’s and Eisenhower’s fears came true, giving an enormous opportunity to a network that did not share them. Namely, old Northeastern WASPs and their allies who by 1945 had spent 150 years eschewing America’s constitutional politics in favor of building institutions and corporations in and around Washington DC. The Henry Cabot Lodges and the Brothers Harriman, the Rockefellers and the DuPonts and the Bushes, John Foster and Allen Dulles and John Jesus Angleton—these were the financial and corporate and military players who used the Cold War as an opportunity to make themselves into runners of American empire, for their own power and profit.   

At their hands, the American Army became the British Army of a later age, with its own public-debt-fueled corporate outgrowths which purport to be serving our soldiers. In reality, as Dwight Eisenhower said publicly in his presidential farewell address of 1961, the new weapons-for-profit system made its minders into what Eisenhower called in his notes for the speech “merchants of death”: “flag and general officers retiring at an early age take positions in war based industrial complex shaping its decisions and guiding the direction of its tremendous thrust.” And these civilians running the weapons contractors were rotating not just through Pentagon and CIA consultancies and administrative agencies but through America’s new civilian intelligence service, the CIA. There, the profit motive—combined with a high level of ideological zeal—also distorted policy.

By 1961, Allen Dulles, John Jesus Angleton, and the lineup of other old-line WASPs running the CIA outside of meaningful oversight had put America into the Congo, Iran, Guatemala, Cuba, and the beginnings of Vietnam. After these came interventions in El Salvador, Lebanon, Nicaragua, Kuwait, Panama, Grenada, Somalia, Kosovo, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Ukraine, Yemen, Venezuela, Palestine, and (again, this year) Iran. These were plays executed with input from McKinsey and Raytheon to Langley and the Pentagon via the Situation Room. They were increasingly run by new networks: once disproportionally WASP, these new networks were disproportionally made up of Jewish Zionists bent on using American empire to protect Israel. Among these were early operators like Henry Morgenthau and Theodore Kollek; and their later inheritors like Martin Peretz and William Kristol, Elliott Abrams and Paul Wolfowitz, Michael Ledeen and Thomas Pritzker, people who in many ways shaped the policies of the Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden administrations. At their hands, accelerated military corporate cronyism has been the order of the day starting in 1993, when the Clinton administration, which assumed power thanks in part to Zionist backing, pressured the fifty major weapons contractors active during the Cold War to consolidate in the nominal name of cutting costs. The ensuing distortion of our military has occurred via multiple forms, which I reported on for the Libertarian Institute in July.

One distortion has been cost overruns on weapons systems, which contractors feel free to allow or even encourage since no competition exists for their product. This has also allowed errors in construction which diminishes the equipment that’s supposed to serve our troops. Then, as I have reported elsewhere, in response to the overruns came budget cuts and the “fix” of “sequestration,” which reduced these cost overruns by cutting expenditures on the troops, further under-equipping and overstretching personnel. Exacerbating the problem, as I have also reported, were Pentagon-and-contractor funded think tanks, which covered the problem with “social initiatives” via mental health, climate, and DEI, further distracting the Pentagon from the imperatives of readiness and training. All the while, interventions urged by the same financial-military-intelligence networks attenuating the capacity of our armed forces also overstretched them: in Somalia and Bosnia and Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq and Libya, and (in an “advisory” capacity) Syria and Israel and Ukraine.

The result has not just been surging deficit spending that mortgages the future of Americans; nor backlash from affected populations to our imperial arrangements abroad. It has also, even more dramatically, been a spate of military embarrassments since 2018, most notably crashes of planes at the hands of overcommitted and demoralized troops and their commanders. These have racked up losses to the tune of nearly $500 million per crash and cost the lives of servicepeople. As I reported in January of this year, in an investigation of these crashes and their causes:

“For the Army, [the shrinking of budgets and personnel since the 2010s] meant “cut[ting] 40,000 active-duty soldiers, shrinking [the Armed Forces] to 450,000 by 2017.” For the Air Force, this meant a reduction of active-duty airmen from 333,370 to 310,000.”

“An Air Force report to Congress in 2018 said that, thanks to sequestration, the Air Force was ‘the smallest… it has ever been.’ Active-duty aircrew flying hours had been slashed from 17.7 to 13.2 hours per month. 31 squadrons, including 13 coded for combat, had stood down because of funding pressures. Plans had been announced to eliminate 500 planes, and, according to a Military.com report cited by The American Legion, the Air Force was ‘making do with ‘half-size squadrons.’’ The common refrain today is that hours in the air are even shorter—4.1 hours a month, by one estimate—and that efforts to replace real flying with “on-the-ground simulators” are dismal failures.”

“These shortages of manpower and training had immediate effects that took time to tally… 2018, the year after the sequester was complete, saw a spate of plane crashes. In late 2020, Congress found that, in just six years since the sequester began, ‘‘mishaps’ in training flights or routine missions killed 198 service members and civilians, destroyed 157 aircraft, and cost taxpayers $9.41 billion.’ Two weeks alone in 2022 saw three crashes on routine training missions in Alabama and California, costing at least five lives and two injuries. The last few months of 2023 saw four crashes. On December 22, 2024, a navy jet was shot down by friendly fire, and another narrowly avoided being shot down by the same barrage, in the Mediterranean.”

A year ago, given the stakes Donald Trump himself articulated for his re-election (a run against the “deep state”), it seemed unthinkable that Trump would adopt military corporatist priorities wholesale almost immediately on assuming office. But, influenced in part by Zionist operators who swung to support his re-election campaign in the summer of 2024 after pro-Palestinian protests on college campuses, he has done exactly that. As I reported for the Libertarian Institute in July, Trump has forgone actually reforming aspects of the military corporate complex to aid our soldiers. Instead he has committed to a “Big Beautiful Bill” that inflates ICE’s budget but does not direct military funding away from corporate cronyism; a surface-level crusade against “wokeness” and “DEI”; a military parade; superficial demonstrations of force in Yemen and Iran and Venezuela; the militarization of law enforcement via ICE recruiting; and the placement of American troops in American cities. He claims to be standing above all for our troops—but in reality he is standing for the military corporate complex that mis-serves them, to the demonstrable detriment of our men and women in uniform.

The most recent example of Trump’s demonstrably detrimental effect on our troops comes from The Washington Post, in a story published December 4, 2025. The subject was a deployment to the Middle East for the benefit of Israel and its Saudi and Emirati allies against Yemen; a campaign prosecuted in the Biden administration and before with the encouragement of Zionists but decisively and unprecedentedly accelerated by Trump in his second term:

“The U.S. Navy on Thursday released its findings from four investigations scrutinizing the significant challenges encountered by one of its aircraft carrier groups over nine months in the Middle East, where several major accidents occurred as the ships battled Yemeni militants.”

“The Truman carrier group departed its home port in Norfolk in September 2024 — and by the time it returned in May, the carrier itself had collided with a merchant vessel; its cruiser had shot down one of its fighter jets, another warplane was lost when it slid overboard as the carrier performed an evasive maneuver to dodge an incoming missile; and a third jet was lost when an arresting cable failed as the pilot attempted to land.”

“In three of the four incidents, investigators determined, either poor training, improper procedures or crew fatigue played significant roles. And while no service members died, those incidents could have led to multiple fatalities, the Navy found.”

All of which raises with some immediacy the question of Ed Gallrein, who was selected to run against Massie after the congressman repeatedly voted, along Jeffersonian constitutionalist lines, against using taxpayer money and deficit spending to benefit Israel. Gallrein’s selector was Chris LaCivita, Trump’s co-campaign manager in 2024 and Trump’s pick to spearhead the anti-Massie campaign, who is working with at least $2 million from an anti-Massie PAC funded by the Jewish Zionist billionaires Paul Singer, John Paulson, and Miriam Adelson. These three operators owe their easy entrée into Washington in part to the military-intelligence Zionist operators linked to the money and power at the origins of the CIA and of the host systems for the merchants of death 80 years ago—just as the decisive momentum was building for the creation of Israel.

And the $2 million they have committed so far on behalf of Israel’s interests has had its effect. At a recent gathering of campaign donors, Massie informed the group that before this primary campaign his approval/disapproval rating in polls was 62-12 (adding together very approved, somewhat approved, etc.) But, he went on to say, after $2 million in negative ads spent in his district, it’s now 51-37. He said hthat he personally expects $20 million to be spent against him, but will feel comfortable in his odds if he raises $5 million.

Gallrein was endorsed preemptively by Trump, which is to say before he entered the race, and he is by any measure a shrewd choice for Trump and Trump’s Zionist allies to back. He is not just a decorated veteran with thirty years of valorous service, he is also a fifth generation farmer and the scion of a Kentucky family with deep roots in the 4th District. The Gallrein Family Farm, founded in 1929, became the largest dairy producer in the state; expanded aggressively into tobacco and vegetables and grain along with a subset of trucking; and has now expanded into “agritourism” with weddings and a farmers market, along with a store and lunch counter which sells the farm’s “produce and product lines.” According to his LinkedIn CV, Gallrein worked at the farm from 1962, when he was four, to 1982, when he was 24, rising to vice president; then in 1984 he joined the U.S. Army, where “he served for 30 years and became a Navy SEAL officer… rose to the rank of captain and served in Panama, Afghanistan and Iraq.” Since retiring in 2014, Gallrein has experimented with careers: opening a farm and stables as well as two “leadership” and “startup” consultancy businesses, and running in the Republican primary for the District 7 state senate seat, going on to lose the race by 118 votes. He speaks, repeatedly, of his intention to bring the skills he learned during his military service to serve the 4th District.

Gallrein, having never served in office, has no voting record, and his policy platform amounts to loyalty to President Trump’s agenda, which now includes supporting interventions or operations abroad in Yemen, Palestine, Venezuela, Iran, and possibly Nigeria. In public statements this year, Gallrein has doubled down on interventionism, specifically defended our engagements in the Middle East, especially against Iran, as “leveraging” our “power” there and (echoing a favorite line from Trump-supporting media) “playing chess” against our enemies. He uses the authority of his service to help make the case—even to the extent of arguing that what may seem to be the Trump administration’s irresponsible ventures abroad and at home with authoritarian surveillance regimes like the Saudis and Emiratis via the ministrations of Israel are in fact necessary complements to our national security. (“Economic is the centerpiece of national power. [That concept is] called ‘Dime’ as we studied it in the War College.”)

What Gallrein doesn’t emphasize in his interviews is as telling as what he does. What he under-emphasizes is not just questions of taxes and debt and cost of living, which is not a surprise considering that he has said publicly that he “believes it’s his stance on foreign policy that put him on Trump’s radar.” What he under-emphasizes also relates to crucial questions when it comes to his nominal area of expertise, our military. He does not speak about meaningfully reforming our weapons contracting systems or their think tank outgrowths; or about the influence of money on the interventions we make in other sovereign nations. In other words, he does not speak about any actual structural problem in the military corporate complex that hurts the men and women with whom he once valorously served—or about any actual structural reform that would help them. And why would he? His financial and political backers are tied, directly, to those very structures—the military corporate systems and their financial supporters and their think tanks and advocacy groups and the state, Israel, that is their main priority and beneficiary and the beneficiary of our endless interventions.

Not just our sovereignty, but the safety of the people pledged to protect us, are under clear threat when they’re presided over by politicos like Gallrein run by networks, and operators, like these.

December 9, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , | Leave a comment

Florida blacklists CAIR, Muslim Brotherhood as ‘foreign terrorist organizations’

The Cradle | December 9, 2025

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis issued an order on 9 December naming the Muslim Brotherhood and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) as “foreign terrorist organizations,” following in the steps of Texas.

Florida’s designation makes it the second Republican-led state in as many months to target the two groups.

DeSantis said the move was “EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY” and instructed state agencies to deny employment, contracts, funding, or any state-provided resources to the organizations and to individuals providing them with “material support.”

His executive order repeats claims that the Muslim Brotherhood supports “political entities and front organizations that engage in terrorism and funnel money to finance terrorist activities.”

It also alleges that CAIR “was founded by persons connected to the Muslim Brotherhood” and ties both groups to Hamas.

The order further directs agencies to take “all lawful measures to prevent unlawful activities” by the two groups. DeSantis framed the action as part of broader legislative efforts, saying lawmakers were “crafting legislation to stop the creep of sharia law.”

He added that he hopes legislators “codify these protections for Floridians against CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood.”

CAIR, founded in 1994 and a leading US Muslim civil rights group, rejected the designation as “defamatory and unconstitutional.”

The group said it will sue the state, as it is already doing in Texas over a similar proclamation issued by Governor Greg Abbott.

In joint statements from its national office and Florida chapter, CAIR accused DeSantis of prioritizing “the Israeli government over the people of Florida” and targeting the organization because of “decades advancing free speech, religious freedom and justice for all, including for the Palestinian people.”

“We look forward to defeating Gov. DeSantis’s latest Israel First stunt in a court of law, where facts matter and conspiracy theories have no weight,” the statement added.

Neither the Muslim Brotherhood nor CAIR is designated as a terrorist organization by the US government, and so their restrictions remain at the state level.

The designations come as Trump reviews whether any US-based chapter of the Muslim Brotherhood should be blacklisted.

Federal agencies under Trump have also taken actions against individuals and organizations critical of Israel, including student visa cancellations, university fines, and the detention of British commentator Sami Hamdi during a CAIR speaking tour.

December 9, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , | Leave a comment

‘No evidence’: UNIFIL chief refutes Israeli claims about Hezbollah rearming in south Lebanon

Press TV – December 9, 2025

The commander of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) says the multinational peacekeeping mission has not found any evidence of Hezbollah rebuilding its military capabilities, contradicting Israeli claims used as the pretext to strike southern Lebanon.

Speaking in an interview with Israel’s Channel 12 television channel on Monday, Diodato Abagnara said he had seen “no evidence” that the Lebanese resistance movement was rearming south of the Litani River.

Abagnara, who took over as head of UNIFIL in June, also condemned continued Israeli airstrikes on Lebanon, which have killed hundreds of people, as “blatantly violating the ceasefire agreement.”

He warned that the slightest mistake could lead to a major escalation, describing the security situation as “really fragile.”

Abagnara also noted that the presence of Israeli troops in five points along the Blue Line demarcating the border between Lebanon and the Israeli-occupied territories constitutes a “flagrant” violation of UN Resolution 1701.

The resolution, which brokered a ceasefire in the 33-day-long war Israel launched against Lebanon in 2006, calls on the occupying Tel Aviv regime to respect Lebanese sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Israel and the Hezbollah resistance movement reached a ceasefire agreement that took effect on November 27, 2024. Under the deal, Tel Aviv was required to withdraw fully from the Lebanese territory, but has kept forces stationed at five sites, in clear violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701 and the terms of last November’s agreement.

Since the implementation of the ceasefire, Israel has violated the agreement multiple times through repeated assaults on the Lebanese territory.

Lebanese authorities have warned that the Israeli regime’s violations of the ceasefire threaten national stability.

December 9, 2025 Posted by | Illegal Occupation, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

Tony Blair ‘dropped’ from Gaza ‘Board of Peace’ shortlist; Hamas welcomes move as ‘step in right direction’

MEMO | December 9, 2025

A senior figure in the Islamic Resistance Movement, Hamas, Taher al-Nunu, said on Monday that reports about removing former UK prime minister Tony Blair from the “Gaza Peace Council” is “a step in the right direction”.

He said the movement had repeatedly urged mediators to exclude Blair because of what he described as his clear bias towards Israel.

In comments reported by Al Jazeera, al-Nunu confirmed that Hamas is ready to agree to a long-term truce, provided that Israel fully commits to a complete ceasefire.

He explained that the resistance’s weapons would form part of the defence system of a future Palestinian state, stressing that the movement firmly rejects any proposal for an international force to seize these weapons by force. “This proposal is rejected and has never been discussed,” he said.

Al-Nunu added that the movement has not yet received any clear plan regarding the structure of the proposed international force for Gaza, its duties, or the areas where it would be deployed.

He expressed his belief that “no state will agree to join a force tasked with forcibly disarming Gaza”.

He also said that “Benjamin Netanyahu’s ambitions go beyond the borders of Palestine and pose a threat to all countries in the region”.

In a separate remark, al-Nunu announced that Hamas is ready to hand over the administration of the Gaza Strip immediately to an independent national committee of technocrats, noting that this idea was proposed by Egypt after the Palestinian Authority refused to take on the role.

December 9, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , , | Leave a comment

Europe needs to heed the invitation in the U.S. National Security Strategy and return power to its nation states

By Ian Proud | Strategic Culture Foundation | December 9, 2025

The publication of America’s new National Security Strategy has sent many European commentators into a collective rage. It is perhaps not surprising that those who are most enraged are the same people in favour of maintaining the war in Ukraine. The cold truth is that European citizens want their nations to focus on their national interests. The European Commission would sooner drag them into a war.

Despite the uproar on X and other social media, the U.S. National Security Strategy says relatively little about Europe, precisely because it focuses on U.S. core national interests. And, indeed, that is the core point made about Europe; that in trying to create a unified geopolitical role, it has neglected the core interests of its Member States.

The Strategy expresses a desire to see Europe regain its self-confidence and reestablish strategic stability with Russia. That aspiration appears driven by a desire to maintain Europe as an open market for U.S. goods and investment, and also to avoid it continuing to be a chaotic continent that diverts U.S. resources from its main peer competitor, which is China. There is also an underlying though unstated sense of Europe and Russia maintaining a healthier relationship in part to resist Chinese domination of both.

Europe’s supposed decline is framed in the context of its reduction in economic stature from 25% of global GDP to 14% now. European economic growth has never fully recovered from the shock of the Global Financial Crisis. With the economic centre of gravity shifting to Asia, the continent is being left behind.

Pundits have taken most offence to the notion that Europe faces civilisational erasure, driven by: ‘European Union and other transnational bodies that undermine political liberty and sovereignty.., censorship of free speech and suppression of political opposition, cratering birthrates, and loss of national identities and self-confidence.’

Right at the heart of this critique is the idea that the current ‘trajectory of Europe’ which the U.S. wants to ‘cultivate resistance to’, is eroding national sovereignty and the value of the nations within Europe. The Strategy is shot through with bemusement that culturally rich and diverse Europeans nations, which are the well spring of America’s citizenry, are abandoning their interests in favour of an inchoate supranational identity that is simultaneously unattainable self-harming.

In the aftermath of World War II and centuries of conflict, the European project emerged as a way to allow for the peaceful coexistence of very different nations, linguistically, politically and historically. The adrenalin running through the veins of unprecedented levels of peace and stability until 2014 was the dismantling of economic social and cultural barrier nations, that did not erode their unique sense of self of any nation.

It may well be true that a U.S. security shield avoided the domination of Europe by a hostile Soviet Union until 1991, and for that we should be thankful. But the reason why European states learned to live in peace with each other after that period was largely because politics and security were largely left out of the conversation.

The reason European nations spent less on defence after the Soviet Union collapsed was not because their security was underwritten by American troops in Europe, but because they faced no external threat of invasion either in military terms of through unchecked migration.

The irony, of course, is that the factors that precipitated Europe’s contemporary decline, the ever greater weight and importance given to undemocratic transnational groupings such as NATO – were U.S. led. Impetus from the U.S. to keep expanding NATO gradually reintroduced very real risk to Europe as Russia felt increasingly left out in the cold and threatened. Needing to justify a role for itself, the European Institutions have grabbed ever more competence from Member States to resist so-called Russian aggression.

Once and for all, at least it is hoped, the Strategy attempts to kill ‘the perception… of NATO as a perpetually expanding alliance’. That is being interpreted by the usual pro-war commentators as a sop to Russia. In fact, it is an invitation to European nations to refocus on their national interests, for the benefit of the European continent as a whole.

Without digging over again the history of NATO expansion, the key point is that neither NATO nor the institutions of Europe are states. They have no core interests beyond the bureaucratic need to exist, grow and accrete ever greater powers. You will never see the European Commission or NATO advancing recommendations on how they might reduce in size or hand power back to their members.

At this time of unprecedented threat of a reemergence of continent-wide conflict in Europe, the Americans are simply suggesting that nation states start to wrest back control. Both NATO and the European Commission, in my opinion, have both undermined the national and inflamed the international, while contributing to the stagnation of Europe as an idea of community, rather than a confederation.

A core principle of the U.S. Strategy is to ‘seek good relations and peaceful commercial relations with the nations of the world without imposing on them democratic or other social change that differs widely from their traditions and histories’.

How Trump seeks to coexist with other nations of the world is exactly how European states sought to coexist peacefully with each other after World War II. The European Economic Community, as it was called for a while, didn‘t seek to erode the primacy of the nation state, focussing instead on the economic, social and cultural features to create the idea of common purpose, without the shackles of common identity.

Yet, the European Commission’s concept of expansion – which in any case Europe cannot afford – is rooted in a desire to homogenise states under a fictious notion of common European values, and to prioritise conformity over identity.

Any existing European Member that seeks to raise a hand is called out by the collective as a back-slider, a quisling and a Putin stooge, taking Hungary, as a prime example.

Yet, European nations that focussed first and foremost on their economic wellbeing and the maintenance and protection of their industrial bases would buy Russian gas because it made good economic sense to do so.

A Europe that focussed on the protection of its citizens would seek a negotiated end to the war in Ukraine as soon as possible, instead of rejecting every possibility of dialogue, and raising the spectre of a future war that would kill and displace millions of their citizens.

A Europe that focussed on good neighbourly relations would seek a way to live on good terms with Russia and for Russia and Ukraine to live on good terms with each other, however long it may take to recreate that balance.

And in my experience of engaging with the Russians, they reciprocate with friendship as vigorously as they do with hostility, so the possibility of peace is far less of a mirage than people would have you believe.

Of course, war with Ukraine is used as a reason for why this is neither possible nor desirable. But then, unfortunately, the arguments in favour of perpetual conflict with Russia become self-reinforcing, with both Europe and Russia arguing to their quite separate allies about who is to blame, and no one seeking reconciliation, through the cutting off of contact.

So the European Commission has increasingly sought to dominate continent-wide diplomacy and marshalled the tools of its willing legions of media talking heads who insist that nothing must change, that talking to Russia is tantamount to treason. The bellicose response to the U.S. National Security Strategy is proof of that. Moscow’s signalling of their alignment with its principles offered as further evidence that Trump is selling us out.

Yet, restoring strategic balance between Europe and Russia, which the U.S. strategy claims to want, requires restoring the primacy of the individual Member States of Europe over its institutions, and handing back control to capitals in how to govern their relations with Russia and other countries.

The European institutions have succeeded in defining Europe as something distinct from Russia, when in fact, Russia is a part of Europe. Calls by Defence Commissioner Kubilius to develop a common European geopolitical strategy, is merely another effort to grasp more competence from the nation states of Europe. These should be roundly rejected. The common foreign and security policy has been an abject failure and should be dismantled.

It is the institutions of Europe who are blocking the door of efforts to restore some normality in relations with Russia, most notably in the form of rabid Russophobes such as Kaja Kallas. She would happily take Europe to war from the comfort of a safe distance. I’d invite more European citizens to heed the invitation of the Americans to seek a way out with the implication that she, and other unelected war-mongers, are stripped of their powers.

December 9, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, Russophobia | , , , , | Leave a comment

NATO corruption scandal triggers Israeli arms contracts cuts – media

RT | December 9, 2025

Multiple NATO-Israel arms contracts have been suspended over a massive bribery scandal in the heart of the US-led military bloc’s buying section that has already triggered multiple arrests across Europe, several investigative media outlets have reported.

The scandal has exposed a shadowy network of private operators exploiting a revolving-door system that allows former NATO Support and Procurement Agency (NSPA) staff to become consultants in the defense industry, where they flourish in “the new geopolitical situation” as a result of “the explosion in European defense budgets,” according to La Lettre.

The NSPA has been forced to suspend multiple contracts with Israel’s largest weapons producer, Elbit Systems, over mounting evidence that the Israeli company used a former NSPA staff member to bribe ex-colleagues to secure deals for the company.

A 60-year-old Italian national, Eliau Eluasvili, has been on the run since late September, when a Belgian court issued an international arrest warrant for him.

The decision was made over the summer in response to a multi-nation investigation into brivery allegations, with new details revealed on Monday by La Lettre, Le Soir, Knack, and Follow the Money.

An internal NSPA email dated July 31 lists 15 suspended contracts, 13 of them involving Elbit Systems or its subsidiary Orion Advanced Systems, according to investigative reporters. The deals under scrutiny include deals for fuzes, aircraft flares, 155mm artillery shells, and upgrades for Portuguese naval patrol ships, according to the outlets.

Documents also indicate that the Israeli manufacturer has been barred from bidding on new contracts until the inquiry concludes.

The sharp rise in defense spending among EU members has been driven by efforts to arm Ukraine against Russia and by Brussels’ claims that member states must prepare for a possible direct confrontation with Moscow.

Russian officials have long argued that corrupt interests within Europe are influencing the West’s increasingly confrontational policies.

December 9, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Militarism | , , | Leave a comment