Did Netanyahu just ask Trump for another war — and get it?
By Trita Parsi – Responsible Statecraft – December 30, 2025
During a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, President Trump said that he will allow Israel to attack Iran once again to strike its ballistic missiles.
But what exactly does that mean? Will the U.S. be involved in the actual strikes? Will it “limit” its involvement to shooting down Iran’s retaliatory missiles?
If the former, Trump is not just “allowing” Israel to strike; the U.S. will actually be at war with Iran. This would be a betrayal of his promise to his base to keep America out of wars (he has, of course, violated that already).
Moreover, unlike the nuclear program, which incorporates a small number of known facilities, the missile program is spread throughout the country in a large number of hidden facilities, many of them probably unknown to the U.S./Israel.
Thus, Trump will likely not be able to frame this as mere “military action” rather than war. Nor will he likely be able to negotiate with Tehran a limited Iranian response since the missiles are Iran’s last line of defense — the last leg of its deterrence.
Tehran has gone to great lengths to avoid a military confrontation with Washington, but just because it has shown restraint in the past does not mean that it can afford to do so in this scenario. Indeed, given that Iran will be totally exposed without its missiles, it will likely reckon that it has no choice but to strike directly at U.S. targets.
Even if Trump opts to “only” support Israel defensively in yet another Israeli choice of war — which is the position Biden took — it nevertheless incentivizes Israel to restart war, as the U.S. is lessening the cost for Israel to do so.
The cost to the United States is great even in this scenario. Washington depleted 25% of its THAAD interceptors in the course of 12 days this past summer — for Israel’s war of choice, in a region four American Presidents have declared no longer is vital to U.S. national security.
As I wrote last week, every time Trump caves to Netanyahu and agrees to another war, it only prompts Israel to come back to Trump after a few months with another war plan for Americans to give their blood and tax dollars to.
This will go on endlessly until Trump decides to end it.
Trita Parsi is an Iranian-born Swedish writer and activist, co-founder and executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, and founder and former president of the National Iranian American Council
As Israel bans aid orgs in Gaza, notorious mercenary firm seeks “Targeter”
Are Israel and US planning to revive the dystopian GHF scheme that spawned famine and death under cover of humanitarian aid?

By Max Blumenthal | The Grayzone | December 31, 2025
In its bid to continue the genocide in Gaza, Israel has banned 37 international aid organizations from entering the decimated, militarily occupied coastal enclave. This leaves only five humanitarian groups still able to operate inside Gaza.
At the same time, one of the US mercenary firms responsible for securing the notorious Gaza Humanitarian Foundation sites which were present during the worst periods of famine in Gaza, when at least 3000 Palestinian civilians were gunned down while seeking aid, has posted an ad soliciting former special forces soldiers for offensive operations.
UG Solutions, the scandal-stained private mercenary firm, announced this December that it was hiring an “experienced Targeter to support intelligence-driven operations through the identification, development, validation, and maintenance of operational targets.” The targeter will be expected to “Develop, validate, and maintain operational target packages in accordance with approved targeting processes.”
Anthony Aguilar, the retired United States Army Lt. Col and former Green Beret who blew the whistle on UG Solutions’ human rights abuses in Gaza, told me he believes that Israel’s ban on the 37 international aid organizations signals the return of UG Solutions as part of a restructured version of the Israeli-controlled Gaza Humanitarian Foundation scheme.
While it’s unclear where the UG Solutions targeter position will be deployed, if they are being hired for upcoming operations in Gaza, Aguilar says “this shows that the US, through paramilitary contractors, is now going to either directly target, or feed target data to the IDF.”

To set the stage for its blanket ban on international aid organizations, Israel’s intel-tied Ministry of Diaspora Affairs has demanded that all staffers of aid NGOs prove they do not support calls to boycott Israel, that they do not support armed struggle or oppose Israel’s existence as an exclusivist Jewish state, and that they do not “actively advance delegitimization activities against the State of Israel.”
Aid staffers must also demonstrate that they have never questioned the established history of the Holocaust or challenged official Israeli narratives about October 7 – including, presumably, that Palestinians committed “mass rape” or beheaded babies.
Israel has also demanded that Doctors Without Borders provide COGAT occupation administrators with the personal data of its staff and donors, an unprecedented move by a belligerent in a conflict which few, if any, aid groups could ever honor.
It seems obvious that the Israeli government is using the absurdly onerous new registration standards as cover to ban virtually every credible international aid organization from entering Gaza. In doing so, the apartheid entity seemingly seeks to deprive Palestinians living inside the yellow occupation line of sustenance, forcing them to leave Gaza, or to move into one of the high-tech, concentration camp-like “smart cities” mapped out in the dystopian new “Project Sunrise” proposal marketed by Trump cronies Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner.
And it is there that they would be “secured” by a mercenary outfit like UG Solutions – and targeted if they dared to resist.
Below is a list of all the aid orgs banned by Israel from operating in Gaza:
1. Accion contra el Hambre – Action Against Hunger
2. Action Aid
3. Alianza por la Solidaridad
4. Artsen zonder Grenzen (Medecins Sans Frontieres Nederland)
5. Campaign for the Children of Palestine (CCP Japan)
6. CARE
7. DanChurchAid
8. Danish Refugee Council
9. Handicap International – Humanity and Inclusion
10. Japan International Volunteer center
11. Medecins Du Monde (FRANCE)
12. Medecins du Monde Switzerland
13. Medecins Sans Frontières Belgium
14. Medecins Sans Frontieres France
15. Medicos del Mundo (Spain)
16. Mercy Corps
17. MSF Spain – Doctors Without Borders Spain
18. NORWEGIAN REFUGEE COUNCIL
19. Oxfam Novib
20. Premiere Urgence Internationale
21. Terre des hommes Lausanne
22. The International Rescue Committee (IRC)
23. WeWorld-GVC
24. World Vision International
25. Relief International
26. Fondazione AVSI
27. Movement for Peace – MPDL
28. American Friends Service Committee (AFSC)
29. Medico International
30. PSAS – The Palestine Solidarity Association in Sweden
31. Defense for Children International
32. Medical Aid for Palestinians – UK
33. Caritas Internationalis
34. Caritas Jerusalem
35. Near East council churches
36. OXFAM Quebec
37. War Child holland
The Bari Weiss Playbook: How a Zionist Operative Conquered American Media

By Jose Alberto Nino | The Occidental Observer | December 31, 2025
Long before she ran a newsroom, Bari Weiss was already running a campaign. The target was anyone she perceived as a threat to Israel. In the mid-2000s, at Columbia University, she helped found a student effort that marketed itself as a defense of Jewish students and Zionist speech in an environment she portrayed as hostile.
The controversy reached its zenith with the release of Columbia Unbecoming, a documentary created in collaboration with The David Project, which leveled accusations against Middle East Studies faculty for their alleged intimidation of students who expressed pro-Israel views. The film circulated online as video testimony that Jewish students were allegedly under threat on campus.
The counterattack naturally came quickly. Civil liberties advocates warned that encouraging students to monitor faculty for ideological infractions would chill speech and collapse academic freedom into factional policing. An online critique from the Columbia ecosystem framed the campaign as overreach and a template for future pressure tactics. Such concerns proved to be prescient, as Jewish students would keep tabs on Columbia professors and report them for anti-Zionist and antisemitic conduct after October 7, 2023.
That early fight showcased Weiss’s primordial instinct to go to the mat for her tribe. This did not come out of the blue. Weiss grew up in a politically engaged Jewish household in Pittsburgh, where her father Lou Weiss served on the National Council for AIPAC and frequently organized missions to Israel, profoundly shaping her early Zionist identity.
With unwavering devotion to Zionist principles, Weiss navigated the political landscape with a singular focus, her commitment to advancing Jewish interests remaining unshaken by the petty squabbles and transient allegiances of partisan politics. By the time she rose inside legacy media, she carried a worldview that opportunistically fused free speech rhetoric with strong stances on Israel and antisemitism.
Weiss’s ascent mirrored the classic trajectory of the modern mandarin class, ascending the rungs of the opinion-making apparatus that manufactures public consent. Her journey began in the trenches of reporting, leading to an editorial position at The Wall Street Journal. In that capacity, she gained the skills of gatekeeping and narrative framing, which she would continue to employ as she climbed up the media ladder.
In 2017, she landed at the New York Times opinion section after she believed that the WSJ took too hard of a pro-Trump stance. She described herself “as center left on most issues”, but the issue of Israel was non-negotiable for her, when push came to shove. Ultimately, her position at the Times did not hold. In July 2020, she announced her exit with a resignation letter that accused the institution of enforcing ideological conformity, tolerating internal bullying, and letting social media pressure shape editorial decisions.
While the letter publicly signaled her break with legacy liberalism, it was fundamentally an act of strategic repositioning. A deeper, more calculating motive propelled this departure: the dawning realization that the very media establishments she inhabited were losing their effectiveness as guardians of Jewish interests. Her subsequent career trajectory into new media ventures confirms this was not an ideological conversion, but a pragmatic pivot to more reliable channels of influence.
In 2021 she took matters into her own hands by launching a Substack newsletter called Common Sense, then rebranded it into The Free Press, positioning it as a supposed bastion for free speech. The Free Press outwardly curated a portfolio of anti-woke commentary on issues like gender ideology and campus radicalism. However, these topics served as a popular façade for the publication’s central, animating purpose: the advancement of Zionism. Weiss meticulously assembled a stable of contributors—including prominent voices like Douglas Murray, Niall Ferguson, Konstantin Kisin, and Eli Lake—whose primary alignment was a staunch defense of Israeli policy, making the outlet’s broader ideological commitment unmistakable.
Israel was the unwavering constant, serving not as a footnote but as the central organizing principle of her moral worldview. She treated anti-Zionism as a mask for antisemitism and made that position central to her public identity, a framework reflected in discussion around her book and its reception. Her 2019 book How to Fight Anti Semitism became the manifesto version of the same argument.
The 2018 mass shooting at Pittsburgh’s Tree of Life synagogue, in which Robert Bowers murdered eleven Jewish congregants, threw Weiss’s propensity for targeting the hard Right into stark relief. The atrocity held profound personal significance for her, as the synagogue was the site of her Bat Mitzvah ceremony. Weiss pinpointed Bowers’ motive: his belief in organized Jewry’s outsized promotion of mass migration. She conceded this factual premise during an NPR interview, highlighting HIAS’s active role in facilitating refugee settlement, although it was much more than just HIAS—the entire organized Jewish community.
Weiss offered a trenchant analysis of the anti-Zionist left, warning that the climate of intolerance fostered by cancel culture posed a clear and present danger to American Jews—a concern that crystallized for her following the violence in Pittsburgh. She developed this argument while headlining a virtual event on June 6th dedicated to exploring the phenomenon of cancel culture through a specifically Jewish framework.
“I have felt more of a sense of alarm over the past few weeks now than I did in the aftermath of the attack on my synagogue,” said Weiss, referring to the 2021 Israel-Palestine confrontation. “Anti-Semitism,” she said, “has moved from the lunatic fringe firmly into the mainstream of American cultural life and into the halls of Congress.”
Weiss went mask off In October 2023, during the Israel-Hamas war, when her ethno-religious activism was on full display. Refaat Alareer, a professor and poet from Gaza, provoked outrage with a since-deleted tweet in which he jested about unverified claims that Hamas fighters had incinerated a Jewish baby in an oven, sarcastically asking, “with or without baking powder.” Weiss immediately pounced and quote-tweeted this post, highlighting it as an example of moral depravity. Alareer reported receiving death threats following Weiss’s post to her large following. He posted, “If I get killed by Israeli bombs or my family is harmed, I blame Bari Weiss and her likes,” arguing that her platforming of his tweet marked him as a target. The Israeli military would then kill Alareer, along with multiple members of his family, in a single, targeted airstrike on December 6. 2023.
The allegation from Alareer’s supporters was unequivocal: Weiss had committed stochastic terrorism. They argued she deliberately employed her massive reach to channel hostility and, by inevitable extension, the attention of military and intelligence agencies toward Alareer, a process that ended with his assassination.
Weiss’ fanatic commitment to her tribe was recognized by the likes of David Ellison—CEO of Skydance Media and the son of billionaire Oracle founder Larry Ellison. The younger Ellison had been considering how to revitalize CBS News even before the Paramount acquisition closed. Both David and Larry Ellison are described as “extremely fervent supporters of Israel,” with Larry being a “known Trump supporter” and David “at least suspected to be” pro-Trump as well.
Throughout summer 2025, as Skydance awaited regulatory approval for the Paramount merger, Ellison held discussions with Weiss about integrating The Free Press‘s editorial vision into CBS News. Democracy Now! reported that “Ellison has gotten very close with Bari Weiss”. CNN added that Ellison was “interested in infusing Weiss’s editorial perspective into CBS News.” The deal was eventually finalized in early October, Paramount officially announced the acquisition of The Free Press in a deal valued at approximately $150 million in cash and Paramount shares, to be disbursed gradually and potentially varying based on Paramount’s stock performance. Further, Weiss was appointed editor-in-chief of CBS News—a newly created position.
In her position, Weiss reports directly to David Ellison, the CEO of Paramount Skydance, not through the normal CBS News chain of command. The Free Press maintains independent operations as a separate brand within Paramount. Weiss will collaborate with Tom Cibrowski, president of CBS News, though they occupy parallel rather than hierarchical positions.
A lifetime of dedicated advocacy for Zionist causes has yielded its intended dividends for Bari Weiss. Her trajectory demonstrates a remarkable consistency, guided unerringly by the twin lodestars of perceived Jewish safety and the legitimization of the Zionist endeavor. In the end, Bari Weiss’s career trajectory reveals a fundamental truth: she is not a journalist in any meaningful sense, but a zealous agent for Jewish tribal power, making her a conscious and effective enemy of the gentile civilization whose institutions she has so skillfully subverted.
Welcome To 2026: Europe Laying Groundwork For Climate Science Censorship!
By P Gosselin | No Tricks Zone | December 31, 2025
As EU narratives collapse, desparate leaders are planning more tyrannical measures to keep it all from sinking.
Currently, EU leaders are fuming that US officials would be so audacious as to accuse them of practicing censorship. Yet, when it comes to suppressing open discussions and differing viewpoints on major issues, things are in fact worse than most people think. And, it’s about to get even worse.
A recent (indirectly EU-funded) report released earlier this year shows how the EU is planning to broaden censorship to include the topics of climate and energy science.
In the “Harmful Environmental Agendas and Tactics” (HEAT) report, published by EU DisinfoLab and Logically, its authors investigate how climate-related misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation (MDM) are strategically used to undermine climate policy in Europe, specifically in Germany, France, and the Netherlands.
Climate science skeptics threaten democracy
The report argues that climate disinformation has moved beyond simple science denial and has become a tool for broader political and social polarization.
Outright denial of climate change, the authors claim, is being replaced by narratives focused on “climate delay.” These often acknowledge climate change but attack the feasibility, cost, and fairness of solutions, e.g., they claim green policies will bankrupt households or destroy industries.
The enemies
The report identifies four main pillars driving these agendas:
- The Conspiracy Milieu: Distrust of elites and “deep state” narratives (e.g., the “Great Reset”).
- Culture War/Partisan Discourse: Framing climate action as an authoritarian or elitist project.
- Hostile State Actors (HSAs): Significant involvement of Russian-linked networks (e.g., Portal Kombat) that use localized domains like Pravda DE to amplify divisive climate content.
- Big Oil Alignment: Narratives that align with fossil fuel interests, even if direct corporate attribution is often obscured.
In Germany, for example, there are attacks on the Energiewende (energy transition) and the Building Heating Act.
In France, there are links between climate policy and the “Yellow Vest” movement or anti-elitist sentiments.
Meanwhile, the “nitrogen crisis” has been reframed as “government land theft” in the Netherlands.
European leaders are convinced that their policies have nothing to do with all the failure going on. In their eyes, it’s all the fault of unruly citizens and their disinfoarmtion campaigns.
The report’s key recommendations
The authors call for decisive institutional and platform-level action to treat climate disinformation as a structural threat and a danger to democracy. This all needs to stop!
Platforms must act!
The primary recommendation is for the EU to explicitly recognize climate disinformation as a systemic risk under the Digital Services Act (a.k.a. by critics the Digital Censorship Act). This would force so-called Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) to take proactive measures and conduct risk assessments.
The authors also call for mandating algorithm audits and public reporting on content moderation, specifically for climate content. It’s time to crack down on skeptics, they say.
“Independent” auditors
Moreover “independent researchers” are to be provided with access to disaggregated platform data to track how these narratives spread.
Another recommendation is calling for the labelling and limiting the reach of “ideological or sponsored” climate disinformation.
“Trusted flaggers”
The authors also are calling for greater monitoring of Russian-aligned and other hostile state operations that exploit climate debates to weaken EU democratic resilience.
Another step suggested to counter “climate disinformation” is the establishment of reporting channels for civil society organizations (so-called “trusted flaggers”) to flag coordinated inauthentic behavior (CIB) and harmful narratives to regulators.
“Prebunking”
Also “prebunking” campaigns aimed at proactively educating the public on disinformation tactics before they are exposed to them—especially in lower-educated rural and working-class areas that are frequently targeted.
The new German totalitarianism
The German liberal order resorts to totalitarianism to preserve the hegemony of its elites
By Raphael Machado | Strategic Culture Foundation | December 30, 2025
Mentioning “totalitarianism” in Germany quickly forces our minds to associate it with the Nazi period in that country’s history. 12 years during which Germany was under the command of Hitler and his party; a command that culminated in the Second World War and the greatest military hecatomb in human history. Indeed, historically, and thanks to figures like Hannah Arendt, the political category of “totalitarianism” has been restricted to the manifestations of illiberal political theories, such as fascism and communism. Liberalism, on the other hand, could not, it never could, it could never be totalitarian; that would be a “contradiction in terms.”
However, a closer look would quickly point out that many post-war Western philosophers, particularly Jewish ones like Karl Popper and Theodor Adorno, in dealing with attempts to understand Germany’s fascist turn, argued that legalistic concerns would have prevented the state from removing from the political game a political force, like Nazism, which very obviously intended to liquidate democracy and, therefore, put an end to the political game as such. This is the so-called “paradox of tolerance.” Popper, from the right, and Adorno, from the left, both agree in defending that the liberal-democratic state must be intolerant towards the “intolerant”; that is, to pursue, silence, and liquidate, without formalist concerns, any figure or political group that openly opposes the fundamental values of liberal democracy and human rights.
Very obviously, we can see that this is an attempt to philosophically legitimize the establishment of a totalitarian regime under the justification of defending “democracy” against fascists and/or communists. Despite its specific emphasis on rational deliberation, even Jürgen Habermas, the philosophical “pope” of German democratic liberalism, places the enemies of liberal society outside the umbrella of tolerant society, insofar as, if tolerated, they themselves would lead to the end of tolerant society.
The evident risk, nonetheless, lies in the decision that designates a figure, group, or ideology as “contrary to the liberal system.” In the 21st century, neither in Germany nor anywhere else in Europe, is there a serious and grave threat of the rise of openly fascist or communist political groups. Thus, at every moment, it is necessary to make a judgment about the possibility of an analogy between each political challenge to the existing order and the historical anti-liberal ideologies.
Since the definitions of fascism and communism are obviously imprecise (each theorist, each academic, etc., has their own definition of these ideologies), accusing an opponent of being “fascist” or “communist” is easy. And with that, it becomes possible to construct the possibility of silencing and excluding the opponent from the public sphere.
The German state, therefore, has all the necessary theoretical foundation to justify the persecution of citizens who oppose its designs and values.
And now it has the technical and legal means to discover who all the “enemies of tolerant society” are among its citizens.
In December 2025, the Berlin House of Representatives passed an amendment to the General Law on Security and Public Order that significantly expands state surveillance capabilities. The amendment introduces several tools that are, to say the least, controversial, such as authorizing police forces to install spyware on the smartphones and computers of “suspicious” citizens, as well as to intercept encrypted communications. If these actions are not feasible remotely, the new regulations allow police forces to secretly break into citizens’ homes to install the spyware physically.
Another innovation is the possibility for police forces to access traffic data from cell towers for all devices in a specific area and moment, without the need for specific judicial authorization. With this, the police could map the movements of any citizen during protests and public events. Furthermore, the legislation also authorizes the collected data to be used for training artificial intelligence systems.
This is a clear institutional slide toward totalitarianism. It is impossible to twist the narrative to deny, therefore, the possibility of liberalism also degenerating into totalitarianism, just as this possibility is recognized for fascism and communism. However, the regulations in question will only apply to the state of Berlin; it is not a change at the federal level.
But it may only be a matter of time. A similar bill is advancing in the Bundestag that promotes mass monitoring at the federal level, with the possibility of chat controls, weakening encryption, and digital and physical invasions of citizens’ property.
This intensification of state surveillance is no coincidence. It appears at a time when the legitimacy of the German liberal republic is being questioned by its citizens, disheartened by the achievements of recent decades, mass immigration, rising violence, and a clear effort by the government to push its citizens into a conflict with Russia. Questioned and under the threat of the rise of anti-system political forces, the German liberal order resorts to totalitarianism to preserve the hegemony of its elites.


