Lindsey Graham, the Neo-con Republican Senator, at the Zionist Tzedek conference, gave the real reason for America’s policy of regime change in Iran, namely to isolate the Palestinians in the Middle East and pave the way for Israeli domination.
Graham, referring to regime change in Iran said, “If we can pull this off, it would be the biggest change in the Middle East in a thousand years: Hamas, Hezbollah gone, the Houthis gone, the Iranian people an ally not an enemy, the Arab world moving towards Israel without fear, Saudi-Israel normalize, no more October the 7th”.
In other words, Lindsey Graham and the U.S. believe that regime change in Iran would lead to the collapse of Palestinian resistance and allied groups Hezbollah and Ansar Allah and lead Middle Eastern powers to normalize with Israel without any concessions to Palestinians, thus paving the way for the ethnic cleansing of Gaza and the West Bank, and further expansion into Syria and Lebanon in service of the Greater Israel project.
This motive is not only driving the desire for regime change in Iran, but has been the main motive for U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East since 9/11, not fighting a “war on terror”.
In 1996, key figures who ended up in high level positions in the Bush administration, such as Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser, who were at the time advising the newly elected Benjamin Netanyahu, sent him a letter titled, “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm”, which called on him to make a “clean break” from peace talks with Palestinians and instead focus on isolating them in the region, first a for-most by, “removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right”.
Netanyahu kept to his word and made his “Clean Break” from the Oslo Accords during his first term as Prime Minister, later boasting:
how he forced former U.S. Secretary of State Warren Christopher to agree to let Israel alone determine which parts of the West Bank were to be defined as military zones. ‘They didn’t want to give me that letter,’ Netanyahu said, ‘so I didn’t give them the Hebron agreement [the agreement giving Hebron back to the Palestinians]. I cut the cabinet meeting short and said, ‘I’m not signing.’ Only when the letter came, during that meeting, to me and to Arafat, did I ratify the Hebron agreement. Why is this important? Because from that moment on, I de facto put an end to the Oslo accords.”
Soon after, the authors of the clean break document became key advisors on the Middle East in the George W. Bush administration.
After 9/11, they used the attack to carry out the “important Israeli strategic objective” of “removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq”, who was seen as too sympathetic to Palestinians.
As David Wurmser, one of the authors of the clean break document and the Middle East Adviser to former US Vice President Dick Cheney, later admitted , “In terms of Israel, we wanted Yasser Arafat not to have the cavalry over the horizon in terms of Saddam”.
George W. Bush aide, Philip Zelikow said , “the real threat (from Iraq) (is) the threat against Israel”, “this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don’t care deeply about that threat”, “the American government doesn’t want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell”.
But for Israel and the Bush administration, the war in Iraq was just the first phase of the “clean break strategy”, to take out all of Israel’s enemies in the Middle East.
As the U.S. General Wesley Clark revealed the clean break went from a plan to take out Saddam Hussein in Iraq to a plan to “take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and, finishing off, Iran”. (Emphasis added)
As Clark later explained on the Piers Morgan show, the list came from a study which was “paid for by the Israelis” and said, “if you want to protect Israel, and you want Israel to succeed… you’ve got to get rid of the states that are surrounding”.
With every other country on the hit list either weakened (Lebanon, Somalia, Sudan) or taken out (Iraq, Libya, Syria) from the ensuing years of U.S. and Israeli intervention, Neo-cons and Zionists see Iran as the last bulwark in the way of carrying out the Clean Break plan.
It was truly astonishing, the speed with which online influencers, including many self-styled anti-war leftists, took to social media in order to espouse regime change propaganda against Iran over the past few weeks. This then begs the question as to how many times this has to happen before people finally wake up?
For each regime change war waged by the West in the MENA region, it is almost as if the collective memory of the Western anti-war movement somehow dissipates. As a result, some principled activists and honest journalists, who retain their memories, are forced to go around in circles, arguing that the latest war is wrong, just like the last one and that lies are being pushed to justify a moral outrage.
The US and “Israel” pick a new target. The same decades old propaganda is pulled out of the draw, and then serious people have to argue endlessly, as they are attacked as “regime defenders”, simply for establishing basic truths. What is perhaps the saddest part of this is that over two years of genocide in Gaza, which the Western Left has collectively come together to oppose, has seemingly failed to impress upon them that their government never cares about human rights or so-called “international law”.
When it comes to the recent series of allegations made against the Islamic Republic of Iran, it is nearly impossible to even engage in rational dialogue, as the pro-regime change crowd appear to be living in a parallel universe. This time, just like the last, they buy that the West is genuinely concerned by the alleged suffering of a foreign civilian population. However, in order to demonstrate just how ridiculous the latest round of propaganda has been, it is necessary to preface that with a little bit of history.
The same old pro-war lies again
If you are to listen to the mainstream corporate media and Western politicians, their portrayal of the Islamic Republic of Iran is of a “malevolent regime” that is negative in every conceivable way. That’s why none of them can ever mention something about Iran that is positive, or address the political climate of the country in any considerable kind of depth.
The primary excuses you’ll hear for why Iran needs a US-led regime change are that it will bring about “women’s rights”, “democracy”, “stop them developing weapons of mass destruction” and that the Iranian government is “killing its own people”.
Remember when we were told that Afghanistan had to be invaded and that the US had to kill innocent people as “collateral damage” in order to “free the women of Afghanistan”? The US invaded and remained there for 20 years, spent over 2 trillion dollars, and the government it built immediately fled the moment the Americans withdrew their forces.
These Colonial Feminist arguments aren’t even worth considering when it comes to the Islamic Republic of Iran, because they are disingenuous to begin with. The Israelis and elements of the Trump administration argue for re-installing the son of the deposed Shah of Iran. The Shah and his views on women were outright repulsive, yet the US government didn’t care about the repression of women’s rights when the Shah was in power, just like it didn’t care while Saudi Arabia prevented its women from driving cars.
Often, you may see people share old footage from Iran, in which women are seen in swimsuits on the beach, advertised as a magical time when the country was “free”. What you are watching is the former Iranian elite, a small segment of the economically advantaged who benefited from a repressive system.
But this all aside, just like was the case with the invasion of Afghanistan, it never had anything to do with women’s rights. Equally, you will see that the US’s soft power institutions use the issue of women’s rights as a means of social control and coercion. It’s not about empowering women, it’s about imperialism.
Iran is also accused of developing weapons of mass destruction. It is a well-established fact that when the US and UK claimed that former Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein, possessed such weapons, it was a lie.
Some may then come along and cite human rights groups for various statistics they provide regarding the death toll amongst protesters and rioters in Iran. Amnesty International even labelled the protests as “largely peaceful”. Bear in mind here that Amnesty also helped spread and give credibility to the claim that the Iraqi military had thrown 300 babies out of incubators, one of the key lies used to justify the First Gulf War.
While this isn’t to simply discredit all human rights reports, it suffices to say that we must still check their sources and accept the reality that they are not beyond political pressure and the power of their donors. Recently, the major human rights groups have proven extremely diligent on the question of Palestine in particular, but one should note that this hasn’t always been the case, it is instead a newer phenomenon that the likes of Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have taken such brave stances, particularly beginning in 2021.
Therefore, we should always be critical of everything we see when it comes to claims without any credible sources behind them, especially surrounding the buildup and justifications provided for regime change wars. In Libya, Afghanistan, Syria and even in Gaza, these human rights organizations and UN human rights reports have aided in justifying the arguments for interventionism and the alleged Israeli “right to self defense”.
Then we come to the next popular argument, which is Identity Politics at its core. This is the “listen to Iranians”. By this, of course, what is implied is that you only listen to a select group of Iranians who are in favour of bombing and destroying their own country.
Simply put, this is no different to the “ex-Muslims” who are paid to talk about how bad Muslims are, it is an argument devoid of any logic and relies purely upon emotion. This time it is “listen to Iranians”, in the past we were told to listen to members of the Iraqi, Afghan, Syrian and Libyan diaspora who would be paraded across all major broadcast media platforms to tell their extremely biased and personalised stories in order to argue in favour of regime change.
There is no difference between Iranians going on the BBC or CNN to argue for more sanctions and intervention, and Iraqis doing the exact same thing in the lead up to the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. Many Palestinians are also given jobs by pro-war think tanks and invited to tell their stories in the corporate media, if they simply choose to side with Israel over Hamas.
‘It’s a monstrous regime, but…’
Another popular argument you will see made, is one that automatically accepts all the propaganda used to justify illegal wars of aggression, before going on to make the counter point that “we still shouldn’t support this war”. In essence, this is a coward’s way out of being criticized and labelled.
This tactic is something we saw on display when it came to addressing the Israeli genocide against the people of Gaza. The entire Western media establishment demanded the condemnation of Hamas by any journalist or activist arguing in favour of the Palestinians. Many simply went along with this, blindly accepting much of the propaganda about Hamas without actually knowing anything about the group. Very few dared to go into the details of Operation Al-Aqsa Flood and point out the lies about it.
By starting with a condemnation of Iran, or the Palestinian Resistance, you immediately cede to the US-Israeli propaganda framing. These Western media ghouls do not actually care about the details, or the loss of human life on any side, they simply seek to frame the situation in a very specific way. They work to manufacture a controlled media environment, one in which anyone who refuses to utter condemnation is deemed an “extremist” and lacking in credibility.
If you don’t understand the accusations, the best course of action is to refrain from discussing something out of your depth. Alternatively, if you do understand the issue in depth, then explain it in its proper context.
The lies against Iran
There is no need to beat around the bush here, the riots that we saw on January 8-10 were part of an Israeli backed war on Iran. On December 28, legitimate protests began against the government’s mismanagement of the financial crisis, resulting in no violence and no arrests. One day later, suddenly, the former Prime Minister of the Zionist regime, Naftali Bennett, releases a video encouraging a nation-wide Iranian uprising to overthrow the government, something that would not begin until January.
What also occurred at the end of December was that Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu had just arrived in the US, where according to sources cited by Axios News, he was urging the US President to strike Iran. All of a sudden, violent rioters just so happened to hijack the totally peaceful protests and ignite a campaign of utter chaos.
The Western corporate media claims that the rioters, whom they refer to as “protesters”, were overwhelmingly peaceful and were subjected to massacres. They also acknowledge that over 160 Iranian security force members were killed over only a matter of days. Which begs the question, during which peaceful protest movements in history have there been so many members of the security forces killed over such a short period of time?
It’s not only police officers, as many civilians were brutally beaten to death by the rioters, as others were burned alive, and there were even cases of beheadings; women and children were also murdered by these rioters.
Peaceful protesters don’t attack 250 mosques, 20 religious centers, thousands of private vehicles, 364 large stores, 419 small shops, 182 ambulances, 4,700 bank branches, 1,400 ATM’s, 265 schools, 3 major libraries, 8 cultural heritage and tourism sites and 4 cinemas. They also don’t burn the Quran in the streets, destroy bus stops, the metro stations, burn down buses, or carry firearms and explosive devices. Although the exact statistics are difficult to ascertain and cannot yet be confirmed, these are the ones provided from sources inside Iran. At the very least, there is video evidence to confirm attacks on these targets.
The evidence about what just happened is there for the world to see. The statistics for the overall death toll range so dramatically that determining it at this moment has been rendered impossible. From the videos and photos of the bodies in morgues, it would appear as if hundreds are dead at the least.
There was no anti-government protest that numbered more than into the tens of thousands, at most, it was more likely only thousands, according to the footage available. Most of these riots and gatherings were small, not more than a few hundred, and in some cases, there were only small teams of men who showed up to cause chaos and then quickly ran away.
On the other hand, the pro-government protests numbered in the millions across the country. Initially, some tried to deny the footage and make up all kinds of lies about it. Everything from “that’s old” to “that’s AI” was claimed. Finally, when these excuses wore out, the pro-regime change media pivoted to “they were coerced”.
Days after the anti-government riots and protests had ended, the Western corporate media and Zionist social media influencers were still sharing old footage to claim that their imaginary “revolution” was still ongoing.
Without going into every minute detail, it suffices to say that the pro-regime change media and social media influencers are simply living in a parallel universe when it comes to this topic. It is impossible to even argue with them, they make up anything they choose and care not for objective realities.
As in any country, there are legitimate grievances from the people against their government in Iran, but these riots had nothing to do with the popular will and beliefs of the masses, this was an Israeli Mossad backed attempt to destabilize the country, then used to justify military intervention.
For saying this, you will be labelled, just as we were labelled before. But the truth is the truth: regime change in Iran serves the Israelis. Iran is the only country, along with the Ansar Allah government in Yemen, that has backed the Palestinians and retaliated against “Israel”. Tehran backs the Palestinian Resistance, which is why it is being targeted for regime change. If it were to abandon its values and the Palestinian cause tomorrow, the regime change threats against it would cease outright.
The posturing here (Washington) and there (London and Brussels) around Greenland is just one key indicator of the disintegration of the Western world, which must be included in a sui generis approach.
Indeed, far from being a mere Arctic territory, the island of Greenland reflects a decaying Western world, where alliances are crumbling under the weight of their own duplicity. Europe, paying dearly for its vassalage, is discovering that its American friend is a predator; while NATO, far from being a bulwark of peace, is a shadow play where former allies stab each other in the back, all the while smiling for the cameras. What if Greenland, this white and silent land, were to become the loudest stage for the disintegration of this alliance founded on lies? What if, beneath the melting icebergs, the immutable truth of a vassalized Europe, a predatory America, and an Atlantic alliance that has never been anything but a pact of convenience, cemented not by trust, but by a common hatred of the Other – yesterday the USSR, today China and Russia? Greenland, far from being a periphery, has become the nerve center of a simmering confrontation between “allies” who silently hate each other.
From a geostrategic perspective, this article demonstrates, based on the convergence of the questions raised, how the posturing, first American, then European, around Greenland reveals the long-hidden enmity of the North Atlantic allies.
Greenland, a strategic sentinel and the scene of competitive imperialism
In reality, Greenland has never been a forgotten territory. Since the Cold War (1947-1991), it has been a key component of the American military apparatus. The Thule Air Base, established in 1951, was imposed without consulting the Greenlanders, or even the Danish Parliament. It was not cooperation, but a disguised occupation. Greenland has never been a partner in the true sense of the word; it has always been an outpost, a buffer zone, a territory to be monitored, exploited, and militarized. In this context, NATO is merely a convenient smokescreen for unilateral domination.
But it was in 2019 that the absurdity became truly revealing. Donald Trump, in a fit of imperial brutality, proposed buying the island, which, it argued, was autonomous from Copenhagen, so close to it, and from the rest of the world, so far away. Europe, true to its role as a diplomatic bystander, offered only half-hearted indignation. Denmark, humiliated, protested weakly, then fell silent. For Europe had long ago traded its sovereignty for an illusion of protection, supposedly guaranteed by the American nuclear umbrella. Today, it is paying, in full, the price of its servility and vassalage to Washington. Greenland thus became the symbol of a Europe that, even humiliated, continues to bow its head, convinced that humiliation is the price of security. Will it break free from Washington this time? I don’t think so. not having prepared for this, and not having the means to do so anyway.
In 2025, and then again in January 2026, the situation shifted dramatically. Faced with Trump’s repeated threats to “buy up or, failing that, invade” the island, European chancelleries, initially paralyzed with fear, finally reacted. Not out of courage, but out of an instinct for survival. Fearing a de facto annexation of the territory by the United States, several European countries – France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Finland, Norway, the Netherlands, and, of course, Denmark – decided to discreetly send troops to Greenland, after the failure of talks between the United States and Denmark, under the guise of Arctic cooperation and rather pathetic military exercises. This deployment, unprecedented since the end of World War II in 1945, marked a turning point where Europe, without daring to name its adversary, began to treat Washington as a strategic threat. The first European soldiers thus set foot on Greenlandic soil, not to defend NATO, but to contain the ally that had become a predator. Unpredictable, Trumpism is now a political science in Europe.
Since 2020, the United States has methodically strengthened its grip on Greenland with the opening of a consulate in Nuuk, massive investments in infrastructure, funding of mining projects, and, above all, the deployment of radar and surveillance equipment without prior consultation. Washington does not negotiate; it imposes. Greenland is becoming the focal point of an intra-Western war of influence, where each side seeks to appropriate Arctic resources under the guise of collective security. NATO, far from being a pact of solidarity, is proving to be a hidden battleground between rival Western powers.
An alliance built on hatred, undermined by duplicity
NATO, founded in 1949, has never been an alliance of equals. It was a coalition of convenience, united by fear of Moscow, and later Beijing. But from the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 onward, cracks began to appear, leading to the war in Iraq (2003), the intervention in Libya (2011), tensions over military spending, and disagreements over China. Greenland, today, reveals this structural hypocrisy; and, taken aback, the rest of the world is astonished and wonders: will the world finally be freed from the Western violence and terror that the peoples of the Global South, and even others within the Western sphere of influence, have suffered since 1945?
While Donald Trump ordered an illegal military operation in Venezuela on the night of January 2-3, 2026 – an operation that resulted in the abduction of the constitutional president, Nicolás Maduro, and his wife, Cilia Flores, who were then exfiltrated and tried in the United States in a sham extraterritorial trial – far from condemning this flagrant violation of international law, European leaders rushed to downplay it, minimize its significance, and justify the unjustifiable, as if it were a mere diplomatic adjustment. And when he demanded, in a truly imperial whim, that Denmark sell him Greenland, they ignored his outrageous demands and looked the other way, as if the Venezuelan episode had never happened. Yet, in the hushed corridors of power, one truth is undeniable: Washington is now perceived more as an enemy than an ally. This feigned loyalty, this diplomatic servility, is proving more dangerous today than open resistance. For it feeds Washington’s arrogance while simultaneously undermining the very foundations of European sovereignty.
The paradox in all of this is that Europeans realized, too late, that Washington is more of an enemy than an ally. An enemy that doesn’t bomb their cities, but humiliates their leaders, dictates their energy policies, sabotages their industrial projects (see the Alstom affair in 2014), and drags them into wars they didn’t choose, as the annals of the history of destabilizing military interventions by the NATO coalition clearly show. A predatory coalition under whose cover have been hidden free-riding states , incapable of pursuing an independent policy and deprived of any military, industrial, logistical, and financial autonomy, and which, through strategic opportunism and collective action, have contributed to the destruction of sovereign states like Libya. By becoming a pawn in this circumvented sovereignty, Greenland reveals this dynamic of tacit consent to domination.
In fact, NATO is now nothing more than a shadow play, where former allies act out a drama written in Washington. Europe, a docile spectator, zealously recites its role, even when it demands betraying its own interests. Greenland, by exposing this duplicity, becomes the mirror of an alliance that was never founded on trust but on a shared hatred – first of Russia, then of China, of course. And what is built on hatred can only implode into mistrust.
The world will remember that it took a divergence of interests over an island for the North Atlantic allies to split, presenting to the rest of the world a key indicator of the disintegration of the Western world, so desired and so long awaited to consolidate economic polycentrism and multipolarity in international relations.
In conclusion, as Brussels and London realize that Washington is more of an enemy than a friend, the transition to a multipolar world is now only a matter of time.
It remains to be seen whether they (Europeans) will remain at the feet of the master (Washington) for much longer, affectionately wagging the tail.
Mohamed Lamine KABA, Expert in the geopolitics of governance and regional integration, Institute of Governance, Human and Social Sciences, Pan-African University
The latest Substack from Sy Hersh is a doozy because it is rife with false claims and propaganda. I have known Sy for 45 years and consider him a dear friend. His latest article is an abomination and, in my opinion, represents a stain on his legacy. I feel like I’m watching a basketball legend who is still trying to play the game, but he can no longer run or shoot the basketball. To continue the basketball metaphor, this latest article from Sy is an air ball shot from the free throw line… It does not even hit the rim.
The article is titled, PUTIN’S LONG WAR, and it is an unwitting indictment of the US intelligence community’s analytical competence. The opening paragraph sets the tone for the piece:
Despair and anger are growing in some parts of the US intelligence community about Vladimir Putin’s refusal to consider ending the war with Ukraine. The Russian president is facing devastating economic problems at home and is ignoring his restless senior military command—in pursuit of what?
Despair and anger? What the hell!!! Why despair? Is this an admission that the CIA’s plans to defeat Russia are in ruins? Is the CIA, or some other component of the intelligence community, agonizingly frustrated because Vladimir Putin won’t perform as a dancing organ grinder’s monkey? Ditto for the anger bit.
But it is the last sentence that is a stunner because the official (or officials) talking to Trump apparently genuinely believe that Russia faces devastating economic problems and that Putin — who has made at least three visits to the front lines in the last two months — is ignoring the Russian General Staff. Nonsense!
Here is the next whopper of a lie in this article:
Businesses are reeling and shops are closing—in part due to international sanctions—in Moscow and throughout Russia.
More Male Bovine Excrement… I’ve been to Moscow twice in the last four months and saw nothing of the sort. Businesses were thriving, not closing up shop. The latest Levada poll (independent, non governmental) just recently released reports Putin’s current approval ratings at a whopping 85%!!! If the economy was collapsing there is no way that he could be so popular!
Sy’s next paragraph reveals the lack of critical thinking on the part of his source:
One experienced US official, who has been involved in Russian issues for decades, remains both mystified and frustrated by Putin’s refusal last fall to accept an American offer, approved by President Donald Trump but bitterly resented by Ukraine. . . “As of January,” he told me, “Russia’s war with Ukraine will have lasted longer than their war with Germany. In 1945, they were in Berlin. In 2026 they won’t even control Donetsk,” an eastern Ukrainian province with a large Russian-speaking population that shares a border with Russia.
Yeah, Russia’s military really sucks. They are fighting a NATO-proxy army that has the full backing of NATO, which includes advanced weaponry and sophisticated intelligence, and are advancing all along the line of contact… Just not as fast as this clown in Washington, who is gibbering away to Sy, believes that Russia should move. So if Russia’s slow pace is an indictment of its military competence, what does that say about the US military, which spent 21 years fighting in Afghanistan against lightly-armed insurgents — who had no foreign backing — and fled the country in August 2021, leaving behind $7.1–7.2 billion worth of US-funded military equipment. Trump officials who live in big glass houses should not be throwing rocks at a brick house.
Next, Sy regurgitates a demonstrably false claim provided by his source:
“Putin knows the ghost in the Kremlin closet,” he said, “is revolution.” The official quoted General Valery Gerasimov, the Russian chief of staff: “I no longer have an army. My tanks and armored vehicles are junk, my artillery barrels worn out. My supplies intermittent. My sergeants and mid-grade officers dead, and my rank and file ex-convicts.”
This official is lying. Let’s examine recent public comments from Gerasimov (and they are on video) about the condition of the army that he leads:
In late December briefings (e.g., December 29 meeting with Putin and commanders), Gerasimov reported that Russian forces had liberated 334 settlements and over 6,400 square kilometers throughout 2025 overall, framing the army as steadily pushing deeper into Ukrainian defenses with consistent momentum.
On December 31, 2025, during an inspection of the Sever (North) Grouping of Forces command post, Gerasimov stated that Russian troops were “confidently advancing deep into enemy defenses” and that December 2025 saw the highest rates of offensive operations by the Russian army. He highlighted the liberation of over 700 square kilometers of territory in a month, the expansion of a “security zone” near the Russian border (in Sumy and Kharkiv regions), and the occupation of seven settlements. He described these as record paces and tied them to fulfilling objectives set by President Putin for border security in Belgorod and Kursk regions.
On January 15, 2026, while inspecting the Tsentr (Center) Grouping of Forces in the Donetsk direction, Gerasimov praised the group’s advances in liberating parts of the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR). He claimed Russian forces were advancing “in virtually all directions” on the front, that Ukrainian attempts to halt them were unsuccessful, and that over 300 square kilometers had been seized in the first two weeks of January alone. He also reiterated ongoing successes in areas like Kupyansk (claiming final stages of control) and emphasized high operational tempo.
I can understand why this unnamed offical would lie, but I don’t understand why Sy is so gullible. He is allowing himself to be used as a propaganda mouthpiece. The next paragraph belongs in an episode of the Twilight Zone:
“The West reached the same stalemate conclusions and seeks to undermine Putin’s internal resolve. Not by military attack but with economic sanctions which affect the elites as well as the population as a whole. It is working—the standard of living is dropping rapidly as taxes, isolation, and casualties grow. Disillusionment and resentment are increasing. Last weekend Russia shut down all cell phone use and mobile internet service nationwide.”
Let’s start with the big lie… i.e., Last weekend Russia shut down all cell phone use and mobile internet service nationwide.” I exchanged messages with a number of people in Russia — three of them Americans — over the weekend. They all had functioning cell phones and mobile internet service. I asked one of my friends (he is a retired US Army officer who attended West Point, and now is a permanent resident of Russia) about life in Moscow. Here is what he told me via a cell phone text message that is supposedly not working:
There have been some internet access problems. Whatsapp is becoming less usable, but most people switch to Telegram or something else. The internal messenger service, Max, still has some glitches, especially for people with older iPhones like my wife and me. I read someplace that it will only work in iPhone 15 or newer models. If that’s so, it’s definitely a screwup or glitch. However, most people have Chinese made Android smart phones, and our kids’ Androids were easily able to upload Max on them.
I just bought two boxes of eggs on Tuesday afternoon. My wife asked me to get a particular brand found at one of the nearby supermarket chains, two of which are within very close walking range (2 blocks!).
Eggs are sold here mostly by the metric dozen: 10 eggs.
At the time I bought them, the exchange rate was 77.78 rubles = $1.00 USD.
One metric dozen cost me 54.99 rubles! That’s 10 eggs for 71 cents ($0.71)! That’s 7.1 cents per egg, and is the equivalent of $0.85 for 12 eggs!
This is one of the most basic high quality and high protein staples, non-GMO!
Studies have shown that most salaries have actually gone up! Of course, it also all depends on what business or line of work people are in. Sure, inflation is still present, and taxes have gone up somewhat. But isn’t that happening all over the world? I dare say that these economic effects are a lot better than in many other countries in the West.
Electricity, home internet and mobile phone bills are so cheap compared to when we lived in the US that it is laughable!
Medical bills are zilch! as one can pay if one wants to. But my wife and I have both had major (cutting open) and minor surgical procedures, all absolutely free! Kids, too, of course. We had to pay for my son’s braces, but that was also a pittance compared to what they charge in the States.
As an official retiree/pensioner, I can have orthopedic dental work now done for free! I need another implant, as I had to have a tooth extracted several months ago. They told me that after 6 months, that they can give me a new implant there.
If I order a Swiss implant, it would cost me 55 000 rubles ($708 USD). What the heck do I care? I’ll have a Russian made implant for free. Heck, I turn 74 next month. Who needs a fancy Swiss implant?
I also have free public transportation now. And because our daughter is handicapped, she and my wife also have free public transportation. (Not long distance trains, but for almost anywhere within both Moscow and the Moscow oblast.)
Let me remind you, this is the testimony of a retired US Special Forces officer. If this official who is talking to Sy Hersh is also briefing Donald Trump then we cannot blame Trump for failing to understand the actual situation on the ground in Ukraine… He is being fed monstrous lies.
One final point about the alleged economic distress in Russia. The official told Sy:
“The army is losing respect, national oil and gas income is down 22 percent and with no ability to borrow from abroad to finance the war with Ukraine.
While it is true that oil and gas revenues are down, the official apparently forgot to mention that the oil and gas sector (including production, not just budget taxes) was 9.67% of GDP in 2021, according to the World Bank. Statista/Rosstat data show the oil and gas industry’s share in GDP hovering around 10–15% in recent quarters (through mid-2024; 2025 figures not fully updated but consistent with downward pressure).
With respect to finances, Russia’s deficit widened to 2.6% of GDP in 2025 (highest since 2020), partly due to this revenue shortfall. But that is half of the financial challenges confronting the US… For Fiscal Year 2025 (ended September 30, 2025): The deficit was 5.9% of GDP, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) final Monthly Budget Review and Treasury data. This reflects a total deficit of $1.8 trillion (down slightly from $1.84 trillion or 6.3% in FY 2024).
When we look at the comparative debt-to-GDP ratios for Russia and the United States, we get a clearer picture of which country is facing financial disaster. Russia has a debt-to GDP ratio of 16–20% while the United States‘ ratio is a gargantuan 118–125% (gross federal debt), which is more than 6 times Russia’s level. The US ratio is among the highest for advanced economies, driven by persistent large deficits (5.9% of GDP in FY 2025), pandemic-era spending, and structural issues like entitlement growth. Russia’s debt burden is far lighter relative to its economy, giving it more fiscal flexibility despite sanctions and defense spending. By contrast, the US faces greater long-term challenges from interest costs and entitlement pressures.
I do not know if Sy’s source genuinely believes the pack of lies he fed to Sy, or if he is engaged in some sort of misinformation operation designed to keep the American public in the dark. Either way, Sy got played.
Here are my latest podcasts. The first is an abbreviated conversation with Danny Davis. The second is my session, recorded last Friday, with Pascual Lottaz of Neutrality Studies. The last video comes courtesy of Marcello, who is temporarily in Brazil:
The European Parliament has voted to refer a trade agreement with the South American bloc Mercosur to the EU Court of Justice (CJEU). The move comes amid criticism of Commission President Ursula von der Leyen for bypassing normal EU procedures and widespread protests from farmers across the bloc.
On Saturday, the EU signed a trade pact with Mercosur members Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay. The agreement that was projected to create the world’s biggest free trade zone still requires approval before it can take effect.
On Wednesday, the EU Parliament voted 334 in favor to 324 against, with 11 abstentions, to ask the CJEU to determine whether the deal is compatible with the bloc’s rules. The move now significantly delays the pact that had been negotiated for 25 years, and could potentially derail final approval.
The vote took place against the backdrop of criticism of von der Leyen for handling the Mercosur deal in a non-transparent way, splitting it into separate agreements to bypass national parliaments and reduce the European Parliament’s role to a formal opinion.
The deal has also faced widespread resistance from the agricultural sector, with farmers across the bloc staging mass protests over concerns that cheap imports could undercut their livelihoods. The latest rally began on Tuesday outside the European Parliament in Strasbourg and drew support from some lawmakers, continued overnight, and ended on Wednesday.
Von der Leyen had pushed the deal, describing it as a “clear and deliberate choice,” highlighting that the EU opts for “fair trade over tariffs” and “a productive long-term partnership over isolation.” The pact came just six months after she signed an agreement with US President Donald Trump that imposed a 15% tariff on most EU exports. The EC president faced strong pushback over the US deal from current and former EU officials and heads of member states.
The EU is Mercosur’s second-largest trading partner, accounting for nearly 17% of the bloc’s total trade in 2024, at €111 billion.
Russia has benefited from a surge in gold prices since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict, earning windfall gains comparable to the value of the country’s sovereign reserves frozen in the West, Bloomberg reported on Tuesday.
The Bank of Russia’s gold holdings have gained over $216 billion since February 2022, calculations show.
Western countries froze about $300 billion in Russian central bank assets as part of Ukraine-related sanctions. The majority of the funds are held at Belgium-based depository Euroclear. The EU has been debating using the funds as collateral for a so-called ‘reparations loan’ for Kiev, and in December extended the freeze with a long-term measure that would keep the assets blocked indefinitely.
The rise in the value of Russia’s gold holdings restores much of the country’s lost financial capacity, even if blocked reserves remain inaccessible, the outlet said. Unlike securities and cash frozen in Europe, the metal can still be sold or used as collateral if needed.
The value of Russia’s gold reserves more than doubled from February 2022 through end-2025, while holdings of foreign currencies and assets fell by about 14%, central bank data show. Gold now comprises 43% of total reserves, up from 21% prior to the Ukraine conflict.
Total international reserves stood at $754.8 billion as of January 1, data showed, with monetary gold accounting for $326.5 billion. The bank’s gold holdings were valued at $141 billion on February 1, 2022.
Gold prices have surged over the past four years, jumping by 60% in 2025 alone, driven by robust demand from central banks, persistent inflation concerns, and heightened geopolitical tensions.
Precious metal futures surged to a record high on Tuesday, surpassing $4,720 per ounce and marking a 2.71% gain, exchange data showed. Analysts linked the rally to increased geopolitical risks, including US President Donald Trump’s renewed tariff threats against European countries opposed to his Greenland takeover plan.
The Russian Finance Ministry expects gold prices to continue to climb towards $5,000 per ounce and beyond.
Deputy Finance Minister Aleksey Moiseev said in December that the current rally stems from eroding confidence in global reserve currencies, adding that attempts to expropriate Russian assets are further bolstering demand.
Australia’s federal Parliament has enacted a broad new legal package targeting hate, antisemitism, and extremism, passing the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026 with strong majorities in both chambers.
The bill has several implications regarding free speech.
The House of Representatives approved it 116 Ayes to 7 Noes, and the Senate passed it 38 Ayes to 22 Noes, sending it into law after an expedited process in response to rising public concern about hate-motivated violence.
The government framed the legislation as part of its response to the deadly December terror attack at Bondi Beach that left 15 people dead and focused debate on enhancing public safety and national unity.
Attorney General Michelle Rowland and other ministers repeatedly described the new framework as needed to strengthen legal tools against violent hate and extremism.
In earlier official statements, Rowland said of the proposal: “Once these laws are passed, they will be the toughest hate laws Australia has ever seen.”
Under this new law, a range of conduct tied to hatred or perceived threat can trigger criminal liability, including organizing, supporting, or being involved with groups that authorities designate as engaging in hate-based conduct.
A new framework allows the Australian Federal Police Minister to recommend that such groups be listed as “prohibited hate groups.” Being a member of such a group, recruiting, training, or financially supporting it are offenses with penalties that can extend up to 15 years in prison.
The Bill grants the executive branch power to designate organizations as prohibited hate groups through regulation. This decision is made by the AFP Minister, based on reasonable satisfaction, with advice from intelligence agencies.
Crucially, the legislation explicitly removes any requirement for procedural fairness in this process.
An organization may be listed even if:
No criminal conviction has occurred
The relevant conduct occurred before the law existed
The organization is based outside Australia
The evidence relied upon is classified and undisclosed
Once an organization is listed, the consequences are severe. Membership, recruitment, training, funding, or providing support becomes a serious criminal offense carrying lengthy prison terms.
The criminal provisions for hate conduct are built around whether specific public behavior would cause a reasonable person in the target group “to feel intimidated, to fear harassment or violence, or to fear for their safety.”
This standard can apply even where there is no evidence that anyone actually experienced fear or harm. The definition is tied to subjective perceptions of risk, rather than solely observable incitement to violence.
The Bill expands the “reasonable person” test used in hate-related offenses. Speech may now be criminal if a so-called reasonable person in the targeted group would consider it offensive, insulting, humiliating, or intimidating. Violence or threats of violence are not required.
This standard introduces subjectivity into criminal law. Political speech on immigration, religion, nationalism, or identity frequently causes offense or humiliation to some audiences.
Under this framework, harsh criticism, protest slogans, or satire could attract criminal liability based on emotional impact rather than demonstrable harm.
A democratic society depends on the ability to offend, challenge, and provoke. Criminalizing offense risks sanitizing public debate into only what is officially acceptable.
The legislation also expands the existing ban on “prohibited hate symbols,” creating criminal offenses for displays of banned symbols unless justified on narrow grounds such as religious, academic, journalistic, or artistic use.
While proponents argue this targets conduct that fuels hatred, similar symbolic bans in other jurisdictions such as Germany have often ensnared educational or historical contexts.
The Bill also significantly alters existing offenses relating to prohibited symbols. Previously, exemptions for religious, academic, artistic, or journalistic purposes operated as clear carve-outs. Under the new framework, the defendant bears the evidential burden of proving that their conduct was for a protected purpose and was not contrary to the public interest.
This reversal matters. The presumption shifts from lawful expression to presumed criminality unless the speaker can justify themselves after the fact.
Journalists must demonstrate that they were acting in a professional capacity and that their reporting met an undefined public-interest standard. Artists, educators, and researchers face similar uncertainty.
Such burden-shifting mechanisms are well known to chill speech, particularly in investigative journalism and political commentary where legal certainty is essential.
Migration rules have been significantly altered. The law amplifies the Home Affairs Minister’s powers to refuse entry or cancel visas for non-citizens judged to be associated with extremist groups or hate conduct.
Free speech defenders have warned that the combination of low subjective thresholds and expanded administrative powers creates risks that lawful expression, dissenting views, or controversial speech could be swept into criminal or immigration sanctions.
They argue that this effect stems from how the law equates emotional or perceived intimidation with actionable hate, a departure from frameworks where provable harm or incitement to violence is required.
Taken together, these provisions produce a powerful chilling effect across political communication, journalism, academic inquiry, religious teaching, and civil association.
The cumulative structure of the Bill incentivizes silence, conformity, and disengagement from controversial debate. In a country that relies on an implied, rather than explicit, freedom of political communication, this legislation tests the outer limits of democratic tolerance.
A confrontation over a Facebook comment has drawn attention after two Miami Beach police detectives appeared at a resident’s home to question her about remarks critical of Mayor Steven Meiner.
Raquel Pacheco, who once ran for the Florida Senate as a Democrat and has been openly critical of Meiner, posted a comment on one of his social media updates alleging that the mayor “consistently calls for the death of all Palestinians, tried to shut down a theater for showing a movie that hurt his feelings, and REFUSES to stand up for the LGBTQ community in any way…”
Shortly afterward, officers arrived at her residence. In a video she recorded, one detective cautioned her that such a statement “could potentially incite somebody to do something radical.”
Police later clarified that the exchange was not tied to any criminal probe, but the encounter has raised concerns about policing free expression.
In a letter addressed to Police Chief Wayne Jones, FIRE described the officers’ actions as “an egregious abuse of power” that “chills the exercise of First Amendment rights and undermines public confidence in the department’s commitment to respecting civil liberties and the United States Constitution.”
Aaron Terr, Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE)’s director of public advocacy, accused the department of using its authority to discourage lawful speech.
“The purpose of their visit was not to investigate a crime. It had no purpose other than to pressure Pacheco to cease engaging in protected political expression over concern about how others might react to it,” Terr wrote. “This blatant overreach is offensive to the First Amendment.”
FIRE’s letter urged the department to acknowledge publicly that Pacheco’s post is constitutionally protected and to ensure that “officers will never initiate contact with individuals for the purpose of discouraging lawful expression.”
The organization also asked for copies of departmental rules and training materials dealing with police responses to protected expression, adding that the resident’s statement does not fit the legal definition of a “true threat.”
Chief Jones, in a written response, maintained that the detectives acted appropriately and on his directive alone. “At no time did the Mayor or any other official direct me to take action,” he said, adding that his department “is committed to safeguarding residents and visitors while also respecting constitutional rights.”
A police spokesperson confirmed that Meiner’s office had flagged the Facebook comment for review but declined to provide further details.
Requests for additional records, including internal communications between the mayor’s office and the police, remain pending.
Let me take you on a tour of Britain’s future. It’s 2030, there are more surveillance cameras than people, your toaster is reporting your breakfast habits to the Home Office, and police officers are no longer investigating crimes so much as predicting them.
This is Pre-Crime UK, where the weight of the law is used against innocent people that an algorithm suspects may be about to commit a crime.
With a proposal that would make Orwell blush, the British police are testing a hundred new AI systems to figure out which ones can best guess who’s going to commit a crime.
That’s right: guess. Not catch, not prove. Guess. Based on data, assumptions, and probably your internet search history from 2011.
Behind this algorithmic escapade is Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood, who has apparently spent the last few years reading prison blueprints and dystopian fiction, not as a warning about authoritarian surveillance, but as aspiration.
In a jaw-dropping interview with former Prime Minister and Digital ID peddler Tony Blair, she said, with her whole chest: “When I was in justice, my ultimate vision for that part of the criminal justice system was to achieve, by means of AI and technology, what Jeremy Bentham tried to do with his Panopticon. That is that the eyes of the state can be on you at all times.”
Now, for those not fluent in 18th-century authoritarian architecture, the Panopticon is a prison design where a single guard can watch every inmate, but the inmates never know when they’re being watched. It’s not so much “law and order” as it is “paranoia with plumbing.”
Enter Andy Marsh, the head of the College of Policing and the man now pitching Britain’s very own Minority Report.
According to the Telegraph, he’s proposing a new system that uses predictive analytics to identify and target the top 1,000 most dangerous men in the country. They’re calling it the “V1000 Plan,” which sounds less like a policing strategy and more like a discontinued vacuum cleaner.
“We know the data and case histories tell us that, unfortunately, it’s far from uncommon for these individuals to move from one female victim to another,” said Sir Andy, with the tone of a man about to launch an app.
“So what we want to do is use these predictive tools to take the battle to those individuals… the police are coming after them, and we’re going to lock them up.”
I mean, sure, great headline. Go after predators. But once you start using data models to tell you who might commit a crime, you’re not fighting criminals anymore. You’re fighting probability.
The government, always eager to blow millions on a glorified spreadsheet, is chucking £4 million ($5.39M) at a project to build an “interactive AI-driven map” that will pinpoint where crime might happen. Not where it has happened. Where it might.
It will reportedly predict knife crimes and spot antisocial behavior before it kicks off.
But don’t worry, says the government. This isn’t about watching everyone.
A “source” clarified: “This doesn’t mean watching people who are non-criminals—but she [Mahmood] feels like, if you commit a crime, you sacrifice the right to the kind of liberty the rest of us enjoy.”
That’s not very comforting coming from a government that locks people up over tweets.
Meanwhile, over in Manchester, they’re trying out “AI assistants” for officers dealing with domestic violence.
These robo-cop co-pilots can tell officers what to say, how to file reports, and whether or not to pursue an order. It’s less “serve and protect” and more “ask Jeeves.”
“If you were to spend 24 hours on the shoulder of a sergeant currently, you would be disappointed at the amount of time that the sergeant spends checking and not patrolling, leading and protecting.”
That’s probably true. But is the solution really to strap Siri to their epaulettes and hope for the best?
Still, Mahmood remains upbeat: “AI is an incredibly powerful tool that can and should be used by our police forces,” she told MPs, before adding that it needs to be accurate.
Tell that to Shaun Thompson, not a criminal but an anti-knife crime campaigner, who found himself on the receiving end of the Metropolitan Police’s all-seeing robo-eye. One minute, he’s walking near London Bridge, probably thinking about lunch or how to fix society, and the next minute he’s being yanked aside because the police’s shiny new facial recognition system decided he looked like a wanted man.
He wasn’t. He had done nothing wrong. But the system said otherwise, so naturally, the officers followed orders from their algorithm overlord and detained him.
Thompson was only released after proving who he was, presumably with some documents and a great deal of disbelief. Later, he summed it up perfectly: he was treated as “guilty until proven innocent.”
Mahmood’s upcoming white paper will apparently include guidelines for AI usage. I’m sure all those future wrongful arrests will be much more palatable when they come with a printed PDF.
Here’s the actual problem. Once you normalize the idea that police can monitor everyone, predict crimes, and act preemptively, there’s no clean way back. You’ve turned suspicion into policy. You’ve built a justice system on guesswork. And no amount of shiny dashboards or facial recognition cameras is going to fix the rot at the core.
This isn’t about catching criminals. It’s about control. About making everyone feel watched. That was the true intention of the panopticon. And that isn’t safety; it’s turning the country into one big prison.
The announcement arrived wrapped in the familiar choreography of diplomacy. Carefully chosen language, optimistic briefings, and reassurances that the war on Gaza had reached a new stage, one that would ease suffering and open the door to political reordering.
According to Washington, “phase two” of the ceasefire agreement had begun, signaling a move away from annihilation toward stability, governance, and transition.
In Gaza, the reality was less abstract. Israeli drones continued to hover above neighborhoods already reduced to rubble, Rafah remained sealed, bodies still arrived at hospitals, and Israeli forces showed no sign of withdrawal.
Aid trickled in sporadically, reconstruction remained a distant promise, and the daily mechanics of siege carried on uninterrupted. Nothing that defines a genuine shift in conditions or authority had materially changed, except the vocabulary used to describe it.
The question raised by the US announcement is therefore not whether ‘phase two’ has begun, but whether it was ever intended to exist as anything more than a political abstraction.
Is this a real transition in the trajectory of the war, or another exercise in linguistic repackaging meant to stabilize Israel’s position without addressing the foundations of the conflict itself?
The historical record leaves little room for doubt. US involvement in Palestine has consistently revolved around managing the scale and visibility of violence, calibrating its intensity in ways that safeguard Israel’s strategic dominance while containing diplomatic fallout.
Read in this context, ‘phase two’ emerges as a political device rather than a substantive shift. It is a framework meant to absorb the aftermath of mass destruction, shield Israel from international isolation, and reorder Palestinian life under post-war conditions, all while leaving untouched the structures that made the war inevitable.
A declaration without enforcement
Ibrahim al-Madhoun, a Palestinian writer and political analyst close to Hamas, tells The Cradle that Washington’s announcement amounts to nothing more than “a political position rather than a genuine transition on the ground,” especially given Israel’s failure to comply even with the terms of the first phase.
Israeli forces continue to expand what Palestinians refer to as the ‘Yellow Line,’ a militarized buffer zone that now consumes much of Gaza’s territory. Rafah remains closed, essential goods are blocked, targeted killings continue, and no meaningful reconstruction effort has begun. The conditions that defined the war before the ceasefire remain largely intact beneath a layer of diplomatic messaging.
Hazem Qassem, Hamas’s official spokesperson, echoes this assessment, acknowledging that while the announcement appears positive in form, “what has happened so far is a media declaration that requires concrete steps on the ground.” He emphasizes that Israel has failed to meet even the benchmarks of phase one, making any talk of a second phase more aspirational than real.
In the logic of international relations, a political declaration without enforcement mechanisms is no declaration at all. The US, which possesses full capacity to pressure Israel, has once again chosen the role of “biased mediator” – or more accurately, a partner in re-engineering the war through less crude means.
Netanyahu’s moment of clarity
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s statement describing the move to the second phase of the Gaza agreement as “largely symbolic” cannot be read as a marginal opinion or personal estimate.
It is an official Israeli definition of the function of this phase. When Netanyahu makes such a statement immediately after Washington’s announcement, and in front of the families of captives, he makes it clear that Tel Aviv does not treat ‘phase two’ as a binding executive path, but as political and media cover, allowing it to manage time and pressure without offering substantive concessions.
More revealing still was Netanyahu’s dismissal of the proposed Palestinian governing committee as symbolic as well. The implication was unmistakable. Israel does not recognize any Palestinian administration, even one stripped of factional power and framed as technocratic, as a sovereign actor. At best, such bodies are temporary facades. At worst, they are obstacles to be bypassed or neutralized.
This position directly undermines Washington’s narrative of “phased transition.” Israel is not preparing to withdraw, hand over authority, or allow meaningful Palestinian governance to take root.
Instead, it is preserving the outer shell of an agreement while hollowing out its content, a strategy refined through decades of negotiations that maintained form while denying substance.
Seen in this light, the US announcement functions as crisis management rather than conflict resolution, while the Israeli response amounts to an admission that there is no intention to leave Gaza, empower Palestinians, or commit to a political timetable.
‘Phase two’ is designed to freeze escalation and manage fallout, not to dismantle the structures that made the war inevitable.
A first phase that never materialized
From the perspective of Palestinian factions, the premise of phase two is flawed because phase one never truly existed in practice.
Israel did not withdraw from the ‘Yellow Line,’ which now covers roughly 60 percent of Gaza’s land. It did not open the crossings, halt its killing campaign, or allow unrestricted aid. According to the Gaza Health Ministry, more than 460 Palestinians have been killed since the ceasefire was announced, alongside over 1,100 violations, according to Hamas, including assassinations and incursions that continued even as the agreement was being celebrated diplomatically.
These figures alone dismantle the notion of transition.
Speaking to The Cradle, Mahfouz Manwar, a senior figure in Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), argues “talk of a second phase is premature so long as Israel has not been compelled to implement the first phase.”
What exists, he says, is an agreement that survives on paper but has collapsed on the ground, with the concept of ‘phases’ repurposed as a mechanism to legitimize continued occupation at a reduced political cost.
What a real transition would require
If ‘phase two’ had genuinely begun, its indicators would be unmistakable. Israeli forces would withdraw from occupied areas, Rafah would open fully and without political conditions, targeted killings would cease, and reconstruction materials would begin entering Gaza at scale.
None of this has occurred.
Instead, Israel continues to use Rafah as a tool of pressure, blocking any Palestinian sovereign presence, even in its most symbolic form. Authority remains firmly in Israeli hands, reshaped through security arrangements that leave the underlying power balance intact. ‘Phase two,’ as it currently stands, operates as a managed delay rather than a move toward implementation.
At the center of the ‘phase two’ narrative lies the proposal for a transitional Palestinian administration in Gaza, a question that should not be treated as a bureaucratic detail but as a core indicator of whether any real shift is underway.
According to Madhoun and Qassem, Hamas approached the administrative committee as a Palestinian necessity rather than a concession to external pressure. The movement facilitated its formation, they argue, in order to ease humanitarian suffering and remove the pretexts used to justify continued war.
The principle of such a committee was agreed upon more than a year ago with Egyptian mediation, and clear criteria were established, including local representation from Gaza, independence from the occupation, and professional rather than factional qualifications. Disagreements over specific names did arise, as Madhoun acknowledges, but some were resolved through revisions while others remain under discussion, a dynamic that Manwar describes as natural within a fragmented national context.
What is striking, however, is the absence of Fatah from the Cairo talks, reflecting a deeper structural crisis in the Palestinian political system, where authority is fragmented and accountability diffuse. The more pressing question is not whether consensus exists, but whether Israel will permit any Palestinian body to function with real authority. Thus far, the answer has been unequivocally negative.
Administration without sovereignty
The proposed committee, reportedly headed by a former deputy planning minister in the Palestinian Authority (PA), Ali Shaath, and composed of roughly 14 professionals from Gaza, has been presented as a step toward Palestinian self-administration. In reality, the environment in which it is expected to operate exposes the limits of that claim.
The backgrounds of its members have reportedly been vetted by the US, Israel, and Egypt, while its authority is tied to international oversight structures, and its freedom of movement remains subject to Israeli approval. This produces a familiar paradox: a Palestinian body tasked with administering a territory over which it exercises no control.
There is no authority over borders, airspace, or crossings, and not even autonomy over the movement of its own personnel. What emerges is not governance in any meaningful sense, but service provision under occupation, a structure designed to manage humanitarian fallout without possessing the political tools to address its causes.
Decision-making power remains external, particularly through international mechanisms overseeing reconstruction funding, reproducing a well-worn model in which local administrators operate beneath an internationalized center of control.
Hamas and the politics of withdrawal
One of the most consequential developments in this phase is Hamas’s declaration that it is prepared to relinquish administrative control of Gaza without exiting the national struggle. According to the movement’s leadership, this reflects a genuine effort to facilitate relief rather than a tactical maneuver.
By stepping back from civil governance, Hamas removes the primary Israeli-American justification for continued war. If the movement is no longer administering Gaza, the argument that military operations are necessary to dismantle its rule loses coherence. Yet history suggests that governance was never the real issue, and that Palestinian existence itself has always been treated as the fundamental problem.
Weapons and coercion
The attempt to link reconstruction to disarmament is widely viewed by Palestinian factions as a form of political blackmail. Both Hamas and PIJ reject the premise outright, arguing that it seeks to impose politically what Israel failed to achieve militarily.
Qassem states that Hamas is open to regulating weapons within a national framework, but not to surrendering them. Manwar highlights the contradiction at the heart of Israeli claims: if Israel insists it has already destroyed the resistance’s military capabilities, why does disarmament remain a central demand?
The answer lies not in security, but in symbolism. Weapons in Gaza are not merely arms, but markers of agency, and stripping them away would transform the territory from a space of resistance into one managed externally through security arrangements.
A ceasefire without an endpoint
There is little evidence that ‘phase two’ leads toward a permanent end to the war. What exists instead is a fragile pause, vulnerable to collapse, in which phases are used to reposition rather than resolve.
In its current form, ‘phase two’ risks becoming a form of undeclared trusteeship, a humanitarian administration without sovereignty, or a gradual erosion of resistance under sustained pressure.
None of these outcomes constitutes peace.
Egypt, Qatar, Turkiye, and the US are presented as guarantors of the agreement, yet even American officials concede that there has been no progress on an International Stabilization Force (ISF) and that reopening Rafah ultimately remains an Israeli decision.
This admission captures the essence of the crisis. A second phase cannot succeed so long as Israel retains veto power over every operational detail. Only sustained pressure, not diplomatic optimism, can convert an agreement from text into lived reality.
What is unfolding in Gaza points away from any genuine transition toward peace and toward a reshaping of control under new terms. ‘Phase two’ has evolved into a test of Palestinian factions, regional mediators, and the credibility of international guarantees alike.
It will either open the way to an unconditional end to the war and meaningful reconstruction, or take its place among the many agreements reduced to form without substance.
Gaza, which endured annihilation without surrender, will not be subdued by administrative committees or phased rhetoric. The struggle has expanded beyond territory and military confrontation. It is now a battle over who defines politics, who controls humanitarianism, and who ultimately holds the right to decide.
Israeli occupation authorities bulldozed buildings inside the headquarters of the United Nations agency for Palestinian refugees (UNRWA) in eastern occupied al-Quds, as “Israel” intensifies restrictions on humanitarian organizations providing aid to Palestinians.
Local sources told the Palestinian news agency Wafa that Israeli troops, accompanied by bulldozers, stormed the UNRWA compound after sealing off surrounding streets and increasing their military presence. The forces then demolished structures inside the compound.
Later on Tuesday, Israeli occupation forces fired tear gas at a Palestinian trade school, marking a second incident targeting a UN facility in the same area.
Israeli officials present during the demolition
“Israel” has repeatedly accused UNRWA of pro-Palestine bias and alleged links to Hamas, without providing evidence, claims the agency has strongly denied.
“Israel’s” Ministry of Foreign Affairs said the demolition was carried out under a new “law” banning the organization.
Extremist Israeli Police Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir said he accompanied crews to the headquarters, calling the demolition a “historic day”.
On his part, Israeli-imposed deputy mayor of occupied al-Quds Aryeh King referred to UNRWA as “Nazi” in a post on X.
“I promised that we would kick the Nazi enemy out of Jerusalem,” he wrote. “Now it’s happening: UNRWA is being kicked out of Jerusalem!”
UNRWA denounces ‘open defiance of international law’
UNRWA Commissioner-General Philippe Lazzarini described the demolition as an “unprecedented attack” and “a new level of open & deliberate defiance of international law.”
“Like all UN Member States & countries committed to the international rule-based order, Israel is obliged to protect & respect the inviolability of UN premises,” he wrote in a post on X.
He added that similar measures could soon target other international organizations.
“There can be no exceptions. This must be a wake-up call,” Lazzarini stressed. “What happens today to UNRWA will happen tomorrow to any other international organization or diplomatic mission.”
UN demands immediate cessation of demolitions
On his part, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres condemned “in the strongest terms” the Israeli occupation forces’ demolition of the UNRWA Sheikh Jarrah compound, spokesperson Farhan Haq said during a news conference.
Citing the inviolability and immunity of UN premises, Haq said, “The Secretary-General views as wholly unacceptable the continued escalatory actions against UNRWA, which are inconsistent with Israel’s clear obligations under international law, including under the Charter of the United Nations and the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations.”
“The Secretary-General urges the Government of Israel to immediately cease the demolition of the UNRWA Sheikh Jarrah compound, and to return and restore the compound and other UNRWA premises to the United Nations without delay,” he added.
Aid groups face widespread restrictions
The move comes amid international condemnation following “Israel’s” ban on dozens of international aid organizations providing life-saving assistance to Palestinians in Gaza.
“Israel” has lately revoked the operating licences of 37 aid groups, including Doctors Without Borders (MSF) and the Norwegian Refugee Council, citing non-compliance with new government regulations.
Under the new rules, international NGOs working in Gaza and the occupied West Bank must provide detailed information on staff members, funding sources, and operational activities.
Last week, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that “Israel” could face proceedings at the International Court of Justice if it does not repeal laws targeting UNRWA and return seized assets.
In a January 8 letter, Guterres said the UN could not remain indifferent to “actions taken by Israel, which are in direct contravention of the obligations of Israel under international law. They must be reversed without delay.”
Laws targeting UNRWA expanded
“Israel’s” parliament passed legislation in October 2024 banning UNRWA from operating in “Israel” and prohibiting Israeli officials from engaging with the agency. The law was amended last month to ban electricity and water supplies to UNRWA facilities.
Israeli agricultural exports are collapsing under the weight of an expanding international boycott of “Israel”, driven largely by backlash over its war on Gaza, Jonathan Ofir writes for Mondoweiss. Reports aired by Kan 11 reveal a sharp decline in demand for Israeli mangos and citrus fruits, with settlers warning of imminent financial “collapse.”
In interviews, exporters say that Israeli fruit exports are being rejected by European buyers who now only consider purchasing Israeli produce when no alternatives are available. One farmer stated plainly, “They don’t want our mangos.”
Compounding the crisis was Ansar Allah’s Red Sea blockade, which disrupted shipping routes to Asian markets, pushing logistics costs up and delaying deliveries by months. Settlers say the new routes compromise fruit quality and profitability.
European markets withdraw as genocide condemnation grows
While no single factor has caused the breakdown of “Israel’s” fruit export market, the most consistent thread cited in Kan 11’s reporting is global outrage over the Gaza genocide. A widespread perception of Israeli impunity, underscored by public polling showing most Israelis believe there are “no innocents in Gaza,” has intensified calls to avoid Israeli products.
The economic consequences are already being felt in key agricultural hubs like Kibbutz Givat Haim Ichud and Kibbutz Ein Hahoresh, where settlers describe export losses as unsustainable. “Israeli fruit, despite its high quality, is currently less desired in Europe,” one settler admits.
Even Russia, a state under sanctions itself, is for now one of “Israel’s” few remaining markets. “We are now in the alliance of the boycotted,” says one settler.
Citrus and mango growers warn of industry collapse
The mango and citrus crisis has taken a visible toll. Settlers report rotting fruit, empty warehouses, and significant financial losses. Mango grower and retired general Moti Almoz says he’s left 25% of his crop unharvested, “I couldn’t do anything with them… people can’t just eat mango.”
In the north, out of 1,200 tons of mangoes, 700 are expected to rot on the ground. Smaller farms are attempting direct-to-customer sales, but say it won’t be enough to remain viable. “It’s a crisis the likes of which we haven’t ever experienced,” says another farmer.
The situation has escalated to the point that settlers are calling for state intervention. Without it, many warn that “Israel” may soon lose its entire export agriculture sector.
Hatred, denial, and the price of genocide
Despite the mounting crisis, some farmers refuse to sell to Palestinians, even if it would ease their losses. Almoz, whose produce once reached Gaza, says bluntly, “I’m done with them… If there’s a chance that I lose money because this [mango] turns into a Hamas interest, then I need to lose money.”
Such positions reflect how Israeli nationalism and denial of wrongdoing intersect with the economic consequences of genocide. Even as tears are shed over rotting fruit, there is little acknowledgment of the reason behind the boycott, the destruction of Gaza and its people.
By Jim Carey | Geopolitics Alert | February 13, 2019
Caracas – In an interview over the weekend, “interim President” of Venezuela Juan Guaido promised he would work on restoring relations with Israel.
Despite not actually having a government or being in any type of official position of power within Venezuela Juan Guaido is still somehow making big promises. Last week it was the promise to sell oil he doesn’t control to the US and this week he is setting foreign policy for a state, a military, and a diplomatic core that he doesn’t have.
Regardless of Juan Guaido’s material position, Israel has been more than willing to indulge in the US fantasy in Venezuela and was one of the early states to recognize the fraud as “interim President.” Now it seems Guaido is more than willing to repay the favor should he ever actually hold office.
Guaido made this promise in a recent interview with the Israel Hayom newspaper where he told the interviewer that he was “very happy to announce that the process of stabilizing relations with Israel is in full swing.” While what exactly that means when you’re a President with no power is rather ambiguous, for some reason Guaido has said restoring relations “is very important for us.”
Regardless of all these factors, there are still several reasons the new President has made this a high priority. Even without any actual diplomatic staff recognized by the state, Guaidó has still been in contact with Israel and has even discussed opening a new Venezuelan embassy in Israel, saying it “is one of the subjects we are talking about.”
Another reason Guaidó claims he wants to restore relations with the Zionists is due to the fact that there “are many Venezuelans in Israel and many Jews in Venezuela.”
According to Guaidó, this Venezuelan Jewish community “is very active and prosperous”… continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News 