No time for losers: Why the war meant to save Israel may destroy it
By Ramzy Baroud | MEMO | March 16, 2026
When Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu launched their military aggression against Iran on 28th February, they appeared convinced that the war would be swift. Netanyahu reportedly assured Washington that the campaign would deliver a decisive strategic victory—one capable of reordering the Middle East and restoring Israel’s battered deterrence.
Whether Netanyahu himself believed that promise is another matter.
For decades, influential circles within Israel’s strategic establishment have not necessarily sought stability, but rather “creative destruction.” The logic is simple: dismantle hostile regional powers and allow fragmented political landscapes to replace them.
This idea did not emerge overnight. It was articulated most clearly in a 1996 policy paper titled A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm, prepared for then-Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by a group of US neoconservative strategists, including Richard Perle.
The document argued that Israel should abandon land-for-peace diplomacy and instead pursue a strategy that would weaken or remove hostile regimes in the region, particularly Iraq and Syria. The goal was not merely military victory but a geopolitical restructuring of the Middle East in Israel’s favor.
The logic is simple: dismantle hostile regional powers and allow fragmented political landscapes to replace them.
In many ways, the subsequent decades seemed to validate that theory—at least from Tel Aviv’s perspective.
The Middle East Reordered
The 2003 US invasion of Iraq was widely considered a catastrophe for Washington. Hundreds of thousands died, trillions of dollars were spent, and the United States became entangled in one of the most destabilising occupations in modern history.
Yet the war removed Saddam Hussein’s government, dismantled the Baath Party, and destroyed what had once been the strongest Arab army in the region. For Israel, the strategic consequences were significant.
Iraq, historically one of the few Arab states capable of confronting Israel militarily, ceased to exist as a coherent regional power. Years of instability followed, leaving Baghdad with a fragile political system struggling to maintain national cohesion.
Syria, another central concern in Israeli strategic thinking, would later descend into its own devastating war beginning in 2011. Libya collapsed earlier after NATO’s intervention in 2011 as well. Across the region, once-formidable Arab nationalist states fractured into weakened or internally divided systems.
From Israel’s vantage point, the theory of regional fragmentation appeared to be paying dividends.
Without strong Arab states capable of projecting military power, several Gulf governments began reconsidering their long-standing refusal to normalise relations with Israel.
The result was the Abraham Accords, signed in September 2020 under the Trump administration, which formalised normalisation between Israel and the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, later followed by Morocco and Sudan. For a moment, it seemed that the geopolitical transformation envisioned decades earlier had been realised.
Gaza changed the equation
But history rarely moves in straight lines. Israel’s genocide in Gaza did not produce the strategic victory Israeli leaders had anticipated. Instead, the war exposed deep vulnerabilities in Israel’s military and political standing.
More importantly, Palestinian resistance demonstrated that overwhelming military force could not translate into decisive political control.
The consequences reverberated far beyond Gaza.
The war galvanized resistance movements across the region, deepened divisions within Arab and Muslim societies between governments aligned with Washington and those opposed to Israeli policies, and ignited an unprecedented wave of global solidarity with Palestinians. Israel’s international image suffered dramatically.
For decades, Western political discourse framed Israel as a democratic outpost surrounded by hostile forces. That narrative has steadily eroded. Increasingly, Israel is described—even by major international organizations—as a state engaged in systematic oppression and, in Gaza’s case, genocidal violence.
The strategic cost of that reputational collapse cannot be overstated. Military power relies not only on weapons but also on legitimacy. And legitimacy, once lost, is difficult to recover.
Netanyahu’s final gamble
Against this backdrop, the war on Iran emerged as Netanyahu’s most consequential gamble.
If successful, it could restore Israel’s regional dominance and reassert its deterrence. Defeating Iran—or even severely weakening it—would reshape the balance of power across the Middle East. But failure carries equally profound consequences.
Netanyahu, now facing an arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court in 2024 over war crimes in Gaza, has tied his political survival to the promise of strategic victory.
In multiple interviews over the past year, he has framed the confrontation with Iran in almost biblical terms. In one televised address in 2025, Netanyahu declared that Israel was engaged in a “historic mission” to secure the future of the Jewish state for generations. Such rhetoric reveals not confidence but desperation.
What was supposed to be a rapid campaign increasingly resembles a prolonged conflict. Israel cannot wage such a war alone. It never could. Thus, Netanyahu worked tirelessly to draw the United States directly into the conflict—a familiar pattern in modern Middle Eastern wars.
The paradox of Trump’s war
For Americans, the question remains: why did Donald Trump—who repeatedly campaigned against “endless wars”—allow the US to enter yet another Middle Eastern conflict?
During his 2016 presidential campaign, Trump famously declared: “We should have never been in Iraq. We have destabilised the Middle East.”
Yet nearly a decade later, his administration has plunged Washington into a confrontation whose potential consequences dwarf those of the earlier wars.
The precise motivations matter less to those living under the bombs.
Across the region, the scenes are painfully familiar: devastated cities, mass graves, grieving families, and societies once again forced to endure the violence of foreign intervention.
But this war is unfolding in a fundamentally different geopolitical environment.
The US no longer commands the unchallenged dominance it once enjoyed. China has emerged as a major economic and strategic actor. Russia continues to project influence. Regional powers have gained confidence in resisting Washington’s dictates.
The Middle East itself has changed.
A war already going wrong
Early signs suggest that the war is not unfolding according to the expectations of Washington or Tel Aviv.
Reports from US and Israeli media indicate that missile-defense systems in Israel and several Gulf states are facing a serious strain under sustained attacks. Meanwhile, Iran and its regional allies have demonstrated missile capabilities far more extensive than many analysts had anticipated.
Energy markets provide another indication of shifting dynamics. Rather than securing greater control over global energy flows, the war has disrupted supplies and strengthened Iran’s leverage over key maritime routes.
Strategic assumptions built on decades of uncontested American military power are colliding with a far more complex reality.
Even the political rhetoric emanating from Washington has become noticeably defensive and increasingly angry—often a sign that events are not unfolding as planned.
Within the Trump administration itself, the intellectual poverty of the moment is difficult to miss. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, whose public persona is built on television bravado rather than strategic literacy, has often framed the conflict in language that sounds less like military doctrine and more like locker-room theatrics.
Hegseth’s style is symptomatic of a broader intellectual collapse within Washington’s war-making circles—where historical knowledge is replaced by slogans, and strategic planning by theatrical displays of toughness.
In speeches and interviews, he has repeatedly reduced complex geopolitical realities into crude narratives of strength, masculinity, and domination. Such rhetoric may excite partisan audiences, but it reveals a deeper problem: the people directing the most dangerous war in decades appear to understand very little about the forces they have unleashed.
In such an environment, wars are not analyzed; they are performed.
The end of an era?
Netanyahu sought to dominate the Middle East. Washington sought to reaffirm its position as the world’s unrivaled superpower. Neither objective appears within reach.
Instead, the war may accelerate the very transformations it was meant to prevent: a declining US strategic role, a weakened Israeli deterrent posture, and a Middle East increasingly shaped by regional actors rather than external powers.
Trump, despite the lofty and belligerent language, is in reality a weak president. Rage is rarely the language of strength; it is often the mask of insecurity. His administration has overestimated America’s military omnipotence, undermined allies and antagonized adversaries alike, and entered a war whose historical, political, and strategic dimensions it scarcely understands.
How can a leadership so consumed by narcissism and spectacle fully grasp the magnitude of the catastrophe it has helped unleash?
One would expect wisdom in moments of global crisis. What we have instead is a chorus of slogans, threats, and self-congratulation emanating from Washington—an administration seemingly incapable of distinguishing between what power can achieve and what it cannot.
They do not understand how profoundly the world has changed. They do not understand how the Middle East now perceives American military adventurism. And they certainly do not understand that Israel itself has become, politically and morally, a declining brand.
Of course, Trump and his equally arrogant administration will continue searching for any fragment of ‘victory’ to sell to their constituency as the greatest triumph in history. There will always be zealots ready to believe such myths.
But most Americans—and the overwhelming majority of people around the world—no longer do. Partly because this war on Iran is immoral. And partly because history has very little patience for losers.
Top US Counterterrorism Official Resigns in Protest of Operation Against Iran
Sputnik – 17.03.2026
WASHINGTON – Joseph Kent on Tuesday announced his decision to step down as director of the US National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) because of his disapproval of the US military operation against Iran.
“After much reflection, I have decided to resign from my position as Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, effective today. I cannot in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran. Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby,” Kent wrote in his letter to US President Donald Trump published on X.
He said that until June of 2025, Trump understood that wars in the Middle East were a “trap” that robbed the country of lives and depleted the nation’s wealth and prosperity.
However, during Trump’s second term, high-ranking Israeli officials and US media deployed a misinformation campaign that dragged the US into a war with Iran by making the president believe in a lie that aggression could lead to a swift victory – a tactic used by Israel to start the war in Iraq, Kent said.
“I pray that you will reflect upon what we are doing in Iran, and who we are doing it for. The time for bold action is now. You can reverse course and chart a new path for our nation, or you can allow us to slip further toward decline and chaos. You hold the cards,” he concluded.
On February 28, the United States and Israel launched strikes on targets in Iran, including in Tehran, causing damage and civilian casualties. Iran responded by striking Israeli territory and US military facilities in the Middle East.
Just Get Out! Now!
By Ron Paul | March 16, 2026
As is becoming clearer from President Trump’s own statements and those of his staff, along with press reporting, the US has launched a major war without the input of the experts we pay to advise the President on such matters. The State Department, Pentagon, National Security Council Staff, Defense Intelligence Agency, and NSA were simply bypassed because, as White House Spokesperson Karoline Leavitt said, President Trump “had a feeling” Iran would attack.
The President’s real estate developer son-in-law and friend reinforced that “feeling” when they returned from the second round of talks with the Iranian foreign minister and his team. However, as the news outlet Responsible Statecraft (RS) reported over the weekend, both son-in-law Jared Kushner and friend Steve Witkoff appear to have mis-represented those talks in a way that helped push President Trump toward war. No State Department officials were on hand to ensure the reporting was accurate.
Also, arms control experts at home, according to the RS report, believe that “the duo appeared to have fatally misunderstood a series of basic technical and historical matters” regarding Iran’s nuclear program leading to inaccurate information conveyed to the President.
Congress was completely out of the picture – seemingly uninterested in performing its Constitutional duty – and no case was made to the American people that they must sacrifice and die once again for a war in the Middle East.
Trump’s repeated promises to not start new wars, especially in the Middle East, have turned out to be empty, and Republicans are set for a crippling defeat in the upcoming midterm elections.
Iran had been warning for months – since the last US/Israeli surprise attack in June – that if they were attacked again they would not hold back on US bases in the region and that they would close the Straits of Hormuz. Trump and Netanyahu attacked anyway, and Iran has done what it said it would do.
Now the Strait of Hormuz is closed, oil is about to go out of control, and the global economy – along with the US dollar – seems about to implode.
On March 6th, President Trump refused a UK offer of help, saying we don’t need help when we’ve already won the war. Five days later, at a rally in Kentucky, President Trump repeated that “We’ve won the Iran war!”
It was his “Mission Accomplished” moment, because this weekend, just days after declaring victory against an “obliterated” Iran, Trump began begging other countries to send ships to help the US open the Strait of Hormuz.
Thus far every country has declined, understanding that such a mission has little chance of success.
Tragically, the war thus far has claimed at least 14 servicemembers. It is likely the toll is far worse than they are telling us. Every US military facility in the region is either damaged or destroyed. Billions of dollars of radar and other equipment are destroyed. Our allies in the region, because they allowed their territory to be used to attack Iran, have also seen massive retaliatory destruction.
This is surely one of the worst military disasters in US history. There are no military options available beyond the unthinkable: the use of nuclear weapons.
The only viable option that remains is one that was often urged in the Vietnam War: Just get out. Now! No return to US bases, no security guarantees to Gulf States. End the US empire in the Middle East and elsewhere. If not, it’s only going to get worse.
Unpacking glaring contradictions in US-Zionist justifications for war against Iran
By David Miller | Press TV | March 5, 2026
While the likes of Trump, Netanyahu, and Rubio peddle inconsistent justifications for the illegal and unprovoked aggression on Iran, CIA intelligence shreds claims of imminent threats, revealing how the Zionist entity dictates US foreign policy.
US President Donald Trump unleashed a barrage of contradictory explanations for the joint US-Zionist assault on the Islamic Republic of Iran, launched on 28 February 2026.
In his initial video statement, Trump asserted the strikes aimed to eliminate “imminent threats” from Iran, including its alleged pursuit of nuclear weapons and long-range missiles capable of reaching the American homeland.
He painted Iran as a “vicious group of very hard, terrible people” whose actions endangered US interests.
This narrative quickly evolved. By 3 March, Trump admitted the decision stemmed from his “opinion” that Iran would attack first if not struck preemptively.
“It was my opinion that they were going to attack first,” he stated, abandoning earlier claims of concrete intelligence.
Such flip-flops, once again, expose exaggeration. Trump claimed Iran neared intercontinental ballistic missiles threatening the US, an assertion contradicted by US intelligence assessments.
The BBC highlighted how Trump’s “imminent threats” lacked support, noting Iran’s nuclear capabilities remained far from weaponisation despite rhetoric.
Trump’s pre-strike doubts further undermine his case. The Associated Press reported Trump’s dissatisfaction with ongoing nuclear talks, leading to the order despite diplomatic avenues. This pivot from diplomacy to aggression reeks of opportunism, not necessity.
Netanyahu’s decades-long push: ‘Regime change’ at any cost
Zionist entity premier Benjamin Netanyahu has long championed aggression against Iran, viewing it as an existential foe. In justifying the 2026 strikes, Netanyahu declared them pre-emptive to thwart Iran’s nuclear and missile programs, threatening overwhelming force.
He warned that allowing Iran nuclear weapons and ICBMs would endanger humanity.
Netanyahu’s rhetoric echoes his four-decade obsession. Even complicit journalists like Mehdi Hasan noted Netanyahu “has been yearning, dreaming of doing this for 40 years,” with Trump as the first US leader to oblige.
The Guardian labelled the assault an “illegal act of aggression” without a lawful basis, driven by Netanyahu’s preference for military solutions over diplomacy.
Post-strike, Netanyahu celebrated the operation’s goals and called (in Farsi) for Iranians to “come to the streets, come out in your millions, to finish the job, to overthrow the ‘regime’ of fear that has made your lives bitter”. Mondoweiss exposed how initial nuclear justifications morphed into overt regime change admissions, mirroring Iraq War tactics.
“When we are finished, take over your government,” President Trump said, addressing the Iranian public in his own video. “It will be yours to take.”
Yet The Nation revealed aims to turn Iran into a failed state, obliterating coherent governance. Netanyahu dusted off the genocidal language used against the Palestinians during a visit onSunday, 1 March, to a site struck by an Iranian missile.
“We read in this week’s Torah portion, ‘Remember what Amalek did to you.’ We remember—and we act,” he said.
The Amalekites are identified in the Hebrew Bible as a persistent adversary of the Israelites, linked to a Torah commandment to erase their memory. Specifically, 1 Samuel 15:3 mandates the killing of men, women, and infants. This was a clarion call to eliminate all Iranians, showing the utter hypocrisy of calling out on the streets those he wishes dead.
Rubio’s Freudian slip: Admitting Zionist sway over US decisions
Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s comments laid bare the Zionist entity’s influence on US policy. On 2 March, Rubio stated the US struck because “we knew that there was going to be an Israeli action,” prompting preemptive moves to avoid higher US casualties from Iranian retaliation.
Rubio elaborated that awareness of Zionist plans necessitated US involvement, framing it as defensive. Al Jazeera described this as a “looping justification,” highlighting how Zionist intentions drove US timing.
Facing backlash, Rubio walked back his words, insisting the strikes were inevitable regardless of Zionist actions. The New York Times reported his clarification: “The president determined we were not going to get hit first.”
Axios noted Rubio’s remarks ignited MAGA divisions, underscoring Zionist power. The Guardian highlighted Democratic fury over Rubio’s implication of a “war of choice” on behalf of Zionists. PBS detailed Rubio’s defence, warning Iran of further escalation. These revelations confirm that US policy follows Zionist whims.
CIA intelligence shreds the ‘imminent threat’ facade
CIA assessments dismantle claims of Iranian aggression. The Associated Press revealed that US intelligence showed no pre-emptive Iranian strike planned against the US.
Briefings to Congress confirmed no such indicators. Reuters echoed Pentagon admissions: no intelligence on Iran attacking first. The Hill reported similar findings, contradicting Trump’s “imminent threat.”
A House of Commons Library briefing noted in 2025 that US intelligence judged Iran not to be building nuclear weapons. CNN detailed CIA tracking of Iranian leaders, but no offensive plans. Al Jazeera reported CIA talks with Kurds for uprisings, indicating an offensive US posture. Even the Zionist funded propaganda network Iran International quoted ex-CIA Director Petraeus on Iran’s strategic errors, but no pre-strike aggression.
These reports expose fabricated threats to justify unprovoked war.
Pentagon’s panic: Depleted THAAD stocks and radar losses
Pentagon officials express intense paranoia over dwindling air defense stockpiles as a result of Iran’s legitimate self-defense. The Washington Post reported sources describing the mood as “intense and paranoid.” The Daily Beast characterised these Pentagon officials as “secretly panicking” about THAAD interceptor shortages if fighting drags on.
This panic stems from high consumption rates. It takes two or three interceptors per incoming missile, straining limited THAAD stocks.
Some sources claim that for every $1 Iran spends on drones, countries like the UAE (and by implication the US and the Zionist entity) spend approximately $20 to $28. The Washington Post said officials are warning that resources are “stretched thin.”
Compounding this, the US Navy resists escorting ships through the Strait of Hormuz. USNI News reported Navy officials informing shipping leaders of no availability for escorts, despite Trump’s pledges.
Lloyd’s list detailed this U-turn, with the Navy ruling out protection.
These issues link directly to Iran’s destruction of the AN/FPS-132 radar at Al Udeid base. NDTV reported Iranian claims to have obliterated this $1.1 billion system, crucial for ballistic missile tracking. The radar’s loss weakens early warning, compressing reaction times for THAAD systems.
Army Recognition, a defence industry news site, explained that this reduces sensor depth, forcing more interceptor use and accelerating stock depletion. In fact, they describe it in full as this: “early-warning radar uses a fixed UHF phased-array to detect and continuously track ballistic missiles and space objects at very long range, generating early launch warning, trajectory and impact predictions, and cueing data for layered defenses such as THAAD, Patriot, and naval air-and-missile defense systems across the Gulf”.
So, it affects the whole range of layered air defences.
For Navy escorts, diminished radar coverage heightens risks in Hormuz. Radar losses are key to broader defense cracks, making naval operations precarious without full surveillance.
These problems have only been compounded by the latest strikes, which even the New York Times is admitting have damaged or destroyed Radar and other monitoring and targeting equipment in US bases across the region in Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the UAE.
This chain—radar destruction leading to inefficient defenses and stock drain—fuels Pentagon panic and Navy caution, exposing vulnerabilities in the aggression.
Zionist entity’s grip: How the US became a tool in Iranian aggression
The Zionist colony has long steered US policy toward confrontation with Iran. Al Jazeera probed how Zionist plans precipitated US strikes, with Rubio admitting awareness shaped decisions.
The establishment think tank CFR detailed US intervention following Zionist unilateralism, escalating to full aggression. Mondoweiss argued the war follows an Iraq playbook: false WMD claims shifting to regime change. The Guardian condemned it as illegal, driven by Netanyahu’s impatience with diplomacy.
Euronews quoted Iran’s UN ambassador decrying US betrayal during talks, highlighting Zionist sabotage. Al Mayadeen announced Netanyahu’s declaration of joint aggression. The Nation exposed aims to fragment Iran, with Zionist officials targeting all leadership. WBUR reported Trump’s regime change calls, echoing Zionist goals.
This puppetry endangers global peace, subordinating US interests to messianic Zionist ambitions.
Key contradictions in leadership statements
- Trump’s threat claims vs. intel: Trump warned of missiles soon reaching the US, but even the NYT fact-checks show these are inaccurate.
- Netanyahu’s pre-emption vs. evidence: Netanyahu framed strikes as a gateway to peace, yet Arab News notes endless war denial.
- Rubio’s Zionist trigger vs. walkback: Rubio suggested Israeli plans forced the US hand, later denied.
- Intel on no strike vs. official narratives: AP sources confirm no preemptive Iranian plans.
These inconsistencies fuel scepticism in the American security apparatus as well as – increasingly – with the US allied states in West Asia.
These deceptions are being unmasked in real time. The unthinkable is now dawning on the US and its allies; this may be the moment that the US is pushed out of West Asia once and for all.
Solidarity with Iran at this time demands truth over propaganda and the final push to remove US influence and finally collapse the Zionist colonisation project in Palestine.
Featured Video
Bombing Iran Back Into the Stone Age /Lt Col Daniel Davis & Jim Jatras
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
The Occupied Mentality Syndrome
Saudi Arabia on the American chessboard – Part 2
By B. J. Sabri | American Herald Tribune | April 19, 2016
Since the Korean War, but particularly since the Iranian Revolution of 1979 until today, the United States has been steadily escalating its military presence in the Persian Gulf. Taking advantage of many colossal events of the past 36 years, [1] the hyper-empire has institutionalized its massive presence on land and sea, and expanded its objectives to include the unambiguous physical control of the area, as well as the clear understanding that local Arab governments should abide by them. The pretext is always the same: in “defense” of the national interests and security of the United States. From observing how the United States has been interacting with the governments of the region, and by judging from the size of its expeditionary force, we could reach a basic conclusion. The United States is occupying, de facto, the entire Arabian Peninsula. (Yemen, devastated by Saudi and American jets is yet to be conquered. Oman? Britain returned not as colonial ruler but as a soft occupying power.)
Under this articulation, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates are virtually occupied countries. If we compare this type of occupation to the mandate and protectorate regimes of the past, the results might be identical—the nations affected by it lose sovereignty. When Arab governments comply with the objectives of a foreign power that station military forces on their national milieu, then that power controls them in multiple ways including how they react to policy deliberations and what decisions they intend to take on specific issues. A good method to verify the concept of effective occupation is this: take notice of what the United States says and wants, and then compare it to what the gulf rulers do in response. (I shall discuss this detail at some point in the upcoming parts.)
If the presence of US forces or other means of political pressure are a factor in Saudi Arabia’s interventionist Arab wars, then we need to debate this issue. However, from the history of resistance to colonialism, we learnt: if a powerful state imposes its order on a nation by military means or other forms of coercion, and if this nation does not resist that imposition, then a mental subordination to the powerful state will ensue. This is especially true in the case of Saudi Arabia. One single event, 9/11, has transformed it from a US “ally” into an instant political hostage of the American Empire. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- BREAKING: US JET SHOT DOWN OVER IRAN /Lt Col Daniel Davis & Nima Alkhorshid
- Now everyone is dumping US government bonds
- Brazilian Congressman seeks to bar Israeli military personnel from entering Brazil
- Official reveals evidence of Arab states’ involvement in US-Israeli war on Iran
- His Majesty’s head-chopper: Syria’s MI6-backed president bows to King Charles
- Forced to backtrack: ‘Israel’ drops Hezbollah disarmament goal
- Britain’s Lebanon surveillance network: A digital map for war
- Bahrain faces scrutiny for opposition crackdown after detainee killed
- Hegseth’s Pentagon Purge Designed to Prevent a Mutiny: Karen Kwiatkowski
- Greek shipping firms secretly transporting oil, weapons to Israel
- If Americans Knew
- Israel Is Blocking Palestinians from Easter at Church Where Jesus Resurrected
- Plot to assassinate Palestinian activist follows harassment campaign promoted by Zionist groups and elected officials
- Prominent New York synagogue hosts presentation on why U.S. Jews should support the ethnic cleansing of Gaza
- Tapper vs. Piker: Is the CNN Anchor Auditioning for David Ellison?
- Shouldn’t Democrats Be Able to Condemn Genocide?
- Israel-US kill negotiators, destroy civilian structures, but Iran’s military capabilities still largely intact – Daily Update
- ‘War crime’: Global condemnation as Israeli ministers celebrate death penalty law targeting Palestinian prisoners
- 7 Ways Israel Is Turning Lebanon Into Gaza
- World’s Leading Football Bodies Under Fire Over Israel Policies
- Experts warn of possible use of nukes against Iran
- No Tricks Zone
- Low Intensity Tornado Wrecks Major Solar Farm, Creating A Potential Toxic Dump
- New Study Finds Warming Saves Lives…Cold Temperatures 12 Times More Deadly Than Excess Heat
- German Science Blog Accuses PIK Climate Institute Of Hallucinating Climate Tipping Points
- Devastating Assessment Of Comirnaty Vaccine By Former Senior Pfizer Europe Toxicologist
- New Study: CO2 Is ‘Effectively Negligible’ As An Explanatory Climate Change Factor Since 2000
- Former Pfizer Toxicologist Dr. Helmut Sterz Tells Bundestag Hearing Pfizer Vaccine Should Have Never Been Approved
- Energy Expert: Germany’s Nuclear Phaseout Was A “500 Billion Euro Mistake”
- New Research: South Australia’s Mid-Holocene Sea Surface Temperatures Were 4°C Warmer Than Today
- Storing Green Energy To Last Germany 10 Days Would Require A 60-Million Tonne Battery
- New Studies: UK Sea Levels Were 4 Meters Higher Than Today During The Mid-Holocene
Aletho News 