Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

37 days of war on Iran cost US staggering $42bln, tracker shows

Al Mayadeen | April 6, 2026

The US aggression against Iran has cost American taxpayers over $42.1 billion in nearly 37 days of war, according to the Iran War Cost Tracker portal.

The portal’s real-time tracking is based on a Department of War briefing for the US Congress on March 10, which stated that Washington spent $11.3 billion in the first six days of its aggression on Iran and plans to spend an additional $1 billion each subsequent day of the war.

Trump requests $1.5 trillion defense budget as war costs spiral

On Friday, US President Donald Trump asked Congress to enact a $2.2 trillion budget for discretionary programs, seeking a massive increase in defense spending, while also renewing his push for steep cuts to domestic agencies.

The budget proposal released on Friday requests $1.5 trillion for defense, a significant increase over the $1 trillion sought for fiscal year 2026. The new figure includes $1.1 trillion in base discretionary spending for the Department of War and another $350 billion in mandatory spending as the US carries out its war on Iran.

The sharp increase in military spending comes as the United States remains engaged in a war that has driven up costs and placed a growing strain on financial and military resources. The war cost Washington more than $11 billion in its first six days alone, with estimates placing daily expenditures at between $1 billion and $2 billion. Munitions stockpiles have been drawn down significantly, raising concerns about sustainability and replenishment.

War costs could reach hundreds of billions

Short-term projections from weeks ago cited by The Intercept suggest that the war could push costs to $250 billion in its eighth week, if it drags on this long.

A government official, speaking on condition of anonymity, acknowledged the uncertainty of these figures, telling The Intercept that “it’s a back-of-the-napkin estimate,” while another official told the outlet, “They really have no idea of the real cost.”

The proposed budget also aligns with a broader military buildup that includes investments in missile systems, naval assets, and advanced fighter jets, signaling preparations that extend beyond immediate battlefield needs. Against this backdrop, the proposed budget reflects a broader reallocation of resources toward sustaining prolonged military operations, while partially offsetting rising expenditures through cuts to domestic spending.

The budget blueprint comes ahead of the November 2026 midterm elections, with Republicans aiming to preserve their narrow control of both chambers of Congress. The proposal is also likely to face scrutiny from lawmakers who have already raised concerns over the scale of war-related spending and its long-term fiscal impact.

For American taxpayers, the message is clear: as the war on Iran grinds on with no end in sight, the costs continue to mount. And the administration’s solution is not to end the war, but to pour even more money into it, all while cutting domestic programs that ordinary Americans rely on.

Whether Congress will approve Trump’s request remains to be seen. But one thing is certain: the price of this war has only begun to be counted.

April 6, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , | Comments Off on 37 days of war on Iran cost US staggering $42bln, tracker shows

Baghdad tells Asian refiners, traders to begin loading Iraqi crude amid Iranian exemption

The Cradle | April 6, 2026

Baghdad has told Asian traders and refiners they can begin loading Iraqi oil into tankers for transit through the Strait of Hormuz following an Iranian exemption to transit the strategic waterway.

After the US and Israel began their unprovoked attack on Iran over one month ago, Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz, threatening to target vessels linked to the US and Israel with missile and drone strikes.

The move forced Iraq to cut its oil production by some 70 percent, as Baghdad had no major alternate route for exporting oil, which funds 90 percent of the state budget, and as its oil storage facilities quickly reached capacity.

Iraqi oil exports subsequently plunged by roughly 97 percent, to an average of 99,000 barrels per day (bpd).

However, in a notice sent on Sunday, Iraq’s State Organization for Marketing of Oil (SOMO) announced that Iraqi oil shipments were now “exempt from any potential restrictions.”

It asked Asian buyers to begin loading crude into vessels, saying export terminals, including in the city of Basra on the Persian Gulf, were “fully operational.”

According to Bloomberg, it was not immediately clear if the Iranian exemption would apply to all Iraqi oil or just the tankers owned by SOMO.

“Buyers expressed caution about the move,” the financial news outlet added.

The Ocean Thunder, a tanker carrying a million barrels of Iraqi crude, crossed the narrow strait on Sunday.

Iraq often sells oil on a free-on-board basis, meaning refiners arrange their own shipping. Asian buyers speaking to Bloomberg said they were seeking additional information, including whether Iraq would allow the use of its own tankers for extra security.

Transit of vessels through Hormuz has not only been hampered by Iranian threats, but by massive increases in maritime insurance premiums, as well as outright cancellations of insurance policies by western insurers.

Bloomberg notes that the number of vessels transiting through Hormuz has increased over the past week but remains at a “trickle” compared to before the war.

On 18 March, Baghdad reached a deal with leaders of the Iraqi Kurdistan region to resume oil exports via pipeline to Turkiye, though the volume the pipeline can hold is too small to make up for the disruptions of exports from Basra through Hormuz.

Roughly 300,000 bpd are now exported via the pipeline in the Kurdistan Region through Turkiye’s Ceyhan port.

This may aid Israel’s oil security, as Tel Aviv receives much of its oil from Azerbaijan, which ships to Ceyhan via the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline. From there, Israel can import crude via oil tankers transiting to Haifa on the Mediterranean Sea.

April 6, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , , , | Comments Off on Baghdad tells Asian refiners, traders to begin loading Iraqi crude amid Iranian exemption

Under fire, Moscow and Tehran close ranks

US–Israeli escalation is accelerating, rather than weakening, the Russia–Iran axis, reshaping the Caspian into a contested strategic corridor.

By Hazal Yalin | The Cradle | April 6, 2026

Hours after the US and Israel – increasingly referred to in some circles as the “Epstein coalition” – attacked Iran on 28 February, Russia’s Foreign Ministry issued a sharply worded response, describing the assault as “a deliberate, premeditated, and unprovoked act of armed aggression against a sovereign and independent UN member state, in direct violation of the fundamental principles and norms of international law.”

When interpreting diplomatic texts in general – and Russia’s statements in particular, given its near-obsessive adherence to traditional diplomacy – the importance of terminology is often overlooked. The concept of “aggression” is not an ordinary one; it signifies a violation of the very spirit of the UN Charter, especially Article 2(4).

A firm response to aggression

Just as significant as its use is its absence elsewhere. Aside from Russia, North Korea, and Cuba, no other state initially used the term “aggression” in condemning the attack—not even China, which only adopted the wording after 2 March.

This framing has been consistent across Russian statements and in President Vladimir Putin’s diplomatic readouts. At the same time, Moscow has walked a careful line in its engagement with Persian Gulf monarchies.

While avoiding endorsement of Iranian strikes on US and Israeli-linked targets in the Gulf, Russian officials have repeatedly stressed that the central issue remains US–Israeli aggression—and that criticism of Iran cannot be allowed to obscure this.

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov captured this balance on 5 March during the Ambassadorial Roundtable on the Ukraine crisis. While opposing Iranian strikes on Gulf states and questioning their military utility, he warned that “Simply saying that Iran has no right to do anything effectively means openly encouraging the United States and Israel to continue what they are doing.”

In line with this approach, Russia (and China) did not veto the UN Security Council resolution on 11 March condemning Iran. However, Russia’s permanent representative to the UN, Vasiliy Nebenzya, stated that the resolution was one-sided and “confused cause and effect.”

This stance is largely linked to the UAE’s critical role in facilitating capital movement for Russia under western sanctions.

Israeli irritation and escalation

Such an uncompromising definition of aggression – and the Kremlin’s apparent decision to avoid even routine contact with the Israeli government – was never likely to pass unnoticed in Tel Aviv.

The first notable rupture came via an interview with Israeli army spokesperson Anna Ukolova on Radio RBK. Referencing reports that Israel had hacked Tehran’s traffic cameras to track Iranian officials, she was asked whether similar access existed in Moscow. Her response was striking:

“The elimination of key figures – the leadership of all these proxy groups, including Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei – already demonstrates that we possess quite formidable capabilities, and that no one who seeks to do us harm will go unscathed.”

“Then again, the question is: Who would want to do us harm? I hope that, at this moment, Moscow does not wish Israel ill. I want to believe that.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s extremist government has traditionally adopted a cautious and diplomatic stance in relations with Russia. Even if it had decided to shift toward open hostility, one would expect it to do so through diplomatic, economic, or even, at most, fifth-column activities within Russia. Ukolova’s direct threat – drawing a parallel of “elimination” against the Russian leadership – was unprecedented.

Attack on Bandar Anzali

The remark itself might have been dismissed as bluster were it not followed by something far more consequential: Israel’s reported strike on Iran’s Bandar Anzali Port on the Caspian coast.

The attack was first reported on 18 March by Israel’s Channel 12 as an “unusual attack” carried out 1,300 kilometers from Israeli territory.

Curiously, western media remained silent on the matter for some time. In Russia, Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov initially stated on 20 March that he had no information about it. When asked how Moscow would view a situation where the conflict escalated to engulf the Caspian Sea region, he said: “Russia would view it extremely negatively.”

Later that same day, Russia’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova confirmed the strike, warning that the Caspian Sea basin has always been regarded “as a safe zone of peace and cooperation. The aggressors’ reckless and irresponsible actions pose a threat of dragging Caspian states into an armed conflict.”

She also stressed that Bandar Anzali is “an important trade and logistics hub that is actively used in Russian–Iranian trade, including for food deliveries. The strike has affected the economic interests of Russia and the other Caspian states that maintain transport communications with Iran via that port.” Two days later, Peskov noted that the conflict was “showing a tendency to expand its boundaries.”

Because there is a general tendency to follow events through the lens of London or Washington, The story only gained wider traction on 24 March, when the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) ran it as a headline: “Israel Hits Russian–Iranian Weapons Smuggling Route in the Caspian Sea.”

Casting a sovereign logistics corridor as “smuggling” recodes the strike as pre-emptive policing rather than escalation. The same report noted that the attack threatened Iran’s food supply and signaled Israel’s capacity to inflict broader civilian hardship – language that treats civilian suffering as a strategic message.

Russia’s public response was strong – and predictably so – for two reasons.

The Caspian legal order

First, the legal status of the Caspian Sea. Unlike other bodies of water, the Caspian falls outside the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Its governance is defined instead by the 2018 Convention on the Legal Status of the Caspian Sea, agreed upon by its five littoral states.

Under this framework, all decisions concerning the Caspian must be made jointly by the five littoral states – Russia, Iran, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan. Non-littoral states are prohibited from maintaining a military presence (Article 3/6), and littoral states cannot allow their territory to be used for aggression against one another (3/7). Navigation security is a shared responsibility (3/9).

An attack carried out by a non-littoral actor via the Caspian undermines not only these provisions but the broader stability they are meant to guarantee.

While no explicit breach of Articles 3/6 or 3/7 has been formally identified, the presence of Israeli, US, and British military and intelligence networks – particularly in Azerbaijan – is widely acknowledged. This latent infrastructure adds a further layer of tension.

The strike on Bandar Anzali directly engages Article 3/9. It represents a breach of navigational security by an external actor, placing responsibility on all littoral states. Yet, aside from Russia and Iran, none have responded – an omission that speaks as loudly as any formal position. 

Trade routes and strategic depth 

The second factor is more straightforward: geography. The Caspian is the primary trade corridor between Russia and Iran, and Bandar Anzali is one of its key nodes.

This trade is not limited to civilian goods. Since the signing of the “comprehensive strategic partnership agreement” on 17 January 2025, it is widely understood that military logistics also transit this route.

The agreement was signed in Moscow on 17 January 2025 by Russian President Vladimir Putin and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian. It was approved by the Russian State Duma on 8 April 2025, signed by Putin on 21 April 2025, approved by the Iranian parliament on 21 May 2025, endorsed by the Guardian Council on 11 June 2025, and entered into force on 2 October 2025.

As previously noted by The Cradle, the agreement is not a binding mutual defense pact but a statement of strategic intent. Russia’s threshold for military support hinges on legal framing – specifically, whether an action qualifies as “aggression” in terms Moscow recognizes. Iran, for its part, has resisted any arrangement that would allow foreign military use of its territory.

Still, the agreement is far from symbolic. It outlines extensive cooperation in defense, security, and intelligence, and explicitly commits both sides to countering third-party interference across the Caspian, Central Asia, the Caucasus, and West Asia.

Articles 4, 5, and 6 set out broad military and security cooperation frameworks, while Articles 4/1 and 4/2 specifically formalize intelligence exchange, experience-sharing, and operational coordination between the two countries’ security and intelligence services.

April 6, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Under fire, Moscow and Tehran close ranks

Iran, US receive Pakistan-mediated plan for ceasefire then final deal

Al Mayadeen | April 6, 2026

Iran and the United States have received a plan to end hostilities that could come into effect on Monday and reopen the Strait of Hormuz, Reuters reported, citing a source aware of the proposals.

A framework to end the US-Israeli war on Iran has been put together by Pakistan and exchanged with Tehran and Washington overnight, the source told Reuters, outlining a two-tier approach with an immediate ceasefire followed by a comprehensive agreement.

“All elements need to be agreed today,” the source said, adding the initial understanding would be structured as a memorandum of understanding finalized electronically through Pakistan, the sole communication channel in the talks.

Pakistan as mediator

Axios first reported on Sunday that the United States, Iran, and regional mediators were discussing a potential 45-day ceasefire as part of a two-phase deal that could lead to a permanent end to the war, citing US, Israeli, and regional sources.

The source told Reuters that Pakistan’s army chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir, has been in contact “all night long” with US Vice President JD Vance, special envoy Steve Witkoff, and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi.

Under the proposal, a ceasefire would take effect immediately, reopening the Strait of Hormuz, with 15 to 20 days to finalize a broader settlement. The deal, tentatively dubbed the “Islamabad Accord”, would include a regional framework for the Strait, with final in-person talks to be held in Islamabad.

Iran rejects opening Hormuz in exchange for ‘temporary ceasefire’

Meanwhile, a senior Iranian official told Reuters on Monday that Iran will not reopen the Strait of Hormuz in exchange for a “temporary ceasefire”, adding that Tehran views Washington as lacking the readiness for a permanent ceasefire.

The official confirmed Iran had received Pakistan’s proposal for an immediate ceasefire and was reviewing it, adding that Tehran does not accept being pressured to accept deadlines and make a decision.

Two Pakistani sources said Iran has yet to commit despite intensified civilian and military outreach.

“Iran has not responded yet,” one source said, adding that proposals backed by Pakistan, China, and the United States for a temporary ceasefire have drawn no commitment so far.

The final agreement is expected to include Iranian commitments not to pursue nuclear weapons in exchange for sanctions relief and the release of frozen assets, the source said.

Iran’s approach

For Tehran, the calculus is clear: any agreement must include guarantees that the United States and “Israel” will not use the ceasefire to regroup and launch any attacks in the future. Having been burned by previous negotiations, most notably when Iran engaged in good-faith talks with the US only to see them bomb Iranian territory, Iranian officials are understandably cautious.

As the Monday deadline approaches, the world waits to see whether Tehran will sign onto a deal that, on paper, offers sanctions relief and an end to hostilities, but in practice, offers few assurances that the aggressors will not strike again.

Pakistan mediation not new

Pakistan first publicly signaled its mediation role in the escalating US-Israeli war in late March 2026, when Islamabad offered to help facilitate indirect talks and relay messages between Washington and Tehran. This came as the war involving Iran entered its second month, heightening fears of wider regional instability.

On March 24, 2026, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif said Pakistan was ready to host talks and promote a diplomatic path toward peace, emphasizing that Islamabad stood “ready and honoured” to support meaningful negotiations.

By March 26, 2026, Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar confirmed that Pakistan was relaying a 15‑point US proposal to Iranian officials as part of indirect peace efforts. He acknowledged that media speculation had grown but said Islamabad was working discreetly to keep communication lines open.

Pakistan’s role gained broader visibility as it worked with other regional capitals, including Turkiye and Egypt, to prepare the ground for diplomatic engagement and explore avenues to reduce hostilities.

April 6, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , | Comments Off on Iran, US receive Pakistan-mediated plan for ceasefire then final deal

Iran submits demands for end to war as mediators scramble ahead of Trump deadline

The Cradle | April 6, 2026

Iran announced on 6 April that it has conveyed its demands on a potential ceasefire with the US and Israel through intermediaries, as US President Donald Trump’s threat to bomb Iranian energy and water infrastructure looms.

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei told a news briefing that Tehran has communicated its demands “based on national interests” through regional mediators.

“We have formulated our own set of demands based on our interests and considerations. We are not ashamed to voice our legitimate and logical demands,” he said when asked about the prospect of an end to the war.

Iranian officials have previously stated that Tehran has four main conditions for an agreement: an end to the war and guarantees against future military attacks, compensation for losses during the conflict, recognition of formal control of the Strait of Hormuz, and no limits on its ballistic missile program.

Baghaei stressed that Iranian leaders are committed to continuing the war to defend the country from US-Israeli attacks if necessary.

“Expressing our positions quickly and courageously should not be interpreted as backing down,” he said.

The ministry at the same time expressed doubts about US intentions, stating that “America destroyed the path of diplomacy in months in the worst way, and the world sees that its claims do not match its actions.”

“America gives no value to the security of the region’s countries, and its only obsession is maintaining the existence of the Zionist entity,” the statement added.

The US and Israel launched an unprovoked war on Iran starting on 28 February, including assassinating the Islamic Republic’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, despite negotiations taking place at the time described by Omani mediators as “positive.”

US and Israeli attacks have so far killed over 1,340 people in Iran, according to Iranian authorities.

The Iranian Foreign Ministry announcement comes amid a report from Axios claiming that the US, Iran, and a group of regional mediators are discussing a potential 45-day ceasefire meant to lead to a permanent end to the war.

The negotiations are crucial, as US President Donald Trump gave a 48-hour deadline for Iranian leaders to reach a deal with him, including opening the Strait of Hormuz, while threatening to bomb Iran’s electricity and water infrastructure if they refuse.

However, Axios described the chances for reaching a deal before Trump’s deadline of Tuesday at 8:00 pm Eastern Time (ET) as “slim.”

“But this last-ditch effort is the only chance to prevent a dramatic escalation in the war that will include massive strikes on Iranian civilian infrastructure and a retaliation against energy and water facilities in the Gulf states,” the news outlet wrote.

On Sunday, Trump extended the deadline to Tuesday, telling Axios that he was “deep in negotiations” with Iranian officials.

“There is a good chance, but if they don’t make a deal, I am blowing up everything over there,” he claimed.

Last week, during a televised address to the nation, Trump threatened to bomb Iran “back to the Stone Age.”

If Trump orders deliberate attacks on Iran’s civilian infrastructure, such attacks would constitute war crimes.

They would be reminiscent of the US bombing campaign against Iraq during the 1991 Gulf War, which heavily damaged the country’s electricity and water purification facilities. Coupled with economic sanctions over the next decade, the US bombing campaign led to hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths.

If Trump makes good on the threat, Iran has, in turn, threatened to retaliate with attacks against power and water infrastructure in Israel and the Gulf states.

Iran’s shuttering of the Strait of Hormuz to the US and its allies has already struck a blow to Gulf oil production, while the targeting of Gulf desalination facilities could eliminate drinking water supplies for a combined 62 million people.

Two sources speaking with Axios said the plan for a major US-Israeli bombing campaign targeting Iran’s energy facilities is “ready to go,” if no deal is reached by the deadline.

The last-minute diplomatic effort reportedly involves Pakistani, Egyptian, and Turkish mediators, according to the four sources. Messages are reportedly being passed between Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi.

The sources said the mediators are discussing the terms of a two-phase deal: the first phase would involve a potential 45-day ceasefire, during which a permanent end to the war would be negotiated in the second phase.

According to the sources, a deal to open the Strait of Hormuz and a “solution” for Iran’s highly enriched Uranium, such as removing it from the country or diluting it, would only be reached in the second phase.

The Iranian officials have reportedly insisted to the mediators that they will not agree to a ceasefire similar to that reached in Gaza or Lebanon, where Israel had the ability to carry out additional attacks at any time despite the agreement.

April 6, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on Iran submits demands for end to war as mediators scramble ahead of Trump deadline

Iran Threatens Retaliatory Strike on Stargate AI Project in UAE

OpenAI, Oracle, NVIDIA, Cisco, and SoftBank stand to lose $30 billion.

By Kurt Nimmo | Another Day in the Empire | April 6, 2026

Iran has threatened to follow through on its threat to strike tech operations in Israel and the Persian Gulf emirates. Brigadier General Ebrahim Zolfaghari, IRGC Khatam al-Anbiya Headquarters spokesperson, in a video released on April 5, singled out the AI Stargate data center in the UAE. He threatened “complete and utter annihilation” of the $30 billion facility in Abu Dhabi and extended the threat to other US and Israeli tech targets.

In early March, the IRGC attacked Amazon’s AWS data centers in Bahrain and Dubai, triggering outages. It was the first time a “hyperscale cloud provider” suffered a military attack, notes Tom’s Hardware. Earlier this month, the IRGC claimed to have hit Oracle’s data center in Dubai, although this was denied by Oracle.

“Should the USA proceed with its threats concerning Iran’s power plant facilities the following retaliatory measures shall be promptly enacted,” warned Zolfaghari. “All power plants, energy infrastructure, and information and communications technology of the Zionist regime, and all similar companies within the region that have American shareholders shall face complete and utter annihilation.”

The IRGC video provided a censored Google Maps satellite image of the Stargate facility. “Nothing stays hidden to our sight, though hidden by Google,” the caption reads. A second photo of the site, taken apparently with night vision or a similar technology, reveals the hidden structures redacted by Google.

G42, OpenAI, Oracle, NVIDIA, Cisco, and SoftBank collaborated to establish the UAE Stargate AI project. Group 42 Holding Ltd, commonly known as G42, is an Emirati AI development holding company headquartered in Abu Dhabi. Oracle, NVIDIA, and Cisco were specifically mentioned in a previous IRGC threat.

The initiative is led by Sam Altman of OpenAI, Larry Ellison of Oracle, and Masayoshi Son of SoftBank, and all three are billionaires. OpenAI and Microsoft provide artificial intelligence for the IDF. CEO and founder Sam Altman, during a meeting with Israeli President Isaac Herzog, said “Israel will play a huge role in AI development.” Ellison, the second richest man in the world, has donated millions to the Friends of the IDF and maintains close ties with the Israeli leadership, including Benjamin Netanyahu. Masayoshi Son’s SoftBank Group invests in Israeli technology, particularly in AI and cybersecurity. Son also invests in Israeli tech startups, including Lemonade, Compass, and WeWork.

The Stargate Project, a five data center, $400 billion investment, is supported by President Trump. The original site is located in Abilene, Texas, with subsequent sites in Lordstown, Ohio, and Milam County, Texas. Trump pushed the project through an AI action plan released in July. The initiative aims to federalize state-level AI regulations and accelerate the development of AI.

The massive 1-gigawatt Stargate UAE data center is the world’s largest AI computing cluster outside of the United States. G42 has a plan to expand the facility to encompass a 10-square-mile site with up to 5 gigawatts of power. Stargate represents the first international deployment of OpenAI infrastructure in West Asia. It is designed to enhance “sovereign” AI capabilities in the Gulf. Due to Stargate’s large scale and enormous energy requirements, it has been compared to the Manhattan Project.

“Safeguarding our models is a continuous commitment and a core pillar of our security posture,” explains Altman’s OpenAI. “Every OpenAI model deployment is governed by a rigorous, continuously evolving security framework that spans information security, governance, and physical infrastructure… We will continue to invest significantly in defense-in-depth measures that address physical security, insider threats, supply chain, and advanced cyber risks.”

Iran has demonstrated “physical security” of enemy infrastructure is no longer realistic. For more than a decade, it has worked to improve the precision and lethality of its ballistic missiles. It is estimated Iran has up to 80,000 Shahed loitering munitions and can produce hundreds daily. If the United States was unable to secure its $1.1 billion ballistic missile tracking system in Qatar, there is little chance it will be able to protect corporate assets in West Asia. If the crown jewel of Stargate AI is taken out in the UAE, it is likely the project will fail, with the loss of $30 billion or more.

The IRGC notice threatens the entire AI buildout in West Asia. “The Gulf states, particularly the UAE and Saudi Arabia, have aggressively positioned themselves as neutral computing corridors, offering cheap energy, abundant capital, and favorable regulatory environments,” reports Startup Fortune.

Companies like Microsoft, Google, and Amazon have committed tens of billions to the region, betting that its strategic location between Europe, Asia, and Africa makes it an ideal hub for data processing. The IRGC threat challenges that assumption directly, as the Times of India reported, signaling what could be a deliberate shift toward targeting high-value Western technology assets in the Gulf.

Iran remains steadfast in its demands: reparations for damages caused by military action, the withdrawal of US forces from the Persian Gulf, safeguards against future attacks, including attacks against resistance groups, and Iranian sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz. Short of achieving its objectives, Iran will continue to ascend the escalation ladder and target critical infrastructure in Israel and Persian Gulf nations complicit in a disastrous war initiated by Israel and the United States.

April 6, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Iran Threatens Retaliatory Strike on Stargate AI Project in UAE

US sent ‘a lot’ of arms to Iranian protesters – Trump

RT | April 6, 2026

The US sent “a lot” of weapons to Iranian protesters during unrest in January, President Donald Trump has told Fox News.

The demonstrations, initially driven by economic grievances and marred by violence, were openly incited at the time by Trump, who threatened the Iranian authorities with retaliation for suppressing the unrest. Tehran described the demonstrations as foreign-instigated and accused the US and Israel of fueling the movement, blaming armed provocateurs for deadly clashes.

In a phone interview on Sunday, Trump told reporter Trey Yingst that Washington had carried out a covert effort to arm demonstrators. He claimed the plan had little effect because Kurdish intermediaries allegedly kept the weapons instead of delivering them.

During the early stages of the Iranian protests, former CIA chief Mike Pompeo – who led the ‘maximum pressure’ campaign against Iran in Trump’s first administration – praised the rioting, sending his regards to protesters and “every Mossad agent walking beside them.”

In mid-March, the New York Times reported that Israel’s Mossad intelligence agency sought to “galvanize the Iranian opposition” during the early phase of the US-Israeli bombing campaign launched on February 28.

Mossad chief David Barnea reportedly presented a destabilization plan to the Trump administration in January. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu cited the agency’s optimism in making the case to Trump for military action.

However, instead of being overthrown by a mass uprising alongside targeted assassination of Iranian leaders, Tehran consolidated its control. A Kurdish offensive in Iran, which Trump had also encouraged, did not materialize either.

The US has a long history of supplying arms to groups aligned with its strategic goals. In the 1980s, the CIA supported jihadist insurgents in Afghanistan fighting Soviet forces. More recently, the Obama administration authorized the Timber Sycamore program in Syria, intended to help ‘moderate rebels’ topple the government in Damascus, which ended up strengthening radical Islamist factions.

April 6, 2026 Posted by | War Crimes, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on US sent ‘a lot’ of arms to Iranian protesters – Trump

Barak Ravid Launders Deception To Allow Trump To Back Off Of His Power Plant Threat – Again

The Dissident | April 6, 2026

The Trump administration is seemingly creating another deception, claiming that Iran wants to give concessions to the United States to yet again back off on its threat to target Iranian power plants and bridges if they do not agree to open the Strait of Hormuz.

For context, Trump took to Truth Social and in an unhinged message wrote , “Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran. There will be nothing like it!!! Open the Fuckin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell – JUST WATCH!” later adding that this planned war crime will take place, “Tuesday, 8:00 P.M. Eastern Time!”.

Iran, remained defiant and did not give in to Trump’s threats, with the Iranian IRCG saying , “We have consistently declared that any aggression against civilian targets will be met with extensive responses against enemy interests anywhere in the region” adding that “any repeated attacks on civilian facilities will trigger a second stage of the operation, which will be far more forceful, doubling the losses for the aggressors” stating, “We reiterate: if you commit further acts of aggression against civilian facilities, our responses will be even more crushing”.

Just in time for Trump to back off from his threat against Iran, Axios journalist Barak Ravid-who was previously with Israel’s Unit 8200 and repeatedly launders U.S. and Israeli national security state propaganda and controlled leaks as news report- put out an article claiming that “The U.S., Iran and a group of regional mediators are discussing the terms for a potential 45-day ceasefire that could lead to a permanent end to the war, according to four U.S., Israeli and regional sources with knowledge of the talks.”

According to Ravid’s “report” “this last-ditch effort is the only chance to prevent a dramatic escalation in the war that will include massive strikes on Iranian civilian infrastructure and a retaliation against energy and water facilities in the Gulf states” and that “the mediators are discussing with the parties the terms for [a] two-phased deal; the first phase would [be] a potential 45-day ceasefire during which a permanent end to the war would be negotiated.”

But this “report” seems to be yet another deception laundered to allow Trump to back off on his threats – knowing that they did not work in scaring Iran into opening the Strait of Hormuz, and fearing Iran’s retaliatory strikes if Trump follows through.

As even Barak Ravid’s report acknowledges, “the mediators are highly concerned that the Iranian retaliation for a U.S.-Israeli strike on the country’s energy infrastructure would be destructive for Gulf countries’ oil and water facilities.”

Not The First Time

The most conclusive evidence that Ravid’s report was a deception through a controlled leak is that he previously laundered a fake news report to allow Trump to get out of his initial threat against Iranian Nuclear power plants.

On March 21st, Trump first wrote on Truth Social, “If Iran doesn’t FULLY OPEN, WITHOUT THREAT, the Strait of Hormuz, within 48 HOURS from this exact point in time, the United States of America will hit and obliterate their various POWER PLANTS, STARTING WITH THE BIGGEST ONE FIRST!”.

Iran did not give in to Trump’s threats, with Iranian military spokesman Ebrahim Zolfaqari saying , “If Iran’s fuel and energy infrastructure is attacked by the enemy, all energy infrastructure, as well as information technology (IT) and water desalination facilities, belonging to the US and the regimes in the region will be targeted pursuant to previous warnings”.

“In case of the slightest attack on the electricity infrastructure of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the entire region will go dark”, Mehr news, an outlet affiliated with Iran’s IRGC, warned, giving a list of targets which included:

Saudi Arabia
– The Village (near Al-Khobar): gas power plant (4,000+ MW)
– Ras Tanura (Sharqiya Province): major oil and gas facility / power infrastructure

United Arab Emirates
– Barakah (Al Dhafra, Abu Dhabi): nuclear power plant (~5,600 MW)
– Jebel Ali (South Dubai): gas power and desalination complex (multi-GW capacity)
-Mohammed bin Rashid Solar Park (Dubai): large-scale solar power project

Qatar
– Ras Laffan (north Qatar): gas power plant (one of the largest in Qatar)
– Umm Al Houl (south of Doha): gas power + desalination plant (multi-GW capacity)

Kuwait
– Al-Zour South: oil and gas power plant
-Al-Zour North: combined-cycle power plant (multi-GW capacity)
– Shaqaya Energy Park (west Kuwait): solar and wind renewable energy complex

Realizing that Iran was not going to back down in the face of Trump’s threats and fearing Iran’s retaliatory strikes on Israel and the Gulf States – and it’s effect on the global economy – Trump came up with an excuse to postpone the strikes, taking again to Truth Social to say :

I AM PLEASED TO REPORT THAT THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND THE COUNTRY OF IRAN, HAVE HAD, OVER THE LAST TWO DAYS, VERY GOOD AND PRODUCTIVE CONVERSATIONS REGARDING A COMPLETE AND TOTAL RESOLUTION OF OUR HOSTILITIES IN THE MIDDLE EAST. BASED ON THE TENOR AND TONE OF THESE IN DEPTH, DETAILED, AND CONSTRUCTIVE CONVERSATIONS, WHICH WILL CONTINUE THROUGHOUT THE WEEK, I HAVE INSTRUCTED THE DEPARTMENT OF WAR TO POSTPONE ANY AND ALL MILITARY STRIKES AGAINST IRANIAN POWER PLANTS AND ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE FOR A FIVE DAY PERIOD, SUBJECT TO THE SUCCESS OF THE ONGOING MEETINGS AND DISCUSSIONS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER!

Iran, however denied that the talks were taking place at all, with Iran’s Press TV reporting that, “Iran has received messages through some friendly countries over the past few days regarding the US request for negotiations to end the ongoing war” but that “Iran has responded appropriately and based on the Islamic Republic’s principled positions” which includes demands for “a guarantee that war would never take place again, US military bases are closed in the region, and compensations are paid for damages inflicted on Iranian military and civilian structures.”

This was confirmed by journalists Jeremy Scahill and Murtaza Hussain, who reported that an Iranian official, off the record, confirmed that “there aren’t any negotiations taking place. The Iranian side has simply communicated its conditions to them, and even that has been done indirectly”.

Trump doubled down on this deception, claiming that he was negotiating with a “a top person” in Iran – who he would not name.

Aiding Trump in laundering this deception was none other than Barak Ravid.

In an article for Axios, Ravid claimed, “U.S. envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner had been in touch with the speaker of the Iranian parliament, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf” and that, “the mediating countries were trying to convene a meeting in Islamabad — with Ghalibaf and other officials representing Tehran, and Witkoff, Kushner and possibly Vice President Vance representing the U.S. — possibly later this week.”

But Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf – Iran’s hardline speaker of parliament publicly rebuked the report, stating, “Iranian people demand complete and remorseful punishment of the aggressors. All Irainan officials stand firmly behind their supreme leader and people until this goal is achieved. No negotiations have been held with the US, and fakenews is used to manipulate the financial and oil markets and escape the quagmire in which the US and Israel are trapped.”

Iranian media noted that this deception was deployed because “Trump backed down from his threats after realizing that the country would target all power plants in West Asia, warning that any threat to Tehran would be met with a proportional and firm response.”

The most likely explanation behind the Axios report is that an increasingly desperate and mentally declining Trump believed sending an unhinged message on Truth Social would this time make Iran back down and open the Strait of Hormuz.

With Iran yet again remaining defiant against U.S. threats, Trump yet again feared Iran’s retaliatory response to American strikes on power plants and tapped Barak Ravid to deploy another deception that would allow him to postpone the threats yet again.

April 6, 2026 Posted by | Deception, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on Barak Ravid Launders Deception To Allow Trump To Back Off Of His Power Plant Threat – Again

REWRITING THE RISK? INSIDE THE GOVERNMENT’S VACCINE SAFETY MESSAGING

The HighWire with Del Bigtree | April 2, 2026

Jefferey examines newly surfaced internal communications suggesting that messaging around potential stroke risks following COVID-19 vaccination may have been altered at the highest levels of government, including the Joe Biden White House. Drawing on reported emails from federal health agencies, the segment explores how language describing a “moderately elevated” safety signal was revised to “slightly elevated,” raising serious questions about transparency, public health communication, and risk disclosure during the vaccine rollout.

The analysis also highlights how terminology shifts, from “potential risk” to “preliminary signal”, may have softened public perception of adverse events at a critical moment when booster doses were being distributed to tens of millions of Americans. With coordinated messaging efforts involving the CDC, FDA, and select media and expert networks, the discussion frames these developments as part of a broader strategy to manage public response rather than fully inform it.

Beyond stroke-related concerns, the conversation expands into other reported safety signals, including myocarditis and cardiovascular stress markers observed in certain populations following vaccination. Internal deliberations and delayed public warnings are presented as evidence of systemic gaps in adverse event reporting and physician awareness, potentially impacting early detection and response to emerging risks.

Framed within the larger debate over censorship, government accountability, and medical transparency, Jefferey raises critical questions about how public health decisions are communicated—and who ultimately controls that narrative. As scrutiny intensifies over pandemic-era policies, the discussion underscores the importance of open scientific dialogue, rigorous safety monitoring, and restoring trust in public health institutions moving forward.

April 6, 2026 Posted by | Deception, Timeless or most popular, Video | , | Comments Off on REWRITING THE RISK? INSIDE THE GOVERNMENT’S VACCINE SAFETY MESSAGING

“Davos Can Really Replace the UN”

Inside the book that maps the architecture behind global governance — from the Epstein files to the Pact for the Future

Lies are Unbekoming | April 1, 2026

On June 13, 2019, the United Nations and the World Economic Forum signed a partnership deal to “accelerate the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.” That same evening, WEF president Börge Brende — Norway’s former Foreign Minister — had dinner with Jeffrey Epstein at Epstein’s Manhattan townhouse. The Epstein files, released January 2026, contain an exchange between the two from the previous year. Epstein to Brende: “Davos can really replace the UN. C21, cyber, crypto . genetics… intl coordination.” Brende back to Epstein: “Exactly — we need a new global architecture. World Economic Forum (Davos) is uniquely positioned — public private.”

The next day, the UN General Assembly adopted the framework for restructuring global governance.

That sequence — the partnership signing, the Epstein dinner, the candid admission about replacing the UN with a public-private architecture, and then the formal adoption — opens Jacob Nordangård’s The Digital World Brain. Pages two and three. Footnoted to the UN resolution number, the Epstein files, and the General Assembly record.

I keep coming back to it because it captures what this book does that almost nothing else in the independent research space manages. I’ve followed Jacob’s work for years now and interviewed him about his research. Each book peels back another layer of the same institutional architecture, and each time I think he’s reached the limit of what can be documented, the next one goes further. Nordangård doesn’t speculate. He doesn’t editorialize much. He lays institutional actions next to each other in chronological order and lets the pattern announce itself.

The Researcher

Nordangård has a PhD in Technology and Social Change from Linköping University. Master’s degrees in geography and in culture and media production. He’s taught at three Swedish universities. His doctoral work traced how institutional networks shape EU biofuels policy — mapping the actors, the funding flows, and the coordination mechanisms that produce outcomes which look spontaneous but aren’t.

He’s been applying that same method to global governance for over a decade now, across five books. Rockefeller: Controlling the Game followed the money behind the climate agenda from the 1950s forward — Rockefeller Foundation grants to climate scientists, Rockefeller Brothers Fund involvement in virtually every major environmental conference and agreement. The Global Coup d’Etat documented the pre-existing plans that the pandemic accelerated. The Digital World Brain, first published in Swedish in 2022 and now out in an expanded English edition, takes the UN Secretary-General’s 2021 report Our Common Agenda and its twelve commitments apart, chapter by chapter, tracing the institutional genealogy behind each one.

The man also fronts a doom metal band called Wardenclyffe whose lyrics are drawn from his research. Make of that what you will.

What the Documents Actually Say

Our Common Agenda proposes twelve commitments. Read casually, they sound like boilerplate — leave no one behind, protect the planet, build trust, upgrade digital cooperation. The kind of language that slides past without friction.

Nordangård slows down and traces where each commitment came from, who drafted it, who funded the drafting, and what it requires in practice. A “new social contract” that ties your individual obligations to planetary boundaries defined by a scientific council you didn’t elect. Digital identity for every person on earth, connected to monitoring infrastructure. A Futures Lab to collect and analyse data on citizens’ attitudes, opinions, and life choices using AI. A Climate Governance Council. A Special Envoy to speak on behalf of future generations — meaning, in practice, an unelected office with a mandate to override present democratic decisions in the name of people who don’t yet exist.

Traced back through the commissions and think tanks that produced them, these twelve commitments form a three-layer governance structure. At the top, an upgraded United Nations with enforcement powers and a standing army. Beneath that, anticipatory governance — mass data collection feeding AI systems that predict behaviour and detect non-compliance. And at the base, multi-stakeholder governance: public-private partnerships implementing decisions at every level of society.

The preparatory work goes back to at least 2015, when the Albright-Gambari Commission — supported by the Stimson Center, a Washington think tank sitting at the intersection of the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, and the major philanthropic foundations — recommended a World Conference on Global Institutions to coincide with the UN’s 75th anniversary in 2020.

Two months before that anniversary conference could take shape, COVID-19 shut down the world. The questions that had been prepared for member state discussions — “What are today’s most fundamental global challenges? How is the UN standing up to new challenges?” — suddenly had a very specific answer.

The New Material

This English edition adds two chapters covering events through early 2026, and they’re the reason even readers of the Swedish original need this book.

The Pact for the Future was signed at the UN Summit of the Future in September 2024. Nordangård documents the signing and the opposition — such as it was. Russia objected. But Russia’s complaint wasn’t about individual freedom or democratic accountability. It was about ensuring Russian participation as an equal partner in the new architecture. The BRICS nations voted against Russia’s procedural amendment. They didn’t want to stop the digital governance infrastructure. They just didn’t want to be junior partners in it.

The chapter called “The Great Disruptor” will unsettle people across the political spectrum, which is probably the point. Nordangård maps the network connections between the Trump administration and the very institutions Trump’s supporters believe he opposes. J.D. Vance came up through Peter Thiel’s venture capital world. Thiel sits on the Bilderberg Group’s steering committee — alongside WEF’s Börge Brende. His company Palantir was seed-funded by the CIA’s In-Q-Tel and is a partner of the WEF’s Centre for the Fourth Industrial Revolution. ICE is now using Palantir’s AI surveillance to generate “confidence scores” for tracking immigrants. Elon Musk’s grandfather ran the Canadian branch of Technocracy Inc. Musk himself was named a WEF Young Global Leader in 2008. The book includes an appendix table of Young Global Leaders with ties to the Trump administration. It runs long.

Nordangård isn’t arguing that Trump is a puppet. He’s documenting that the institutional connections run in every direction, and that what looks like opposition may be accelerating the dissolution of the old order in ways that serve the same technocratic endpoint. The evidence is specific enough that readers can evaluate it themselves.

But the most unsettling material in the new edition is a May 2025 white paper from the WEF’s Global Government Technology Centre called The Agentic State. Nordangård catches something in the title that the authors may not have intended to advertise. In psychology, the “agentic state” is Stanley Milgram’s term for the mental condition in which a person stops seeing themselves as responsible for their own actions and becomes an instrument of authority. It’s the mechanism that made ordinary people administer what they believed were lethal electric shocks in Milgram’s obedience experiments.

The white paper’s meaning is the other one — a state governed by AI agents. But the resonance hangs in the air.

The paper proposes that laws can evolve from static rules into “a far more dynamic living system, continuously interpreted, tested, and refined by agents.” Human legislators would set “broad societal goals.” Everything else — specific rules, thresholds, requirements — gets “adjusted dynamically by agents with limited or no human intervention.” Compliance becomes continuous, monitored in real time by AI systems issuing yes/no attestations across health, safety, financial, environmental, and ethics domains. Citizen input comes through “emotion detection in digital interactions” feeding into the system’s self-adjustment loops.

The authors ask what safeguards would be needed if AI agents could “issue fines or trigger legal action in real time.” They don’t answer their own question. They move on.

This isn’t a leaked memo. It’s a public white paper from a WEF-affiliated centre whose founding strategic partners include IBM, Microsoft, SAP, Oracle, and Huawei. Its lead author is the Chief Information Officer of the Estonian government. Nordangård’s contribution is placing it in the context of everything else in the book. After 250 pages of institutional genealogy, the paper reads less like futurism and more like a product specification.

The book runs 283 pages with more than 250 footnotes, a multi-page bibliography, and appendix tables cross-referencing WEF Young Global Leaders to government positions, milestones in the digital ID agenda, and the full timeline of climate governance from a 1971 MIT study through the 2024 Pact for the Future. It’s dense, and it demands an engaged reader. This is a reference work — the kind of book you come back to six months later when something shows up in the news and you want to understand which institutional thread it connects to.

Where It Comes From

The concept of a “World Brain” was articulated by H.G. Wells in 1938. Oliver Reiser, a philosophy professor at the University of Pittsburgh, developed it further through the 1940s and 1970s into a vision he called the “World Sensorium” — all of humanity integrated into a collective technological organism, governed by a World Organisation, guided by what he termed “radio-eugenics.” His book Cosmic Humanism and World Unity was published posthumously by the World Institute, which operated from offices at the United Nations Plaza in New York.

This wasn’t fringe material that got ignored. It ran directly through the Club of Rome, the Club of Budapest, the World Future Society, and into the bodies that drafted Our Common Agenda. Nordangård traces the institutional lineage. That lineage is the book’s spine.

In 1968, Columbia University professor Zbigniew Brzezinski — later US National Security Advisor, co-founder of the Trilateral Commission with David Rockefeller — wrote that new technologies could make possible “extensive population control, including the monitoring of each citizen and maintaining up-to-date files on their health or personal behaviour.” Power, he wrote, would “gravitate into those who control information and can correlate it most rapidly,” encouraging “tendencies during the next several decades toward a technocratic dictatorship, leaving less and less room for political procedures as we now know them.” That was 1968. The technology now exists to do everything Brzezinski described. The institutional architecture to deploy it is what this book documents.

The Proportionality Problem

One detail from the conclusion stays with me. Human-generated CO2 represents roughly 4% of total atmospheric carbon dioxide, which itself makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere. That comes out to about 16 parts per million. To influence a fraction of those 16 parts per million, the plan requires digitising, monitoring, tokenising, and subjecting to real-time compliance enforcement essentially everything — food production, energy, transportation, land use, individual consumption. All overseen by unelected “Planetary Stewards.”

Nordangård asks the obvious questions. How much energy will the Digital World Brain itself consume? Can the stated carbon targets be reached without measures indistinguishable from permanent authoritarian control? The white papers don’t address this.

Read the Documents

The Pact for the Future has been signed. The Global Digital Compact is annexed to it. The WHO Pandemic Agreement was adopted in May 2025. The Agentic State white paper is online for anyone to read. The UN-WEF partnership agreement is a matter of public record. The foundation funding behind the organisations that drafted all of this is disclosed in their own annual reports.

What Nordangård has done across 283 pages and more than 250 footnotes is demonstrate that these are not independent initiatives happening to converge. They are components of an architecture that has been under construction for decades, advanced by identifiable people through documented channels. He’s brought the receipts.

The book ends on a note of conviction — that this system, however carefully engineered, cannot ultimately prevail against what he calls humanity’s “natural intelligence.” Whether or not you share that faith, the institutional map he’s drawn demands a serious response. The documents are real. The signatures are dated. The timelines check out.

Read the book. Then read the documents it cites. Nordangård includes the URLs in his footnotes. You can verify every claim that matters without leaving your desk.

Then decide for yourself what a system designed to monitor every person, predict every behaviour, and enforce compliance in real time through AI agents actually is — regardless of what its architects choose to call it.

Jacob is an independent researcher doing work that no university department and no mainstream publisher would touch. He funds this through book sales and reader support. If what you’ve read here matters to you, buy the book. Give it to someone who’s starting to ask questions. This is the kind of research that deserves to find a wider audience, and that only happens when readers carry it forward.


The Digital World Brain: Our Common Agenda and The Pact for the Future by Jacob Nordangård, PhD. First English edition, 2026. Pharos Media Productions.

Get the book: pharosmedia.se

Follow Jacob’s research: drjacobnordangard.substack.com

April 6, 2026 Posted by | Book Review, Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | Comments Off on “Davos Can Really Replace the UN”

NIAID/NIH and USDA Fund Bioengineered Chimeric Influenza Viruses Built Using Pandemic H1N1 Components: Journal ‘Science Advances’

100% infection in exposed animals—mutations associated with immune evasion arise

By Jon Fleetwood | April 4, 2026

A new peer-reviewed study published last month in Science Advances says that U.S. government–funded researchers engineered chimeric influenza viruses using components from the 2009 pandemic H1N1 strain—and achieved a 100% infection rate in exposed animals.

The engineered viruses mutated during infection, generating changes associated with immune evasion.

The work was funded in part by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), along with support from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).

The research was conducted within the Center of Excellence for Influenza Research and Response (CEIRR/CEIRS), a federally backed network focused on influenza surveillance, vaccine development, and pandemic preparedness.

You can contact NIAID here, the NIH hereHHS here, and the USDA here to voice opposition to taxpayer-funded chimeric research on pandemic pathogens—particularly after Congress, the White House, the Department of Energy, the FBI, the CIA, and Germany’s Federal Intelligence Service (BND) all acknowledged that the deadly COVID-19 pandemic was “likely” the result of a laboratory incident.

Meanwhile, President Donald Trump recently signed legislation into law allocating at least $5.5 billion in taxpayer funding for a future influenza pandemic.

April 5, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Comments Off on NIAID/NIH and USDA Fund Bioengineered Chimeric Influenza Viruses Built Using Pandemic H1N1 Components: Journal ‘Science Advances’

Hezbollah hits Israeli warship off Lebanon’s coast, sets it aflame

Press TV – April 5, 2026

Fighters from the Lebanese Hezbollah resistance movement have carried out an operation in retaliation for the Israeli acts of aggression against Lebanon, targeting a military vessel off the coast of the Arab nation before it could launch any hostile action.

According to a statement issued by the group on Sunday, Hezbollah members targeted an Israeli military ship 68 nautical miles off the Lebanese coast, stressing that the vessel was preparing to carry out its aggressions against Lebanese territory.

“The targeting operation was carried out with a naval cruise missile after monitoring the target for hours, and it was confirmed to have been directly hit,” the statement noted.

Hezbollah emphasized that the strike falls within the framework of Operation Devoured Straw, and in defense of Lebanon and its nation.

This came a day after the Lebanese resistance fighters conducted a total of 42 top-tier operations against Israeli positions, including military bases and illegal settlements.

Hezbollah said 20 operations out of those conducted struck enemy positions within the occupied territories, while 21 were carried out on Lebanese soil.

“The most distant operation reached a target located 15 kilometers beyond the Palestinian-Lebanese border,” the statement read.

Three more military operations were carried out during the early hours of Sunday, which included separate attacks on Israeli forces inside Lebanese territories or along the border settlements.

Israeli Channel 12 television channel has revealed that Northern Command chief Major General Ravil Milo admitted in a leaked closed-door meeting with settlers in Misgav Am that the regime’s military apparatus was “surprised” by Hezbollah’s ability to rebuild its strength.

According to the report, post-war assessments following the 2024 aggression on Lebanon that claimed Hezbollah had been neutralized were “overly optimistic.

Milo highlighted a widening gap between what the Tel Aviv regime believed after the war and the current situation on the ground, acknowledging that Hezbollah continues to maintain both presence and operational capabilities.

“They suddenly found that Hezbollah still exists,” he said, underscoring the persistence of the resistance despite previous Israeli assertions.

April 5, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , | Comments Off on Hezbollah hits Israeli warship off Lebanon’s coast, sets it aflame