Iran War Reality BITES – SPIN HARDER /Lt Col Daniel Davis & Mario Nawfal
Daniel Davis / Deep Dive – May 6, 2026
German arson case: Antisemitism commissioner’s inner circle now top suspects after police raids
Remix News | May 5, 2026
The investigation into the early 2026 firebombing of Brandenburg Antisemitism Commissioner Andreas Büttner’s home is nearing a conclusion, but the results have stunned the public.
In a dramatic reversal of the initial narrative, the Brandenburg State Criminal Police Office has executed a series of raids across Lower Saxony, Baden-Württemberg, and Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania targeting the commissioner’s own close associates.
While the case was initially treated as an Islamist or antisemitic hate crime, the German Public Prosecutor General’s Office now identifies two men from Büttner’s “own circle,” which belongs to the left, as the primary suspects, reveals Tagesspiegel in a new exclusive report.
Initially believed to be a pro-Palestinian terror arson attack
On the night of Jan. 4, 2026, a shed on Büttner’s Templin estate was incinerated, and a red Hamas triangle – a mark of the Palestinian terrorist (sic) group – was found defaced on his front door. The attack, which caused approximately €20,000 euros in damage, triggered a massive increase in the commissioner’s personal security.
However, the “antisemitic or Islamist motive” is now being questioned following several key investigative breakthroughs.
The first has to do with DNA evidence. Forensic teams reportedly matched DNA from Lukas S. to threatening letters sent to the Brandenburg State Parliament, which branded Büttner a “Zionist pig” and a “traitor,” and expressed a clear intent to “kill” him.
One letter addressed to Büttner contained a mysterious “gray substance” and “granular substance,” which prompted an emergency response by police specialists at the parliament’s mailroom.
The second point of evidence has to do with the specific arson attack. Police discovered by chance a smoldering fire 20 kilometers from the crime scene containing gloves and barbecue lighter fluid. When investigators connected them to the arson, the items were traced back to a purchase at a hardware store in Lower Saxony that involved a debit card belonging to one of the suspects, the same one who is a business partner of Büttner.
Suspects are two Germans with deep ties to left-wing causes and combating antisemitism
The suspects, identified as Daniel R. and Lucas S., are not strangers to the commissioner; they are his “friends and business partners,” according to Tagesspiegel.
All three men are linked through a “management consulting” firm established in 2023, where Büttner is the majority shareholder and Daniel R. serves as the managing director. Furthermore, the suspects are active in a non-profit initiative for “political education and commemorative work” for which Büttner is the “sole patron.”
Despite the violent nature of the charges — which include arson and the use of “symbols associated with unconstitutional and terrorist organizations” — the trio appeared to maintain an amicable relationship after the attack.
Reports indicate they met in Berlin and Potsdam and even attended a performance of “The Flying Dutchman” at the Leipzig Opera in February.
When confronted with the news that his business partners were under investigation, Andreas Büttner maintained his distance, stating: “I had—and still have—absolutely no knowledge of this matter. Naturally not.”
He also noted he is cooperating with police, noting, “The police are investigating. I cannot say anything about this. I have confidence in the police investigation.”
The revelation complicates the wave of international support Büttner received following the fire.
At the time, Israel’s Ambassador Ron Prosor condemned the act as terrorism, stating that the Hamas triangle represented attacks on those with different views “in Gaza just as in Brandenburg.”
Federal Antisemitism Commissioner Felix Klein similarly labeled the event a “direct attack on our democracy.”
The German Public Prosecutor continues to investigate, with more details of why the attack occurred potentially coming to light in the future.
Meanwhile, commentators are addressing the remarkable details of the case and the suspects allegedly behind the firebombing.
Jan Karon, a journalist and author, wrote on X:
“Daniel R. and Lucas S., who are suspected of carrying out the arson attack (complete with Hamas triangles) on the antisemitism commissioner Andreas Büttner, practically embody the epitome of the progressive NGO complex.
The two, as the text states citing a source, had “made a business model out of mediating funding to people and organizations.” The article reconstructs their activities: nationwide courses and projects, €98,000 in funding from the Federal Ministry for Family Affairs, the “German Engagement Award,” the fight against racism, and an explanatory channel on YouTube.
The two men posed in 2019 at the Chancellery next to Merkel—as young people “committed to democracy.”
This was followed by invitations to the EU Parliament, the Bundestag, and the Federal Press Ball. In 2020, they founded a foundation for educational work, from which a company later emerged that sought to commemorate the child victims of National Socialism (!) —and to this end collected donations to produce 5,000 pairs of fiberglass shoes (!!).
R. and S. also planned to rebuild the destroyed synagogue in Prenzlau with donations.
They are said to have pressed the antisemitism commissioner Büttner to “fly to Israel” with Federal President Frank-Walter Steinmeier. Büttner founded a company with them that is dedicated to that (federally funded) fight.
One is left speechless.
Previous hate hoaxes
If proven that this was indeed a staged hate attack, it would not be the first time that a hate hoax occurred in recent years.
In 2022, famed German-Israeli musician Gil Ofarim was accused of lying about an alleged antisemitic incident inside the Leipzig Hotel Westin after video footage and other evidence led police to doubt his claims, but not before the case sparked national headlines in Germany.
According to the singer Ofarim, who was born in Israel but found success as a musician in Germany, an employee at the check-in counter asked him to remove his Star of David chain from sight if he wanted to be checked in. Ofarim made the claim in an emotional Instagram video entitled “Antisemitism in Germany 2021,” where he ended his story by holding up the necklace chain in question. The viral video sparked protests involving thousands of people in front of the hotel, and the claims were spread widely by antisemitism watchdogs.
After Ofarim’s claims, video footage obtained by Bild newspaper is calling into question Ofarim’s version of events, leading the case to fall apart and for the hotel employee to be completely cleared of wrongdoing after an independent investigation.
In a commentary piece on Germany’s Junge Freiheit, the Ofarim case was presented as a clear example of previous hate hoaxes that have plagued Germany in the past. Like many other cases later identified as false or misleading, the Ofarim antisemitism claim was widely reported in world media outlets, including the Guardian and CNN.
Junge Freiheit pointed to the Sebnitz case, where a mob of skinheads supposedly drowned a toddler, only for it to turn into one of the biggest debacles in Germany’s modern history. There is also the case of Mittweide, where nobody had actually carved a swastika on her forehead (police later proved she did it herself). In Müglen, foreigners were not hunted on the streets, and in Chemnitz, the same accusation that sparked a nationwide outcry has never been proven. And in Dresden, an Eritrean asylum seeker was not murdered by right-wing extremists from the Pegida movement, but killed by a fellow Eritrean.
The FCC Wants Your ID Before You Get a Phone Number
By Ken Macon | Reclaim The Net | May 6, 2026
The era of the anonymous phone number could be ending. On April 30, the Federal Communications Commission unanimously approved a proposal requiring telecom providers to verify customers’ identities before activating service.
Government-issued ID, physical address, legal name, and existing phone numbers would all be included. The stated goal is stopping robocalls. The result would be an identity-verification regime covering one of the last semi-anonymous communication tools available to ordinary Americans.
The proposal applies to nearly every voice provider in the country, from traditional carriers and mobile operators to VoIP services. The FCC is seeking public comment on specifics, but the direction is clear.
FCC Chairman Brendan Carr framed it around negligent carriers. “As we have continued to investigate the problem of illegal robocalls over the last year, it has become clear that some originating providers are not doing enough to vet their customers, allowing bad actors to infiltrate our U.S. phone networks,” he said. Some providers, he added, “do the bare minimum (or worse) and have become complicit in illegal robocalling schemes.”
That language targets telecom companies and the surveillance targets everyone else.
The framework borrows from banking’s anti-money-laundering rules. The FCC is also asking whether carriers should retain identity documentation for at least four years after a customer leaves and whether they should check customers against law enforcement watchlists. Penalties would shift to a per-call basis, meaning fines of $1,000 to $15,000 for every illegal call a poorly verified customer places.
The real privacy stakes sit in the proposal’s section on prepaid service. Right now, you can pay cash for a prepaid phone and SIM card without showing identification. Journalists use prepaid phones to protect sources, domestic violence survivors use them to avoid being traced, and whistleblowers, activists, or anyone with a reason to separate phone activity from legal identity relies on this.
Texas has an Israel Investment Problem
By Adam Dick | Peace and Prosperity Blog | May 6, 2026
Investing is generally understood to be about seeking to preserve and grow wealth. But the Texas government seems to be making an exception to that understanding in buying the bonds of the Israel government and enabling other government entities in Texas to do so as well.
In February, Acting Comptroller Kelly Hancock touted in a press release that the state government was doubling its holdings of Israel bonds “from approximately $140 million to $280 million, marking the largest one-time investment in Israel bonds in Texas history and elevating the state from the sixth-largest to the second-largest U.S. state investor in these securities.”
That is a significant investment action. How did Hancock describe that the action was taken to best preserve and grow the wealth held by state government? He did not. Instead, Hancock provided a political justification in the press release:
‘Texas proudly stands with Israel,’ Hancock said. ‘This expanded investment reinforces our long-standing relationship and shared commitment to faith, freedom and economic opportunity. Texas and Israel have built a partnership that stretches beyond finance, and this step reflects both our solidarity and our belief in what we can accomplish together.’
This sort of reasoning does not bode well of the finances of the state. Liking a government is not a valid investment reason for buying its bonds. Is Hancock next going to “invest” in truckloads of puppies because he thinks they are adorable?
The state government, in addition to piling up Israel bonds, has also decreed that government entities in Texas can buy Israel government bonds but are forbidden from buying bonds of any other foreign government. This special permission to purchase Israel government bonds is provided in chapter 2256 of the Texas Government Code (the Public Funds Investment Act). There the listed “authorized investments” for government entities in Texas include “bonds issued, assumed, or guaranteed by the State of Israel” but no similar investments related to any other foreign government.
Is there any reason to think that the bonds of Israel are uniquely good investments when compared to the bonds of every other foreign nation? It seems the answer to that question is “no.” Consider that in May of 2025 Daniel Liberto reported at Investopedia that then “10 countries had perfect credit ratings from all three rating companies” — Fitch Ratings, Moody’s Investors Service, and S&P Global Ratings. Israel did not make the list. Yet, Israel’s bonds are determined by the Texas government to be an acceptable investment while these other bond options that have been rated safer are verboten.
It looks like the Texas government, through its preferred treatment of Israel bonds, is ensuring that politics triumphs over sound investing.
British journalist faces ‘anti-terror probe’ after Iran visit, reporting on US-Israeli crimes
Press TV – May 6, 2026
In a politically motivated move, a UK-based independent journalist and activist faces an “anti-terror probe” after her recent visit to Iran, where she reported on post-war developments, including massive rallies against the US-Israeli war coalition.
Observers say the move punishes legitimate political expression as the UK government seeks to silence dissenting voices critical of the unprovoked war against the Islamic Republic.
Bushra Shaikh, a British media personality who has been vocal about the US-Israeli war of aggression against Iran as well as the ongoing genocide in Gaza, has been referred to the Metropolitan Police’s Counter-Terrorism Command over a speech she delivered at a rally in Iran during her recent visit.
The referral, which comes just days after her return from the Islamic Republic, has raised serious concerns about the UK government weaponizing “anti-terror” laws to target individuals whose political views diverge from its stance on West Asia developments.
In a video shared online, Shaikh was seen addressing a rally in Iran, in which she expressed her solidarity with the people of Iran and condemned the aggression against them.
During the rally, flags of regional resistance movements, including Hezbollah, were seen.
Within hours of the post going live, a formal complaint was lodged with Scotland Yard, as reported by British media, alleging that Shaikh may have breached the Terrorism Act, which criminalizes “inviting support” for a banned group.
The report further claimed a potential violation of the National Security Act’s new Foreign Influence Registration Scheme (FIRS), which requires individuals acting under the direction of a foreign power to register their political activities.
“Any allegations relating to possible terrorism or national security-related offences will be passed to officers within Counter Terrorism Policing, who will assess the details and take any further action as appropriate,” the Met Police was quoted as saying.
During her visit to Iran, as part of a foreign media delegation invited by the Sobh Media Center, Shaikh visited many cities and interacted with victims of the recent war.
She also interviewed government officials, including foreign ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei and chairman of the parliament’s foreign policy and internal security commission Ebrahim Azizi, which she also shared on her social media platforms.
In the recent past, many British journalists, activists and academics have faced draconian charges in their country after visiting Iran to attend conferences or media festivals, including the Sobh International Media Festival, organized by the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) World Service.
Trump’s ’Project Freedom’ just got blown out of the water. What now?
By Martin Jay | Strategic Culture Foundation | May 6, 2026
The escalation trap seems to be pulling Donald Trump deeper and deeper into the quicksand of the Iran war. Following Iran’s strike on a UAE oil terminal, Trump has had to back down and “pause” his plan to create a military escort that would chaperone oil tankers through the Straits of Hormuz. Project Freedom, according to the president’s own social media posts, has been suspended before it even started as Trump struggles to find more smoke-and-mirror tactics to fool a gullible American public that the war in Iran has been “won”. Eight times, in fact.
But it’s easy to see how Trump is getting pulled about by various players and may still be clinging onto the idea of some sort of military manoeuvre in the Persian Gulf. I have previously speculated that I don’t believe he will launch a second strike, but an attempt at landing on an island and installing US soldiers there must still be something he is considering. And since the Iranian strike on the UAE, something extraordinary has happened that will now lodge this idea further in his head—that such a plan might work. The UAE just went out on a limb and beefed up its relations to a whole new level with Israel, even beyond the special status it had as being the Zionist entity’s only solid partner in the entire GCC. After the strike on its oil terminal, news flooded social media that the UAE was planning a retaliatory strike and has teamed up militarily with Israel. This is significant on many levels, as not only does it create a clear dividing line between itself and other GCC countries that would like to make a statement to Iran that they are not its enemy, but it also positions the UAE as a major target for Tehran, and so the move is incredibly risky, if not foolish for its elite in Abu Dhabi. It is almost as though they are prepared to destroy everything the country has accomplished in fifty years as an economic miracle of the entire region just to make the point that signing the Abraham Accords was, in fact, not an egregious error on their part. Israel or nothing.
And so the strategy of Israel is shifting from convincing America that it needs to take huge collateral losses, both militarily and in terms of human life, to now convincing the UAE. But do Abu Dhabi’s rulers have the guts to take on Iran head-on? Can they take the losses of life and the destruction of their infrastructure that is inevitable? One can only imagine that the Israelis have turned on the charm and sweet-talked its rulers into the fantasy zone that Trump was dragged into. Perhaps Trump himself has played a minor but important role as well, as it cannot be a coincidence that just a week earlier he commented to journalists that the US should consider compensating the UAE for the damage caused by Iran’s strikes. Of course all this is linked, and we shouldn’t consider it a coincidence that the UAE has just made the decision on a capricious whim.
Trump’s idea of taking an island in the Persian Gulf and the UAE now making a military alliance with Israel are all part of the same doomed blueprint, which must be bringing new levels of joy to Tehran, whose leaders can hardly believe their luck. They will be thinking, “We’ll destroy Dubai and Abu Dhabi and then watch their rulers beg for mercy, while the whole GCC gives in to whatever demands we have, including rule over the straits.”
Trump’s idea of taking an island is probably his most stupid yet and may well be the brainchild of Israel’s military planners. It’s dumb on so many levels, but it’s easy to see how it is appealing in that it is feasible to install US troops on one of the many islands the UAE claims Iran took from them. Iran would probably allow the operation to go ahead anyway, as allowing the US to install itself on an island would be the perfect way to hold them hostage. Even from a logistical point of view the idea is doomed. It is one thing to put US troops on an island but quite another to supply them. The Iranians could simply block US ships and planes supplying them once they are there and have set up their base. Troops need food, water, and equipment just to function. The military planners who came up with the idea are probably thinking that such an island could be a base to launch operations from, but have not figured that Iran will be one step ahead and will not allow the second part of this plan to bear fruit. And so the island idea will blow up in the faces of those who signed it off, as the soldiers will effectively be hostages to be paraded on social media platforms every day while it is Iran, out of an act of decency, who will be feeding them—unless Tehran is so enraged by a strike on its energy infrastructure that it decides to kill them all to send a message to the US and Israel. It’s all madness. But the problem with such madness having got to this stage is that the only solution seems to be more madness. Trump, Israel, and now the UAE are all fighting fire with fire, and ironically it is the UAE—the only country in the region that had, at one point, quite cordial relations with Iran—that could have been the diplomatic conduit to finding a peaceful solution. The UAE, which has a huge Iranian community in Dubai, could have been the one country to have stopped the madness and to have brokered peace given its unique relations with both Israel and Iran, and yet it chose not to. This is the escalation trap, as Professor Bob Pape calls it, and it just took its latest victim in Abu Dhabi.
Cuba, Nicaragua, Mexico – Pentagon Reportedly Eyeing Targets in Latin America
Sputnik – 06.05.2026
The US military revived a jungle training school Panama after a 25-year hiatus, Bloomberg reported.
This isn’t just training, it’s preparation for intervention, Russian military expert Alexander Stepanov told Sputnik.
Cuba is the main focus—precision strikes on key infrastructure could help in seizing government centers and ports, he pointed out.
Nicaragua is next—its ties with China, strategic location, and anti-American leadership make it a priority to eliminate Daniel Ortega’s government, according to the expert.
He added that Mexico may see US operations framed as anti-drug efforts, but aimed at undermining sovereignty and taking full control.
The bigger picture: The Pentagon is seeking to form a regional US contingent to target governments regarded as unwelcome by the United States—all under the revived Monroe Doctrine, Stepanov concluded.
Rubio ‘lying’: Cuba slams denial of US blockade; claims debunked
Al Mayadeen | May 6, 2026
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio rejected accusations that Washington is enforcing an oil blockade on Cuba, instead attributing the island’s deepening energy crisis and blackouts to the end of Venezuelan subsidized oil shipments and internal mismanagement.
Speaking publicly, Rubio said, “Here’s what’s happening with Cuba, okay? Cuba used to get free oil from Venezuela. They would take like 60% of that oil and resell it for cash. It wouldn’t even go to benefit the people. So the only blockade that’s happened is … the Venezuelans have decided we’re not giving you free oil anymore.”
Rubio further criticized Cuba’s leadership, stating, “The reason that I can’t fix it is not just because they’re communist. That’s bad enough, but they’re incompetent communists.”
His remarks come amid a worsening fuel and electricity crisis on the island, where oil imports have fallen sharply. Venezuela had previously supplied Cuba with subsidized crude, reportedly up to 100,000 barrels per month, under a barter system in which Havana sent medical personnel in return. That arrangement collapsed following the US-backed ouster of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in early 2026, cutting off a key energy lifeline.
Rubio’s comments also contrast with reports and assessments pointing to US sanctions and restrictions as a major factor in the island’s energy shortages, with measures targeting entities involved in supplying fuel to Cuba.
Trump admin statements casually doing backflips
Additionally, all the way back in January, the Trump administration was considering new measures aimed at forcing political change in Cuba, including the possibility of a “full blockade on oil imports to the island,” three sources familiar with the discussions told Politico.
US President Donald Trump signed an executive order threatening tariffs on countries exporting fuel to Cuba, prompting suppliers such as Mexico to halt shipments. Reports indicate that only one tanker has reached Cuba in the past four months, contributing to widespread blackouts, school closures, and growing public protests.
According to people familiar with the matter and cited by Politico, Marco Rubio at the time even backed this decision, being a vehement critic of the Cuban government.
Cuba slams US denial as ‘lies’
Cuba’s Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez dismissed Rubio’s current statements as “lying”, accusing Washington of intensifying pressure on the island as it faces historically low oil imports and a worsening humanitarian situation.
“He has simply chosen to lie. He contradicts the President and the White House spokeswoman,” Rodriguez wrote on X.
Citing the US president’s January 29, 2026, Executive Order that threatened to impose tariffs on any country exporting fuels to Cuba, he said, “It is impossible to hide the truth.”
“After four months, only one fuel tanker has arrived in Cuba. All our suppliers are being intimidated and threatened in violation of the rules that govern free trade and freedom of navigation.”
“The new Executive Order issued on May 1st establishes secondary sanctions in the field of energy. The Secretary knows only too well the harm and hardships that is being caused by the criminal oil siege that he himself suggested the President to impose on the Cuban people.”
It is worth observing that back in 2024, the United Nations General Assembly had, for the 32nd consecutive year, voted overwhelmingly in favor of a resolution calling for an end to the US blockade on Cuba, with only the US and “Israel” opposing the measure.
Only the US and “Israel” have been so insistent for years on this blockade, while framing it as something that the Cubans themselves have been asking for, and then turn around and blame Venezuela for it.
Trump threatens immediate US takeover of Cuba
Only a few days ago, Trump stated that Washington could move to take control of Cuba “almost immediately”, in remarks signaling a sharp escalation in the long-standing hostile US rhetoric toward the Caribbean island.
Speaking at an event in Florida last Friday, Trump said, “Cuba, which we will be taking over almost immediately,” adding that “Cubans got problems.”
The US president outlined a potential show of force involving a US aircraft carrier, indicating that such a move could compel Cuba to submit without direct conflict.
“On the way back from Iran, we’ll have one of our big, maybe the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier, the biggest in the world, we’ll have that come in, stop about 100 yards offshore,” he said.
He further claimed that the presence of such military force alone would force a rapid capitulation. “They’ll say ‘thank you very much. We give up,’” Trump added, concluding: “I like to finish a job.”
The reference to the USS Abraham Lincoln highlights Washington’s reliance on naval power projection as a central tool in its strategy.
Earlier in April, sources told USA Today that US defense officials were moving forward with plans to potentially conduct military operations against Cuba.
US, Iran inching closer toward one-page MoU to end war: Axios
Al Mayadeen | May 6, 2026
The White House believes it is approaching an agreement with Iran on a one-page memorandum of understanding aimed at ending the war and establishing a framework for more detailed nuclear talks, Axios reported, citing two US officials and two additional sources briefed on the matter.
The United States is expecting Iranian responses on several key points within the next 48 hours, the sources added. While no agreement has been finalized, they indicated that this represents the closest the parties have come to a deal since the US and “Israel” launched their war on Iran in February 2026.
The proposed memorandum includes provisions under which Iran would commit to a moratorium on nuclear enrichment, while the United States would agree to lift sanctions and release billions of dollars in frozen Iranian funds. Both sides would also remove restrictions affecting transit through the Strait of Hormuz.
However, many of the outlined terms remain contingent on reaching a final agreement, leaving open the possibility of a renewed war or a prolonged interim phase in which active fighting ceases without a comprehensive resolution.
In a similar vein to the Axios report, a Pakistani source involved in the Islamabad talks confirmed to Reuters that Washington and Tehran are closing in on a one-page memo to end the US-Israeli war on Iran.
“We will close this very soon. We are getting close,” the source told Reuters.
Shehbaz Sharif hails ‘momentum’
Commenting on the situation, Pakistani PM Shehbaz Sharif asserted that “Pakistan remains firmly committed to supporting all efforts that promote restraint and a peaceful resolution of conflicts through dialogue and diplomacy.
In a post on X, he wrote: “We are very hopeful that the current momentum will lead to a lasting agreement that secures durable peace and stability for the region and beyond.
The prime minister of Pakistan also thanked US President Donald Trump for halting the so-called “Project Freedom”, which aimed to provide “safe” maritime routes through the Strait of Hormuz in an attempt to counter Iran’s closure.
“I am grateful to President Donald Trump for his courageous leadership and timely announcement regarding the pause in Project Freedom in the Strait of Hormuz,” he stated.
He emphasized that Trump’s agreement to halt the project, on the request of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and other “brotherly countries”, will serve “advancing regional peace, stability, and reconciliation during this sensitive period.”
Inside the high-stakes draft deal talks
Behind the scenes, the proposed one-page, 14-point memorandum of understanding (MOU) is being negotiated by envoys of Donald Trump, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, alongside several Iranian officials, both through direct contacts and intermediaries, according to Axios.
In its current form, the draft MOU would formally declare an end to the war in the region and initiate 30 days of negotiations aimed at reaching a detailed agreement on reopening the Strait of Hormuz, limiting Iran’s nuclear program, and lifting US sanctions.
Those follow-up negotiations are expected to take place in either Islamabad or Geneva, according to two sources familiar with the discussions.
During the 30-day window, Iran’s restrictions on shipping through the strait, along with the US naval blockade, would be gradually eased, a US official said. However, the same official noted that if talks collapse, US forces would retain the option to reinstate the blockade or resume military operations.
Details of nuclear file included in MoU
The duration of a proposed moratorium on uranium enrichment remains a central sticking point in negotiations, with terms still being actively debated, according to Axios. Three sources indicated the pause would last at least 12 years, while another suggested 15 years as a likely compromise. Iran has proposed a five-year moratorium, while the United States has pushed for a 20-year halt.
Washington is also seeking to include a provision that would extend the moratorium in the event of any Iranian violation, a source said. Under the current framework, Iran would be permitted to resume enrichment at low levels of 3.67% once the moratorium expires. Additionally, Iran would commit to never pursuing a nuclear weapon or engaging in weaponization-related activities, according to a US official. Discussions are also underway regarding a clause that would prohibit Iran from operating underground nuclear facilities.
The draft MoU further includes provisions requiring Iran to accept an enhanced inspections regime, including snap inspections by the United Nations, according to a US official. In parallel, the United States would commit to gradually lifting sanctions and releasing billions of dollars in Iranian funds currently frozen abroad.
Despite this, Iran has repeatedly affirmed that the current talks are solely focused on ending the war, rejecting claims by US officials that the nuclear file is being discussed in the ongoing talks.
Additionally, two informed sources claimed to Axios that Iran would agree to remove its enriched uranium from the country, to be stored in another country, with the United States being one option. Iran has repeatedly rejected such a term, emphasizing that it has no plans to transfer its uranium to any other country, even allies.
Iran denies nuclear talks are ongoing in talks with US
Provisions related to halting uranium enrichment for 15 years, determining the fate of 60% enriched uranium, and the gradual opening of the Strait of Hormuz were included in an earlier US proposal submitted around 20 days ago, but were firmly rejected by Iran, according to Fars News Agency.
On May 2, the agency reported that Washington has since revised its proposal three times, noting that Tehran did not accept any of the earlier drafts in principle. It added that the latest US proposal, consisting of nine articles, omits several of the previously circulated conditions, as US officials recognized Iran would not agree to them.
According to the report, Iran’s counterproposal does not include acceptance of a long-term suspension of uranium enrichment or the opening of the Strait of Hormuz prior to a final agreement, underscoring Tehran’s position that such measures cannot precede a comprehensive deal.
Meanwhile, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei said Tehran’s plan to end the war is solely focused on halting hostilities, rejecting media reports suggesting nuclear commitments or maritime security arrangements. Speaking to state television, he stated that “some of the issues being raised relate to the record of previous negotiations with the United States,” emphasizing that Iran’s 14-point proposal centers on ending the war.
Baghaei further stressed that “at this stage, we have no nuclear negotiations,” underscoring that the current proposal does not include any nuclear-related topics, in contrast to claims circulating in international media.
Trump’s Self-Serving Narrative Crashes Against the Reality of War
By Ted Snider | The Libertarian Institute | May 6, 2026
Within a few days at the end of March, Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky made two claims. He revealed that Russia had given him two months to withdraw all forces from areas still under its control in Donbas, or Russia would take it by force and change the terms of the settlement. Russia said that was not true.
And he said that the United States had conditioned security guarantees on Ukraine withdrawing from Donbas. “That’s a lie,” U.S. Secretary of State and National Security Advisor Marco Rubio said. “I don’t know why he says these things; they’re just not true.”
That Zelensky was constructing a false narrative about the war does not bother him because he is not trying to reflect reality; he is trying to reshape reality. With Russia’s military acquisition of Donbas appearing increasingly inevitable, American peace plans conceding it, and Ukrainians increasingly accepting it, Zelensky’s survival depends on crafting a narrative in which he did not betray the nationalists or his promise but had no choice but to surrender Donbas because he was forced by both his enemy and his supporter.
In another war, in another part of the world, another president is doing the same thing. All Iran has to do to end the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, President Donald Trump said last week is to “cry uncle, that’s all they have to do. Just say, ‘We give up.” It doesn’t matter if they really give up: they just have to say it.
Trump’s team is crafting a narrative that provides them with an off ramp to a war they have lost that tells the story of a war they have won.
The U.S. had no legal reason for its war on Iran, and what publicly stated reasons they had were forever shifting. But there seem to have been four key goals:
- Regime change.
- Removing Iran’s ballistic missile program.
- Severing Iran from its forward deterrent network, or proxies.
- Zero enrichment of uranium.
Trump has repeatedly identified regime change as a key goal of the war. He has called for it, and he has explicitly said it is “time to look for new leadership in Iran.” The promised change in regime did not occur. The narrative response to that reality has taken two forms. First, Trump simply rewrote history and said regime change was never the goal: “regime change was not our goal. We never said regime change.”
Second, Trump and his team simply continuously repeated that there had been regime change when there had not, as if saying it made it so. Aboard Air Force One on March 30, Trump told reporters that “We’ve had regime change.” One week later, he posted that “we have Complete and Total Regime Change.”
There has been no regime change. Following the assassination of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the regime underwent a seamless transition to his son, Mojtaba Khamenei, though he was specifically declared unacceptable by Trump. That is the opposite of regime change; that is regime continuity. Mojtaba Khamenei is a hardliner who was a close advisor to his father. He has been a core part of the regime, and his selection represents a preservation of, and not a change from, the regime.
Other new leaders who replaced the old, assassinated leaders, also represent regime continuity and survival. Ali Larijani’s replacement as secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, Mohammad Bagher Zolghadr, is a former commander of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps who has served in government since the days of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He is very close to Mojtaba Khamenei and has always been aligned with the hardliners in the political establishment.
When you spend $25-35 billion, destroy a country, kill thousands of people, devastate the environment, damage the United Nations, discredit international law and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and irreparably wound relations with your European and NATO allies to bring about a regime change that never materialized, just say it did. You might remember another U.S. administration in another U.S. war, saying “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality.”
As part of his checklist of goals that have been accomplished by the war, Donald Trump has repeatedly included that Iran’s “missiles are just about used up or beaten.” Trump says Iran’s military has been “beaten and completely decimated.” Secretary of War Pete Hegseth says Iran’s ballistic missile program has been “functionally destroyed.” That’s not true.
Many of Iran’s missile stockpiles were protected deep underground and were untouched by American strikes. Some that were struck were actually dummy decoys. Many of the ballistic missile launchers that were hit were repaired and reactivated within hours. Hegseth now concedes that Iran is “digging out” its struck missiles and launchers. U.S. intelligence and the military assess that Iran still has at least 60% of its missile launchers, nearly half of its missiles, and 40% of its attack drones.
And they are very capable of hitting their targets and doing damage. U.S. bases in the region suffered a degree of damage thought unthinkable before the war and have been rendered uninhabitable. Radar systems, air defense systems, and aircraft were damaged and destroyed. And recent reporting reveals that the actual damage they sustained far exceeds what has been reported.
The reality falls far short of the narrative and calls into question, not just the claim that the U.S. has won this war, but its ability to win a future war against a real power, like China.
The Trump team’s narrative has consistently told a tale of Iran’s forward deterrent network of proxies being “crushed,” amputating Iran’s ability to reach into the region. Contrary to the narrative, the surprising reality is that Iran’s proxies and partners have survived and are far more resilient, capable and integrated than the United States believed. Hezbollah has launched sophisticated missiles that the U.S. believed they no longer possessed at a rate greater than they have ever launched before. Iraqi militias are launching drone strikes on U.S. bases in the region. The Houthis entered the war and launched several barrages of missiles, some carried out in coordination with Iranian missile strikes.
The primary goal of the war on Iran was the final death of Iran’s nuclear weapons program. “There will never be a deal unless they agree that there will never be nuclear weapons,” Trump said again last week.
That nuclear narrative is the central lie in the justification of the war. Iran has never pursued a nuclear weapon. Washington knows that. The 2022 U.S. Department of Defense Nuclear Posture Review concluded that “Iran does not today possess a nuclear weapon and we currently believe it is not pursuing one.” That assessment was repeated in the 2025 Annual Threat Assessment that clearly states that U.S. intelligence “continue[s] to assess Iran is not building a nuclear weapon.” As recently as March 18, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard told a Senate Intelligence Committee that since the June bombings, “there has been no efforts [sic]…to try to rebuild their enrichment capability.” All Iran has done is insist on their right—like so many other countries—as a signatory to the NPT to enrich uranium for civilian purposes. And that is all they have ever done.
Trump was handed a mechanism for ensuring Iran could never build a nuclear bomb in the form of the 2015 JCPOA nuclear agreement, which Iran was honoring and which was working. Trump was the author of the current problem because he illegally pulled out of the agreement.
There has been zero progress in negotiations toward forcing Iran to terminate its civilian enrichment program. As at the start of the war, the right to enrich continues to be an absolute red line for Iran.
Trump’s vocabulary alters the narrative. The most concerning 970 pounds of 60% highly enriched uranium is rendered insignificant by renaming it “nuclear dust.”
Trump’s narrative not only renders the highly enriched uranium insignificant, it renders it irrelevant. He doesn’t really care about it because it is “so far underground,” the Americans can watch it, and the Iranians can’t get it. “I had one goal,” Trump said, “They will have no nuclear weapon, and that goal has been attained.”
At times, Iran’s enriched uranium is insignificant, at times it is irrelevant, and at other times it is resolved. According to Trump’s narrative, Iran has already agreed to hand over all of its enriched uranium. “They’ve agreed to give us back the nuclear dust,” he said. The reality, of course, is that, though Trump says it, Iran has agreed to no such thing.
Iran still possesses a quantity of its enriched uranium. More importantly, it still possesses advanced scientific knowledge of how to enrich uranium and the legal right to do so. Most importantly, despite starving sanctions and the most lethal bombing the U.S. can deliver, protecting its right to enrich uranium for civilian purposes remains a redline that the U.S. has been unable to erase.
That is the reality. The rest is fiction: a narrative fiction crafted by Trump’s team to give them a way to tell an angry and betrayed public that they won the war when none of the goals—and all of the nightmares—have been achieved.
Though it may have cost $40-50 billion and used up half of its critical munitions, it is not a war but an “excursion.” Aspects of operation “Epic Fury” are rebranded for a public that is no longer buying it as “Project Freedom.”
And in an act of outrageous sophistry, it turns out that none of this matters because there isn’t a war. Seeking to circumvent the demand of the War Powers Resolution to receive permission from Congress to wage war after sixty days of troops being deployed, On May 1, Trump notified Congress that “hostilities” against Iran “have terminated.” Erase Trump’s threats, and the ships, aircraft and tens of thousand of troops in the region. Erase the fact that the U.S. blockade of the Strait of Hormuz is an act of war under international law and that the U.S. fired on an Iranian flagged ship only days ago. Erase that the day before, Trump was briefed by CENTCOM on new plans for potential military action against Iran and that, days later, U.S. forces sank seven Iranian boats.
This is reality. But the reality is erased by a narrative fiction crafted by the Trump team in which the war is over because they define it as over. So, none of this matters any longer because the war is over.
This article was originally delivered as a speech at the West Suburban Peace Coalition Educational Forum on May 4, 2026.
‘Project Freedom’ perishes in 48 hours as Trump retreats under the wall of Iran’s asymmetric deterrence
Press TV | May 6, 2026
In a dramatic and entirely predictable turn of events, US President Donald Trump early on Wednesday announced the immediate suspension of “Project Freedom,” the high-stakes naval offensive launched 48 hours ago with the stated goal of forcing open the Strait of Hormuz.
This is not an isolated tactical pause, as he wants the world to believe, but the third strategic retreat by the United States in less than a month – a sequence of capitulations that reveals a profound and irreversible shift in the balance of power in the Persian Gulf.
The first retreat was the ceasefire following the devastating 40-day full-scale war against Iran, in which the US-Israeli war machine failed to achieve even a single strategic objective.
The second retreat was the unilateral extension of that ceasefire after the first round of Islamabad negotiations. The third, and most telling, is the suspension of an operation whose very continuation would have inevitably reignited full-scale Iranian retaliation.
At its core, this decision exposes a singular, undeniable truth: Trump has belatedly realized that he holds no cards, no good options, no viable coalition, and no appetite for the catastrophic confrontation to challenge Iran’s legal sovereignty over the strategic waterway
The quiet abandonment of the so-called “Project Freedom” is not a strategic pivot, but a crushing defeat. It marks yet another failure for the US war machine, following closely on the heels of the 40-day war imposed on the Islamic Republic, and confirms that the era of unilateral American naval intimidation in the Persian Gulf is effectively over.
The immediate and decisive Iranian response
The suspension of the so-called “Project Freedom” was not born of American goodwill, but of raw, immediate, and overpowering Iranian military deterrence.
Within hours of its commencement 48 hours ago, Iran’s armed forces delivered a response that was as calculated as it was lethal in its messaging. Serious warning shots were directed squarely at US warships – a level of direct confrontation that Washington has historically sought to avoid.
Furthermore, the targeting of a South Korean vessel that violated the new maritime rules defined by the Islamic Republic served as an unambiguous signal: Iran will enforce its sovereign rights with kinetic action. Finally, a clear and serious ultimatum issued to the United Arab Emirates shattered any illusion that the war could be contained to international waters.
Iran showed that it will not cower under the shadow of American airpower. It is fully prepared for, and in some ways inviting, a decisive engagement. The message was unmistakable: Iran would not merely defend the Strait of Hormuz, but it would hunt aggressors within it.
The speed and severity of this response forced the war hawks in the Pentagon into a defensive crouch, demonstrating that the threshold for Iranian retaliation is far lower – and far more dangerous – than Washington had anticipated.
Perhaps the most ingenious move was the sudden, asymmetric expansion of the war’s geography. Extension of the definition of the Strait of Hormuz to encompass the entire territory of the UAE, specifically designating the port of Fujairah as lying within the Strait’s operational limits, is deemed a masterstroke of strategic redefinition.
For the US and its allies, this has come as an unexpected shock. The port of Fujairah, located on the Gulf of Oman outside the narrow choke point of the Strait of Hormuz, had long been considered a secure fallback. But the dynamics have changed now.
The impotence of American intimidation
The 48 hours of the doomed “Project Freedom” laid bare a critical strategic reality: America has completely lost its ability to intimidate Iran. The torrent of threats that emanated from Washington – warnings of “unmatched force” and “severe consequences” – landed on Tehran with the weight of a spent cartridge.
For Iran’s armed forces, American threats, regardless of their hyperbolic grandeur, no longer constitute actionable intelligence and execution. They are now understood as little more than psychological operations and media theater.
With this premature suspension, the US implicitly confessed that it still fears the risk of re-entering a war with Iran, particularly after the harrowing experience of the 40-day war.
This fear is not abstract but rooted in the traumatic memory of Iran’s deadly strikes against American forces and their allies during those 40 days, impacts whose full scale and intensity remain deliberately under-disclosed by the Pentagon.
The psychological scar tissue from those engagements is so deep that Washington has been forced to abandon all its prior claims regarding “Epic Fury.” US Secretary of State Marco Rubio confirmed that the operation had ended – without anything in hand.
That campaign is effectively over. The US has declared, through its actions, that it will not risk a conventional military exchange with an Iran that has proven willing to draw blood. The credibility of American military threats has essentially evaporated.
The Pakistani intermediary – A pretext for surrender
Perhaps the most humiliating detail of this episode is the official reason offered for the suspension of the 48-hour offensive. According to Trump’s own social media post, the decision to halt “Project Freedom” came in response to a request from the army chief of Pakistan.
Let that sink in. A self-styled “superpower,” possessing the largest and most technologically advanced navy in history, abandons a prestigious military operation – one framed as vital to global energy security – at the behest of a foreign military commander.
This transparent pretext reveals two deeper truths. First, the US is in a state of urgent, almost frantic, need for negotiations with Iran. As became evident during Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi’s recent trip to Pakistan, the Americans are not just open to talks, but they are counting the moments to re-engage.
Second, the Trump administration is willing to seize upon the smallest request from any intermediary – even one as peripheral as a Pakistani general – to manufacture an exit ramp from a disastrous escalation.
The eagerness for a diplomatic off-ramp is directly proportional to the fear of war. America is not stepping back out of generosity but out of terror at the alternative.
The lonely superpower – No coalition for war
In essence, the failure of “Project Freedom” was sealed long before the first warning shot was fired. It was sealed when America discovered that it was entirely alone and cornered.
Shipping companies, the lifeblood of global trade, ignored the American proposal. Insurance firms, the arbiters of risk, refused to underwrite vessels sailing under the American flag in the troubled zone. Key regional allies, fearful of Iranian retaliation on their own soil and economic infrastructure, distanced themselves from the American offensive.
The American Empire is no longer capable of forming a coalition to open the Strait of Hormuz. Its scenario-planning has devolved into solitary fantasizing. This isolation is not a temporary diplomatic hiccup, but a structural reality.
The world’s biggest navies and commercial fleets have observed Iran’s previous responses and concluded that the cost of aligning with Washington exceeds any conceivable benefit. Trump finds himself commanding a fleet of one.
The triple crossroads: Trump’s impossible choices
Now, after this third and latest retreat, the most humiliating one, Trump stands at a very dangerous triple crossroads. Each path is clogged with thorns. He can choose to continue the war – an effectively impossible option, given the lack of coalition support and the certainty of Iranian asymmetric retaliation.
He can choose to accept Iran’s principles for ending the war – an option that would represent a total strategic surrender. Or he can choose to continue the naval blockade and await results.
The blockade is a particularly ambiguous gamble for Trump. On one hand, he urgently needs time to stabilize global energy markets before the upcoming meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping and the November midterm congressional elections.
The volatility of oil prices is a political enemy he cannot afford. On the other hand, it is entirely unclear – and virtually impossible – that continuing the blockade will force Iran to submit. All evidence from the past two months suggests the opposite: the blockade is hardening Iran’s resolve, not breaking it. Trump is trapped in a cycle where inaction hurts his domestic timetable, and action guarantees a wider war. He has no good options because he holds no cards.
Negotiations to end the war: Iran’s non-negotiable principles
With the back-and-forth exchange of draft principles now underway, under the Pakistani mediation, it is essential to clarify the fundamental and obvious conditions Iran has laid out to end the war. These are not bargaining points but structural realities of a new Persian Gulf order.
Iran’s sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz: Iran’s management of the strategic waterway, even after the war, is permanent. This is not about temporary wartime measures. Iran must guarantee its own security in the Persian Gulf, a right that includes obtaining material compensation from vessel passage.
The recent wars have proven that the Strait has been used to equip and strengthen Iran’s enemy. Therefore, enforcing Iranian rules is a natural act of self-defense. Furthermore, effective sovereignty over the Strait can nullify the effects of sanctions.
The Strait is not a bargaining chip but an undeniable right of the Iranian nation. As the Leader of the Islamic Revolution has clarified, Iran’s new management of this strategic waterway is permanent and non-negotiable. There will be no return to the pre-war status quo.
Withdrawal of American forces: The complete withdrawal of American military forces from the Persian Gulf region is a definitive requirement. As the aggressor and perpetrator of unprovoked and devastating war against Iran, the US presence is the only remaining obstacle to peace.
As long as these forces remain in the region, the shadow of war will persist.
Reparations for damages: Iran’s damages from the third imposed war and before that the 12-day war represent an undeniable right of the Iranian nation. Every single Iranian citizen has been harmed by American aggression. Any shortfall in achieving this condition is unacceptable.
Inclusion of the Resistance Front: The terms of ending the ongoing war must include Iran’s allies on the resistance front, especially in Lebanon. This does not negate the right to legitimate resistance against occupation; rather, it codifies the reality that Iran’s security architecture is regional. Any peace that ignores Iran’s partners is no peace at all.
Negotiation from the position of victory: Iran’s post-war doctrine
The collapse of the so-called “Project Freedom” effectively closes the military chapter. What opens now is the diplomatic one – but on Iran’s terms alone. As the new doctrine makes clear, negotiation has no intrinsic value. Only its achievable objectives matter.
First, negotiation is only acceptable if it prevents the repeat of a new war of aggression, not causes it. After repeated American betrayals, Iran will not accept talks that merely delay the next war. The bar is absolute and clear – enduring peace or nothing.
Second, Iran negotiates from the position of the victorious party in the third full-scale imposed war. The goal is not to restore the pre-war status quo but to secure additional concessions not previously held, which includes full sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz, expulsion of all American forces from the region, and protection of the resistance front.
Third, reparations are not a concession but a basic and inviolable right. The aggressor must pay for the damages of the imposed war. This is non-negotiable.
Fourth, any concession in any domain is forbidden. The enemy is defeated by all accounts. To concede what the enemy failed to win on the battlefield – whether in the 40-day war or the 12-day war before that – would be to validate its aggression.
Inalienable Iranian rights, including nuclear and defense capabilities, are entirely off the table.
Fifth, concessions guarantee future war. If the US learns it can extract through talks what it could not take by force, it will launch another war. Each retreat from an Iranian right is a green light for the next catastrophe – more martyrs, more disasters like the Minab school massacre.
Sixth, the current negotiation must achieve 100 percent of its objectives. Without full realization of Iran’s goals, no further negotiation of any kind will happen. There would be no phased deals, or interim frameworks, or endless talks without result.
Featured Video
NATO attacked Russia; US being pushed out of the Middle East
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
Book Review
The Rape of Nanking: Massacre or Myth?
By Jonas E. Alexis • Unz Review • May 21, 2026
The Rape of Nanking: The Forgotten Holocaust of World War II by Iris Chang was unquestionably an incendiary and highly tendentious work that quickly generated considerable controversy in both the United States and Japan following its publication in 1997. The book received praise from major publications such as the Wall Street Journal, The Atlantic, the Chicago Tribune, and the Philadelphia Inquirer.
The book achieved such remarkable success that it prompted then fifty-year-old Ted Leonsis, vice chairman of AOL, to produce the documentary film Nanking, which he described as a “labor of love.”[1] According to Ted Leonsis, the film was intended to be comparable to Steven Spielberg’s Schindler’s List.[2]
Chang, who was Chinese American, was only twenty-seven years old when she began writing The Rape of Nanking. However, Chang died by suicide in 2004 near Los Gatos at the age of thirty-six.[3] Before taking her own life in her automobile, Chang left three suicide notes… continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Revealed: USAID, NED & Open Society Quietly Bankroll Cuba’s “Independent” Media In Push for Regime Change
- The Rape of Nanking: Massacre or Myth?
- Douglas Macgregor: NATO Attacked Russia; U.S. Being Pushed Out of the Middle East
- Merkel Urges EU to Keep Regulating Social Media Speech
- The Rank Hypocrisy of the Trump Indictment of Raúl Castro
- Trump’s Gaza ‘peace’ board in turmoil as funding pledges fail to materialise
- Palestinian Prisoners Club says Israel uses detention of solidarity activists to intimidate global supporters
- US Provided Most of Israel’s Missile Defense During Iran War
- Ukrainian drone could have caused mass casualties – Greek defense minister
- Germany at the Crossroads: Revanchism Versus Diplomacy
- If Americans Knew
- Autopsies of Gaza Medics Killed by Israeli Troops Show Some Were Shot in the Head
- U.S.: New Data Highlights AIPAC Ties to the U.S., Israeli Governments
- Joe Kent: Trump can’t end war until Israel taken out of the loop
- ‘Over the Border It Was Okay to Be Crazy’: IDF Soldiers Tell About the Army’s Moral Decay in Lebanon
- In Response To ICC Arrest Warrant, Israel’s Smotrich Orders the Destruction of a Palestinian Village
- Netanyahu claims Israeli “values” may include kidnapping but maybe not violence – Daily Update
- Student protest silencing goes to new extremes on US campuses
- Has Trump torpedoed the ICC’s Gaza probe?
- The Numbers Behind the ‘Sacred Work’ of Cleansing West Bank Palestinians for Future Jewish Villas
- ‘Unprecedented act of savagery’: How Israel’s new law places Palestinians on death row by default
- No Tricks Zone
- Researchers Find Rapid Global Warming Phase At End Of Last Ice Age (Ca.18,000 Years Ago)
- Even The DNA Of Single-Celled Plankton Can Upend Alarmist Arctic Sea Ice Melt Claims
- Scandal: Although Climate Panic Is Canceled By IPCC, Europe’s Policymakers Continue With Their Crushing Policies
- How Once Hardcore Climate Alarmist Lucy Biggers Realized It Was All A Scam, Brainwashing
- German Expert: “No Climate Crisis” …”Warming Generally Better For Humanity”
- New Paleo Research: Modern ‘Climate Change’ Has Had No Apparent Impact On Precipitation Patterns
- 90% Subsidized… Bielefeld Germany’s €7 Million Hydrogen Garbage Truck Fleet Sits Idle
- New Study: Declining Trends In 1980-2023 Tropical Cyclone Frequency, Accumulated Energy
- 46 IPCC Scientists Break Rank, Publicly Challenge Long-Standing Dogmatic Climate Claims
- Another Study Links Warming To Cloud Forcing, Shortwave Radiation, Natural Atmospheric Circulation
Aletho News 