Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Netanyahu destabilizing region, US hindering talks: Pakistani official

Al Mayadeen | April 24, 2026

In an exclusive interview with Al Mayadeen, former Pakistani Information Minister and Senator Mushahid Hussain Sayed highlighted Pakistan’s diplomatic efforts in facilitating indirect and direct communication between Iran and the United States, describing the process as a rare breakthrough in regional diplomacy.

Sayed stated that Pakistan “achieved something close to the impossible” in the initial round of discussions by helping bring Iranian and US representatives to the same table. He emphasized that the significance of the effort lay in “bringing the Iranian and American sides into the same room,” describing it as a notable diplomatic achievement.

According to Sayed, expectations remain high for a second round of talks between Tehran and Washington, though he stressed that such progress depends on the lifting of the US naval blockade on Iran.

He also told Al Mayadeen that the continuation of dialogue is contingent on a shift in US policy, adding that Pakistan remains in active contact with both Tehran and Washington. He also noted that communication channels include engagement with Pakistan’s military leadership, which has played a facilitating role.

Strait of Hormuz and regional developments

Sayed emphasized that Iranian leadership responded positively to a request from Pakistan’s army chief to ease tensions in the Strait of Hormuz, a critical maritime passage.

He said Iran’s position initially expected relief from US-imposed restrictions, which had not materialized. He added that Iran’s decision to show flexibility regarding the Strait of Hormuz reflects its willingness to support de-escalation efforts.

According to Sayed, the “ball is now in the Americans’ court,” stressing that Washington must make the next move if negotiations are to continue.

He further warned that if restrictions on Iranian ports continue, Iran’s negotiating delegation may not participate in future talks scheduled in Islamabad.

US policy obstructs negotiations

Sayed identified the US blockade on Iran as the central obstacle to a second round of negotiations, describing it as “legally and morally wrong.”

He expressed the view that former US President Donald Trump may eventually reconsider this position, suggesting that lifting the blockade could open the way for renewed dialogue.

He also argued that ongoing US policy has failed to achieve its objectives, claiming that Washington is under pressure to find an exit strategy from the current regional tensions.

Netanyahu destabilizing region

In his remarks, Sayed accused Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of playing a central role in escalating regional tensions, blasting him as a destabilizing figure in West Asia.

He further said that Netanyahu influenced US policy and dragged it into war through political “blackmail” and the notorious Epstein files, in which Trump is extensively mentioned.

Moreover, Sayed stated that “Israel” does not seek peace, adding that Zionism pursues the idea of a “Greater Israel,” a concept rejected in the region. Regional resistance, he said, including Iran’s stance, has challenged the feasibility of such projects.

Lebanon ceasefire central to regional peace

The former minister also referred to developments in Lebanon, stating that a ceasefire was achieved following pressure on Israeli leadership.

He claimed that Trump played a role in urging Netanyahu toward de-escalation, based on diplomatic advice, and said that Iran had also rightfully insisted on a ceasefire in Lebanon, which he stressed was a victim of aggression.

Sayed emphasized that peace in the region is interconnected, stating that stability in Iran and the wider West Asia region is directly linked to peace in Lebanon. He added that discussions reportedly include a broader framework in which Lebanon is not treated as a separate issue but as part of a wider regional settlement.

Pakistan’s regional position

Sayed underscored Pakistan’s role as a key regional actor, highlighting its status as the only nuclear power in the Islamic world and a consistent supporter of the Palestinian cause.

He suggested that Pakistan is positioned to play a continued mediating role in facilitating dialogue between regional and global powers.

Looking ahead, Sayed expressed cautious optimism that an agreement between Tehran and Washington could eventually be reached, stating that such a deal might even be signed in Pakistan if negotiations succeed.

He concluded by reiterating that the Strait of Hormuz is not the root cause of tensions but rather a consequence of broader geopolitical disputes, which he attributed to US and Israeli regional policies.

April 24, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , | Comments Off on Netanyahu destabilizing region, US hindering talks: Pakistani official

Iran FM to hold no talks with Americans in Islamabad; US media lied again: Report

Press TV – April 24, 2026

Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi will not hold any talks with US officials during his underway visit to the Pakistani capital Islamabad, despite CNN’s claiming otherwise, a report says.

On Friday, Tasnim News Agency rebuffed a report published earlier by the network concerning the top diplomat’s visit to the city, which is to be followed by trips to the Omani capital Muscat and the Russian capital Moscow.

CNN claimed that Donald Trump intended to send regional envoy Steve Witkoff as well as the US president’s son-in-law and advisor Jared Kushner to Pakistan for “negotiations with Araghchi.”

Commenting on the report, Tasnim wrote, “This is despite the fact that, at present, no negotiations with the Americans are on the agenda at all, and Mr. Araghchi’s trip to Islamabad is not for talks with the United States.”

Rather, the foreign minister will discuss with the Pakistani side Iran’s considerations regarding cessation of unprovoked aggression against the Islamic Republic, the agency added.

It noted how Araghchi, himself, has officially stated that the purpose of these visits was close coordination with partners on “bilateral” issues and consultation on regional developments.

However, “US officials and media outlets have, for more than 10 days, been fabricating narratives about a new round of negotiations, with several false reports being published almost daily regarding the start of talks,” Tasnim wrote.

“In one of the most unusual cases, US media and officials claimed for more than three days that JD Vance, Trump’s vice president, was on his way, yet he never arrived at the destination!”

Iran and the United States held a first round of talks in Islamabad earlier this month. However, the process stopped short of yielding an agreement amid Washington’s maximalist demands and its insistence on its unreasonable positions.

The Islamic Republic has categorically refused to rejoin the process unless the US lifted an illegal blockade it has imposed on Iranian vessels and ports. Tehran has also asserted that, as long as the blockade is still in place, it has no intention of reopening the strategic Strait of Hormuz that it has shut down to all traffic in retaliation.

April 24, 2026 Posted by | Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , | Comments Off on Iran FM to hold no talks with Americans in Islamabad; US media lied again: Report

When It Comes to Using Proxies, The US Far Surpasses Iran as a Sponsor of Terrorism

By Larry C. Johnson | SONAR21 | April 24, 2026 

I have previously addressed the lie that Iran is the number one sponsor of terrorism. Now I want to look specifically at the question of how many Americans, both civilian and military, have been killed by proxies who have received assistance from Iran. I will flip the script… How many Iranians, civilian and military, have been killed by US proxies? The numbers are staggering. US proxies have killed almost 28,000 times the number of Iranians than Iranian proxies have killed Americans. These numbers come primarily from US Department of Justice indictments, State Department reports, American Jewish Committee (AJC), and compiled victim databases.

The principal Iranian proxies routinely identified in US government reports on terrorism are Hamas, Hezbollah, and a variety of Iraqi-Shia groups. If I used the strict definition of terrorism — i.e., the use of violence against civilians for political purposes — the number of actual terrorist deaths from Iranian proxies would be less than 300 since 1979. If I relied only on the strict definition, I would exclude all attacks on military targets. However, since the US statistics on terrorism include the 1983 bombing of the US Marines barracks in Lebanon and the roadside bombs targeting US forces in Iraq from 2003 -2011, I am including the military fatalities for both sides.

HAMAS

At least 60–70 Americans (including dual US-Israeli citizens) have been killed in attacks attributed to or carried out by Hamas since its founding in 1987. This is an approximate total based on US government, DOJ, and research compilations. The vast majority occurred on or after October 7, 2023.

October 7, 2023 Attack (the single deadliest incident)

43–46 Americans killed: (US Department of Justice indictment of Hamas leaders in 2024 confirmed at least 43; some sources, including the State Department, cite 46). These numbers include dual US-Israeli citizens murdered at kibbutzim, the Nova music festival, and other sites near Gaza.

Several additional Americans were taken hostage, with some (e.g., Hersh Goldberg-Polin) died in captivity as a result of Israel’s unconstrained bombing of Gaza.

Pre-October 7 Attacks (1987–2023)

Hamas carried out or claimed responsibility for numerous suicide bombings, shootings, and other attacks during the First and Second Intifadas and subsequent periods that resulted in the deaths of roughly 15–25 Americans, based on cross-referenced State Department chronologies and victim lists (exact counts vary slightly due to dual citizenship and attribution debates). Documented American deaths include:

2002 Hebrew University bombing: (Jerusalem): 5 Americans killed.

2003 Jerusalem bus bombing: 5 Americans killed. Other notable incidents (Second Intifada era, 2000–2005): Americans killed in attacks such as the Sbarro pizzeria bombing, Park Hotel Passover bombing, and various bus bombings (e.g., Alan Beer, Malka Roth, and others).

Earlier attacks (1990s): Smaller numbers, including incidents like the 1996 Jerusalem bus bombing (3 Americans) and others. Scattered additional deaths in the 1990s–2010s from stabbings, shootings, and bombings.

HEZBOLLAH

At least 270–300+ Americans (including service members and civilians, plus some dual U.S.-Israeli citizens) have been killed in attacks attributed to or carried out by Hezbollah (or its direct precursors like Islamic Jihad Organization) since its formation in 1982.

Major Incidents and Breakdown

1983 Beirut Attacks (the deadliest period):

April 18, 1983: U.S. Embassy bombing in Beirut — 17 Americans killed (including 8 CIA personnel).

October 23, 1983: U.S. Marine barracks bombing in Beirut — 241 Americans killed (220 Marines, 18 Navy sailors, 3 Army soldiers). This remains the single deadliest attack on U.S. Marines since Iwo Jima and the largest loss of American life to Hezbollah.

September 20, 1984: U.S. Embassy annex bombing in Beirut — 2 Americans killed.

Other Notable Attacks:

1980s hostage crisis and related violence: Several Americans were kidnapped and murdered, including CIA station chief William Buckley (1984–1985) and U.S. Marine Colonel William Higgins (kidnapped 1988, murdered 1989).

Scattered attacks in the 1980s–2000s: Additional deaths from hijackings (e.g., TWA Flight 847 in 1985, where U.S. Navy diver Robert Stethem was murdered), bombings, and operations in Iraq (Hezbollah-trained Shiite militias targeting U.S. forces post-2003).

The key take away from this data is that Hezbollah stopped attacking US targets in the 1990s and was not the face of Islamic extremism. Hezbollah focused its energy on attacking Israeli military targets.

OTHER IRANIAN PROXIES

At least 620–650+ Americans (mostly U.S. service members, plus some contractors and civilians) have been killed in attacks by Iranian proxies excluding Hamas and Hezbollah since 1979. The vast majority of these deaths occurred in Iraq during the 2003–2011 period.

Primary Figure: Iraqi Shiite Militias (2003–2011)

At least 603 U.S. troops were killed by Iran-backed Shiite militias in Iraq between 2003 and 2011, according to the U.S. Department of Defense/Pentagon assessment. These militias include groups such as Kata’ib Hezbollah (KH), Asa’ib Ahl al-Haq (AAH), the Badr Organization, Harakat Hezbollah al-Nujaba, and others.

Iran provided advanced weaponry (especially explosively formed penetrators or EFPs), training, and direction via the IRGC Quds Force. This accounted for roughly 17% of all U.S. combat deaths in Iraq during that period.

US PROXY TERRORISM AGAINST IRAN

Now I want to address the antagonism of the US towards Iran, where multiple US presidents used proxies to attack Iran. Let’s start with the case of Iraq… In 1980, the CIA, acting under a finding signed by President Jimmy Carter, began providing support to Saddam Hussein with the goal of Iraq launching an attack on Iran. Saddam attacked Iran in September 1980. When the Reagan administration took power in January 1981, the support for Iraq increased dramatically with the US supplying precursor chemicals that were used to make chemical weapons, financial aid, and classified intelligence that was routinely shared with the Iraqi General Staff. The CIA handled the task of sharing intelligence until 1986 when, as a result of the Iran/Contra revelations, Saddam refused to deal anymore with the CIA and would only accept assistance from the US military. The task of carrying US intelligence to Iraq, starting in 1987, was given to Colonel Walter Patrick Lang aka Pat. Pat, who is now deceased, was a close friend of mine for more than 20 years.

Using the same standard of blaming Iran for the actions of Hezbollah, the US merits blame for its prolific support for Saddam Hussein during the war on Iran. Estimates of Iranian deaths in the Iran-Iraq War (1980–1988, also known as the First Gulf War) vary widely due to the fog of war, propaganda from both sides, and limited transparent records. Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, launched the war with a surprise invasion of Iran on September 22, 1980. The US provided direct, covert support to Iraq (intelligence, economic aid, and allowing allies to supply weapons) during much of the conflict.

Iranian military deaths, based on a 2013 systematic review in the Iranian Journal of Public Health (based on Iranian records), put the figure at 188,015 to 217,489 killed (roughly 70 people per day over 2,887 days of war). Iranian civilian deaths, according to Western/CIA estimates, are estimated to be 50,000–60,000 dead.

MEK

Besides using Iraq as a weapon against Iran, the US also took a page out of Saddam Hussein’s playbook. Saddam provided sanctuary and financiing, along with weapons, to the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK). They not only fought alongside Saddam’s forces in the war with Iran but, after the war, continued to carry out terrorist attacks inside Iran.

Following the US-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003, Coalition forces bombed MEK bases (the group had been allied with Saddam Hussein). The MEK surrendered its heavy weapons and concentrated at Camp Ashraf. n 2004, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld designated MEK members as “protected persons” under the Fourth Geneva Convention. US forces provided security at the camp, shielding them from Iraqi forces and preventing repatriation to Iran.

Starting around 2004–2005, the US provided clandestine support to the MEK as part of broader efforts to pressure Iran’s nuclear program and regime. This included intelligence cooperation, funding channels to dissident groups, and operational assistance. According to Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh (reporting in The New Yorker in 2012), the US Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) conducted secret training of MEK operatives at a facility in Nevada (Department of Energy’s Nevada National Security Site) beginning in 2005. Training covered communications, cryptography, small-unit tactics, weaponry, and other special operations skills. This reportedly continued into 2007 (or possibly later).

Funds were covertly passed to the MEK and other Iranian dissident groups for intelligence collection inside Iran and anti-regime activities. The MEK supplied intelligence on Iran’s nuclear sites (e.g., Natanz) and carried out CIA sponsored operations, such as the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists. This support occurred even while the MEK remained on the US FTO list, reflecting internal US government tensions (e.g., Pentagon vs. State Department).

In September 2012, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton removed the MEK from the FTO list, citing its renunciation of violence and cooperation on relocation. This enabled greater political and logistical support for resettling members… many eventually went to Albania where they continued to receive support and training from the CIA.

The Iranian government claims that the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) has killed more than 12,000 to 17,000 Iranians through terrorist attacks, assassinations, bombings, and armed operations since the early 1980s. This is the most frequently cited figure in Iranian official statements, state media, and court proceedings.

Hell, MEK alone has killed 12 to 17 times more Iranians than Iranian proxies have killed Americans. The numbers are not even close.

I want you to keep these numbers in mind the next time you hear some nitwit US politician or pundit ranting about Iranian sponsorship of terrorism. Hands down, the US is a bigger sponsor of terrorism than Iran by a fact of at least 12.

April 24, 2026 Posted by | Progressive Hypocrite, Timeless or most popular, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on When It Comes to Using Proxies, The US Far Surpasses Iran as a Sponsor of Terrorism

Hidden history: How Mossad infiltrated Italy

By Kit Klarenberg | Al Mayadeen | April 24, 2026

Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s April 13th announcement that Rome will suspend a longstanding defense agreement with “Israel” sent shockwaves throughout Europe. Historically, Italian governments – even when led by figures who abhor Zionism – have enjoyed constructive, close ties with Tel Aviv. Mossad and Rome’s security, intelligence, and military apparatus also have a long-running clandestine relationship. In fact, the entity’s putrid overseas spying, assassination, and sabotage nexus was effectively born in Italy and has wreaked havoc in the country ever since.

Details of how Zionist spies secured a firm foothold in Italy are provided in a fascinating paper by academic Massimiliano Fiore. Drawing on archival sources, he “traces the evolution of Israeli clandestine activity” in Rome, demonstrating how Zionist intelligence connivances were waged in and against the country even before the entity’s May 1948 founding and throughout the war of erasure against Palestine that subsequently erupted. Several case studies map how Mossad’s criminality evolved over time, growing ever bolder, while informing how the agency operates globally today.

The story begins in the wake of the United Nations General Assembly’s November 1947 Partition Plan, which granted Zionist colonizers 55% of Palestine’s territory. Arab states immediately began preparing to resist the entity’s construction, training soldiers in Palestine and neighbouring countries for the purpose. In response, “Israel’s” founder, David Ben-Gurion, issued a directive to Zionist paramilitary and intelligence factions to secure weapons for the impending genocidal war over Palestinian territory, while denying them to Arab forces.

Fiore records how the chief Mossad le-Aliyah Bet and Rekhesh – respectively, the spying and arms procurement wings of notorious Zionist paramilitary Haganah – immediately “established a sabotage unit in Rome that quickly became an operational hub of Israeli covert activity in Italy and across Europe.” Thereafter, Zionist operatives “exploited Italy’s political ambiguity and physical infrastructure to conduct a sustained campaign of sabotage and interception.” The academic dubs this covert contest on Italian soil “a secret front” in the 1948 war.

Rome’s ports and air and sea transport corridors “played a critical role in sustaining Israeli supply” of weapons for the 1948 war, while disrupting the flow of arms to Arab militaries. Moreover, Zionists “sought to shape the Mediterranean balance of power” for their own malign purposes. Their covert actions – “conducted under conditions of political tolerance and diplomatic constraint” – forged strong bonds with the Italian state, while supplanting Rome’s status “as a strategic bridge between Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East.”

The incipient Mossad’s cloak-and-dagger conniving in Italy had a devastating impact. A June 1948 CIA memo observed how the “European headquarters” of Zionist intelligence “operated under cover in Rome,” through which “clandestine transport of munitions by air” to Palestine was conducted with “the knowledge and collusion” of Italian authorities. Without European citizens, Arab governments, or the ‘international community’ noticing, Rome had been secretly transformed into an international nucleus of “illegal traffic in arms for the Jewish underground.”

‘Riskier measures’

Rewind to March 1948, Czechoslovakia’s government approved the delivery of 8,000 rifles, 200 machine guns, and six million rounds of ammunition to Syria. Set to sail next month on the Lino, a 450-ton Italian freighter, Zionist operatives were determined that the shipment would not reach West Asia. First, its passage was impeded by Haganah warning authorities in Rome that a ship laden with weapons was headed to Italy. Given the “charged political atmosphere” preceding the country’s election, officials quickly moved to impound the Lino.

On the night of April 10, a Zionist sabotage squad descended on the vessel and attached explosive charges before slipping away undetected. The ship sank without casualties or attribution. Per Fiore, the Italian media suggested weapons aboard might have been headed to local Communists, which “[deflected] suspicion away from Zionist involvement.” While a small operation, the Lino’s sinking was seismic. The effort “demonstrated how limited resources, local networks, and deniable maritime sabotage could produce disproportionate effects, disrupting adversary supply while avoiding interstate escalation.”

The Lino operation’s success prompted the formal establishment in May 1948 of a “Unit for the Sabotage of Enemy Supply in Europe,” headquartered in Rome. It rapidly became a “central hub for intelligence, logistics, and coordination” across Italy and Europe for Zionist spies. “Jewish operatives and instructors already active on the continent” joined its ranks, receiving training in all manner of skullduggery, assisted by Italian military and intelligence veterans. Among them were battle-hardened fascists, whose World War II experiences informed future Israeli operational practices.

Meanwhile, a Syrian initiative to recover the sunken Lino’s consignment was ongoing. The weapons and ammunition were successfully salvaged and repaired, then redirected to their original destination on a vessel called the Argiro. But Zionist spies were watching and intended to seize the shipment. Via bribery and elaborate deception, operatives infiltrated the ship’s crew, clearing the way for Zionists posing as a security escort to board the vessel while en route to West Asia. On August 21st, the Argiro was captured and directed to Palestine.

Five days later, Zionist naval forces commandeered the Argiro, seizing the materiel before sinking the ship outright. The lethal cargo reached Haifa four days later and was sent to Zionist militants fighting in al-Quds. The Italian crew was temporarily detained rather than killed or disappeared, although the captain died from tuberculosis in captivity before being returned home in any event, raising the spectre of an international incident erupting between the expanding settler colony and Rome.

Fiore notes the Argiro effort was an early example of “strategic appropriation” by Zionist spies, foreshadowing future operations in which “intelligence, deception, and procurement functioned as mutually reinforcing instruments.” This journalist has documented how a similar approach was applied in the early 1960s, during the entity’s criminal quest to clandestinely acquire nuclear weapons. Furthermore, Argiro’s takeover amply illustrated how Zionist agents in Italy were willing to undertake “progressively riskier measures,” which could cause tension with Rome. But the burgeoning Mossad had little to fear.

‘Diplomatic buffer’

In early 1949, Zionist militants attempted to blow up motor torpedo boats in an Italian shipyard that had been purchased by Egypt. Fiore records how the operation prioritized concealment and “strict deniability” to avoid “diplomatic repercussions” and benefited from an insider providing access to the site. However, the plot’s executors, led by an explosives specialist centrally involved in the Lino’s sinking, were caught in flagrante by local police. In June that year, the group’s leader was sentenced to three years in prison for possessing explosives.

This prompted “sustained diplomatic intervention” from the fledgling Zionist entity’s highest levels, resulting in the convicted agent being freed under a presidential pardon. A “calculated act of executive leniency,” the move set a precedent that endured for decades ever after, and may do so today. The same month the Zionist spies were busted, Italian premier Alcide De Gasperi granted local Mossad chief Ada Sereni informal carte blanche to conduct clandestine operations in her country.

Accordingly, Mossad activities not merely in Italy, but the world over, subsequently emphasized “deception, improvisation, and operational daring.” As long as the connivances of Zionist spies “remained beneath the threshold of public escalation,” authorities in Rome would “close one eye – preferably two.” It was the beginning of a policy of strategic ambiguity, whereby Italy sought to maintain amicable relations with the Arab and Muslim world and Tel Aviv simultaneously. It was hoped that Rome could avoid being dragged into the Palestinian issue, therefore preserving “political equilibrium”.

Under the auspices of this clandestine concord, the Zionist entity benefited enormously from “selective enforcement” of local laws, political pardons if its operatives and/or schemes were exposed, and other indulgences. Mossad could thus exploit Rome “as a transit corridor, logistical base, and diplomatic buffer.” However, Tel Aviv routinely flouted the terms of this dispensation, gravely compromising the country’s “political equilibrium”. For one, “Israel” couldn’t tolerate Palestinian Resistance fighters and groups smuggling weapons or traveling without hindrance through Italy or enjoying political protection locally.

This blind eye to Palestinian Resistance became known as the “Lodo Moro” agreement, so-called because it was instituted by veteran Italian statesman and former prime minister Aldo Moro. Mossad sought to harshly penalize Rome for this leniency toward the Palestinian cause. Questions abound over Zionist involvement in numerous high-profile acts of terror perpetrated in Italy subsequently, such as the August 1980 bombing of Bologna Centrale railway station, which killed 85 people and wounded over 200, and political assassinations – including Moro’s own.

An ardent anti-Zionist, Moro was ostensibly kidnapped by the Red Brigades, a left-wing guerrilla movement, in March 1978. He was killed after 55 days in captivity. Numerous knowledgeable sources have testified to successive parliamentary inquiries and official investigations over the decades about how Mossad infiltrated and assisted the Red Brigades, seeking to influence the group’s activities from inception. Moreover, there was likewise a little-known but hugely impactful Zionist hand in the notorious CIA and MI6-run Operation Gladio from the very beginning.

Chaos unleashed by Gladio greatly furthered Mossad’s quest to destabilize Italy, in service of boosting “Israel’s” financial, military, and political support from the US. There is little chance of Tel Aviv’s geopolitical position being challenged by Rome today. Yet, incidents such as the mysterious late March attack on an Italian oil pipeline raise obvious questions about whether the local Zionist wrecking network constructed decades ago remains in place and still sends incendiary warnings to the country’s government not to step too far out of line.

April 24, 2026 Posted by | Deception, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Timeless or most popular | , , , , | Comments Off on Hidden history: How Mossad infiltrated Italy

Promises, pressure, pullout: Why US nuclear talks with Iran were never about a deal

By Mohammad Molaei | Press TV | April 24, 2026

For over two decades, US-Iran nuclear negotiations have been wrapped in secrecy and sold as a mechanism for reducing tensions. Yet a closer examination reveals a far different reality.

Negotiations were never intended to deliver a just or lasting solution. As the evidence suggests, they were simply a tool, a mechanism for the United States to maintain pressure on Iran while preserving the facade of diplomacy.

From the early 2000s through the signing of the nuclear deal in 2015 and its eventual unraveling three years later, the nuclear negotiation process has been defined by a single, consistent reality: the United States has never been a trustworthy or reliable partner at the table, and the negotiations have never produced the outcomes that were initially expected.

Roots of the crisis

The roots of the crisis, according to the evidence examined by this writer, trace back to 2002, when peaceful energy-centric nuclear facilities were unveiled in the central Iranian cities of Natanz and Arak. Western governments seized on these as evidence of so-called “military ambition.”

Yet Iran made clear from the very beginning that its nuclear program was peaceful and fully within its rights under Article IV of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). What began as a technical issue concerning safeguards compliance soon metastasized into a broader geopolitical confrontation.

This transformation did not occur because of any real diversion in Iran’s program. Rather, the nuclear dossier offered the United States and its allies a convenient pretext to sustain strategic pressure against a state that refused to submit to Western domination in West Asia.

This pattern emerged early in the negotiations with the so-called EU-3 – France, Germany, and the United Kingdom – culminating in the Saadabad Declaration of 2003.

Seeking to prevent escalation, Iran voluntarily halted uranium enrichment and, as a counterpart, accepted the Additional Protocol, granting the IAEA expanded access to nuclear sites. These steps went well beyond Iranian legal requirements and were widely regarded as a significant act of goodwill.

Yet rather than reciprocating with tangible concessions or normalization, Western powers seized on the suspension to demand even more radical measures. The voluntary and provisional nature of Iran’s commitments was gradually reframed by European negotiators into open-ended constraints.

Iran resuming parts of nuclear program

The asymmetry of expectations became impossible to ignore, and the fragile trust that had been built soon evaporated. By 2005, it was clear that the West’s objective was not transparency but permanent restriction.

In defense of its sovereign rights, Iran resumed parts of its nuclear program. That dynamic would define the next two decades: every Iranian show of restraint was answered not with reciprocity, but with escalating demands and mounting pressure.

The next turning point came in 2006, when Iran’s nuclear file was referred to the United Nations Security Council. The crisis was now internationalized.

Over the following years, successive resolutions imposed escalating sanctions on Iran’s nuclear and missile programs, arms transfers, and froze the assets of individuals and organizations.

Alongside these multilateral measures, the United States intensified its unilateral sanctions regime – particularly between 2010 and 2013 – when comprehensive financial and energy sanctions effectively amounted to a total embargo on Iran.

Legislation such as the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act (CISADA), combined with sanctions targeting Iran’s central bank and oil exports, succeeded in isolating the Iranian economy from global finance.

By this stage, the nuclear issue had clearly ceased to be a technical file. It had become an instrument of economic warfare, designed to coerce Iran into altering not only its nuclear policy but its entire strategic orientation.

JCPOA and how it materialized

It was against this backdrop of relentless pressure that the JCPOA was reached in 2015, today hyped as one of the most comprehensive nonproliferation agreements in diplomatic history.

Under the controversial deal, Iran accepted unprecedented restrictions on its nuclear program: stringent caps on enrichment levels, a dramatic reduction of its uranium stockpile, and full IAEA surveillance. These were not hollow concessions but a verifiable rollback of Iran’s nuclear capabilities, offered in exchange for sanctions relief and economic integration.

Moreover, successive IAEA reports from 2016 to 2018 confirmed Iran’s full compliance – a fact that vindicates Iran’s consistent claim that its nuclear program was always peaceful.

Nevertheless, despite Iran’s full cooperation, the expected benefits of the JCPOA never materialized in any meaningful way. Structural barriers within the US sanctions architecture deterred international businesses and financial institutions from engaging with Iran, even after some restrictions were formally lifted.

This systematic failure to deliver tangible outcomes pointed to a deeper problem: the United States had no intention of providing genuine economic relief, preferring to maintain its sanctions leverage despite being a signatory to the deal.

Trump’s withdrawal from JCPOA

The truth became undeniable in May 2018, when the US administration unilaterally withdrew from the JCPOA – even as Iran remained in full compliance – and reimposed comprehensive sanctions under the banner of so-called “maximum pressure.”

This not only erased any economic gains Iran might have realized but also demonstrated that any agreement with Washington was structurally unreliable and could be undone at any moment based on political whim.

The US withdrawal only deepened the cycle. As sanctions escalated and pressure mounted, Iran began scaling back its voluntary commitments under the JCPOA after a year of strategic restraint, invoking provisions that allowed for remedial action in the event of non-compliance by the other party.

These steps, including increased enrichment levels and advanced centrifuge research, were presented by Tehran as reversible measures, contingent on the restoration of sanctions relief.

Yet the West, instead of addressing the root cause of the crisis – the US violation of the agreement – once again focused its rhetoric on Iran’s nuclear activities. This inversion of cause and effect simply reset the familiar cycle of pressure and negotiation.

Limitations of the diplomatic process

The inherent limitations of the diplomatic process became clear during efforts to revive the deal through indirect Vienna negotiations starting in 2021. The core issues remained unresolved because talks focused merely on how to arrange a return to compliance.

Iran sought reasonable assurances that the US would not break its word again, along with economic compensation for its own compliance. Washington cited internal political and constitutional constraints as reasons such guarantees were impossible.

The resulting stalemate exposed a fundamental failure: the absence of any practical mechanism to ensure US promises are kept or prevent future violations, dooming any future settlement to the same cycle of disintegration.

The IAEA’s role has also come under scrutiny. Technical safeguards issues have repeatedly been pushed to the edge of a political flashpoint. Impartial compliance monitoring should be the agency’s mandate, yet on Iran, it has aligned with Western pressure, selectively raising issues at Iran’s expense – especially when geopolitical tensions peak.

This has reinforced the perception that the nuclear file is not technical but part of a larger pressure architecture, where institutional mechanisms are weaponized to justify more investigations and punishment.

Lessons from two decades of negotiations

The past two decades leave no room for doubt. The pattern is unmistakable: Iran can negotiate, compromise, and open up, only to face new demands, new sanctions, and shifting goalposts.

Every diplomatic phase has been followed not by resolution but by the reorganization of pressure in another form. This is not about miscalculations or technical differences. It is a chain of political choices in which diplomacy serves not as an end but as a means to gain advantage over Iran. The nuclear issue has become a scapegoat, not a genuine concern, but a tool to coerce and constrain an independent regional power.

The conclusion is inescapable. The technical dimension of Iran’s nuclear program has never been the real issue. Iran has submitted to one of the most invasive verification systems in history and has been repeatedly verified as peaceful.

The true obstacle is that the United States refuses to engage on terms of mutual respect, reciprocity, or long-term commitment. Washington always operates top-down, imposing conditions while reserving the right to walk away.

Under these conditions, nuclear negotiations with the US cannot produce a solution.

The process is fundamentally flawed and has been an absolute failure. And since Iran has already proven its program is peaceful, further talks are worthless – nothing more than pressure recycled as diplomacy.

The ongoing stalemate in the Islamabad talks is fundamentally due to Iran’s refusal to be dragged into a vicious cycle again. After emerging triumphant in the 40-day war, Iran is not willing to accept any of the US maximalist and unreasonable demands.

The nuclear file is effectively off the negotiating table, as the talks underway for nearly two decades have never been about a nuclear deal.

April 24, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Timeless or most popular, Wars for Israel | , , , | Comments Off on Promises, pressure, pullout: Why US nuclear talks with Iran were never about a deal

Somalia bans Israeli-linked vessels from Bab al-Mandab Strait

The Cradle | April 24, 2026

The Somali government announced on 22 April that it will impose a ban on Israeli shipping passing through the Bab al-Mandab Strait, framing the move as a response to Tel Aviv’s recognition of the breakaway Republic of Somaliland.

The announcement was made by Somalia’s ambassador to Ethiopia and the African Union, Abdullah Warfa.

He warned that violations of his country’s sovereignty “would not be tolerated.”

“External meddling could lead to countermeasures, such as restricting access to the key maritime route of Bab al-Mandab,” Warfa added, according to Yemen Press Agency (YPA), Mehr News Agency, and IRNA.

The UK Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO) reported a day later that a cargo ship 83 nautical miles southeast of Eyl, Somalia, was approached by two small armed boats, one of which came within 600 meters of the vessel.

“Warning shots were fired and the suspicious craft returned fire. The suspicious small craft moved away and made clear of the reporting cargo ship. All crew are safe and accounted for,” the UKMTO report added.

While analysts question Somalia’s ability to enforce the ban due to limited naval capacity, they say the decision carries major political weight, potentially reshaping regional alignments and pushing Somalia toward closer coordination with Sanaa over control of the strategic chokepoint.

Late last year, Israel became the first state to recognize the breakaway Somaliland region as an independent state. Somaliland had functioned as a de facto state since declaring independence in 1991, with its own governing institutions and security structures – despite receiving no recognition from any UN member state and facing sustained opposition from Somalia.

The Somali government slammed the move along with several regional countries, including Turkiye.

Earlier this month, Somalia condemned Israel’s appointment of an ambassador to Somaliland.

The announcement comes as tensions between Tehran and Washington remain high despite the ceasefire. The Strait of Hormuz remains closed, and Tehran has retaliated to an ongoing US blockade and seizure of its vessels – capturing two ships this week.

Yemen’s Ansarallah resistance movement, which has threatened to close the Bab al-Mandab Strait given its close proximity, carried out several operations during the US-Israeli war on Iran.

Ansarallah recently vowed it would resume operations if the US–Iran ceasefire collapses.

“We have more serious winning cards; the US must understand that, with the help of our Yemeni brothers, the issue of the Bab al-Mandab Strait is also under consideration and action,” said Behnam Saeedi, a member of the Iranian parliament’s national security and foreign policy committee, earlier this month.

The Bab al-Mandab Strait is the passageway for approximately 12 percent of global oil and eight percent of worldwide liquefied natural gas (LNG).

April 24, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , , , | Comments Off on Somalia bans Israeli-linked vessels from Bab al-Mandab Strait

‘Profound moral failure’: Iran denounces US endorsement of assassinations amid fragile ceasefire

Press TV – April 24, 2026

Iran says the United States has turned into a state sponsor of terrorism after President Donald Trump endorsed a Washington Post op-ed that called for the assassination of Iranian leaders.

The op-ed by Marc Thiessen suggested giving Iran’s government a 72-hour ultimatum before ending the current ceasefire, resuming attacks, and “killing the ones who don’t want a deal.”

“The United States, which once presented itself as a cradle of democracy, freedom, and human values, now appears to become a promoter of terrorism, murder, and mass violence,” Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei wrote on X on Thursday.

“What should one call this, if not a profound moral failure?” he asked.

Peace talks in Islamabad fell through due to US maximalist demands, and the Islamic Republic has said it will not rejoin the diplomatic process unless Washington lifts an illegal blockade it has imposed against Iranian vessels and ports.

The United States and Israel launched an unprovoked war of terrorism against Iran on Feb. 28, assassinating Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei along with several senior military commanders. In response, Iran’s armed forces carried out retaliatory missile and drone operations against US and Israeli military assets for more than 40 days, forcing Washington and Tel Aviv to declare a ceasefire.

Faced with Tehran’s unflinching response to the blockade, the United States has recently attempted to suggest a lack of unity among Iranian officials over peace talks.

On Thursday, President Masoud Pezeshkian, Parliament Speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, and Judiciary Chief Gholam-Hossein Mohseni Ejei issued a collective response to Trump, denouncing his remarks about “divisions between extremists and moderates” in Iran as unwarranted provocations and emphasizing national unity.

Separately, Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Mojtaba Khamenei said the remarkable unity among Iranians has disrupted the calculations of those seeking to undermine the Islamic Republic.

“Due to the remarkable unity created among compatriots, a fracture has occurred in the enemy,” the Leader wrote on X. He warned that the enemy’s media operations are targeting the minds and psyches of the people to undermine national unity and security.

April 24, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, War Crimes | , , , , | Comments Off on ‘Profound moral failure’: Iran denounces US endorsement of assassinations amid fragile ceasefire

ELNET taking UK journalists on secret pro-‘Israel’ propaganda tours

Al Mayadeen | April 24, 2026

A lobbying organization, ELNET, has been quietly arranging trips to “Israel” for British journalists and retired military personnel, according to an investigation published by Declassified. The tours coincide with the Israeli military’s ongoing campaign that has killed over 259 Palestinian and Lebanese journalists since 2023.

The investigation noted that on Wednesday, journalist Amal Khalil and photographer Zeinab Faraj were reporting from southern Lebanon when an Israeli airstrike targeted them. Khalil was killed and Faraj was seriously injured. The Israeli military is responsible for two-thirds of all journalist killings globally in 2025, the report states.

While systematically killing Palestinian journalists, Declassified reported that the Israeli government has blocked foreign media workers from entering Gaza, effectively creating a blackout of its military operations.

ELNET created to counter criticism of ‘Israel’

According to the investigation, ELNET was founded in 2007 with the stated aim of “countering the widespread criticism of Israel in Europe.” The group is increasingly viewed as the European equivalent of AIPAC, the powerful American-Israeli lobby.

Declassified found that journalists who participated in ELNET delegations have written for major British publications including the Telegraph, Spectator and Mail on Sunday. The group has also taken former British military officers to “Israel”, who subsequently portrayed the IOF’s operations in Gaza in a favourable light.

Professor Des Freedman of Goldsmiths told Declassified that such trips are not genuine fact-finding missions but rather “junkets specifically designed to generate pro-Israel coverage.” He added that embedded journalism of this kind is “utterly scandalous during a genocide when the rest of the world’s media have been locked out of Gaza.”

ELNET has close links to Israeli government

The investigation reveals that ELNET maintains close ties to the Israeli government. Its board members include two former advisors to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The group was invited to a 2024 meeting with foreign minister Gideon Sa’ar to discuss improving “public diplomacy”, and its delegations are frequently organized “in partnership” with the Israeli Foreign Ministry.

Emmanuel Navon, who directed ELNET’s “Israel” office between 2023 and 2025, described “Israel’s” offensive into Rafah as “necessary” and dismissed concerns about Palestinian civilians, Declassified reports.

ELNET’s UK branch is directed by former MP Joan Ryan, who once chaired Labour Friends of Israel. Under her leadership, the group has sought to cast doubt on casualty figures from Gaza, calling them “demonstrably unreliable and strategically manipulated.” The UK branch has also condemned British recognition of a Palestinian state as a “PR win” for Hamas and urged the restoration of arms exports to “Israel.”

Journalist declared ‘war must go on’ after ELNET trip

Declassified identified British journalist Zoe Strimpel, who writes for the Sunday Telegraph, as one participant in an ELNET delegation. Days after returning from “Israel”, she wrote in The Spectator that “most people” in “Israel” agree that “the war must go on until Hamas is completely destroyed.”

In a separate Telegraph article, Strimpel dismissed accusations of “Israeli ‘genocide’ in Gaza” as “grotesquely false”. When approached by Declassified about her participation in the ELNET trip, she declined to offer any defensive response, stating, “The more pro-Israel the better in my view.”

Another participant, David Rose, wrote for the Jewish Chronicle after his trip that “the trauma experienced throughout Israeli society means serious consideration of the longer-term relationship between Israel and the Palestinians is almost impossible to contemplate.”

Former British generals toured Gaza with ELNET

The investigation also revealed that former British military officers have joined ELNET delegations. Retired British army officer Sir John McColl, who served as a NATO commander in Europe, joined a September 2024 delegation that met with Netanyahu and former Security Minister, both wanted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes.

The group received briefings from Israeli military commanders and spent time in Gaza “observing troops in action.” Shortly after returning, McColl wrote in The Times that the Israeli military’s “rules of engagement in Gaza are at least as rigorous as those of the British army.” ELNET subsequently listed McColl’s article as one of its “recent successes” in an impact report.

Three other former British military figures on that delegation were Johnny Mercer, Colonel Richard Kemp and Major Andrew Fox. Fox later wrote on Substack, “When does a journalist become a legitimate military target? Many not often enough.”

April 24, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, War Crimes | , , , , , , | Comments Off on ELNET taking UK journalists on secret pro-‘Israel’ propaganda tours

The Surveillance Accountability Act Demands Warrants for Data

By Dan Frieth | Reclaim The Net | April 23, 2026

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) and Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) have introduced the Surveillance Accountability Act, a bill that feels like someone took the Fourth Amendment and actually meant it.

The legislation aims “to ensure that all searches that significantly impinge on the privacy or security of a person require a warrant based on probable cause” and to create “a right of action for violations of Fourth Amendment rights.” That covers the kinds of searches federal agencies currently conduct without judicial oversight: pulling your financial records from banks, requesting your browsing history from ISPs, buying your location data from brokers, and harvesting your biometric information from surveillance cameras.

We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.

The bill lands in the middle of a brutal Congressional fight over FISA Section 702, the surveillance authority that currently lets the FBI search Americans’ communications.

The new legislation goes much further than the various reform bills circulating around that debate. Where the SAFE Act and the Government Surveillance Reform Act target specific loopholes in FISA, the Surveillance Accountability Act tries to close all of them at once by rewriting the baseline rule: if the government wants your data, it needs a judge’s permission.

The main part of the bill adds a new Section 3119 to Title 18 of the US Code with a simple default: “no search may be conducted without a warrant issued by a neutral and detached magistrate upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.”

The bill defines “search” broadly enough to actually matter, covering “any government-initiated act that intrudes upon an individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy,” whether through “human, digital, or automated means.” It explicitly lists what falls under warrant protection: “communications,” “associations,” “employment,” “social media usage,” “internet usage,” “financial transactions,” and “travel.”

The bill goes further, extending protection to “the acquisition and analysis of any data, metadata, or information pertaining to a person’s digital or physical life,” including “geolocation,” “personal device activity,” “biometric identifiers,” and “behavioral signals data.”

The government is already collecting and analyzing patterns of how you act online, and Massie and Boebert’s bill is the first piece of legislation to name it directly and bring it under warrant protection.

The Third-Party Doctrine Problem

The most significant provision attacks the legal fiction that has allowed warrantless government surveillance to flourish for nearly fifty years. The third-party doctrine, established by the Supreme Court in Smith v. Maryland (1979), holds that you lose your Fourth Amendment protection over any information you voluntarily share with a third party, like a phone company or a bank.

The logic made a certain kind of sense when it meant the government could see which phone numbers you dialed. It makes no sense at all when every aspect of modern life generates data that passes through corporate servers.

The Supreme Court acknowledged as much in Carpenter v. United States (2018), ruling that cell phone location data requires a warrant even though it’s held by wireless carriers. But Carpenter was deliberately narrow. The Court didn’t overturn the third-party doctrine. It just said that this particular type of data, cell site location information, was too revealing to leave unprotected.

The new bill does what Carpenter didn’t. It creates a blanket presumption of privacy for all data held by third parties. The bill states that “the government shall not access any data, metadata, or personal information held by a third party, including financial services providers, telecommunication service providers, internet service providers, cloud storage companies, or data brokers, without a valid warrant, regardless of whether the third party consents or cooperates.”

Your bank can’t waive your constitutional rights for you. Your phone company can’t either.

The bill goes further still: “No contractual agreement between a user and a third party may be interpreted as waiving the government’s warrant requirement for access to the data of that user, unless such waiver is knowing, voluntary, and explicit.” This kills the argument that by agreeing to a terms of service, you’ve somehow consented to government surveillance. That argument has always been absurd, and the bill finally says so in statute.

Facial Recognition and License Plate Readers

The bill’s limitations section targets two surveillance technologies that have spread across American cities with almost no legal oversight: facial recognition systems and automated license plate readers.

The bill prohibits the “warrantless collection, retention, querying, or analysis” of data gathered from people simply going about their lives in public. That prohibition covers “biometric data, including facial images, faceprints, gait, voice recognition, or other unique physical identifiers, obtained through facial recognition systems or comparable surveillance technologies.”

It also covers “license plate images, vehicle metadata, or vehicle movement patterns obtained through automated license plate readers or similar systems.”

Federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies have been building vast databases of facial recognition and license plate data for years, treating the fact that you walked down a public street or drove on a public road as blanket permission to track your movements indefinitely. The bill says that’s not how it works. Being in public doesn’t mean consenting to biometric surveillance.

Suing the Government When It Violates Your Rights

The second half of the bill creates something that currently doesn’t exist in federal law: a clear right of action for Fourth Amendment violations by federal employees. The bill’s language is direct: “Every person, including a Federal employee, who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of the United States, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or any person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Fourth Amendment, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.”

Courts can award attorney’s fees to the prevailing party, which means the threat of litigation carries financial weight.

This is significant because of the Supreme Court’s steady erosion of Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents (1971), the case that originally allowed citizens to sue federal officials for constitutional violations. The Court has spent the last decade and a half narrowing Bivens to the point where it barely functions. Massie’s bill creates a statutory alternative that doesn’t depend on judicial willingness to recognize new causes of action.

The right of action covers every federal employee except the President and Vice President. That’s a wide net. An NSA analyst who runs a warrantless query on your communications, an FBI agent who buys your location data from a broker, an ICE officer who accesses your records through a Section 702 backdoor search, all of them could face personal liability.

The Political Context

Massie has been fighting this battle for over a decade. He sponsored an amendment in 2014 to stop warrantless backdoor searches of Americans’ online data, which passed the House 293 to 123. He introduced the Surveillance State Repeal Act in 2015, seeking to repeal the PATRIOT Act and the FISA Amendments Act entirely. He’s called for Edward Snowden to be pardoned and for former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper to be prosecuted for lying to Congress about the NSA’s phone metadata program.

The Surveillance Accountability Act arrives at a moment when the politics of surveillance are stranger than they’ve been in years. Massie has publicly demanded “No FISA reauthorization without a warrant requirement for US citizens!” on social media, attaching screenshots of past statements from President Trump, Vice President Vance, and House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan warning about FISA abuses.

The Congressional Progressive Caucus, 98 House Democrats, has formally voted to oppose any Section 702 reauthorization without dramatic reforms. Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Tom Cotton is pushing an 18-month clean extension with no reforms at all, arguing that the war with Iran makes this the wrong time to weaken intelligence capabilities.

The warrant amendment that would have required court approval for FBI searches of Section 702 data lost by a single vote in 2024, a 212-212 tie in the House. Speaker Mike Johnson cast the tiebreaker against it.

“The Bill of Rights is not a suggestion, and Fourth Amendment protections against warrantless searches conducted by the government are not optional,” said Massie. “The Surveillance Accountability Act requires government employees to first obtain a warrant based on probable cause before searching Americans’ personal information even if the information sought is stored on a phone, in the cloud, or held by a third party. Warrantless searches are unconstitutional, and this does not change when the data the government seeks is in digital formats or held by a third party.”

“For years, the federal government has treated the Fourth Amendment like a suggestion. They’ve built a massive surveillance machine that tracks, scans, and spies on law-abiding Americans without a warrant, without probable cause, and without any accountability. Enough is enough,” said Rep. Lauren Boebert. “The Surveillance Accountability Act puts the Constitution back in charge. It protects every American from an out-of-control federal government that thinks it owns your data, your movements, and your life. This is a true bipartisan issue for anyone who still believes in limited government and individual liberty.”

Massie’s bill goes beyond Section 702. It rewrites the entire framework, or tries to. The chances of the Surveillance Accountability Act passing in its current form are, being realistic, very low. The intelligence community will fight it. The national security establishment will call it dangerous. The administration has already signaled it wants a clean FISA extension with no conditions.

But the bill is a marker. It describes what actual Fourth Amendment compliance would look like if Congress took the text of the Constitution at face value. Warrants for searches. Probable cause. Judicial oversight. No exceptions for data that happens to sit on a corporate server. No loopholes for biometric surveillance conducted in plain view. And real consequences, financial ones, for agents who ignore the rules.

The gap between what the Surveillance Accountability Act proposes and what Congress is actually likely to pass tells you everything about how far the federal government has drifted from the privacy protections Americans were supposedly guaranteed 235 years ago.

April 24, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Comments Off on The Surveillance Accountability Act Demands Warrants for Data

#FreeYousofAzizi: Petition launched to seek release of Iranian academic, anti-war activist detained in US

Press TV – April 23, 2026

A petition has been launched calling for the release of Yousof Azizi, an Iranian researcher, journalist, political analyst, and PhD candidate at Virginia Tech, who has been detained by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) despite holding valid legal status.

According to a website launched by his supporters, Azizi was taken into custody in front of his home in Maryland on April 13 and denied access to a lawyer.

Press TV was the first media outlet to report on his arbitrary arrest by ICE.

A day later, he was held at the Baltimore ICE Detention Center, and visitation was prohibited to his family or lawyers.

On April 15, Azizi was transferred to Louisiana against his will. His lawyer immediately requested his release by posting bond.

Two days later, on April 17, he was transferred again to Arizona against his will, as he informed his wife over a short phone call, notes the website.

Azizi is a father of two young children and an active member of the Iranian community in the US who has publicly and unapologetically spoken against the unprovoked and illegal US-Israeli war of aggression against the Islamic Republic of Iran.

A media personality with regular appearances on multiple international English and Persian media outlets, including Press TV, Azizi has been one of the few voices in the Persian media sphere to openly and vociferously oppose the Zionist lobby’s influence on US foreign policy.

His media commentary has consistently criticized US military aggression against Iran and the Israeli genocidal war against Palestinians in Gaza, the occupied West Bank and Lebanon.

His case has alarmed civil rights advocates in the US, who view it as an example of politically driven immigration enforcement, which has become common under the Trump administration.

“When no clear legal violation is presented, we must ask: on what basis is he being held,” the change.org petition that has garnered significant attention notes.

Supporters of the campaign say the case raises serious concerns about due process, justice, and the increasingly blurred line between law and politics in the US.

They stress that silence does not serve justice and that awareness matters, demanding a fair review of Azizi’s case and his immediate release from ICE custody.

Hundreds of foreign nationals, including Iranians, have been detained or deported by immigration authorities in the US in recent months on flimsy pretexts.

You can join the petition to press for Azizi’s release here.

April 24, 2026 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance, Militarism | , , , | Comments Off on #FreeYousofAzizi: Petition launched to seek release of Iranian academic, anti-war activist detained in US

The First Photographs Ever Taken of Iran [1848-1858] by Colonel Luigi Pesce + Persepolis, Old World

Jarid Boosters | June 22, 2023

I’ve found an astounding collection of the very first photographs of Iran, all taken by Colonel Luigi Pesce of Naples, who was deployed to Iran in 1848, in charge of training Iran’s new infantry troops up to the Italian Standard. While stationed in Iran, Luigi Pesce gained an appreciation, some would say a love, for the ancient structures and artifacts he would come in contact with on a daily basis.

He decided to combine his new appreciation for Ancient Iran with his favorite hobby, which was the up-and-coming technology of photography. From 1848 through 1858, Luigi photographed the cities, monuments, and people of Iran. The photographs are very clear and detailed for the time. Today we will view his seldom seen, yet historically important collection in complete detail.

April 23, 2026 Posted by | Timeless or most popular, Video | | Comments Off on The First Photographs Ever Taken of Iran [1848-1858] by Colonel Luigi Pesce + Persepolis, Old World

Confusion, delusion, and how Israel drives the Iran War

By Jamal Kanj | MEMO | April 23, 2026

The closure of the Strait of Hormuz following the temporary ceasefire is the culmination of an American policy defined by strategic incoherence. At the center stands Donald Trump, whose shifting positions, confused war objectives, and conflicting actions have not only failed to ease regional tensions but have actively deepened them.

Nowhere is this clearer than in Trump’s threats to blow up the whole country, including its bridges and power plants. At the same time, he touted a military “big day,” presenting potential war crimes as diplomatic tool, aggression as diplomacy, and destruction as leverage.

Trump’s inflated, almost delusional, promises ahead of potential talks come across less as statesmanship and more as a calculated sales pitch to the American public. His vows “to end up with a great deal,” coupled with an almost obsessive focus on Barack Obama by insisting his agreement will be “far better” than the one negotiated over a decade ago. An approach that reflects a tendency toward messaging driven less by policy depth and more by projection, comparison, and to frame outcomes in terms of self-aggrandizement and personal glory.

Instead of articulating clear strategic objectives, his policy relies on distinguishing himself and image cultivation to project authority and superiority, leaving the underlying substance vague and open to question.

By manufacturing optimism and exaggerating progress while promising an imminent “great deal,” Trump appears to be negotiating with himself—or detached from reality—seeking to construct a narrative of success regardless of the facts on the ground. The performative optimism stands in sharp contrast to his simultaneous threats and pompous rhetoric, suggesting not confidence but a measure of desperation.

Trump’s rationale for extending the ceasefire because of “internal divisions”  within Iran is unconvincing. If internal debate within Iran is seen as warranting a pause, what should be said of a policy where direction shifts from one moment to the next? Differing political views are the essence of a normally functioning political system, whereas impulsive, erratic, personalized decision-making is not.

All of this unfolds as Trump continues issuing maximalist demands for conditions he helped create. For instance, he demands the surrender of enriched uranium that would not exist had he not abandoned the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Likewise, the Strait of Hormuz was closed as a consequence of his and Netanyahu’s war, not as its cause.

The consequences of these Israel-driven U.S. policies are felt by ordinary Americans at the gas pump and in grocery stores. The Strait of Hormuz has become a battleground, destabilizing global energy supply chains and economies worldwide. Yet despite these cascading effects, the core strategy remains unchanged. Trump continues to operate within an echo chamber of Israel-first sycophants that assume military might alone can deliver results, even as the policy falters and the war spills across the region, threatening roughly one-fifth of the world’s energy infrastructure.

This is not merely a political flaw or a matter of mismanagement. It is rather a strategic vulnerability shaped by Israel-first loyalists pulling U.S. strategy in directions that ultimately undermine U.S. national interests. In the absence of clearly defined national objectives, as in the first Israel’s war in Iraq, each step risks drawing the U.S. deeper into the polluted water of the Gulf, while simultaneously advancing an environment of chaos that serves only Israel’s calculated aims.

In this framework, was Israeli Prijamame Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s recent statement that the war with Iran is “not over” an embedded message to Trump ahead of the proposed peace talks in Pakistan?

Negotiation between countries, especially in the context of war is not selling real estate deals, where haggling and the threat of retracting an offer are routine tactics. The craft of negotiation in this case operates on an entirely different level. Culture, national dignity, historical memory, and political positioning shape both the process and the outcome.

Leaders are not merely bargaining over financial assets or credit ratings, they are navigating domestic demands, legitimacy, and the perception of strength or weakness on the global stage.

In this regard, threats or the constant withdrawal and reintroduction of proposals are not leverage, they are weakness. Unlike commercial transactions where the “Art of the Deal” is largely concluded at the moment of signing, international agreements mark the beginning of an ongoing, often long-term relationship. What may pass as hard-nosed bargaining in business can, in international diplomacy, be interpreted as bad faith, an approach that tends to invite resentment and resistance instead of compromise. This is why since last Tuesday, Trump was left waiting for Iran to come to the negotiation table.

Effective diplomacy requires serious leadership, consistency, and an understanding of the symbolic as much as the substantive. Agreements endure not because one side is pressured into submission, but because all parties can present the outcome as preserving their dignity and advancing mutual interests.

The lack of strategic maturity is indicative in a proclamation in the morning signaling openness to de-escalation; by midday, the message splinters, issuing threats and ultimatums while simultaneously hinting at imminent breakthrough deals; by the middle of the night, amid his insomnia, it escalates to threats of total destruction. This constant shifting of positions is not a minor stylistic quirk. It is possible that, at least some of this, is associated with his nocturnal communications with Netanyahu, who is apparently wagging him left and right.

This yo-yoing of positions does more than create confusion; it erodes credibility. Diplomacy depends on a baseline of predictability and mental stability. When signals shift faster than the wind, uncertainty breeds mistrust, and negotiations drift from closed rooms into fiery statements played out for public consumption, creating an opening for Israel to drive the war and breed destruction and more chaos.

April 23, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , | Comments Off on Confusion, delusion, and how Israel drives the Iran War

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »