Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

No commercial ship or oil tanker transited Strait of Hormuz in past hours: IRGC

Press TV – May 4, 2026

No commercial vessels or oil tankers have transited the Strait of Hormuz in the past several hours, the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) said Monday, dismissing recent US claims as “baseless and outright false.”

In a statement issued by the IRGC’s Public Relations Office, the elite force stressed that maritime movements in breach of its declared naval regulations will face serious risks, and that any violating vessel will be stopped forcefully.

“No commercial or tanker vessels have transited the Strait of Hormuz in the past several hours,” the statement read. “US officials’ claims are baseless and outright false.”

The US military said earlier that two US Navy guided-missile destroyers had entered the Persian Gulf and that two American ships had transited the Strait of Hormuz, after the Iranian Navy said it repelled a US warship approaching the strategic waterway, which has remained under Iranian control since the early days of the war.

On Sunday, US President Donald Trump announced the so-called “Project Freedom” to escort ships out of the Strait of Hormuz.

The unified command of Iran’s armed forces responded by warning American forces to stay out of the Strait, lying between the Persian Gulf and the Sea of Oman.

Iran has restricted transit through the vital waterway responsible for a fifth of global oil demand since the early days of the illegal US-Israeli aggression on the country that began on February 28 and halted in a Pakistan-brokered ceasefire on April 8.

Authorities say, however, that coordinated passage through the Strait is allowed for all ships except for those linked to the US and the Israeli regime and associated entities.

May 4, 2026 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , | Comments Off on No commercial ship or oil tanker transited Strait of Hormuz in past hours: IRGC

Russia warns of escalating NATO military activity in Baltic region

Al Mayadeen | May 4, 2026

Russia has accused NATO of significantly expanding its military operations in the Baltic Sea, particularly near the Kaliningrad region, warning that the alliance’s growing presence poses risks to regional stability and international navigation.

Artem Bulatov, special envoy at the Russian Foreign Ministry, stated that NATO is intensifying efforts to enhance its combat capabilities and infrastructure in areas adjacent to Kaliningrad, pointing to a sustained military buildup under various operational frameworks.

According to Bulatov, NATO launched its Baltic Sentry mission in January 2025 under the stated aim of protecting critical infrastructure in the Baltic Sea, while continuing extensive air patrols and expanding the scope of its exercises.

Member states engaging in ‘provocative’ actions

He added that the scale and frequency of NATO drills have increased, alongside provocative actions by member states targeting vessels involved in transporting goods to and from Russia.

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko warned that these activities are creating “serious threats” to international shipping routes and economic operations in the region, suggesting that NATO’s mission is effectively aimed at controlling key logistical corridors.

Grushko further argued that the alliance’s operations are designed to restrict the movement of goods linked to Russia, raising concerns in Moscow over the militarization of maritime routes in the Baltic.

Russia warns of Western shift on nuclear weapons role

Russia has expressed concern over a shifting Western approach to the role of nuclear weapons, senior diplomat Andrey Belousov said last week.

Speaking in an interview with RIA Novosti, Belousov said Moscow is increasingly alarmed by developments within what he called the “collective West,” particularly ahead of the upcoming review of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

The Eleventh Review Conference of the NPT is scheduled to take place in New York City from April 27 to May 22.

“Currently, a number of issues in the context of the NPT are causing us serious concern. First and foremost, this concerns a trend that could soon take on an avalanche-like nature: the widespread declaration by a number of states — primarily from the ‘collective West’ camp — of a new view on the role and place of nuclear weapons,” Belousov said.

May 4, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , | Comments Off on Russia warns of escalating NATO military activity in Baltic region

Government Kills the Spirit

By Ron Paul | May 4, 2026

One of the industries hardest hit by the spike in fuel prices caused by the Iran War is airlines. Jet fuel prices have doubled since the start of the war. Airlines have reacted to the fuel price increase by raising fares and baggage fees, as well as by cutting routes.

Raising prices is not a good option for “budget” airlines since their main appeal to consumers is their low prices. Increasing prices could cause these carriers to lose business.

The financial strain from the increased fuel costs led discount airline Spirit to ask the Trump administration for a bailout. President Trump said a bailout would be conditioned on Spirit giving the government an ownership stake in the company. Spirit was unable to reach a deal with the government, so Spirit went out of business on Saturday. However, several other budget airlines are seeking a government bailout.

Spirit has been struggling for years. In 2022, the airline sought to get on better financial footing by merging with fellow discount airline JetBlue. The merger may have allowed for more effective competition with the dominant carriers. However, the Justice Department successfully opposed the merger in court on the grounds it would lead to more concentration in the discount airlines market. This is one of many examples of how an aggressive approach to antitrust enforcement can harm businesses and consumers.

Spirit is not the first business President Trump has considered having the government “invest” in. For example, in exchange for government approval of Nippon Steel’s acquisition of US Steel, the government was given a “golden share” allowing the government to overrule decisions made by the company that the government determines are against US “national security.” Among the other companies the government has obtained an ownership interest in are several minerals mining companies and computer chip manufacturer Intel. If discount airlines receive bailouts in exchange for granting government ownership stakes in their businesses, other companies impacted by the spike in fuel prices may line up for the same deal.

Having government own part of what is a nominally private company interferes with the efficient allocation of capital. It also means business decisions will be made to please government officials and bureaucrats instead of to meet the needs and wants of consumers. Government officials will also act based on what will boost returns in the government’s investments.

Government ownership of all or part of private businesses is the epitome of economic fascism. Yet, there have not been protests from the so-called “anti-fascist” progressives over President Trump arranging US government ownership stakes in private companies. This is probably because they are looking forward to a Democrat president expanding government’s investment in, and control of, private businesses.

There has been little criticism of President Trump’s acquisition of ownership interests in private companies from Republican politicians or conservative writers and activists. Many of them, though, would have opposed President Obama or President Biden tooth and nail if either had the US government take an ownership interest in private companies.

Contrary to what many seem to think, full or partial government ownership of private companies does not magically become less of a threat to liberty and prosperity when done by a Republican. Congress should pass a law forbidding any part of the federal government — including the Federal Reserve — from taking an ownership interest in any private business.

May 4, 2026 Posted by | Economics | | Comments Off on Government Kills the Spirit

How ‘Israel’s’ Iran regime change plot failed – again

By Kit Klarenberg | Al Mayadeen | May 4, 2026

An investigative report by Israeli outlet Ynet has laid bare the embarrassing cataclysm not only of the US-Israeli war on Iran, but the Zionist entity’s effort throughout to end the Islamic Republic via covert and overt military and intelligence operations. Violent Mossad-orchestrated protests, the murder of Leader Sayyed Ali Khamenei, and a Kurdish invasion were intended to produce regime change and “total victory” over Tehran. Yet, as Ynet concludes: “what started as a far-reaching Israeli move, rich in imagination, final in its solution, ends in heartache.”

In granular detail, the investigation tracks how the Zionist entity’s deranged scheme germinated in the minds of Israeli intelligence, military, and political chiefs, before the Trump administration was comprehensively sold on the plot. Along the way, Ynet exposes extraordinary and dangerous levels of delusion and imperial hubris at the highest levels of Tel Aviv and Washington. For example, Benjamin Netanyahu sincerely – and entirely falsely – believed “Israel’s” criminal September 2024 assault of Lebanon, and the June 2025 12-Day War, had decimated Hezbollah and Iran.

This perspective was shared by Mossad, which had been building a vast, dedicated anti-government army in Tehran since 2022. The Zionist entity was delusionally convinced it had the power to collapse the entire Islamic Republic. “Fostering mass protest” and encouraging “armed resistance of minorities” – specifically, Kurds within and without Iran – in “parallel” with assassinating Leader Sayyed Ali Khamenei was part of a three-pronged coup d’etat strategy. Netanyahu believed “total victory” over the Resistance was in grasp in every theatre. Ynet reports:

“Overthrowing the regime was the heart of Israel’s overall war plan.”

The operation was intended to be put into action this June. Yet, in January, with “tens of thousands” of Mossad-directed insurrectionists in the streets of Tehran and other Iranian cities, the Zionist entity believed conditions had sufficiently “ripened” to make a decisive move. Mossad’s “influence organization” was birthed in 2022, reaching “operational maturity two and a half years ago.” Ynet bleakly boasts of the “effort and sophistication” of the Zionist entity’s armed clandestine army of anti-government rioters in Tehran:

“Israel has established its own poison machine. This is a serious weapon system that, if fully operational, can be fatal.”

Mossad pitched its braindead regime change plan directly to the CIA, Pentagon Central Command was informed of it by visiting Zionist Occupation Forces chief of staff Eyal Zamir, while Trump got personally lobbied by Netanyahu. The President – “convinced there were no limits to the capabilities of the military system at his command” after Nicolas Maduro’s January 3rd kidnap – and his administration were a highly receptive audience. Trump indicated his endorsement of the conspiracy on January 13th, publicly informing Iranians “help is on its way.”

A vast US military buildup in West Asia immediately began, while supposed peace talks with Tehran were ongoing. The negotiations were of course a con, intended to lull the Resistance into a false sense of security before the next phase of “Israel’s” intended palace coup commenced. On February 28th, Zionist-American airstrikes rained down on Tehran. “Israel” and the US firmly believed Iran’s leadership had been eliminated or scattered, and the Islamic Republic’s command and control system was “severely beaten.” But then, catastrophe started to erupt.

‘Popular Uprising’

While Sayyed Khamenei was killed – in an assassination demonically celebrated by Western media as “the assassination of the century” – sending Iran’s leadership temporarily underground, “an orderly change of government, in accordance with Khamenei’s will,” was successfully executed. Iran’s command and control system wasn’t significantly disrupted, returning to full capacity within hours. No defections were forthcoming. Still, “euphoria” abounded in Washington and Tel Aviv. Trump – who privately “welcomed the Israeli hit” – issued a video statement urging the Iranian people to take power by violence, warning:

“To the members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard, the armed forces and all of the police. I say tonight that you must lay down your weapons and have complete immunity, or in the alternative, face certain death.”

Netanyahu joined the insurrectionary call. Problematically though, “the crowd chose to stay home,” in no small part because of genocidal US-Israeli bombardment from the skies. A deliberate strike on a primary school killed 165 young girls, sparking fiery international condemnation, vengeful mourning throughout West Asia, and UN investigations. Iranians instead took to the streets in sizeable numbers to grieve Khamenei, while celebrating his son Mojtaba’s ascension to Leader. Immediately, the IRGC moved to blockade the Strait of Hormuz.

Despite the closure being an absolutely inevitable upshot of criminal Zionist-American aggression against Iran, which Western intelligence assessments universally long-forecast, Ynet reports the US was “not ready for this move and its devastating economic consequences.” Trump’s threats not to blockade the Strait were ignored. The riddle of why Washington was so caught off guard is perhaps best answered by Netanyahu’s assurances to Trump that the Islamic Republic would collapse in mere days. Astonishingly, there was no contingency plan beyond that.

In the meantime, another cog of the Zionist-American regime change operation in Tehran was also fatally faltering. “After 100 hours of air activity… a ground invasion from Kurdish militias based in Iraq” was supposed to commence. An invasion force had been training there over prior weeks, preparing “to reach the Kurdish region of Iran” and link up with fighters locally before a “mass march” to Tehran. For inspiration, Tel Aviv looked to Damascus being overwhelmed by MI6-supported HTS forces in mere days in December 2024.

However, Ynet reports Iranian intelligence quickly learned “in advance about the planned invasion,” and supposedly informed Turkey, prompting Recep Erdoğan to personally demand Trump call it off. The entire proposal was, in any event, manifest insanity. After reports emerged in early March of the CIA working with Kurdish militants “with the aim of fomenting a popular uprising in Iran,” even Zionist think tank pundits and diaspora activists warned such action was a recipe for disaster, which would unite Iranians of every extraction in opposition.

Still, Kurdish invasion remained a fundamental component of “Israel’s” regime change strategy in Tehran during the war. When a tentative ceasefire was struck on April 7th, after 40 days of devastating Iranian strikes, Ynet reports Israeli officials wondered why the invasion never came to pass. Did the US not believe in the operation in the first place? Perhaps Trump changed his mind after Erdoğan picked up the phone? Or was “the whole idea a fantasy, with no chance of being realised?”

‘Inadvertent Effects’

That the Zionist entity was so convinced its self-evidently misguided mission could possibly succeed is all the more damning, given the contents of a July 2025 report from the highly influential, Tel Aviv-based Institute for National Security Studies. A withering appraisal of the 12-Day War, the think tank acknowledged Iranian regime change had been an avowed Zionist objective from the conflict’s inception, which failed spectacularly. Nonetheless, the report still advocated for the Zionist entity to pursue the Islamic Republic’s destruction, via a palace coup.

However, INSS explicitly warned against employing precisely the regime change tactics depended upon by the ZOF and Mossad during the latest Zionist-American war on Iran to achieve that end. For one, the think tank correctly predicted any Israeli military effort – including civilian bombing – intended to ignite mass anti-government protests had no chance of success. Such actions during the 12-Day War had in fact produced an intense “anti-Israel wave” among Iranians, who “exhibited a notable degree” of “rallying around the flag” in response.

Iranians’ determination “to defend their homeland at a critical moment against an external enemy” endured after the 12-Day War ended, to the extent all traces of public dissent in the Islamic Republic “almost completely disappeared” in the conflict’s wake. INSS likewise vehemently cautioned against encouraging “separatist tendencies” in Iran – such as Kurdish militancy. Due to “heightened public sensitivity to any perceived foreign attempts to promote ethnic fragmentation,” separatist insurrection, let alone invasion, would unite “large segments” of the Iranian public “against Israel.”

Moreover, an eerily prophetic portion of INSS’ report explicitly warned against assassinating Leader Sayyed Ali Khamenei, as doing so “would not necessarily result in regime change,” and inevitably backfire. The think tank precisely foretold Tehran “would likely have little difficulty selecting a successor, who could prove to be more extreme or more capable.” INSS likewise predicted the Iranian government instead being strengthened, and anti-Zionist sentiment skyrocketing in Iran and beyond, leaving any subsequent “efforts to destabilize the regime through popular protest” dead on arrival.

All these humiliating outcomes came to pass. As yet, INSS’ forecast that military-driven Israeli regime change efforts in Iran would compel the Islamic Republic to seek nuclear weapons capability “as an existential insurance policy” hasn’t materialised, although Western officials now widely fear it may. Meanwhile, ever since the ceasefire was implemented, talks between Washington and Tehran have been stuck in a seemingly implacable stalemate. While US officials remain committed to imposing sharp limits on Iran’s nuclear research, the Islamic Republic refuses to even negotiate the issue.

Furthermore, Tehran has made clear its chokehold over the Strait of Hormuz will only be loosened when the Empire stops blockading the country, and ends the conflict. While Netanyahu still harbours reveries of shattering the Islamic Republic, the Empire lacks the requisite economic and military muscle. Meanwhile, overextended Tel Aviv has blundered into a colossal trap in Lebanon, and the Resistance is waiting and watching intently. In recklessly seeking self-evidently unattainable regime change in Iran, the Zionist entity has only hastened its own permanent destruction.

May 4, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on How ‘Israel’s’ Iran regime change plot failed – again

1977 Influenza Pandemic Sequence Shows Signs of Laboratory Creation: Journal ‘Cell’

NIH/NIAID-funded, peer-reviewed analysis finds defining sequence carries patterns consistent with controlled handling—meaning it looks man-made.

By Jon Fleetwood | April 19, 2026

A newly published study in Cell reports that the genetic sequence associated with the 1977 influenza pandemic carries clear, measurable patterns consistent with laboratory handling.

Meaning it appears man-made.

The analysis was led by scientists at UC San Diego, UCLA, Temple University, Cornell University, the University of Arizona, and The Scripps Research Institute.

It was funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID).

Sequence Matches Known Laboratory Signatures

The researchers identified a specific pattern embedded in the sequence.

One that aligns with laboratory conditions rather than uncontrolled external processes.

They state:

“the reemergence of H1N1 influenza A virus in 1977 was preceded by a shift in selection intensity, consistent with the hypothesis of passage in a laboratory setting.”

The study makes clear that these types of patterns are not random.

They are:

“distinct evolutionary signatures” produced through laboratory passage.

The 1977 sequence carries that signature.

That means the sequence behaves like something that has been handled, worked on, or preserved in a lab.

Not something that developed continuously on its own.

Sequence Does Not Follow a Natural Timeline

The study also identifies a major break in the expected timeline of the sequence.

Researchers found:

  • only 48 substitutions over roughly 27 years,
  • and strong similarity to strains from the 1950s.

Under normal conditions, far more change would be expected.

Instead, the sequence appears to have been:

  • held in a stable, nearly unchanged state, then
  • reintroduced with minimal differences.

Meaning the sequence does not reflect a continuous passage through time.

It looks paused, preserved, and then brought back.

That pattern is consistent with storage or maintenance under controlled conditions.

Statistical Patterns Align With Controlled Environments

Beyond the timeline anomaly, the sequence shows a distinct pattern in how changes occur.

The study detected:

  • a shift in selection pressure,
  • and a pattern associated with reduced constraints compared to typical conditions.

The authors note:

“we consistently found evidence for a change in the selection regime of passaged viruses”

These same patterns are observed in:

  • laboratory-passaged material,
  • attenuated vaccine development,
  • and controlled experimental systems.

In plain terms: the way this sequence changes matches laboratory conditions.

Not uncontrolled external conditions.

Direct Link to Laboratory Activity

The study connects these findings to known laboratory practices, stating:

“consistent with the reemergence of H1N1 in 1977 being due to an escape during an influenza vaccine trial.”

Researchers also identify temperature sensitivity, a known outcome of laboratory-based attenuation techniques.

All of this points to:

  • controlled handling or passaging,
  • storage under laboratory conditions,
  • and release following that handling.

The sequence aligns with known lab processes.

What the Study Is Actually Showing

The analysis is entirely sequence-based.

It does not rely on observing a pathogen directly.

Instead, it examines:

  • mutation patterns,
  • statistical signals,
  • and structural characteristics of the sequence.

And those characteristics, according to the study, align with laboratory-associated handling.

That means the conclusion comes from what the sequence objectively looks like and what those patterns indicate.

Bottom Line

The Cell study identifies multiple independent indicators that the genetic sequence associated with the 1977 influenza pandemic does not follow a continuous, uncontrolled pattern.

Instead, it shows:

  • a break in expected timeline,
  • minimal change over decades,
  • and a statistical signature matching laboratory conditions.

This means the defining sequence tied to the 1977 influenza pandemic carries the same detectable signature seen when something has been handled in a laboratory.

The 1977 influenza pandemic sequence does not look naturally derived.

It looks man-made.

That raises a direct question: if the sequence at the center of a pandemic appears man-made, what role did laboratory systems play in the event itself?

May 4, 2026 Posted by | Deception, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , | Comments Off on 1977 Influenza Pandemic Sequence Shows Signs of Laboratory Creation: Journal ‘Cell’

China issues first prohibition order to safeguard international trade order under rule of law

People’s Daily | May 3, 2026

China’s Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) on Saturday issued a prohibition order in accordance with Rules on Counteracting Unjustified Extraterritorial Application of Foreign Legislation and Other Measures (the 2021 Blocking Rules), which explicitly stated that China shall not recognize, enforce, or give effect to the unilateral sanctions imposed by the US, which listed five Chinese petrochemical enterprises on the Specially Designated Nationals List and imposed asset freezes and transaction bans on grounds of alleged oil transactions with Iran.

This move marks a crucial step for China’s foreign-related legal tools to move from institutional framework to practical enforcement. Leveraging the power of the rule of law, China has delivered a targeted response to US long-arm jurisdiction. The move defends the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese enterprises while heeding the international community’s widespread call to oppose hegemony, injecting justice into efforts to safeguard the international economic order.

China values its relations with the US and emphasizes that the essence of China-US economic and trade relations is mutual benefit and win-win outcomes. China advocates resolving concerns through dialogue on an equal-footing. However, since 2025, the US has imposed sanctions on Chinese refining, shipping and port enterprises under the pretext of “involvement in Iranian oil transactions,” freezing assets and prohibiting transactions. Under such circumstances, China’s issuance of the prohibition order in accordance with the Blocking Rules is a necessary measure to safeguard its national and corporate interests. Meanwhile, the Blocking Rules provide various institutional arrangements to steadily protect the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese citizens, legal persons and other organizations.

The US’ arbitrary imposition of unilateral sanctions and reckless pursuit of “long-arm jurisdiction” constituted hegemonic practices that breach sovereign boundaries and coerce the global market. By placing its domestic law above international law and wantonly interfering in the normal economic and trade activities of enterprises in other countries, such actions completely violate the basic principle of sovereign equality in international relations and have long faced resolute opposition from the international community.

As early as 1996, the European Union adopted the Council Regulation protecting against the effects of the extra-territorial application of legislation adopted by a third country, blocking the extra-territorial application of the US Helms-Burton Act and D’Amato Act, which restricted trade with Cuba, Iran, and other countries. Today, the US has escalated its abuse of secondary sanctions, wielding the sanctions stick against law-abiding Chinese enterprises. This seriously infringes upon the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese business entities and disrupted the stability of the global energy supply chain. In the face of hegemonic pressure, China’s issuance of a prohibition order in accordance with the law conforms to international practice and does not affect China’s assumption and fulfillment of its international obligations.

In recent years, in response to the evolving international economic and trade landscape, China has strengthened the development of its foreign-related legal system. It has established a series of legal tools, including the Anti-Foreign Sanctions Law, the Rules on Countering Foreign States’ Unlawful Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Measures, and the 2021 Blocking Rules. Laws such as the Foreign Trade Law, Export Control Law, and Foreign Investment Law have also been strengthened with provisions to safeguard the international economic and trade order, protect national sovereignty, security, and development interests, and defend the legitimate rights and interests of foreign trade operators. These legal instruments complement one another, each with its own emphasis, working together synergistically.

By issuing the prohibition order, China upholds the approach of countering hegemony with rules and defending fairness with the rule of law. It neither escalated confrontation nor made compromises, but instead negates the extraterritorial effect of the illegal US sanctions through lawful and compliant means, restoring international law to its original principle of sovereign equality. This measure not only provides relief to the affected enterprises and ensures the security of domestic industrial and supply chains, but also offers a practical example for the international community to resist unilateral bullying and oppose “long-arm jurisdiction.” It demonstrates China’s responsibility as a major country in upholding justice and defending order.

China has always advocated resolving international differences through equal dialogue, firmly upholding the multilateral trading system, and promoting inclusive economic globalization that benefits all. In the face of the countercurrent of unilateralism, China will continue to make full use of its foreign-related legal toolkit, remain resolute and be adept at defending its interests. While resolutely safeguarding its own sovereignty, security, and development interests, China will join hands with all peace-loving and rule‑of‑law-abiding countries to resist hegemonic acts and jointly promote the building of a more just, equitable, inclusive, and mutually beneficial global economic governance system.

This was compiled based on an article published in the “Chisu Jinsheng” economic commentary column of the People’s Daily on May 3, 2026. This is the translation of the Global Times English edition.

May 3, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Wars for Israel | , , | Comments Off on China issues first prohibition order to safeguard international trade order under rule of law

Iran rejects Trump’s ‘Project Freedom,’ warns US over Hormuz role

Al Mayadeen | May 4, 2026

Iran has strongly rejected United States President Donald Trump’s announcement of a naval initiative dubbed “Project Freedom,” warning that any American involvement in the management of the Strait of Hormuz would be considered a violation of the existing ceasefire framework.

Iran warns US against interference in Hormuz

Head of the National Security and Foreign Policy Committee in the Iranian Parliament, Ebrahim Azizi, issued a sharp warning to Washington,  saying that any US interference in the emerging maritime arrangements in the Strait of Hormuz would breach ceasefire understandings.

Azizi stressed that Iran would not accept external control over one of the world’s most strategic waterways, amid ongoing tensions following months of confrontation in the region.

Azizi directly dismissed Trump’s “Project Freedom” initiative, stating that the management of the Strait of Hormuz and the wider Gulf region “would not be dictated by Trump’s delusional posts.”

His remarks reflect Tehran’s firm rejection of US attempts to position itself as an arbiter of maritime movement in the area.

Iran pushes back on US narrative

The Iranian official also criticized “anticipated US narratives” surrounding maritime security, referring to them as “blame game” scenarios.

He said such rhetoric reflects Washington’s attempt to shape the political framing of developments in the Strait of Hormuz, while Iran asserts its own sovereignty over its territorial waters and strategic routes.

Trump earlier announced that Washington will begin a naval operation to escort foreign vessels stranded in the Strait of Hormuz, framing the move as a humanitarian initiative amid ongoing regional tensions.

In a statement posted on Truth Social, Trump alleged that multiple countries had asked the United States for assistance in “freeing” ships that remain unable to transit the strategic waterway.

He said the initiative, dubbed “Project Freedom,” would begin Monday morning West Asia time with US representatives tasked with guiding vessels and their crews safely out of the restricted area.

Trump emphasized that many of the affected ships belong to countries not involved in the ongoing war, describing them as “neutral and innocent bystanders” caught in the crisis.

May 3, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , | Comments Off on Iran rejects Trump’s ‘Project Freedom,’ warns US over Hormuz role

TRUMP ANNOUNCES OPERATION TO ESCORT SHIPS – Fmr. CIA Analyst Larry Johnson

Mario Nawfal | May 4, 2026

May 3, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Video, Wars for Israel | , , | Comments Off on TRUMP ANNOUNCES OPERATION TO ESCORT SHIPS – Fmr. CIA Analyst Larry Johnson

A few observations on Iran’s latest proposal to Trump

By Trita Parsi | May 3, 2026

A few observations on what has been reported as Iran’s three-phase proposal to the United States. I have been able to confirm some elements, though not all.

⏺️Overall, the Iranians appear to be pursuing a grand bargain—without labeling it as such. This is not merely a proposal aimed at securing a ceasefire, or even a formal end to the current conflict, but rather an attempt to resolve the broader U.S.-Iran antagonism that has persisted for the past 47 years. Implicit in this approach is an expectation that both sides would also restrain their respective regional partners and proxies (Israel, Hezbollah, etc.). In many respects, framing the proposal in this way may align more effectively with Trump’s instincts and psychology.

⏺️It is somewhat surprising that the proposal appears to frontload an end to the war before addressing the nuclear issue. If the conflict is fully de-escalated at the outset, Iran risks losing a significant source of leverage over Trump. Iran’s nuclear program alone has not been sufficient to extract meaningful concessions from Washington, as was evident during the recent ceasefire period. This sequencing may reflect a concession to China and other Asian countries, which have grown increasingly frustrated with bearing the economic costs of a conflict initiated by Trump and Israel.

⏺️The call for an international mechanism to guarantee a non-return to war suggests that any final agreement would, at a minimum, need to be codified in a UN Security Council resolution, with Russia and China serving as guarantors. From Tehran’s perspective, Trump’s personal assurances carry no credibility.

⏺️There is also mention of a revised compensation clause within a new framework, indicating that the fees Tehran might seek in the Straits could be modified or reframed. One potentially more acceptable approach for a broad range of states would be to characterize such charges not as tolls, but as maintenance fees shared with Iran and Oman. This could include oversight of environmental and navigational management, particularly given the high volume of maritime traffic that typically transits the Straits.

⏺️The reported proposal for a 15-year enrichment freeze is somewhat surprising. This would make more sense if it remains tied to a needs-based enrichment framework, as outlined in the earlier Geneva proposal. Under that approach, Iran would only enrich uranium sufficient to fuel two reactors: the Tehran Research Reactor (TRR) and another reactor not expected to come online for approximately seven years. Given that the TRR already possesses enough fuel for the next 5–7 years, Iran would not require additional enrichment during that period. This timeline could be extended—potentially to 15 years—either by downblending existing 60% enriched uranium and turning it into fuel pads now, or by securing external fuel supplies (from France or Russia, for example) to cover future needs. In that sense, the arrangement would technically not constitute a moratorium.

⏺️Iran’s proposal to negotiate a comprehensive regional security framework in phase three is not new. It dates back to UN Security Council Resolution 598, which ended the Iran-Iraq War. Tehran has pursued such an arrangement for decades. The United States should view this constructively: any framework that enables a reduction of U.S. military presence while encouraging regional actors to assume greater responsibility for their own security aligns with the stated objectives of the Trump administration.

⏺️What remains unclear in the reporting is the scope of sanctions relief Iran would seek in return. If Tehran is indeed aiming for a grand bargain, it will likely expect the lifting of all sanctions—primary and secondary U.S. sanctions, as well as UN-imposed measures.

Let’s see what happens.

May 3, 2026 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , | Comments Off on A few observations on Iran’s latest proposal to Trump

‘I urged that our objective be regime change… so did Netanyahu’ – ex-Trump adviser on Iran

RT | May 3, 2026

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has encouraged President Donald Trump to carry out a regime change operation in Iran for many years, former US National Security Adviser John Bolton has told Afshin Rattansi, host of ‘New World’.

West Jerusalem wanted Trump to launch an attack on Tehran already during his first presidential term and continued lobbying for it during his second one, Bolton said, who served between 2018 and 2019.

“I urged that our objective be regime change, so did Netanyahu,” he told Rattansi, explaining that “There is no change in what Trump has been hearing from” the Israeli prime minister over the years. He nevertheless denied that Trump’s decision to launch the attack in late February was influenced by Israel.

Bolton criticized the president for what he called the lack of a clear goal in his campaign against the Islamic Republic and said Trump had failed to “make the case to the American people” about “why the regime change in Iran is necessary” – despite it supposedly being a “very compelling one.”

Known for his hawkish foreign policy views, Bolton maintained that the US should continue to pursue regime change in Iran and claimed that the government in Tehran is “crumbling” from within. However, the former White House official came up short on any specific strategy the US could use to unblock the Strait of Hormuz, where shipping remains severely disrupted by the Iran conflict.

Watch the full interview here.

May 3, 2026 Posted by | Timeless or most popular, Video, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on ‘I urged that our objective be regime change… so did Netanyahu’ – ex-Trump adviser on Iran

“STAGED”: Conspiracy Theories Are Everywhere!

We can’t imagine why…

By Kevin Barrett | May 3, 2026

On April 23, the 410th death anniversary of William “All the World’s a Stage” Shakespeare (and his trusty Hispanic sidekick Cervantes) CNN published a thought piece entitled “How Would an Assassination Attempt Be Staged?” Two days later, on April 25, somebody staged yet another Trump assassination attempt, this time at the White House Correspondents Dinner at the Washington, DC Hilton.

According to the official narrative, the Hilton shooting was staged by a lone producer, director, casting director, lead actor, and stuntman (it was a dangerous scene) named Cole Tomas Allen. We are told, and video seems to confirm, that Allen descended a back stairway from his hotel room, sprinted past a security checkpoint, fired a shot which struck a Secret Service officer’s bulletproof vest, evaded return fire, tripped on a magnetometer box and fell to the ground, and was jumped on by cops, never having gained access to the actual ballroom where the event was taking place. Allen left a brief manifesto calling himself a “friendly federal assassin” who was “no longer willing to permit a pedophile, rapist, and traitor to coat my hands with his crimes.”

Surrounding the event were some odd coincidences. As I wrote the morning after the shooting:

Trump’s press secretary, Karoline “Machine Gun Lips” Leavitt, predicted last night’s shooting two hours before it happened: “There will be some shots fired tonight!”… Fox News reporter Aishah Hasine was in the midst of describing Leavitt’s husband Nicholas Riccio half-bragging half-warning her of what was about to go down, when suddenly and for no apparent reason (beyond the obvious one) Fox cut off the feed…

Weird Israeli connections also surfaced, as is par for the course with these kinds of events, including:

The patsy’s social media profile featuring a picture of him wearing an IDF sweatshirt; the patsy’s name being allegedly researched in Israel less than 24 hours before the attack; and the shooting erupting at the exact moment that an Israeli magician was terrifying Melania by exposing private information she had thought was secret.

If powerful insiders staged the event, perhaps using Allen as a mind-controlled patsy, what might have been their motive or motives? Social media users argued that the shooting greased the skids for Trump’s secure White House ballroom, which had been facing legal and political challenges. The Guardian noted: “Trump’s quick pivot to claiming that the shooting incident confirms the need for a more secure ballroom at the White House, and rightwing pundits’ near-uniformity in messaging along the same lines in the immediate response, heightened the conspiracy framing.”

The Israeli connections suggested another possible motive: reminding Trump just who were the “magicians” who could stage assassination events, and who held terrifying secrets that could ruin his and Melania’s lives. The Guardian reported what many believe: “Israel is blackmailing him for untold reasons, perhaps related to the Jeffrey Epstein files, and dragging the US into war in Iran.”

The Guardian’s phrasing subtly injects confusion where none is necessary. Blackmailing Trump for untold reasons? Back when it was Russia being accused of blackmailing and controlling Trump, everyone knew the reasons why a foreign state would want to blackmail and control a US president. Is the Guardian pretending that it can’t even imagine why Israel would want to blackmail Trump? Unless, of course, they were using untold in the sense of “a quantity so huge that it cannot be measured, counted, or fully described.” Could the author, Rachel Leingang, be hinting at the obvious fact that Israel would have countless reasons to want to control the US president? Did she sneak that one past her editors?

Perhaps those “untold’ reasons, Leingang tells us, might be “related to the Jeffrey Epstein files, and dragging the US into war in Iran.” Is Leingang pretending to be too stupid to understand what she is saying, in a clumsy effort to avoid responsibility for unambiguously and explicitly conveying what everyone knows or strongly suspects to be true? The moral: If you write for mainstream media, never offer a clear, straightforward summary of what “conspiracy theorists” believe, because it might sound reasonable and convincing. Instead, muck it up a bit, add some confusion, and give the reader the impression that it’s the “conspiracy theorists” who are confused.

CNN’s “How Would an Assassination Attempt Be Staged?”, published 48 hours before the latest shooting, exhibits a similar technique of seemingly deliberate obfuscation. Noting that the hashtag #staged has been picking up momentum, reflecting ever-growing skepticism about the July 13, 2024 “Trump shooting” in Butler, Pennsylvania, the author, Harmeet Kaur, offers an overly complicated mishmash of reasons why staging a political PR event would be…overly complicated. And that, of course, is why nobody would ever do such a thing.

Kaur begins by pretending that she doesn’t understand what the term staged could possibly mean in the context of a political PR stunt. After a detour through the etymology and philology of the term staged (“from the Old French ‘estage,’ meaning ‘dwelling,’ and its verb form ‘estager,’ meaning ‘to stay somewhere.’ ‘Estage’ is also related to the Latin ‘stagium’”) Kaur notes that by the 1930s staged was being used to describe faked crime scenes. Such doings, she suggests, are rare and exotic. The plain, obvious fact that almost any serious crime, committed by criminals with above-room-temperature IQs, will involve “staged” presentations of evidence and/or the lack thereof, including such simple “staging” as wiping away fingerprints or wearing ski masks, apparently doesn’t register with her.

Nor does Kaur note that a certain ethnoreligious group, whose genocidal crime headquarters, I mean “state,” is the number one suspect in the Butler and Charlie Kirk shootings as well as countless other state crimes against democracy, has a well-documented history of staging crimes for political gain. As you watch the following half-hour video compilation of mainstream media reports of Jews hoaxing “antisemitic” attacks on themselves, keep two things in mind: 1) This is just the tip of an enormous iceberg; and 2) That iceberg of thousands of similar cases represents just the dumb and/or unlucky ones who got caught.

Rumble link

The US clearance rate for ordinary crimes, mostly committed by impulsive, none-too-bright criminals, is less than 45% for violent crimes and less than 15% for property crimes. Miscreants who plot their crimes carefully—as high-level political criminals do—are obviously going to get away with the vast majority of their misdeeds, even before we factor in the likelihood that they have corrupted law enforcement and the media. What is surprising about the Butler, Pennsylvania “Trump shooting” is not that they managed to pull off such a complex and difficult operation, but that they did it so casually and clumsily, not even bothering to create even the slightest wound on Trump’s ear.

Roughly two and a half hours after he was taken off the rally stage, Trump says in a Truth Social statement, “I was shot with a bullet that pierced the upper part of my right ear. I knew immediately that something was wrong in that I heard a whizzing sound, shots, and immediately felt the bullet ripping through the skin. Much bleeding took place…” Yet not one shred of convincing evidence, not least of all the extensive medical evidence that would exist had Trump actually taken a bullet to the ear, supports the claim that Trump’s ear was wounded in any way. Nor does he appear to have suffered the hearing damage that might have been expected.

Whoever was in charge of the Secret Service detail must have known that Trump was in no danger. Less than a minute after the volley of shots, Trump was allowed to stand up and shake his fist in front of the flag in an obviously pre-planned photo op. Apologists for the Secret Service conspirators claim that the determination “shooter is down” reassured them that it was perfectly okay to allow Trump to stand up and expose himself to more potential bullets. But had the event been authentic, how could they have possibly known that there was only one shooter?

Kaur’s CNN article avoids even entertaining such questions. Like Leingang’s Guardian article on the Hilton shooting, it offers an ad hominem argument against the “conspiracy theorist” by representing him as a deliberately discombobulated straw man, whose supposed incoherent, confusing arguments are actually CNN’s own deliberately distorted rendering.

Kaur hauls out Spencer Parsons, “an associate professor of media production at Northwestern University and an independent filmmaker who has staged shooting scenes,” to claim that staging the Butler “Trump shooting” scene would be so difficult as to be essentially impossible. Parsons claims that a “staged shooting scene” requires vast numbers of people: “the director, camera operators, camera technicians, lighting technicians, sound engineers, special effects coordinators, safety coordinators and so on.”

Talk about misdirection! Why would ANY such people be necessary for a high-level criminal operation involving a deceptive shooting?! Were camera, lighting, sound, special effects, and safety technicians necessary when hypnotized patsy Sirhan Sirhan fired a volley of random shots, distracting onlookers while the professional killer pressed a revolver to the back of Robert F. Kennedy’s head and pulled the trigger, leaving powder burns on his skull?

Kaur tells us that setting up a patsy to take the blame for a shooting is impossibly complicated:

Then there’s the issue of the fake assassin himself. The task would require an extraordinarily skilled marksman, someone who could aim close enough to the candidate’s head to make it look like he’d intended to hit him without actually hitting him. (Acquaintances of the gunman who tried to shoot Trump told reporters that he was rejected from his high school’s rifle club because he was such a bad shot.)

And to make the situation seem believable, the Secret Service would have to kill the designated shooter after he opened fire, an outcome the person in the gun-wielding role either wouldn’t anticipate or would have to be willing to accept.

Kaur again sets up a preposterous straw man: A conspiracy theorist stupid enough to think Thomas Crooks fired shots that came anywhere near Trump’s head, and that Crooks was a conscious, witting, fully-informed participant. But nobody thinks that! What skeptics actually think is that Crooks, like most other patsies going back to Sirhan, was probably mind-controlled. (For an introductory discussion including a demonstration of MK-Ultra style hypnotic mind-control, check out Jesse Ventura’s “Mind-Controlled Assassins and Programmed Killers.”) Crooks, like Oswald, was “just a patsy” who didn’t shoot anyone. The actual shooting, which did not and could not have caused a bullet to come anywhere near Trump’s head, but which likely did strike three onlookers, killing one of them, was fired from the building behind and to the left of the one that hypnotized patsy Crooks had climbed onto. For details, check out my interview with filmmaker John Hankey, and watch his film below.

Kaur then implies that it would have been too difficult or impossible for Trump to use a squib to create the fake blood he smeared on his face like warpaint for the photo op:

The blood would be another consideration, Parsons says. Film crews simulate gunshot wounds via squibs, small explosive devices that spout fake blood when detonated — some conspiracy theories surrounding Trump’s assassination attempt claimed that he used a squib because the blood on his face was supposedly only seen after he raised his hand to his cheek, though researcher Katherine FitzGerald noted at the time that the first appearance of blood was not clear from the videos.

Another technique for staging bloodshed might involve the candidate superficially wounding himself with a small razor blade, like professional wrestlers do, but that also presents challenges…

Wait a minute! What does Kaur mean, also presents challenges?! The first paragraph quoted above fails to present the slightest argument or evidence that Trump or a Secret Service confederate would have faced the slightest “challenge” in using a squib to produce the fake blood. The word also is a lie. Kaur hopes the careless reader will gloss over it.

Having refuted nothing while flailing about with straw men, Kaur concludes:

Given all of this, Parsons finds the idea that an assassination attempt of this scale could be “staged” to be “tremendously unlikely.” “This is just astronomically difficult to stage,” he adds. “The whole thing, from a filmmaking perspective, seems to be just immensely, immensely difficult and really based on a lot of chance.”

What would be so hard about putting an MK-Ultraed patsy on a rooftop, a professional sniper in a difficult-to-spot location where he could shoot a couple of bystanders, and giving Trump a blood squib after rehearsing “hit the deck, smear the blood, count to fifty, get up, shake your fist in front of the flag”? Sure, you and I couldn’t do it, but we don’t control the top of the federal command chain.

Setting up that scenario wouldn’t require precisely the same skill set that Parsons, the film-and-TV guy, enjoys. But if you think that people with “deceptive shooting” skill sets don’t exist, you must not know much about special forces, intelligence agencies, organized crime, and the rather large area where they overlap. That’s why someone like Joe Kent, the former Counterrorism chief who knows people with such skill sets, can easily see that incidents like the Butler and Charlie Kirk shootings are extremely suspicious, and point directly at the overlapping territory inhabited by Israel, Israeli-linked organized crime, and their assets in US military, intelligence, and police agencies… and, perhaps most importantly, the mainstream media that insists on obfuscating such matters.

May 3, 2026 Posted by | Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Video, Wars for Israel | , , | Comments Off on “STAGED”: Conspiracy Theories Are Everywhere!

NATO courts screenwriters to embed alliance messaging in film, TV

Al-Mayadeen | May 3, 2026

NATO has been quietly holding closed-door meetings with film and television writers, directors, and producers across Europe and the United States, in what critics are denouncing as a coordinated effort to embed the military alliance’s messaging into mainstream entertainment.

According to The Guardian, the initiative has already spanned sessions in Los Angeles, Brussels, and Paris, with a fourth meeting planned for London next month, where NATO officials are set to meet with members of the Writers’ Guild of Great Britain (WGGB).

The meetings, held under Chatham House rules, meaning participants may use information discussed but are not permitted to identify other attendees, focus on what organizers describe as the “evolving security situation in Europe and beyond.”

A WGGB email reviewed by The Guardian indicated that three separate projects are already in development that were “inspired, at least in part,” by those conversations.

James Appathurai, a former NATO spokesperson now serving as the alliance’s deputy assistant secretary general for hybrid, cyber and new technology, is expected to attend the London session alongside other officials.

In language that alarmed many recipients, the invitation suggested that “even if something so simple,” as NATO’s core message of cooperation and collective security, “finds its way into a future story, that will be enough.”

‘Clearly propaganda’

NATO’s outreach has drawn sharp criticism from within the creative community. Irish screenwriter Alan O’Gorman, whose film Christy won best film at the 2026 Irish Film and Television Awards, called the initiative “outrageous” and “clearly propaganda,” telling The Guardian that many writers come from countries that have “suffered under wars that NATO has joined and propagated.”

O’Gorman said those invited were “pretty offended that art would be used in a way that was supporting war,” and framed the meetings as part of a broader effort to cultivate pro-NATO sentiment in light of fearmongering across European media about weakened defenses.

Screenwriter and producer Faisal A. Qureshi, who applied to attend one session before a scheduling conflict prevented him, raised more structural concerns. He warned that the “risk for any creative who dips into this unattributable world of intelligence or military briefings is that they can get seduced into thinking they now have some secret knowledge,” one that normalizes moral compromise in the name of the greater good.

Qureshi questioned whether writers given such privileged access would genuinely “challenge or interrogate” the information fed to them, or simply absorb it.

A pattern of cultural lobbying

The London meeting is not an isolated effort. In 2024, eight prominent Hollywood screenwriters, including a writer and executive producer on Friends and a producer on High Potential, were flown to NATO headquarters in Brussels, where they met then-Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg. The trip was organized by the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies.

The initiative also mirrors recommendations from the Centre for European Reform, which earlier this year called on governments to directly engage cultural figures, including screenwriters and producers, to build public support for rising defense budgets and “better tell the story” of why military investment is necessary.

NATO, for its part, framed the sessions as demand-driven, saying the meetings “follow from interest expressed by members of the industry to know more about what NATO is about and how it works.”

May 3, 2026 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , | Comments Off on NATO courts screenwriters to embed alliance messaging in film, TV

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »