Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

US ‘preparing options’ for strikes inside Venezuela – NBC

RT | September 27, 2025

The US is “preparing options” for strikes on alleged drug traffickers inside Venezuela, NBC has reported, citing unnamed American officials.

In recent weeks, Washington has sunk at least three boats it alleges were carrying narcotics off the coast of the Latin American country, killing at least 17 people. Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro has denied any links to drug trafficking and insists that the attacks were part of a US attempt to overthrow him.

The bombing of Venezuela could happen “in a matter of weeks,” the broadcaster reported on Saturday. However, according to its sources, the measure has not yet been approved by US President Donald Trump.

According to the officials, the moves being discussed in Washington mainly include drone strikes on drug laboratories as well as members and leaders of trafficking groups.

The US is considering further escalations because some in the Trump administration are disappointed that the deployment of US warships and aircraft to the Caribbean and attacks on boats did “not appear to have weakened Maduro’s grip on power or prompted any significant response,” one of the sources said.

Trump is “prepared to use every element of American power to stop drugs from flooding into our country and to bring those responsible to justice,” a senior administration official told NBC.

At the same time, the US and Venezuela have been talking to each other through unspecified Middle Eastern intermediaries, with Maduro allegedly offering some concessions to Trump in order to defuse tensions, a source told the broadcaster.

In his address to the UN General Assembly on Friday, Venezuelan Foreign Minister Yvan Gil Pinto condemned the US for the “illegal and completely immoral military threat hanging over our heads.”

The minister insisted that Caracas will resist what he called “imperialist aggression” and asked for the support of the international community.

“Venezuela will not yield to pressure or threats. We remain firm in defending our sovereignty and our right to live in peace, free from foreign interference,” he said.

September 27, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

UN Shows Double Standards by Investigating Venezuela Instead of Israel

Sputnik – 27.09.2025

The UN Human Rights Council (HRC) has laid bare its double standards by investigating human rights violations allegedly committed by Venezuela, but not by Israel, Alexander Gabriel Yanez Deleuze, Venezuela’s envoy to the UN in Geneva, told Sputnik.

“The HRC has approved 10 areas of action against Venezuela and allocated $10 million for this. At the same time, you will not find a single mandate that would sound like an ‘investigation of human rights violations by the Israeli government’,” the diplomat stressed.

“There is a mission that deals with human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories, but it does not explicitly mention Israel. This proves the HRC’s double standards,” Deleuze stressed.

On Monday, the Independent International Fact-finding Mission in Venezuela presented a report on human rights violations in the South American country, which was rejected as politicized by Caracas.

The Russian Permanent Mission to the United Nations said that Russia opposed efforts to politicize the UN Human Rights Council and condemned its use to exert pressure on Venezuela.

September 27, 2025 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Progressive Hypocrite | , | Leave a comment

Saudi-Pakistan defense pact: Reshaping security architecture in West and South Asia

By Mohammad Molaei | Press TV | September 27, 2025

In the intricate web of West Asian and South Asian geopolitics, where alliances often hinge on the precarious balance of power, energy dependencies, and ideological affinities, the signing of the strategic defense pact between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia marks a pivotal evolution.

This pact represents a calculated maneuver to fortify the alignment of defenses between the two Muslim-majority countries amid waning US commitments. Drawing from operational analyses of similar pacts, like the US-Japan security treaty or the erstwhile CENTO framework, this agreement integrates conventional military interoperability with implicit extended deterrence, potentially altering the calculus of regional power projection.

At its core, the agreement formalizes a mutual defense commitment, stipulating that an armed attack on either party constitutes an assault on both, triggering joint responses under Article 51 of the UN Charter for collective self-defense.

This language echoes NATO’s Article 5 but is tailored to the Persian Gulf’s hybrid threats, encompassing not just conventional invasions but also proxy warfare, cyber intrusions, and ballistic missile salvos. The pact builds on a 1982 protocol that already facilitated Pakistani troop deployments to Saudi Arabia—historically involving up to 20,000 personnel in advisory and training roles—but elevates it to a comprehensive framework for integrated operations.

Militarily, the agreement spans a spectrum of cooperation modalities. Joint exercises will intensify, drawing from existing bilateral drills like the Al-Samsam series, which have honed mechanized infantry maneuvers and anti-tank warfare using platforms such as Pakistan’s Al-Khalid main battle tanks (MBTs) and Saudi M1A2 Abrams variants.

Technology transfers are a cornerstone. Pakistan, with its robust defense-industrial base—including the production of JF-17 Thunder multirole fighters co-developed with China—will share expertise in low-cost unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) like the Burraq, equipped with laser-guided munitions for precision strikes.

In return, Saudi Arabia’s petrodollar-fueled arsenal offers access to advanced air defense systems, such as the THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) interceptors, potentially integrating with Pakistan’s HQ-9/P (export variant of China’s FD-2000) to create layered anti-ballistic missile shields.

Arms procurement and co-production feature prominently, with provisions for joint ventures in missile technology—leveraging Pakistan’s Shaheen-III intermediate-range ballistic missiles (IRBMs) with a 2,750 km reach—and electronic warfare (EW) suites.

Intelligence sharing via secure datalinks will enhance situational awareness, focusing on various threats. Logistically, the pact enables forward basing: Pakistani Special Forces could embed with Saudi Rapid Intervention Forces for counterterrorism operations, while shared maintenance facilities for F-15SA Eagles and AH-64E Apache helicopters streamline sustainment in prolonged conflicts.

This blueprint for operational synergy mirrors how the Persian Gulf Cooperation Council (PGCC) integrates air assets under Peninsula Shield Force, but with Pakistan’s battle-hardened infantry adding asymmetric depth.

Saudi Arabia’s pursuit of this pact stems from a pragmatic recalibration of its security posture, driven by the kingdom’s Vision 2030 imperatives to reduce oil dependency. Riyadh views Pakistan as a Muslim-majority regional powerhouse with a professional army of over 650,000 active personnel, battle-tested in counterinsurgency campaigns against the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and capable of rapid deployment via C-130J Super Hercules transports.

The kingdom’s goals are multifaceted: first, to hedge against US retrenchment, as evidenced by Washington’s equivocal responses to the 2019 Abqaiq attacks, which exposed vulnerabilities in Saudi Patriot PAC-3 batteries despite their 90 percent intercept rates against subsonic threats.

Second, the pact bolsters deterrence against Iran’s symmetrical arsenal, including medium-range ballistic missiles and tactical ballistic missiles, which have ranges covering the Arabian Peninsula. By aligning with Pakistan, Saudi Arabia gains indirect access to a nuclear-capable partner, complementing its own nascent uranium enrichment program under IAEA safeguards.

Economically, it secures preferential access to Pakistani manpower—over 2 million expatriates already remit billions annually—while channeling investments into Pakistan’s defense sector, such as upgrading the Heavy Industries Taxila (HIT) for co-producing Al-Zarrar tanks.

A critical flashpoint is whether the pact extends Pakistan’s nuclear umbrella to Saudi Arabia. Pakistan possesses an estimated 170 warheads, deliverable via Ghauri MRBMs (1,500 km range) or Ra’ad ALCMs (air-launched cruise missiles) from F-16C/D platforms, adhering to a “minimum credible deterrence” doctrine focused on India but adaptable to West Asian contingencies.

The agreement’s text maintains strategic ambiguity—no explicit mention of nuclear sharing—but statements from Pakistani government officials suggest availability “if needed,” implying extended deterrence similar to US commitments to NATO allies.

Analyses indicate this isn’t a formal nuclear-sharing arrangement like NATO’s B61 gravity bombs in Europe; rather, it’s a de facto assurance where Pakistani assets could be forward-deployed in extremis, perhaps via submarine-launched Babur-3 SLCMs from Agosta 90B-class boats.

Saudi funding has historically supported Pakistan’s program, per declassified US cables, but proliferation risks loom under the NPT, which Pakistan hasn’t signed. The pact stops short of a binding nuclear clause to avoid IAEA scrutiny, opting instead for “all necessary means” language that preserves deniability.

The pact’s ramifications cascade across the region, amplifying fault lines and complicating the Persian Gulf’s A2/AD dynamics. For the broader West Asia, it fortifies a new bloc, potentially integrating with the UAE’s Edge Group UAVs or Bahrain’s naval patrols under the Combined Maritime Forces (CMF). This could escalate proxy conflicts in Yemen, where Saudi-led coalitions already employ Pakistani advisors, or in Syria, straining Russian-mediated de-escalation zones.

However, the agreement does not pose any threat to the Islamic Republic, given Pakistan’s role as Iran’s most important security partner, underscored by recent bilateral agreements on border security, counterterrorism, and economic cooperation, including efforts to combat smuggling and joint patrols.

Iran has welcomed the pact as a step toward “comprehensive cooperation among Muslim nations,” reflecting shared interests in regional stability through frameworks like the SCO.

Islamabad’s clarification that the agreement is “defensive and not aimed at third countries” is reassuring, preserving economic lifelines like the Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline (delayed but vital for Pakistan’s energy security). Joint border patrols under the 2019 MoU persist, though the pact might divert Pakistani resources—e.g., diverting FC (Frontier Corps) units from anti-smuggling ops to Persian Gulf deployments.

Open-source indicators reveal keen interest from several nations in acceding to this framework, potentially evolving it into a multilateral shield. The UAE, with its Mirage 2000-9 fleet and ambitions for a “Persian Gulf NATO,” tops the list—Abu Dhabi’s prior defense MoUs with Pakistan (including pilot training) align seamlessly, and sources suggest imminent talks for integration.

Qatar, despite Al Udeid’s US basing, eyes the pact for diversified deterrence post-2022 blockade scars, with indications of exploratory discussions. Egypt emerges as a likely candidate: Cairo’s Sisi administration seeks Saudi funding for its T-90MS MBTs and could contribute expeditionary forces, as noted in geopolitical analyses.

Bahrain and Jordan, already in Saudi-led coalitions, have expressed interest via diplomatic channels, bolstering maritime interdiction in the Strait of Hormuz. Even Oman, traditionally neutral, monitors developments for selective engagement in counter-piracy ops.

Mohammad Molaei is a Tehran-based military affairs analyst.

September 27, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Why the US has sanctioned the Chabahar Port in Iran

By Salman Rafi Sheikh – New Eastern Outlook – September 27, 2025

US sanctions on Iran’s Chabahar Port may look like just another chapter in Washington’s “maximum pressure” playbook, but they are far more ambitious and dangerous.

The move simultaneously aims to discipline India, ratchet up economic warfare against Tehran, and force Afghanistan into a position where ceding Bagram airbase seems unavoidable. In pursuing all three goals at once, the US may be setting the stage for strategic overreach.

US axe falls on Chabahar

On September 16, the US announced that it was reimposing sanctions on Iran’s Chabahar Port that it co-developed with India. Revoking “the sanctions exception issued in 2018 under the Iran Freedom and Counter-Proliferation Act (IFCA) for Afghanistan reconstruction assistance and economic development,” the announcement further said that any “persons who operate the Chabahar Port or engage in other activities described in IFCA may expose themselves to sanctions under IFCA”.

The reference to any “persons” operating the port is to India, which has invested millions of dollars in the port in the last few years. India began to develop this port in a certain geopolitical context. Back then, New Delhi, supported by Washington, used this port to counter China’s Gwadar port in Pakistan. Accordingly, the US granted this port an exemption from sanctions. That exemption has now been taken away. Another imperative at that time was to allow India to use the port to provide supplies to Kabul to support the Karzai and Ghani administrations. Bypassing Pakistan—which Washington understood was supporting the Taliban—the US co-opted India to support the US-backed civilian regime. That geopolitical context, as it stands, no longer exists. The US no longer needs to support avenues to support the regime in Kabul that is no longer a Washington ally. In fact, Washington now prefers using the Chabahar Port issue to equally punish Kabul.

The Geopolitics of Sanctions

By sanctioning Iran’s Chabahar Port, Washington is pursuing more than just another chapter in its “maximum pressure” campaign. It has three critical objectives in mind, the first of which is to punish India. The Trump administration’s ongoing trade war with New Delhi has already seen tariffs climb as high as 50 per cent on Indian exports to the US, dramatically undercutting India’s competitiveness. The withdrawal of the 2018 sanctions waiver on Chabahar effectively expands this economic conflict into the strategic realm. Not only are Indian goods 50 per cent more expensive in the US market, but now Indian exports to Central Asia through Chabahar are threatened by US sanctions as well. The message is blunt: New Delhi cannot expect privileged access to either American markets or regional transit corridors if it resists Washington’s terms.

Yet the dispute is not only about tariffs or trade balances. Chabahar has long symbolised a broader geopolitical opening—an India–Iran–Afghanistan transport corridor that could eventually link New Delhi to Russian and Central Asian energy markets. For India, the project promises a vital alternative to reliance on Persian Gulf suppliers or US-aligned routes. For Washington, this is precisely the problem. By crippling Chabahar, the US seeks to stymie the emergence of an energy corridor outside its sphere of influence and to foreclose India’s access to Iranian and Russian hydrocarbons. The ultimate goal is not simply to weaken Tehran but to pressure India into diverting its purchases toward US liquefied natural gas and crude exports.

The sanctions also reflect a deliberate attempt to recalibrate India’s relationship with Iran. If New Delhi is forced to retreat from Chabahar, Washington calculates, Iran’s isolation will deepen. The State Department’s September 16 statement left little ambiguity, identifying the “networks” that generate “millions for the Iranian military” as key targets of the new restrictions. Chabahar, as Iran’s flagship connectivity project with India and Afghanistan, sits squarely within those crosshairs. Unsurprisingly, the port will dominate the agenda when Ali Larijani, Tehran’s national security adviser and one of the most influential figures in the Iranian establishment, arrives in Delhi in the coming weeks.

The third objective at play is Afghanistan. In recent months, President Trump has openly pressed Kabul to hand back the Bagram airbase to American control, a demand the Taliban leadership has flatly rejected. For the Taliban, acquiescence would be politically ruinous, signaling subservience to the very power they fought for two decades to expel. By sanctioning Chabahar, Washington is attempting to narrow Afghanistan’s options, undermining its role as a vital overland bridge that could connect India and other South Asian states—excluding Pakistan—to Central Asian markets. This is not a trivial calculation. With relations between Kabul and Islamabad deteriorating, the Taliban regime has been cautiously exploring new partnerships in the region, and India has emerged as an obvious candidate. Earlier this year, the Taliban went so far as to call India a “significant regional partner.” Washington’s sanctions strategy is designed precisely to choke this opening, shrinking the diplomatic and economic space available to Kabul as it manoeuvres for new allies.

The US risks a massive backfire

Yet Washington’s gambit carries the risk of a serious backlash. Kabul has little incentive to heed American preferences, particularly after the Biden administration’s refusal to release Afghanistan’s frozen financial assets. The Taliban leadership, already charting its course independently, is unlikely to view US sanctions as anything more than another act of hostility. More consequential, however, is the potential fallout with India. By undermining New Delhi’s flagship connectivity project, Washington risks inflicting lasting damage on a relationship it has spent years cultivating. Alienated, India may lean more heavily on alternative partnerships with Russia and even China, eroding the very strategic alignment the US has sought to build through the Indo-Pacific framework. And if New Delhi ultimately withdraws from Chabahar under sanctions pressure, Washington may not secure the energy dominance it envisions. Instead, the vacuum could invite Beijing to step in, transforming Chabahar into a Chinese-controlled gateway for Central Asian energy, a scenario that would decisively undercut American aims.

Salman Rafi Sheikh is a research analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs.

September 27, 2025 Posted by | Economics | , , , , | Leave a comment

Iran’s FM addresses UN Security Council on failed Russia-China draft resolution

Global Times | September 27, 2025

The UN Security Council has voted down an effort by China and Russia to extend sanctions relief to Iran for six months under the nuclear deal – formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on Friday, local time. The draft failed to be passed as the number of votes in favor did not reach nine.

In his speech, Iran’s Foreign Minister, Seyed Abbas Araghchi, began by thanking China, Russia, Pakistan, and Algeria for supporting the resolution, which he described as a genuine effort to “keep the door of diplomacy open and avoid confrontation.” He also welcomed the decision of Guyana and South Korea not to oppose the draft, calling it a stand “on the right side of history,” according to WANA News, an Iranian news agency.

The Iranian foreign minister argued, “Today’s situation is the direct consequence of the US withdrawal from the JCPOA and the E3 (France, United Kingdom and Germany) failure to take any effective action to uphold the commitments.”

“The US has betrayed diplomacy, but it is the E3 which have buried it,” he stressed. Araghchi also said, “The E3 and the US acted in bad faith, claiming to support diplomacy while in effect blocking it.”

“Regrettably, E3 chose to follow Washington’s whims rather than exercising their independent sovereign discretion,” he said, adding “the US persistent negation of all initiatives to keep the window for diplomacy open proved once again that negotiations with the United States lead to nowhere other than dead end,” the foreign minister added.

Geng Shuang, China’s deputy permanent representative to the United Nations spoke after the vote. He reminded the Council that “history has shown that resorting to force or applying maximum pressure is not the correct approach to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue,” according to the UN report.

Geng continued, “Against the backdrop of ongoing conflict in Gaza and the instability in the Middle East, a breakdown in the Iranian nuclear issue could trigger new regional security crisis, which runs counter to common interest of the international community.”

The Chinese diplomat urged the US to “demonstrate political will by responding positively to Iran’s proposal to resume talks and committing unequivocally to refrain from further military strikes against Iran.”

September 27, 2025 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Leave a comment

US, allies veto draft resolution on delaying ‘snapback’ of Iran sanctions

Press TV – September 26, 2025

The United States and its allies veto a draft resolution aimed at delaying “snapback” of the UN Security Council’s sanctions against Iran that were lifted in 2015 in line with a nuclear deal between the Islamic Republic and world countries.

On Friday, the US, the UK, France, Denmark, Greece, Panama, Sierra Leone, Slovenia, and Somalia vetoed the draft measure seeking to delay imposition of the coercive economic measures for six months.

China, Russia, Algeria, and Pakistan voted in favor of the measure that had been submitted by Beijing and Moscow. South Korea and Guyana abstained.

According to the UN, “The so-called ‘snapback’ mechanism [now] remains in force, which will see sanctions rei-imposed on Tehran this weekend, following the termination of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).”

JCPOA refers to the official name of the nuclear deal that upon conclusion was endorsed by the Security Council in the form of its Resolution 2231.

The agreement lifted the sanctions, which had been imposed on Iran by the Security Council and the US, the UK, France, and Germany over unfounded allegations concerning Tehran’s peaceful nuclear energy program.

The bans had been enforced against the nation, despite the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)’s having historically failed to find any proof of “diversion” of the nuclear program.

The US left the JCPOA in an illegal and unilateral move in 2018 and then re-imposed those of its sanctions that the deal had removed.

In 2020, Washington went further by trying unilaterally to trigger the “snapback.”

After the American withdrawal, the UK, France, and Germany too resorted to non-commitment vis-à-vis the Islamic Republic by stopping their trade with Tehran.

The Friday vote came after the trio launched their own bid to activate the “snapback” on August 28.

The allies have been rehashing their accusations concerning Iran’s nuclear energy activities in order to try to justify their bid to reenact the sanctions, ignoring absence of any proof provided by the IAEA that has subjected the Islamic Republic to the agency’s most intrusive inspections in history.

They have also constantly refused to accept their numerous instances of non-commitment to the JCPOA.

Iran, however, began observing an entire year of “strategic patience” following the US’s withdrawal – the first serious violation of the nuclear agreement – before retaliating incrementally in line with its legal right that has been enshrined in the deal itself.

In the meantime, the Islamic Republic has both voiced its preparedness to partake in dialog besides actually engaging in negotiation aimed at resolving the situation brought about by the Western allies’ intransigence.

Tehran refused to categorically rule out talks with the European troika even after illegal and unprovoked attacks by the Israeli regime and the United States against key Iranian nuclear facilities in June, which made it impossible for the IAEA to continue its inspections as before.

The Islamic Republic’s latest goodwill gesture came on September 9, when it signed a framework agreement with the IAEA aimed at resuming cooperation with the agency, which had been suspended following the attacks.

The Friday vote came, although, Iranian officials, including President Masoud Pezeshkian, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, and security chief Ali Larijani, had strongly warned the US and its allies against triggering the “snapback.”

Araghchi had cautioned that such vote would lead to termination of the agreement with the IAEA, while Pezeshkian had noted that talks would be “meaningless” if the mechanism were to be enacted.

Meeting with anti-war activists in New York on Thursday, the president had called the prospect of re-imposition of the sanctions unwelcome, but added that the coercive measures did not signal “the end of the road.”

“Iran will never submit to them,” he had said, referring to the bans, and added that the Islamic Republic “will find the means of exiting any [unwelcome] situation.”

China voices ‘deep regret,’ discourages renewed aggression

Reacting to the vote, China’s Deputy UN Ambassador Geng Shuang similarly expressed “deep regret” for the failure to adopt the draft resolution, identifying dialogue and negotiation as two of “the only viable options” out of the situation caused by the Western measures.

He urged the US “to demonstrate political will” and “commit unequivocally to refraining from further military strikes against Iran.”

Geng further called on the European trio to engage in good faith in diplomatic efforts and abandon their approach of pushing for sanctions and coercive pressure against Iran.

Russia slams US, allies for lack of ‘courage, wisdom’

The remarks were echoed by Geng’s Russian counterpart Dmitry Polyanskiy, who said, “We regret the fact that a number of Security Council colleagues were unable to summon the courage or the wisdom to support our draft.”

“We had hoped that European colleagues and the US would think twice, and they would opt for the path of diplomacy and dialogue instead of their clumsy blackmail,” he said.

Such approach, the diplomat added, “merely results in escalation of the situation in the region.”

Speaking before the vote, Polyanskiy had also told the chamber that Iran had done all it could to accommodate Europeans, but that Western powers had refused to compromise.

September 27, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

AN INCONVENIENT STUDY: THE PUSHBACK

The HighWire with Del Bigtree | September 25, 2025

Del confronts legal pushback from Henry Ford Medical over the upcoming film “An Inconvenient Study,” which highlights what we believe is a significant study showing health outcomes between vaccinated and unvaccinated children. Watch to see the new trailer, highlighting hidden camera footage from the study’s lead author.

 

September 26, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Film Review, Science and Pseudo-Science, Video | Leave a comment

Hamas rejects PA president’s alignment with Zionist narrative in UN speech

Palestinian Information Center – September 26, 2025

DOHA – The Islamic Resistance Movement, Hamas, responded Thursday to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’s speech before the United Nations General Assembly, affirming that Palestinian resistance is a “national and moral responsibility, deriving its legitimacy from our steadfast Palestinian people and their natural right to resist occupation, as recognized by international laws and conventions.”

Hamas categorically rejected what it described as Abbas’s “alignment with the false Zionist narrative,” asserting that accusing the resistance of targeting civilians is an attempt to distort its image.

The Movement underlined that “all attempts to impose guardianship over our people and their will are doomed to fail,” adding that Abbas’s declaration that Hamas will have no role in governance constitutes “an infringement on the inherent right of our Palestinian people to determine their own destiny and choose their leadership, and an unacceptable submission to external agendas and projects.”

Hamas emphasized that “the weapons of resistance are untouchable as long as the occupation remains entrenched on our land.”

It condemned Abbas’s call to surrender arms, especially “in light of the genocidal war being waged against our people in Gaza, and the brutal crimes and savage assaults committed by armed settlers and the occupation army against unarmed civilians in the occupied West Bank.”

Hamas reiterated that the only path to safeguarding the national cause and confronting the occupation’s plans to “exterminate and displace our people in Gaza, annex the West Bank, and Judaize Jerusalem and al-Aqsa,” lies in “national unity and consensus around a comprehensive resistance program to confront the criminal Zionist occupation, until our people’s aspirations for liberation, return, and the establishment of a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital are fulfilled.”

The statement concluded by affirming that “our steadfast people are the source of legitimacy, and the weapons of resistance are a red line that cannot be compromised.”

Since October 7, 2023, Israeli occupation forces, backed by the United States and Western countries, have been waging a devastating war in Gaza, resulting in the martyrdom and injury of approximately 233,000 Palestinians to date. According to the Palestinian Ministry of Health in Gaza, 442 Palestinians, including 147 children, have died from starvation.

September 26, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , , | Leave a comment

White House backs plan for Tony Blair to lead interim Gaza authority

Al Mayadeen | September 26, 2025

The White House is reportedly supporting a proposal that would place former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair at the helm of a temporary administration to govern the Gaza Strip, according to reports in Haaretz and The Times of Israel, which completely sidelines the demands and stances of the Palestinian people.

The plan envisions the creation of the Gaza International Transitional Authority (GITA), which would act as Gaza’s “supreme political and legal authority” for up to five years. Blair would lead a 25-member secretariat and chair a seven-person board overseeing an executive body responsible for managing the territory.

Initially based in the Egyptian city of El-Arish, GITA would later move into Gaza, accompanied by a UN-endorsed multinational force largely drawn from Arab states. The proposal is modeled on transitional administrations that previously oversaw Kosovo and Timor-Leste.

The White House argues the initiative offers a middle ground between US President Donald Trump’s earlier proposal for the US and the Israeli regime to directly control Gaza and a UN-backed plan endorsed by over 140 states calling for a one-year technocratic administration under the New York declaration.

Divisions over Blair’s role

Blair’s potential appointment is controversial, for while he enjoys credibility among several Gulf leaders, many Palestinians view him with deep mistrust due to his support for the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq and his record as Middle East envoy from 2007 to 2015. Western diplomats noted it was not guaranteed that Blair would take on the role and suggested the administration could last only two years.

The proposal’s lack of a clear timeline for transferring authority to the Palestinian Authority (PA) may complicate its acceptance by Palestinians and Arab leaders. Critics fear the plan could amount to another form of foreign-imposed governance, albeit under an international framework rather than the Israeli occupation.

Details of the plan surfaced after Trump met in New York with Qatar’s Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud, Jordan’s King Abdullah II, Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto, and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Trump described the discussions as “successful”, adding that “we’re close to getting some kind of deal done.”

Arab states have stressed that any international involvement must be tied to a credible timeline for Palestinian statehood. Without such assurances, some argue the Blair-led body risks being perceived as an extended foreign trusteeship.

Palestinian response

Addressing the UN General Assembly, PA President Mahmoud Abbas reaffirmed that Gaza remains “an integral part of the state of Palestine” and said the PA was ready to assume full responsibility for governance and security. He rejected any role for Hamas in postwar administration, echoing US and Israeli conditions after Washington revoked his visa ahead of the 80th UN session, which forced him to deliver his speech via video.

Meanwhile, Trump told reporters at the White House that he would not support the Israeli occupation’s “annexation” of the West Bank. “I will not allow Israel to annex the West Bank. Nope. I won’t allow it. It’s not going to happen,” he said.

Arab and Muslim forces in Gaza?

Washington is pushing for Arab and Muslim states to commit troops to Gaza as part of a so-called peacekeeping force that would enable an Israeli withdrawal. The US is also seeking financial pledges from these countries for reconstruction and to support Gaza’s transitional administration.

On Monday, Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto announced that his country was prepared to send soldiers as part of such a mission.

The initiative comes as negotiations to end the war and secure a prisoner exchange remain stalled. On the ground, “Israel” has launched a large-scale offensive, deploying three armored and infantry divisions into Gaza City, in hopes of forcibly displacing the city’s residents.

Meanwhile, at UN headquarters in New York, a conference on the “two-state solution” concluded with France and several European countries recognizing the State of Palestine. The Gaza Ministry of Health reports that more than 65,000 Palestinians, most of them civilians, have been killed in the Israeli assault since October 7.

An Israeli plan relayed to Washington?

A US official told Axios that “tomorrow’s meeting could be fairly significant,” stressing that the Trump administration wants “regional buy-in and support to make it successful.” An Arab official added that Trump is seeking “feedback and support for the US plan to end the war and then push it forward.”

Officials insisted the proposal would be a US initiative rather than an Israeli plan relayed through Washington. However, Israeli officials acknowledged that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is aware of its outlines.

One Israeli official admitted that “there will be bitter pills we’ll have to swallow,” particularly regarding any potential role for the Palestinian Authority in Gaza.

September 26, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , | Leave a comment

How pro-Israel money captured Starmer’s Labour

By Nasim Ahmed | MEMO | September 26, 2025

The UK Labour Party has been rocked by yet another scandal and is facing scrutiny over revelations that its leadership has been captured by a network of unelected funders and lobbyists with deep ties to Israel and Zionist organisations.

At the centre of the controversy is Morgan McSweeney, Keir Starmer’s powerful chief of staff, and his long-time association with billionaire businessman Trevor Chinn. Documents and leaks show that between 2017 and 2020, McSweeney oversaw Labour Together, a factional project that secretly accepted more than £730,000 (around $930,000) in undeclared donations, allegedly in breach of electoral law.

Much of this money is said to have come from Chinn, a figure whose involvement in Labour politics has for decades been bound up with the defence of Israel and the advancement of Zionist networks inside the party.

Chinn is no ordinary donor. A director of Labour Together until 2024, he has bankrolled both Conservative and Labour Friends of Israel (LFI) throughout his career. In early 2025, he was awarded the Israeli Presidential Medal of Honour by President Isaac Herzog for his services to the apartheid state. Chinn’s commitment to Israel has been described as one of his “animating concerns” over three decades of political donations.

An investigation by Jody McIntyre, who stood as a candidate for the Workers Party in the last general election, shows how deeply enmeshed Chinn became with McSweeney’s project. McSweeney reportedly concealed donations “to protect Trevor” from scrutiny, according to McIntyre’s investigation. Labour Together, however, later dismissed the failure to declare the funds as an “administrative error,” a line advised by solicitor Gerald Shamash, another Labour figure with a record of blocking debates on sanctions against Israel.

Chinn’s influence was not limited to donations. According to minutes of a 2020 meeting revealed by Electronic Intifada, Chinn and five other lobbyists set up a “regular channel of communication” with Labour MP Steve Reed, a close ally of McSweeney and vocal supporter of LFI. The leaked record illustrates the extent to which pro-Israel lobbyists were embedded in Labour’s factional leadership project.

McSweeney’s own ties to Zionism go back further than his dealings with Chinn. In his youth, he spent time living on Sarid, a Zionist settlement built on the ruins of the Palestinian village of Ikhneifis. There, he is said to have become closely acquainted with Hashomer Hatza’ir, a Zionist movement that played a central role in Israel’s settler-colonial project.

McIntyre’s research and internal documents allege that McSweeney campaigned for Steve Reed—who is known to have received funding from LFI for travel to occupied Palestine—and later worked closely with Margaret Hodge, a self-declared Zionist. Some sources also suggest McSweeney oversaw Liz Kendall’s 2015 leadership run, during which she made public statements against boycotts and sanctions of Israel—though the precise nature and funding of these campaigns remain under investigation.

By 2017, McSweeney was director of Labour Together, where Chinn sat on the board. Internal documents revealed that the group’s work included secret projects to undermine Jeremy Corbyn by inflaming the anti-Semitism crisis, planting hostile media stories, and fracturing the party’s left wing.

McSweeney, according to Double Down News, even devised a covert strategy dubbed Operation Red Shield, aimed at “burning down” Corbyn’s Labour in order to capture the party for a pro-business, pro-Israel faction.

The secret funding allowed McSweeney to commission hundreds of thousands of pounds’ worth of polling into the Labour membership. This research shaped Starmer’s leadership campaign, presenting him as a “unity” candidate who pledged to uphold policies such as public ownership and a Green New Deal.

However, once elected, Starmer rapidly U-turned on those commitments, dropping all ten of his leadership pledges. The sequence of events suggests that Starmer’s campaign positions were adopted to secure victory rather than to be implemented in government.

Starmer’s subsequent record confirmed that pattern of deception. Within months of becoming leader, he ditched all ten of his leadership pledges and moved Labour sharply to the right. On Palestine, Starmer has repeatedly echoed Israeli government narratives, refusing to condemn the genocide while expelling Labour members who criticised Israel.

While Trevor Chinn is central to this latest scandal, he is not the only pro-Israel donor bankrolling Labour. Since Starmer’s election, the party has increasingly relied on wealthy businessmen with strong ties to Zionist organisations.

One of these is Gary Lubner, the South African-born former CEO of Autoglass, who has donated more than £5 million ($6.3 million) to Labour. Lubner’s family fortune was built during apartheid South Africa, when his father and uncle were accused of helping to bust international sanctions.

Today, Lubner is a major supporter of the United Jewish Israel Appeal, a fundraising arm for Israeli causes. His son Jack is active in the Jewish Labour Movement and other pro-Israel networks.

Lubner’s uncle Bertie was a major donor to Ben-Gurion University, an institution identified by human rights groups as complicit in Israel’s apartheid system. Under Starmer’s leadership, Labour has drawn heavily on donations from pro-Israel businessmen such as Lubner, underlining the party’s financial dependence on figures with strong political and financial ties to Israel.

The cumulative effect of these revelations is stark: Labour under Starmer has been captured by a narrow, unrepresentative network of pro-Israel donors and lobbyists. Their influence was decisive in undermining Corbyn’s leadership, installing Starmer, and silencing members who demanded a just policy on Palestine.

As Israel’s genocide in Gaza has killed more than 68,000 Palestinians, mostly women and children, the Labour government has aligned itself with Israeli war crimes—refusing to halt arms sales, authorising surveillance flights over Gaza and granting Israel political cover on the international stage.

Labour’s latest scandal is not simply about undeclared donations. It speaks to the hollowing out of democracy inside Labour and its subordination to interests directly tied to the Israeli state. Decisions in Labour today are shaped less by members or voters than by figures like McSweeney, Chinn and Lubner—unelected operators whose record and affiliations show a consistent commitment to defending Israel, often over the views of party members.

September 26, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Wars for Israel | , , | Leave a comment

Kallas insists US shouldn’t offload Ukraine on EU

RT | September 26, 2025

Brussels is not solely responsible for helping Ukraine end its conflict with Russia, EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas told Politico on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York on Thursday.

The comments follow US President Donald Trump’s recent apparent change of stance on Ukraine, after he suggested that Kiev, “with the support of the European Union,” was “in a position to fight and win.” Some observers saw the remark as Trump stepping back from the conflict after failing to make good on his pledge to end it quickly.

“He was the one who promised to stop the killing,” Kallas said. “So it can’t be on us.”

After taking office in January, Trump engaged in brokering peace negotiations while suspending military aid to Kiev and refraining from imposing sanctions on Russia.

He has insisted that the EU countries take greater responsibility for their own security, urging European NATO members to increase military spending to 5% of their gross domestic product (GDP).

Brussels’ top diplomat insisted that there is no NATO without the US, adding that America is one of the military bloc’s key members and any discussion of NATO’s role must reflect Washington’s responsibilities.

The EU has faced challenges in financing long-term support for Ukraine, limited by constraints in its budgetary mechanisms and resistance from some members.

Kallas, a long-time Russia hawk, put forward an ambitious plan in March to mobilize new military aid for Ukraine worth €40 billion via EU member states. Several countries, including France, Italy, Spain, and Portugal, resisted the proposal, wary of the formidable commitments.

After weeks of negotiations, the package was scaled back to €5 billion for ammunition, underscoring both the limits of EU unity and the challenges Kallas faces in translating her hawkish stance into collective action.

Russia has repeatedly accused the EU of undermining the peace efforts around Ukraine and militarizing in preparation for any conflict with Moscow.

Moscow’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said on Thursday that the EU and NATO have declared “an actual war” on Russia, accusing the West of orchestrating the Ukraine conflict.

September 26, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

Media’s psyop against climate scientists

By Vijay Jayaraj | American Thinker | September 23, 2025

A coordinated offensive unfolded with precision September 2 against five scientists questioning the popular media’s most sacred bogeyman — the hypothesis that human-induced emissions of carbon dioxide threaten to overheat the planet.

The scientists attacked had written a report published in July by the U.S. Department of Energy (DoE), “A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate.”

Delivering virtually identical narratives, proclaiming that 85 “climate experts” had discredited the DoE report, were CBS, NPR, ABC, CNN, The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Reuters and others.

Language in the news reporting was nearly indistinguishable, and the focus identical: a number (“85” or “dozens”), a designated group (“scientists” or “experts”) and a verdict (“flawed,” “lacks merit,” “full of errors”). This is not the natural variance of independent newsrooms pursuing a story. This is the result of a shared press release, a common source or a backroom agreement to push a common storyline.

It was a master class in singing the same tune that would make any propaganda ministry proud — a calibrated flash mob of climate-fear messaging in an explicitly partisan tone.

Fooling the Public

The first volley of the assault was a classic ad hominem attack. The authors of the DoE report, five of the world’s most distinguished and academically rigorous researchers of climate issues, were immediately branded as the “Trump Team.”

This is a deliberately dishonest tactic. The authors — doctors John Christy, Judith Curry, Steven Koonin, Ross McKitrick, and Roy Spencer — are not political operatives. They are scientists with decades of experience and hundreds of peer-reviewed publications.

Dr. Koonin served as Undersecretary for Science in the Department of Energy under President Obama, a fact conveniently omitted from most of the media’s hit pieces. Drs. Christy and Spencer are world-renowned for developing the first global temperature dataset from satellites, for which they received NASA’s Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement.

No mention that Ross McKitrick is a Canadian academic with no political ties. No mention that Judith Curry stepped away from academia partly because of the politicization of climate research and previously had been much sought after for her research into hurricane intensity.

Most critically, the authors themselves have stated that there was no oversight or compulsion from anyone in any government department during the creation of their report. They say they crafted the report independently, with no interference from Energy Secretary Chris Wright. But the media gloss over that. Instead, the scientists are derided as the “Trump team.”

In stark contrast to the vilified DoE authors, the 85 individuals who signed the critical letter were anointed as “climate experts” and “leading scientists.” Yet, the list of signers is padded with individuals whose specializations are, to put it generously, tangential to the core issues of climate science.

The strategy is clear: assemble a gaggle of academics, label them “climate experts” and use the sheer number to create an illusion of overwhelming scientific consensus against the DOE report.

Sell Lies, Instill Fear With a ‘Black Mirror’

Adding to the theater, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) has announced a panel to review the DoE report. But here’s the twist: The panel is headed not by a climate scientist, but by a biologist. Out of the panel’s members, only a few have direct expertise in atmospheric science. Yet the announcement was trumpeted as if the nation’s top climate experts were mobilized.

Predicting catastrophe is a media business model. NPR warned of “irreversible” sea-level rise in 2023, ignoring tide gauge records that show no acceleration beyond historical norms. News outlets regularly report on “unprecedented” floods, yet data indicate no uptick in floods due to climate change.

If everybody believed climate impacts were manageable, the case for sweeping carbon taxes, bans on fossil fuels and subsidies for wind and solar energy would collapse. That’s why the DoE report — noting forecasting uncertainty, adaptation possibilities and economic trade-offs — is so threatening. It undermines a narrative of an “existential” threat or imminent collapse. So, the media did not debate the five scientists; they sought to destroy them and their report. Not with data, but with labels.

This is a psyops initiative like that depicted in the Netflix dystopian series “Black Mirror.” The media outlets are not mirrors reflecting reality; they are black screens projecting a manufactured one. They have become instruments of a political agenda, sacrificing journalistic integrity to enforce a specific viewpoint on climate change. They operate not as individual watchdogs but as a wolf pack. They decide what you should think and seek to broadcast it in unison until you do.

I’d encourage you to read the DoE report for yourself or at least countervailing opinions of it. Scrutinize the credentials of those who attack it. Ask the hard questions that the journalists refuse to. The black mirror can only hold power over you if you consent to stare into it. It is time to look away and see the world as it is, not as they tell you it is.

Vijay Jayaraj is a Science and Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition, Fairfax, Virginia. He holds an M.S. in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia and a postgraduate degree in energy management from Robert Gordon University, both in the U.K., and a bachelor’s in engineering from Anna University, India.

September 26, 2025 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »