Judge rules US violated Palestinian American’s rights in phone search
The Cradle | July 17, 2026
A federal judge has ruled that the US government violated the constitutional rights of Palestinian American Osama Abu Irshaid after customs officials seized and searched his cellphone during two separate encounters at a US international airport in 2024.
In a ruling filed in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, US District Judge Michael Nachmanoff determined that the phone searches violated Irshaid’s Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable government searches and seizures.
CAIR welcomes the court’s decision
Irshaid serves as the executive director of American Muslims for Palestine and is a US citizen of Palestinian descent.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which filed the lawsuit on Irshaid’s behalf two years ago, welcomed the court’s decision on Thursday.
The Muslim civil rights organization said in its lawsuit that the federal government had placed Irshaid on a watch list that was discriminatory and racist.
CBP agents conducted advanced phone searches
According to CAIR, US Customs and Border Protection agents twice seized Irshaid’s cellphone and carried out “advanced” searches when he returned to the United States from international travel in 2024.
At the time, the government denied adding individuals to any such watch list based on race, religion, or protected speech activities.
Rights groups have raised growing concerns in recent years over increased scrutiny of Americans with Middle Eastern, Arab, and Palestinian backgrounds, particularly over their political views, following Israeli genocide in Gaza, which started in October 2023.
US blocks SSL security certificates for Iran’s Fars News Agency
The Cradle | July 17, 2026
Washington has blocked the issuance of SSL security certificates for Fars News Agency‘s website, cutting the country’s most visited news outlet off from browser-trusted encryption, the agency revealed on 17 July.
Without valid certificates, visitors to the site face security warnings and restricted access, while the agency’s content has been removed from Google search results.
Technical assessments confirm that all major internationally recognized Certificate Authorities – including Let’s Encrypt, DigiCert, and Sectigo – have rejected certificate requests for the agency’s domains, citing US sanctions pressure.
The measure is the latest in a series of US actions against the outlet. The US Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control seized the agency’s .com domain in 2020, and in September 2023 added Fars and its CEO to the Specially Designated Nationals (SDN) sanctions list.
The EU and Canada have since imposed sanctions of their own.
Fars has faced repeated efforts to restrict its reach, including the removal of its Instagram account, which had nearly three million followers.
Iran’s Computer Emergency Response and Coordination Center (MAHER) says the agency has been the primary target of sustained cyberattacks aimed at disrupting the country’s domestic media infrastructure.
The block forms part of a broader western campaign to dominate the media narrative against its geopolitical adversaries by suppressing opposing voices while artificially amplifying its own.
Western governments are simultaneously dismantling online anonymity at home through identity verification laws that, under the pretext of child protection, tie every post to a legal identity – backed by biometric verification requirements, VPN restrictions, and the scanning of private messages.
The measures tighten control over expression both abroad and within their own borders, amid ongoing crackdowns on pro-Palestine and pro-Iran speech.
An investigation by TIME revealed that Israel has been paying $1.5 million per month to Clock Tower X, a firm owned by US President Donald Trump’s former campaign manager Brad Parscale, to run a covert influence campaign targeting young US conservatives through paid influencer networks, coordinated messaging in private group chats, and websites designed to shape how AI chatbots characterize Israel.
US officials now believe the operation turned against Trump himself, as paid influencers attacked the now broken ceasefire with Iran.
In May, Israel allocated roughly $730 million to its 2026 Hasbara propaganda budget, more than four times the previous year’s allocation, even as polling shows 60 percent of US respondents now view Israel unfavorably, with experts dismissing the spending as unable to offset the impact of its genocide in Gaza.
The Cradle analyst Mohamad Hasan Sweidan previously detailed how Israel operates a “Digital Iron Dome,” a system combining mass reporting campaigns to take down content exposing its crimes in Gaza, algorithmic ad warfare that floods timelines with state propaganda, and hundreds of millions of dollars in influencer contracts and AI-targeted campaigns to manipulate global perceptions.
Armenian PM persecutes dissent as West turns blind eye – rights group
RT | July 15, 2026
Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan has created “an atmosphere of fear” through the “systematic” persecution of political opponents with the tacit backing of Western nations, a newly formed rights group has claimed, warning that any dissenting voice is now treated as an “enemy.”
Tensions have remained high since last month’s parliamentary election, in which Pashinyan’s pro-EU Civil Contract party won 49.74% of the vote, according to the Central Electoral Commission (CEC). At least seven opposition parties have petitioned the constitutional court to annul the results, alleging widespread electoral misconduct, while hundreds of protesters rallied outside the CEC headquarters.
On Monday, the Committee for the Protection of the Rights of Persons Subjected to Political Persecution – a watchdog established by lawyers, political activists, and several former officials – accused the government of waging a campaign to silence the opposition.
“Everything is being done to foster a climate of fear, isolate political and public figures, and attempt to decapitate the numerous opposition forces,” former MP and lawyer Elinar Vardanyan said. According to the committee, around half a dozen opposition politicians are either in custody or facing criminal prosecution.
“Anyone who holds a different point of view is regarded by the authorities not as an opponent, but as an enemy,” said Armenia’s first ombudswoman, Larisa Alaverdyan, who joined the group. Committee members argued that Pashinyan has been able to pursue the crackdown because he has effectively received a “carte blanche” from his Western backers.
“In pursuit of their own interests, Western institutions are not merely turning a blind eye to Pashinyan’s actions – they are, in effect, encouraging them,” political analyst Yervand Bozoyan said, accusing foreign governments and international organizations of being “silently complicit in the destruction of democracy” in Armenia.
Pashinyan has declared the opposition parties that entered parliament illegitimate and vowed to strip them of their political standing. He has also said his government intends to confiscate the assets of the leaders of the three largest opposition parties, adding that they “should be left hungry.”
Following those remarks, prosecutors opened a criminal case against former President Robert Kocharyan, leader of the Armenia Alliance, the third-largest parliamentary party. Another opposition leader, Samvel Karapetyan, has remained in custody since last year on charges of plotting a coup, which he denies.
About a month before the election, Pashinyan hosted an EU-Armenia summit and a meeting of the European Political Community (EPC), an EU-led forum launched in 2022 after the escalation of the Ukraine conflict. He has also pledged to deepen Armenia’s integration with the EU, despite the country’s continued reliance on trade with Russia and Moscow’s warnings that adopting EU standards could damage the South Caucasus nation’s economy.
French Donbass Charity Founder’s Show Trial Designed to ‘Neutralize’ Dissent to Hostility to Russia
Sputnik – 15.07.2026
The criminal case against SOS Donbass organizer Anna Novikova is part of France and EU’s broader policy of “intimidating dissenters and neutralizing them to suppress domestic opposition to the official hostility to Russia,” independent French geopolitical analyst Come Carpentier de Gourdon told Sputnik.
“In fact any support of Russia, even by quoting or circulating news reports, opinions or comments from Russian (state) media is considered in France as connivence with the enemy and therefore potentially treasonous,” with Russia deemed “de facto an enemy country,” the observer pointed out.
But the prosecution may face problems, because the law “is far from clear” regarding humanitarian aid, “and any trial can become very controversial as the accused may object the French Government’s position: Ukraine is not an ally of France or a NATO member, France has not declared war on Russia.”
“Therefore objections can be raised to the claim that assistance to the Donbass and denunciation of Ukrainian actions there is tantamount to supporting Russia’s military campaign.”
Nevertheless, “other EU countries” should be “expected to adopt similar measures or laws,” the analyst fears.
Case Flunks Even EU’s Own Fake Rule of Law Standards
Novikova’s case does not even “adhere to the three Orwellian slogans of the EU – democracy, rule of law and respect for human rights,” political analyst Dr. Greg Simons told Sputnik.
The “purely political” crackdown “is a continuation of the larger attempt to shut out any alternative views,” and was preceded by things like bans on Russian foreign-facing media, sanctions and economic warfare against critics. It will inevitably expand over time, Simons expects.
“The Ukraine issue is going to become much more sensitive and toxic politically to Europe for supporting this cause,” and Novikova’s “lawfare” imprisonment and trial are a “test case” for tightening control over the narrative on Ukraine.
It’s also an “an act of pure intimidation so that people will stop breaking the narrative” amid the growing desperation and political vulnerability of the French government, Simons suggests, pointing to President Macron’s growing vulnerability and questions on his political future, and similar trends regarding the anti-Russia ideology of Euro-Atlanticism in general.
Judge Revokes Bail for Mother Charged With Murdering Twins Who Died 8 Days After Vaccines
Photo courtesy of Joe Filicetti
By Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. | The Defender | July 14, 2026
A district judge in Payette County, Idaho, today revoked the bond for 23-year-old Andrea Shaw, the Idaho mother charged with two counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of her 18-month-old twins.
Bail was initially set at $2 million. But today’s decision means that Shaw will not be eligible for release on any amount of bail.
Shaw was indicted by a grand jury and arrested on June 30 on allegations that she deliberately suffocated her twins, who died on May 1, 2025. Prosecutors allege the children were killed while sharing a bed in their home.
Shaw, who pleaded not guilty, has consistently denied the allegations. She alleges that her twins’ deaths were caused by the vaccines they received at a routine doctor’s appointment just over a week before they died. The toddlers both had documented adverse reactions to the shots.
In a motion filed Monday, defense attorney Joseph Filicetti argued that the $2 million bond is excessive and should be reduced to $100,000 with reasonable release conditions.
Prosecutors opposed any bond reduction, arguing that the evidence supports the murder charges and that Shaw should remain in custody.
Prosecutors said the court had been generous in granting the bond, which, in the state’s opinion, Shaw is not entitled to.
Bond is discretionary in capital cases, the prosecution said, and they suggested that she should not be allowed near her new infant.
Twins diagnosed with ‘post-immunization reaction’
The defense argued that Shaw has no criminal history — not even a parking ticket. She has remained in Idaho throughout the more than year-long investigation, has strong family ties to the Payette area, and recently gave birth by caesarean section to a premature daughter who needs her mother.
Filicetti said Shaw’s postpartum medical needs and her newborn’s dependence on her legally justify release under supervised conditions. He argued that bond is meant to ensure that a defendant will attend court; it’s not to punish them.
The defense also contended that the prosecution’s case is entirely circumstantial. He noted that there is no confession, eyewitness or admission connecting Shaw to the children’s deaths — and that the grand jury was not informed of those shortcomings in the state’s allegations.
Documentation supports Shaw’s statement that on April 24, 2025, the day after the twins received the vaccines, she took them to the emergency room when they were lethargic and their lips turned blue.
The treating physician in the ER diagnosed them with “post-immunization reaction.”
The children remained ill in the days leading up to their deaths eight days after receiving the shots, and Shaw repeatedly sought medical advice, according to court documents.
Supporting affidavits filed with the motion to reduce bail and shared with The Defender included one from Shaw’s mother-in-law who accompanied the family to the vaccination appointment and later to the ER.
She said she questioned the administration of the flu vaccine given a family history of adverse reactions and that the nurse assured the family the twins would be safe. She also described Shaw as a devoted mother who repeatedly sought medical care for the children.
The defense also submitted an affidavit from Angela Wulbrecht, a registered nurse with 26 years of obstetrics experience, who contacted the family after she learned of the infant deaths.
Wulbrecht said she offered to help obtain an independent forensic review and advised the family that if such a review uncovered evidence of abuse, she would report it to law enforcement.
Wulbrecht said the family immediately welcomed an independent examination — a response she said is inconsistent with what one would expect from someone who had intentionally harmed a child.
The defense argued these facts undermine the state’s theory of homicide and said independent experts are being assembled to challenge the prosecution’s conclusions.
Prosecutors filed a motion opposing the bond reduction. In their summary of the evidence, they said that investigators ruled out other possible causes of death — including heat exposure, carbon monoxide poisoning, poisoning and vaccines — during the investigation.
They did acknowledge that the infants had suffered side effects from the vaccine and that at least one of them was still suffering reactions at the time of death.
They argued that the only “conceivable explanation” was that the twins were suffocated and cited one expert who said that autopsy findings, including pulmonary vascular congestion and pulmonary edema in one of the twins, are consistent with suffocation.
The state also alleged Shaw made inconsistent statements during interviews with investigators about the children’s final hours and that the seriousness of the charges, combined with concerns about public safety, justifies maintaining the current bond or denying her bail altogether.
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
UK moves to ban Iran’s IRGC, cites unfounded national security threats
Al Mayadeen | July 13, 2026
The British government announced Monday that it will designate Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guard Corps under new national security powers, deepening already strained relations between London and Tehran, The Guardian reported.
Rather than formally proscribing the IRGC under the “Terrorism Act”, the government will classify the Iranian military body as an organization involved in “foreign power threat activity.” The new mechanism carries consequences comparable to “terrorist proscription” and would criminalize certain forms of support or assistance once approved by Parliament.
The designation marks a significant shift in Britain’s position after previous Conservative governments declined calls to formally ban the IRGC, partly because it is an official component of the Iranian state and armed forces.
Home Office cites alleged threats
Announcing the measure, the Home Office said the decision followed a review of alleged activities connected to the organizations targeted by the new designations.
“Having carefully considered all the evidence, the home secretary has concluded that there is sufficient basis to reasonably believe that each of these bodies is engaged in foreign power threat activity, and that each designation is necessary to protect the safety and interests of the United Kingdom.”
British authorities linked the decision to alleged plots and cyberoperations attributed to Iran.
London has also claimed more than 20 allegedly Iran-linked plots identified by British security agencies over the previous year.
The British government has not publicly presented evidence establishing direct IRGC involvement in every incident cited in support of the measure.
Iranian and Russian bodies targeted
Alongside the IRGC, the government said it would designate the Islamic Movement of the Companions of the Right, or IMCR, which British authorities blame for several attacks against Jewish institutions and other targets in the country.
The incidents attributed to the group reportedly include arson and vandalism attacks targeting synagogues, emergency vehicles operated by the Jewish volunteer service Hatzola and the offices of an Iranian opposition media organisation.
Russia’s GRU Volunteer Corps, which Britain describes as an overseas operational body connected to Russian military intelligence, will also be listed under the same legal framework.
The measures are expected to make it easier for British authorities to prosecute individuals accused of acting for, assisting, or receiving benefits from designated foreign-linked bodies. The designations must first receive parliamentary approval before entering into force.
Diplomatic fallout expected
The decision is likely to further damage relations between Britain and Iran at a time of heightened regional tensions and ongoing conflict involving Tehran and Washington.
British officials had previously warned that action against the IRGC could prompt retaliatory diplomatic measures, including the possible removal of the UK ambassador from Tehran.
The IRGC was established following Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution and operates as an official branch of the country’s armed forces. It plays a central role in Iran’s defense structure and reports to the country’s supreme leadership.
Britain’s decision follows a similar move by the European Union, which formally added the IRGC to its list of “terrorist organisations” in February 2026.
US demands Spain extradite pro-Palestine activist on ‘dubious’ money laundering charges
By Kit Klarenberg | The Grayzone | July 13, 2026
Fergie Chambers, a communist philanthropist and heir to the Cox family fortune, has been jailed in Ibiza, Spain, on the orders of the US Department of Justice. According to a sealed indictment seen by The Grayzone, Chambers now awaits extradition to Washington on dubious federal charges of “international money laundering… with the intent to provide material support to and resources to foreign terrorist organizations.” If deported to the US, he faces up to 30 years in prison.
On July 10, six Spanish police vehicles surrounded Chambers’ car while he drove through Ibiza with his family, before detaining him. Since his arrest, he has been denied bail and contact with the outside world. Chambers’ detention marks the first time an individual has faced extradition to the US from Spain for supporting the Palestinian cause.
An heir to the vast Cox family fortune, in 2023 he cut ties with his family and sold his stake in Cox Enterprises, receiving an estimated $250 million. Vowing to use this money to fund social activism and international solidarity work, Chambers has since donated over $1 million to humanitarian projects supporting those impacted by the Gaza genocide, and to support pro-Palestine activist groups and news outlets.
The sealed indictment offers no evidence that Chambers has donated any money to “foreign terrorist organizations.” It merely states “Chambers made numerous transfers of funds from banks in the US to banks in Tunisia,” where he relocated in late 2023.
It appears Chambers used those funds for seemingly legal purposes, including investing in local businesses and sponsoring the Club Africain football team, which in May became champion of the Tunisian Ligue Professionnelle. Chambers has bankrolled similar enterprises, along with political and social causes since the early 2000s, including paying the bail and legal fees of imprisoned left-wing activists.
“The Department of Justice is politically persecuting Fergie [Chambers] because he is using his wealth to support Palestine, and help people facing genocide in Gaza. His crime is dedicating his life to building a better society, rather than exploiting people, extract wealth and profit from war,” Stella Schnabel, Chambers’ partner, told The Grayzone. “He should be home safe with our family and continuing his important humanitarian and social advocacy, not incarcerated in a foreign jail facing effective life imprisonment back in the US.”
Chambers’ arrest comes amidst bitter tensions between the Trump administration and Spanish government, with Washington lashing out over President Pedro Sánchez’s criticism of Israel’s assaults on Gaza and Iran, and his refusal to allow Washington to use his country to stage attacks on Iran.
Chambers’ arrest occurred the same day the Washington Post reported Secretary of State Marco Rubio invited senior ministers from more than 60 countries to a meeting on tackling the alleged scourge of “transnational far-left terrorism.” Critics, including some US officials themselves, charge that the Trump administration is seeking to abuse powerful counterterrorism tools to crack down on left-wing activists.
In May, Trump’s new counterterrorism czar Sebastian Gorka – a pro-Israel fanatic exposed by The Grayzone in November 2024 as a longstanding British intelligence asset – unveiled a new “counterterrorism plan” which explicitly targets supposed “left-wing extremist groups” at home and abroad. A US counterterror official recently told the Washington Post that targeting left-wing activists with accusations of links to foreign terrorist groups “can unlock certain investigative tools,” including intensive surveillance. The false conflation of Chambers’ support for activism with Hamas financing fits neatly into this vision.
In June, eight anti-ICE protestors were sentenced for a combined 450 years for their roles in a riot outside a Texan immigration detention center. The severity of their punishments in large part hinged on prosecutors successfully arguing their use of Signal to communicate, and attendance at book clubs where left-wing literature was read, demonstrated they were part of a coordinated terrorist conspiracy. Chambers’ sealed indictment indicates the Trump administration’s war on Palestine solidarity is going global.
Dressen v. Flaherty: Vaccine Censorship Case Goes to Appeal
By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | July 10, 2026
Federal officials set out to erase the online voices of Americans who said Covid vaccines had hurt them. A new appeal asks the Fifth Circuit to give those Americans their day in court.
The New Civil Liberties Alliance filed its opening brief on July 7, asking the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to revive Dressen v. Flaherty.
We obtained a copy of the brief for you here.
A federal judge in Texas had thrown the case out before a single document changed hands in discovery. The suit accuses the Biden administration of running a joint government and private censorship operation against people who went online to talk about vaccine injuries.
Brianne Dressen alleges she was injured after she volunteered for an AstraZeneca vaccine trial. Shaun Barcavage, Kristi Dobbs, Nikki Holland, and Suzanna Newell each reportedly suffered serious, debilitating injuries after Covid vaccination. Ernest Ramirez was vaccinated without incident and then lost his healthy 16-year-old son five days after the boy received his first Pfizer dose. The autopsy pointed to an enlarged heart and myocarditis.
They did what people in pain tend to do. They went to social media to trade medical research, look for treatments, share hopeful stories, and find others who understood. For many of them, closed online support groups became a lifeline.
The government treated that lifeline as a threat. The Surgeon General’s Office, the CDC, HHS, DHS, CISA, and the White House leaned on social media companies to flag this speech as “misinformation,” shadow-ban it, or delete it outright.
The operation reached across agencies and into the platforms themselves, coercing and colluding with the companies that decide who gets to be heard.
Stanford supplied the machinery. The now-defunct Stanford Internet Observatory and its “Virality Project” tracked posts and handed the platforms lists of speech to suppress.
The Virality Project targeted Covid-vaccine speech that broke from the administration’s preferred policies, whether or not that speech was accurate. Real accounts of real injuries got flagged because they were inconvenient, not because they were false.
The censors were specific about their targets. Their tracking called out Bri Dressen by name. A woman reportedly injured in a vaccine trial, describing what happened to her own body, became something a federal effort wanted the public not to see.
None of that was enough for the US District Court for the Southern District of Texas, which dismissed the case at the pleading stage. The plaintiffs had laid out a detailed factual account of a nationwide censorship conspiracy, and the court closed the door before discovery could begin.
NCLA’s brief says the district court got the law wrong in several ways. The judge set too narrow and exacting a bar on personal jurisdiction and used it to wave off the Stanford defendants and the individual government officials.
The court also misread the Supreme Court’s decision in Murthy v. Missouri, which weighed whether a different set of NCLA clients had shown enough to win a preliminary injunction. No injunction is being sought here, so that higher standard does not govern this case.
The brief argues, the court made a further error on the civil-rights conspiracy claim. It tossed the plaintiffs’ claim under 42 U.S. Code Section 1985(3) on the theory that they had not alleged racial discrimination. The statute never mentions race. It protects “any person or class of persons” stripped of their rights through an invidiously discriminatory conspiracy, and the Supreme Court has said the provision can reach non-racial classes.
“To call what happened to our clients ‘troubling’ is a massive understatement. After suffering devastating medical injuries following Covid vaccination, they turned to social media as a lifeline for support and connection with others who understood. Rather than compassion or aid, the Government responded with relentless censorship, maligning them as liars and conspiracy theorists and cutting off the lifelines that they depended on.
“Their only offense was that their lived experiences, pain, and even private conversations in online support groups contradicted the Administration’s preferred Covid-vaccine narrative. The cruelty and injustice are difficult to overstate,” said Casey Norman, Litigation Counsel at NCLA.
The appeal also presses a point the district court skipped over. Censorship harms more than the person silenced.
“We are confident the Fifth Circuit will correct the District Court’s numerous errors in dismissing the complaint, which included taking an inappropriately narrow view of personal jurisdiction and ignoring that not just speakers, but also potential listeners, suffer harm resulting from unlawful government censorship,” said Caitlin Moyna, Senior Litigation Counsel at NCLA.
The stakes reach past these six plaintiffs. If courts keep reading Murthy as a wall against every censorship suit, the government gains a template for silencing people with almost no risk of accountability.
“Lower courts are misapplying the Supreme Court’s Murthy v. Missouri decision, and the ruling below here is a prime example. The Murthy decision set a high bar for standing in the context of a preliminary injunction to stop future censorship. But no PI was sought here, so the Murthy standard is not applicable. If Bri Dressen cannot satisfy standing—when the defendants called her out by name in their censorship tracking—then no one will,” said Mark Chenoweth, President and Chief Legal Officer of NCLA.
According to NCLA, the campaign still burdens its clients’ ability to speak, to associate privately, and to exchange information with others in closed support groups.
The question in front of the Fifth Circuit is whether Americans silenced by their own government can even make their case to a jury, or whether the courthouse door stays shut before anyone looks at the evidence.
Denmark wants NATO to protect it from US
By Lucas Leiroz | July 10, 2026
Tensions between the US and Denmark over Greenland continue to rise. US President Donald Trump refuses to change his stance regarding the alleged “need” for the US to control Greenland, while the Danish government emphasizes that it will defend its territory by all possible means – even using military force, if necessary. The major issue, however, is that both countries are members of the same military alliance. Denmark believes it would be supported by its partners in a potential conflict with the US, ignoring the fact that NATO is historically led by Washington.
The issue of Greenland was one of the topics discussed at the recent NATO summit in Ankara. During a joint press conference with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Trump confirmed that he remains interested in acquiring control of the region. He argued that Greenland should not remain associated to Denmark, as the two entities provide no mutual benefit and are, in practice, supposedly already de facto separate. He therefore believes there should be a definitive transition to American control, given that the US has greater interests and a better capacity to “help Greenland” than Denmark does.
“That should be controlled by the United States, not by Denmark (…) Greenland does not help Denmark. Denmark does not really spend money to help Greenland,” he said.
His statement was immediately responded by Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, who also attended the meeting in Ankara. She not only affirmed Denmark’s readiness to defend its territory – including through military means – but also stated that NATO would defend Denmark in such a scenario. According to her, NATO’s collective defense clause applies to any instance of military aggression against a member state, regardless of the aggressor state. Consequently, if the US were to attack Danish territory to annex Greenland, the entire alliance would be expected to stand with Denmark against the US.
“[The US is] an erstwhile friend (…) We are ready to defend any inch of NATO, including our own territory (…) [And] the same goes for the US,” she said.
In theory, the Danish Prime Minister is correct. NATO should protect its members, even in the event of a war against another member of the alliance. However, in practice, that is not what would happen. The US is the leading nation within NATO. The organization was established during the Cold War as a collective defense bloc for Western nations, all of which are under the American nuclear umbrella. Although NATO member states formally retain sovereignty, in practice, the alliance is nothing more than an “international army” at the service of Washington [and ultimately Israel]. Therefore, it is entirely illogical to expect NATO to go to war against the US to protect a European country.
Tensions between the US and Europe have been rising since Trump took office. The US president demands greater defense investment and combat readiness from Europeans to assist the US (especially in the Middle East). Europeans are failing to meet the alliance’s financial targets and refuse to participate in the conflict in the Middle East. On the other hand, they remain engaged in an irrational war campaign against Russia and are promoting a plan for continental militarization, attempting to gain greater defense “autonomy”.
If European militarization plans succeed, Denmark might secure some international support in the event of a conflict with the US. However, it is entirely irrational to expect US-led NATO to fight against the US itself. In a scenario involving military engagement between the US and Denmark (or any other alliance member), NATO countries would face only two options: support the US or remain neutral.
However, it is questionable whether Frederiksen truly believes her own words. She may be promoting such rhetoric just to encourage European militarization or to appease Danish public opinion, thereby attempting to project an image of political strength that she has failed to cultivate until now. In any case, Trump is serious about annexing Greenland, as control over this territory is vital to his plans for American expansion into the Arctic. Trump considers European nations unable to assist with his Arctic strategy and therefore wants the US to control key territories in the region.
As the crisis deepens, both Denmark and the US seem to ignore the will of the local Greenlandic people. The region is inhabited by an indigenous Inuit majority. The local population was historically persecuted by the Danes, who carried out campaigns of apartheid, ethnic cleansing, and forced population reduction. Now, the US – which also has a history of severe persecution against indigenous peoples – seeks to annex the region without even consulting the local population.
The international community – especially international law and human rights organizations – should intervene directly in this matter, emphasizing the need to prioritize the Greenlandic people’s right to self-determination.
Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert.
You can follow Lucas on X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram.
OSCE head promises to help oust Armenian chief bishop
RT | July 9, 2026
OSCE Secretary-General Feridun Sinirlioglu offered to help oust the head of the Armenian Apostolic Church (AAC), in a phone call with Russian pranksters posing as Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan.
In recent years, Pashinyan has cracked down on the Orthodox clergy, with several senior bishops placed in custody on corruption and political interference charges. The feud between the Western-leaning prime minister and the AAC intensified after the clergy expressed support for the opposition.
In a phone call earlier this week, Russian pranksters Vovan and Lexus told Sinirlioglu, a Turkish national, that the Armenian government wants the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) to help oust the AAC head, Catholicos Karekin II.
The pranksters told the OSCE secretary general that the organization’s “assistance would be the trump card and help oust the Armenian patriarch as well as change the religion” in the country, as quoted by Russian media.
Vovan and Lexus, posing as Pashinyan, specifically asked for the OSCE’s backing in case there was a backlash from the opposition.
“Alright, I will do all I can,” Sinirlioglu reportedly said in response.
Created at the height of the Cold War in 1975, the OSCE comprises 57 member states, including Russia, the US, Canada, and most European and Central Asian nations. While the organization professes to promote security and cooperation, Moscow has in recent years accused it of being hijacked by its NATO and EU members to advance Western agendas.
Last October, the Armenian authorities detained Bishop Mkrtich Proshyan, head of the Diocese of Aragatsotn and the nephew of Catholicos Karekin II. Five other clergymen were apprehended along with him.
The Armenian Investigative Committee stated at the time that the arrests had been made as part of an investigation into alleged abuse of power. Weeks earlier, Archbishop Mikael Ajapahyan was sentenced to two years in prison on charges of coup incitement – a case the AAC cleric characterized as politically motivated.
Last month, Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) alleged that the EU was pressuring the Armenian government to expel the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) from the country as a prerequisite to potential EU integration.
Russia and Armenia have historically maintained close political, economic and cultural ties. However, under Pashinyan, the country has increasingly adopted a pro-Western stance. Yerevan has accused Moscow of failing to stop its neighbor Azerbaijan from reclaiming the Nagorno-Karabakh region through military force in September 2023.
Russian officials have, in turn, noted that it was Pashinyan himself who had recognized Baku’s sovereignty over the disputed territory. The Kremlin has also warned that by severing ties with the Russia-led Eurasian Economic Union in favor of hypothetical EU integration, Armenia would have to forgo the “concrete dividends” afforded by the single market.
The Armenian opposition has, in turn, pointed the finger squarely at Pashinyan over the defeat in the conflict with Azerbaijan.
Pashinyan’s government has responded by prosecuting a number of opposition figures and members of the clergy.
Last month, Pashinyan’s pro-EU ruling party, Civil Contract, came out on top in hotly contested parliamentary elections, securing over 49% of the vote. The opposition has petitioned the constitutional court to annul the results of the June 7 elections, citing alleged violations.
The end of anonymity in a state-verified internet
As governments tie online speech to real-world identities under the banner of child safety, the implications extend much farther
By Onur Ozersin | The Cradle | July 8, 2026
The internet, long framed as a space of relative freedom, is entering a period of structural change driven by governments acting in parallel.
A quieter process is underway across multiple jurisdictions. Authorities are introducing identity verification requirements tied to access and participation. These measures are presented as safeguards for minors, and a number have already been written into law.
From Canberra to Washington, London to Ankara and Abu Dhabi, governments are moving to dismantle the era of anonymous internet access, embedding age restrictions and verification protocols into law and platform design in what amounts to one of the most significant shifts the digital world has seen since its inception.
A coordinated turn
The emerging model links user profiles to verified identities, going beyond routine regulation and altering how expression functions online.
As every digital post becomes indelibly linked to a real-world identity and added to a permanent database, the concept of online privacy is fundamentally inverted. Anonymity is no longer viewed as a civil right, but rather as an illicit activity.
Momentum accelerated in the UK in 2025, where more than 12,000 individuals faced detention and penalties linked to online activity.
A similar trend is unfolding in the US, where states such as Florida, Utah, and California have pushed forward with localized identity mandates. Progress on a federal equivalent, the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), remains under congressional debate.
The EU has moved along a parallel track through the Digital Services Act (DSA). Presented as a regulatory framework, it has taken on an enforcement function in practice. Denmark, Greece, Italy, and Spain have been selected as early testing grounds for verification systems.
By 2026, the focus had begun to widen. The debate moved from child protection toward the regulation of political expression. In Germany, Chancellor Friedrich Merz stated in early May, “I want to see the real names of everyone who expresses an opinion against us online. They should not hide behind anonymous accounts.”
Turkiye introduced comparable measures in late April. Parliament approved identity checks and a social media ban for children under 15. Following publication on 1 May, platforms were given nine months to comply.
Justice Minister Akin Gurlek described the internet as “digital chaos” and said the law would apply to platforms with more than one million users. Penalties for non-compliance include aggressive enforcement actions, such as financial sanctions, bandwidth throttling, and total network blocking.
The UAE adopted its own framework in June 2026 through Cabinet Decision No. 106. It set an official age threshold for social media use in the Arab world. Platforms are required to integrate with UAE Pass or deploy biometric verification systems. A 12-month transition period has been granted, with enforcement measures including fines and possible service suspension beginning July 2027.
While neighboring Gulf states have not yet codified specific age restrictions or identity verification mandates, parallel legislative frameworks are highly anticipated. This is particularly true for countries boasting advanced digitalization infrastructures, such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
Regulators are also cracking down on the primary tool used to bypass these digital borders: VPN services. European Commission Vice President Henna Virkkunen warned that identity verification measures must not be circumvented via VPNs, aligned with existing plans in France and the UK to restrict private network routing.
This crackdown marks a dramatic ideological reversal. Where European leaders previously criticized China’s rigorous internet restrictions under the banner of free speech, they are now deploying the very same enforcement mechanisms within their own borders.
Verification as a condition of access
Several proposals would require users to confirm their identity within fixed timeframes, in some cases as short as 72 hours. Failure to comply could result in account suspension and deletion of associated data.
The choice is reduced to two options. Users either attach their digital history to their legal identity or lose access to accumulated networks and content.
This requirement effectively weaponizes your entire digital past. A political argument you had years ago, an obscure question asked on an old forum, or a reckless comment made in the heat of youth will now follow you forever, indelibly stamped onto your official legal identity.
Initially restricted to government agencies, this searchable database could eventually be accessed by insurance corporations and future employers. Cross-border data sharing will likely become standard practice during international travel applications.
A possible scenario illustrates the trajectory. A visa application could include a request for a digital profile from a country of origin. Automated systems would assess that data before any human review.
The EU has already imposed sanctions on journalists covering certain geopolitical issues, including those expressing pro-Palestine views or positions aligned with Russian policy.
The scope of regulation is not limited to public content. The EU has continued to pursue its “Chat Control” initiative, which aims to enable scanning of private communications. After a temporary exemption expired in April 2026, the Council moved on 2 July to restore monitoring provisions through 2028.
This issue has prompted intense resistance from privacy advocates and a coalition of over 500 cryptographers, who warn that requiring platforms to pre-scan message content inherently compromises end-to-end encryption, effectively transforming private messaging spaces into permanently monitored state domains.
Speech under observation
Officials maintain that these measures apply to social media. The infrastructure being built has broader potential applications.
It is only a matter of time before fingerprint, retina, and facial scans become mandatory for every single action you take online.
Once that threshold is crossed, background screening will extend far beyond traditional criminal records; instead, an individual’s digital profile will become the primary determinant of their professional career. This shift seamlessly enables AI algorithms to scan every digital trace left online, pre-emptively labeling users as “risky” or “prone to crime.”
This framework inevitably chills public discourse; criticizing state policy, exposing corruption, or merely asking a question will be permanently appended to a citizen’s digital dossier. Consequently, state authorities will no longer need to actively suppress free speech.
When the penalty for dissent risks the destruction of an individual’s lifelong professional achievements, self-censorship manifests organically.
A comparable pattern is visible offline. More than 300 international students involved in pro-Palestine protests at US universities faced visa revocations and deportation last year. If visible protest carries such outcomes, the implications of permanent digital traceability are likely to be more far-reaching.
Speaking to The Cradle, journalist and technology policy expert Fusun Nebil frames the issue in broader terms:
“Perhaps the most critical point in this debate is that the internet is no longer merely a means of communication; it has also become people’s digital memory and identity. It is not enough for governments to cite seemingly legitimate justifications such as child safety, combating disinformation, and fighting cybercrime. We must seriously discuss how a digital order that completely eliminates anonymity will exert pressure on freedom of expression, political pluralism, and the culture of social criticism in the long term.”
From open forum to managed space
The internet has long functioned as a space where citizens learn and shape ideas through open discussion, progressing from early forum sites to modern social networks. However, under a system where every word becomes an official record, the survival of satire, humor, and intellectual exchange is thrown into question.
In a framework where a joke cracked at age 22 can be held up as evidence against an individual at age 40, the internet will cease to be an environment for exploration and instead transform into a vast courtroom where any spoken word can be leveraged as an indictment.
Today, traditional media such as newspapers and television channels are frequently controlled or influenced by powerful interest groups in many countries. As a result, social media platforms have become the primary spaces where citizens can freely exchange ideas.
However, introducing mandatory identity verification will almost certainly restrict the diversity of opinions in these remaining open environments.
In June 2026, the UK government launched a consultation on regulating content distribution on platforms such as YouTube and TikTok. The proposals include requirements for algorithms to prioritize material from designated public service broadcasters and approved outlets.
This introduces a tiered structure within platforms. Certain sources receive visibility by design.
Exit routes and unintended outcomes
Mandating online identity verification could not only alter the nature of social media platforms, but also spark a mass exodus to the dark web. Ironically, the primary victims of this shift will be the very children these laws are intended to protect.
When governments force tech giants like Meta, X, and TikTok to implement identity checks, ordinary citizens who value privacy and young people in particular may turn to the dark web. Although mainstream platforms face frequent criticism, their moderation teams and AI systems actively remove the vast majority of harmful content.
In contrast, dark web networks lack any oversight or community guidelines. When a teenager uses the Tor network to bypass restrictions, they would not just be chatting with friends; they would enter an unmonitored environment where exploitation risks are exponentially higher than on monitored platforms.
Data concentration and exposure
The accumulation of identity data introduces another layer of risk. Large databases of biometric and personal information present attractive targets for cyberattacks.
In April 2026, concerns surfaced around the EU Age Verification App shortly after its code was made public. Security researchers identified weaknesses in its structure.
Independent specialists, including cybersecurity consultant Paul Moore and French cryptographer Olivier Blazy, immediately identified critical architectural and design vulnerabilities within the framework.
Addressing EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen directly on X, Moore issued a stark warning: “Seriously @vonderleyen – this product will be the catalyst for an enormous breach at some point. It’s just a matter of time.”
Telegram founder Pavel Durov also joined the debate, claiming that these security vulnerabilities are a direct result of the system’s fundamental design rather than a simple error: “The EU age verification app was hackable by design – it trusted the device (that’s instant game over).”
A monitored horizon
Although identity verification on the internet may seem like a step taken to protect children, whether it leads to a safe harbor or a dangerous cliff depends on how it is implemented. If the solution is based solely on enacting bans and collecting ID numbers, free communication will inevitably be pushed toward dark web networks where oversight is almost impossible.
The path to protecting children is not to lock digital doors and hand the keys over to the government. Rather, it lies in ensuring that the open internet continues to provide a space where citizens can freely express ideas without the pressure of self-censorship, while making it safe through moderation, education, and transparency.
Otherwise, by the 2030s, we may find ourselves facing not a generation protected from the harmful effects of the internet, but a generation that has grown up in the lawlessness of the dark web.
And if political Cancel Culture fails?
What will Europe become if the populist sweep occurs across Europe?
Ashes of Pompeii | July 8, 2026
A couple of days ago I wrote about political Cancel Culture in Europe, how the establishment is using lawfare to try to sideline populist movements, usually right wing, across the continent. And from their perspective, it is not hard to understand why. Without cancelling these opposition groups, there seems little doubt that almost all of the establishment parties will be swept away and in a very short time, the political landscape of Europe will look radically different.
The sheer scale of this potential electoral shift means that the traditional mechanisms of political control will simply cease to function. Germany would see the AfD as either the by far largest party or actually forming the government. The UK would see Farage and Reform achieving a near absolute majority, fundamentally altering the British political system. France would face elections where the runoff is between Le Pen and Mélenchon, with both being complete outsiders loathed by the establishment for entirely opposite reasons. Spain would probably see a coalition between the right and the far right. Unlike other European countries, the Spanish right is not entirely uncomfortable with the far right, as many will have had family members who were entirely in synch with the National Catholic fascism of the past. Italy presents a fascinating case. Meloni came in as a far right outsider but adapted to become more centrist. It seems not unlikely that she will go back to her roots if all of her European peers more closely resemble where she came from than where she is now.
This sweeping transformation forces us to ask profound questions about the future of the continent. What does this mean for the EU project itself? Can a union built on ever closer integration survive when its largest members are led by sovereignists? What happens to Ursula von der Leyen personally and politically in such a scenario? Will she be forced out by a hostile council, or will she attempt to pivot her own agenda to survive? How will the European Commission function without its traditional center left/center right driving force? Will the entire bureaucratic apparatus in Brussels, itself built on this centrist tradition, face a complete dismantling?
We must also consider foreign policy and defense. What happens to the practically unified European support for Ukraine when the political winds shift so dramatically across the continent? How does this impact the cohesion and future of NATO? What becomes of the traditional EU north and south relations, or the dynamic with eastern Europe? How exactly do Hungary and Slovakia fit into this new paradigm? Do they transition from isolated outliers to the new ideological center of gravity? Will the Baltic states find themselves isolated in their hardline defense postures?
Furthermore, we must examine other continental relationships. What happens to relations with Russia and European energy security? Is Russia even interested in returning to basing much of its trade on Europe – once burnt, twice shy?
And of course, America. Many of these leaders are very pro-American, have good relations with Trump and are ideologically aligned. But how well will European sovereignty movements mesh with MAGA and America First? One thing is to be ideologically aligned, another very different thing is economic and military negotiations, and national interests.
On the domestic front, the cultural battles will undoubtedly intensify. How far would these outsiders go in dismantling wokist policies such as LGBT mandates and aggressive climate change legislation? Will they simply pause these initiatives or completely reverse decades of legislation? What happens to immigration rules and the millions of migrants already on the continent? Will mass deportations become a realistic policy goal?
It will not be surprising to see a certain amount of taming of the firebrands, just as we witnessed with Meloni before she fully embraced her current centrist posture. Governing requires compromise, and the responsibilities of state often moderate radical rhetoric. But if all of them are outsiders simultaneously, taming becomes much more difficult. There is no moderate center left to anchor them. Who would in this case do the taming?
When the core nations of Europe are all led by anti-establishment figures, the gravitational pull toward traditional compromise simply vanishes. The firebrands would have absolutely no reason to yield ground to a center that no longer holds power. Voters will demand immediate and radical changes, and leaders will have no institutional excuses to delay. The resulting political environment will be entirely uncharted territory for modern Europe.
The old consensus is dead. And either the traditional forces use authoritarian and lawfare means to maintain control, or a new, highly unpredictable era of nationalist governance is about to begin across the continent.
Of course the irony, and hypocrisy, of the political establishment’s use of authoritarianism to push back what they consider (or at least want us to consider) the “barbarian authoritarianists” will not be lost on all.
Featured Video
Iran & Its Allies Are Threatening Every Route for Saudi Oil
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
A short history of British torture
ICC | December 2005
When the House of Commons was debating how much to increase the time limit for detention without trial the question of torture came up. Officially this was limited to the nice considerations of whether it was all right to send people to places where torture is used and whether Britain can use information collected by the use of torture in other countries. This discussion gave an impression of democratic Britain as the home of civilised behaviour where the very idea of torture is repugnant to our legislators – unlike, say, the US with its secret CIA jails… In reality, the British state has a long history of using and developing a whole range of torture techniques. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- US destroying international space law
- SCO Calls for Binding Global Deal to Prevent Arms Race in Space
- Iran & Its Allies Are Threatening Every Route for Saudi Oil
- ‘40,000 tons of bombs’: Report shows Trump planning ‘largest bomb transfer in modern US history’ to Israel
- Amazon says cloud infrastructure in Bahrain, UAE ‘beyond saving’
- How Europe became an accessory to CIA torture
- Trump says Iran urgently seeks deal, Tehran sets conditions for talks
- The Andean Shadow Army
- Russia Wants to End Ukraine Conflict – Lavrov
- US Flaunts On-Orbit Weapon to Supercharge Space Arms Race
- If Americans Knew
- Sanctions Target Iran’s Government, But Kill Hospitalized 23-Year-Old Woman
- An alternative view on the book “Israel’s Lobby: America in the Grip of a Foreign Power”
- Ed Sheeran’s band Beoga, other opening acts quit tour after Macklemore was dropped over his pro-Palestinian comments
- The assassination attempt on President Trump in Butler and the various Israeli connections to it
- “We Want That the Whole Land Be Jewish”
- BREAKING: Building collapse in Gaza kills at least 20 as they sleep – Daily Update
- ‘School is Life’: 1.5 Million Palestinian Children Face Fourth Year of Shattered Education
- Pentagon admits Iran war caused ammunition shortages, cost US $33.4bn
- 37 Palestinian journalists held in Israeli jails, rights group says
- Israel’s Hilltop Youth Recruits Minors to Terrorize Palestinians (with video)
- No Tricks Zone
- Economic Masterminds: German Socialists Suggest Taxing Productivity Gains Stemming From Using AI
- The South China Sea Has Not Been Cooperating With The Climate Change Narrative
- Energy Crisis: Germany Enters Heating Season With Historically Low Gas Reserve Fill Levels
- New Study: The Antarctic Ice Sheet Gained Mass From 2020-2024 Due To Staggering Snow And Ice Accumulation
- Study: Ocean Heating Rates From Thousands Of Years Ago ‘Dwarf’ Modern Ocean Heating Rates
- Climate Extremists Target, Attack Large-Scale Power Grid Infrastructure In Germany!
- New Study: Antarctic Ice Melt Has Contributed Less Than 1 Centimeter To Sea Level Rise In The Last 30 Years
- Fear Of Debate: Alarmist German Climate Scientist Calls On Mainstream Media To Discredit Skeptic Voices
- End-Of-August Arctic Sea Ice Extent Hasn’t Fallen In 20 Years, Official Data Show!
- News-Making Nepal Region Has Had As-Warm Or Warmer Periods Than The 2000s In The 1600s, 1700s, 1800s
Aletho News 