Britain quietly approves $11.85m arms licence to Israel despite Gaza ban
MEMO | May 8, 2026
The UK Department for Business and Trade (DBT) has granted two new licences for the export of military equipment to Israel, including an £8.7 ($11.85) million licence covering “components and technology for targeting equipment”, the Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) has revealed.
The licences were issued despite the British government’s September 2024 suspension of such exports over fears they would be used in Israel’s genocide in Gaza. CAAT’s analysis of UK export licensing statistics for the fourth quarter of 2025, published on 30 April, found that the UK issued export licences worth £20.5 ($27.9) million in total for transfers to Israel during the quarter.
The most significant of the new approvals was an Open Individual Export Licence for “components and technology for targeting equipment” — a category of export the UK government had publicly suspended eight months earlier, citing the risk of use in Israel’s genocide in Gaza. When questioned about the licence, DBT replied that it “covers items for re-export from Israel, and the Government of Israel is not an end-user or ultimate end-user. This is consistent with our suspension”.
CAAT said the defence rested on a legal fiction. The watchdog warned of the risk of “auto-diversion”: a process by which Israel can fail to retransfer military equipment to its declared destination and instead assign it to an unauthorised end-user, such as the Israel Defence Forces (IDF), for use in Gaza.
Such a move would constitute a breach of the export licence and a potential criminal offence under UK law. British ministers have previously said they would revoke any licence should “any evidence” emerge that exported equipment had not reached its declared destination, but CAAT noted that the UK government makes no known efforts to verify what happens to its military exports after they leave Britain.
The watchdog’s concerns are not theoretical. In March, an investigation revealed that an Elbit-owned subsidiary in the UK had shipped dozens of drone components, including Watchkeeper engines, to Israel over an 18-month period.
Israel had failed to retransfer the equipment to Romania as required by the licence, citing force majeure arising from its assault on Gaza. The contract with Romania has still not been fulfilled. Elbit announced it would start delivering the drones only two days after Romania threatened to cancel the contract.
A second new licence covers components for military training aircraft, and related technology, for transfer to France, Greece, Israel and Italy — likely supplied by the US aerospace firm Moog for the M-346 Lead-In Fighter Trainer produced by Italy’s Leonardo.
The M-346 is used in every phase of advanced and pre-operational training for Israeli pilots before they fly combat missions in Gaza, Iran and Lebanon using F-16 and F-35 jets. Israel has caused massive devastation with F-35 jets across Gaza, Iran and Lebanon. Similar components shipped by Moog from the UK were recently seized by authorities in Belgium, who have since opened a criminal investigation.
CAAT’s Research Coordinator Sam Perlo-Freeman said the new licences exposed the limits of the British government’s stated policy.
“These new export licenses show just how willing the UK is to continue enabling Israel’s genocidal assaults, while staying within the technical rule of a vastly insufficient and ineffective policy towards IDF war crimes,” he said.
“The targeting equipment for which DBT granted a license, for transfer to and re-export by Israel, could easily be used in Gaza. Given Israel’s history of weapons diversion and illicit transfers, and outstanding questions about Elbit drone components failing to arrive in Romania, there remains a grave risk that Israel will auto-divert the targeting equipment to the IDF for use in Palestine.”
Perlo-Freeman explained that the British government was leaning on a system of declarations it has no power to enforce. “DBT is relying on end-user undertakings that hold no legal force in Israel, which the UK government does not check up on and cannot enforce. The exporter is technically in-the-clear, so long as it can’t be shown they knew the end-user undertaking was false.”
‘Operation Fauxios’: Axios, Israeli spy, and $2 billion oil scam to prop up Trump
Press TV – May 8, 2026
Unknown traders placed nearly $920 million in short positions on crude oil on May 6, just minutes before Axios published a report saying Washington and Tehran were nearing a deal to end their two-month war, according to data from Unusual Whales, a trading surveillance platform that monitors unusual market activity.
The Axios report, written by Barak Ravid—a journalist with close ties to Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and US President Donald Trump—said the one-page memorandum would end the war.
Ravid is a former member of Israel’s elite Unit 8200 intelligence corps. His reporting consistently relies on “unnamed US officials” and has been described as “basically representing the American voice”.
The concern extends beyond journalistic accuracy to potential market manipulation. Each Axios report has been preceded by massive, suspiciously timed trades betting on falling oil prices.
Axios has reported on five separate occasions within a 19-day span that a deal with Iran was “close” or “imminent” — yet no agreement has materialized.
Brent crude prices fell more than 10 percent following the report, from 108 to 97 per barrel, before recovering somewhat to 102 by market close.
Based on that price drop, the unidentified traders would have earned roughly 125 million in profits. The short positions were placed approximately 70 minutes before the Axios story was published, according to Unusual Whales, which shared details on social media platform X.
This is not the first time large bets have preceded major news on US-Iran negotiations. Similar massive positions were identified ahead of previous Axios reports on alleged progress in talks, including a $950 million short position on oil placed on April 8.
Crude prices fell 15 percent after that report. The White House issued an internal staff-wide email that same day warning employees against using confidential information to place trades.
Oil prices have soared since the US-Israeli aggression against Iran began on February 28, coinciding with Iran’s blockade of the Strait of Hormuz that typically facilitates about 20 percent of the world’s oil trade.
Iranian officials have pushed back against the Axios report.
“The Axios text is the Americans’ wish list rather than a reality,” Ebrahim Rezaei, spokesman for the Iranian parliament’s foreign policy and national security committee, said on social media.
“The Americans will not obtain through a failed war what they failed to gain in previous negotiations.”
Despite Tehran’s denial, Trump cited the Axios report on Wednesday to claim that the US and Iran had had “good talks over the last 24 hours” and expressed confidence that a deal would be reached soon.
Traders with privileged information have also used the prediction market platform Polymarket to profit from US foreign policy moves, according to a report by the Anti-Corruption Data Collective (ACDC).
The report found that 52 percent of “long-shot” wagers predicting military action on Polymarket were successful, compared with 25 percent of politics-related bets and 14 percent of all bets on the platform.
Donald Trump Jr., the president’s son, serves as an advisor to Polymarket, having taken the role in 2025. His firm has invested millions in the company.
The evidence suggests a recurring pattern: Axios publishes “deal imminent” reports citing unnamed US officials, Iranian officials publicly deny any agreement, oil prices temporarily fall, and unidentified traders profit from well-timed short positions, reflecting intentional coordination.
Iranian media has dubbed the pattern “Operation Fauxios” — a play on Axios’ name — suggesting coordinated efforts between the news outlet and unidentified traders to profit from market volatility.
Observers say false claims also serve to drive down oil prices, a key political objective for Trump who faces domestic pressure over high energy costs, offering political cover during an unpopular war.
What has Guterres supported in Gaza?
By Ramona Wadi | MEMO | May 7, 2026
In March this year, UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres had stated that the UN is “cooperating actively with structures created by the Board of Peace.” By the time Guterres made his statement, US Board of Peace High Representative for Gaza Nickolay Mladenov had already warned, in February this year, that Hamas bears the burden of Israel’s full resumption of genocide in Gaza if it fails to disarm.
In a letter that was quoted yesterday in Israeli media, Mladenov and senior US official Aryeh Lightstone warned the Palestinian technocratic government, “Failure by Hamas to accept the framework within a reasonable timeframe, as determined by the Board of Peace and after consultation with the parties, shall render such commitments null and void.”
Two days before Mladenov’s warning was made public, a senior military official said that it was inevitable that Israel would resume “fighting” in Gaza if Hamas refuses to disarm. Israel has in fact not stopped colonising Gaza through violence – what we are seeing now is a slower form of genocide in the aftermath of a very visible genocide which world leaders and diplomats preferred to watch rather than stop.
Mladenov is aware that Israel kept killing Palestinians in Gaza after the ceasefire came into effect, that more buildings were detonated, that the Yellow Line keeps expanding in Gaza besides already occupying more than half of its shrinking territory.
Therefore, the pretence of a before and after the ceasefire does not hold. It is merely a convenient veneer for the Board of Peace’s next rhetorical step that asserts its agreement with genocide.
Israel violated the October 2025 ceasefire multiple times, so in a way the letter is not a warning of novelty. However, the text of the October ceasefire does not stipulate that Hamas should disarm for the ceasefire to hold; that was a clause for the second phase of the ceasefire. The US Board of Peace is therefore saying that Israel is exempt from upholding its obligations stipulated in Phase One if Hamas does not agree to a clause from Phase Two.
In the entire Western narrative of Israel’s genocide in Gaza, Mladenov is not employing a new tactic when blaming Hamas for refusing to disarm. However, exploiting the ceasefire text, which was based on the resumption of humanitarian aid and the return of Israeli hostages, is insightful in terms of how institutions hold the power to manipulate the parameters of international law, accountability and impunity. The October 2025 ceasefire text, which was not dependent on Hamas disarming, can now be discarded simply because the focus is on Phase Two and diplomacy will not check the specific stipulations of Phase One.
Mladenov and Lightstone, therefore, are legitimising institutional complicity with genocide.
This is one clear admission in which a body supposedly tasked with rebuilding Gaza and its governance will not hold Israel accountable for continuing to commit genocide.
By stepping back, the spectator tactic has now been fully employed by Mladenov and the so-called Board of Peace.
When has genocide even been advocated for so smoothly among diplomats? Guterres should take note of what he and the UN have supported.
German arson case: Antisemitism commissioner’s inner circle now top suspects after police raids
Remix News | May 5, 2026
The investigation into the early 2026 firebombing of Brandenburg Antisemitism Commissioner Andreas Büttner’s home is nearing a conclusion, but the results have stunned the public.
In a dramatic reversal of the initial narrative, the Brandenburg State Criminal Police Office has executed a series of raids across Lower Saxony, Baden-Württemberg, and Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania targeting the commissioner’s own close associates.
While the case was initially treated as an Islamist or antisemitic hate crime, the German Public Prosecutor General’s Office now identifies two men from Büttner’s “own circle,” which belongs to the left, as the primary suspects, reveals Tagesspiegel in a new exclusive report.
Initially believed to be a pro-Palestinian terror arson attack
On the night of Jan. 4, 2026, a shed on Büttner’s Templin estate was incinerated, and a red Hamas triangle – a mark of the Palestinian terrorist (sic) group – was found defaced on his front door. The attack, which caused approximately €20,000 euros in damage, triggered a massive increase in the commissioner’s personal security.
However, the “antisemitic or Islamist motive” is now being questioned following several key investigative breakthroughs.
The first has to do with DNA evidence. Forensic teams reportedly matched DNA from Lukas S. to threatening letters sent to the Brandenburg State Parliament, which branded Büttner a “Zionist pig” and a “traitor,” and expressed a clear intent to “kill” him.
One letter addressed to Büttner contained a mysterious “gray substance” and “granular substance,” which prompted an emergency response by police specialists at the parliament’s mailroom.
The second point of evidence has to do with the specific arson attack. Police discovered by chance a smoldering fire 20 kilometers from the crime scene containing gloves and barbecue lighter fluid. When investigators connected them to the arson, the items were traced back to a purchase at a hardware store in Lower Saxony that involved a debit card belonging to one of the suspects, the same one who is a business partner of Büttner.
Suspects are two Germans with deep ties to left-wing causes and combating antisemitism
The suspects, identified as Daniel R. and Lucas S., are not strangers to the commissioner; they are his “friends and business partners,” according to Tagesspiegel.
All three men are linked through a “management consulting” firm established in 2023, where Büttner is the majority shareholder and Daniel R. serves as the managing director. Furthermore, the suspects are active in a non-profit initiative for “political education and commemorative work” for which Büttner is the “sole patron.”
Despite the violent nature of the charges — which include arson and the use of “symbols associated with unconstitutional and terrorist organizations” — the trio appeared to maintain an amicable relationship after the attack.
Reports indicate they met in Berlin and Potsdam and even attended a performance of “The Flying Dutchman” at the Leipzig Opera in February.
When confronted with the news that his business partners were under investigation, Andreas Büttner maintained his distance, stating: “I had—and still have—absolutely no knowledge of this matter. Naturally not.”
He also noted he is cooperating with police, noting, “The police are investigating. I cannot say anything about this. I have confidence in the police investigation.”
The revelation complicates the wave of international support Büttner received following the fire.
At the time, Israel’s Ambassador Ron Prosor condemned the act as terrorism, stating that the Hamas triangle represented attacks on those with different views “in Gaza just as in Brandenburg.”
Federal Antisemitism Commissioner Felix Klein similarly labeled the event a “direct attack on our democracy.”
The German Public Prosecutor continues to investigate, with more details of why the attack occurred potentially coming to light in the future.
Meanwhile, commentators are addressing the remarkable details of the case and the suspects allegedly behind the firebombing.
Jan Karon, a journalist and author, wrote on X:
“Daniel R. and Lucas S., who are suspected of carrying out the arson attack (complete with Hamas triangles) on the antisemitism commissioner Andreas Büttner, practically embody the epitome of the progressive NGO complex.
The two, as the text states citing a source, had “made a business model out of mediating funding to people and organizations.” The article reconstructs their activities: nationwide courses and projects, €98,000 in funding from the Federal Ministry for Family Affairs, the “German Engagement Award,” the fight against racism, and an explanatory channel on YouTube.
The two men posed in 2019 at the Chancellery next to Merkel—as young people “committed to democracy.”
This was followed by invitations to the EU Parliament, the Bundestag, and the Federal Press Ball. In 2020, they founded a foundation for educational work, from which a company later emerged that sought to commemorate the child victims of National Socialism (!) —and to this end collected donations to produce 5,000 pairs of fiberglass shoes (!!).
R. and S. also planned to rebuild the destroyed synagogue in Prenzlau with donations.
They are said to have pressed the antisemitism commissioner Büttner to “fly to Israel” with Federal President Frank-Walter Steinmeier. Büttner founded a company with them that is dedicated to that (federally funded) fight.
One is left speechless.
Previous hate hoaxes
If proven that this was indeed a staged hate attack, it would not be the first time that a hate hoax occurred in recent years.
In 2022, famed German-Israeli musician Gil Ofarim was accused of lying about an alleged antisemitic incident inside the Leipzig Hotel Westin after video footage and other evidence led police to doubt his claims, but not before the case sparked national headlines in Germany.
According to the singer Ofarim, who was born in Israel but found success as a musician in Germany, an employee at the check-in counter asked him to remove his Star of David chain from sight if he wanted to be checked in. Ofarim made the claim in an emotional Instagram video entitled “Antisemitism in Germany 2021,” where he ended his story by holding up the necklace chain in question. The viral video sparked protests involving thousands of people in front of the hotel, and the claims were spread widely by antisemitism watchdogs.
After Ofarim’s claims, video footage obtained by Bild newspaper is calling into question Ofarim’s version of events, leading the case to fall apart and for the hotel employee to be completely cleared of wrongdoing after an independent investigation.
In a commentary piece on Germany’s Junge Freiheit, the Ofarim case was presented as a clear example of previous hate hoaxes that have plagued Germany in the past. Like many other cases later identified as false or misleading, the Ofarim antisemitism claim was widely reported in world media outlets, including the Guardian and CNN.
Junge Freiheit pointed to the Sebnitz case, where a mob of skinheads supposedly drowned a toddler, only for it to turn into one of the biggest debacles in Germany’s modern history. There is also the case of Mittweide, where nobody had actually carved a swastika on her forehead (police later proved she did it herself). In Müglen, foreigners were not hunted on the streets, and in Chemnitz, the same accusation that sparked a nationwide outcry has never been proven. And in Dresden, an Eritrean asylum seeker was not murdered by right-wing extremists from the Pegida movement, but killed by a fellow Eritrean.
Rubio ‘lying’: Cuba slams denial of US blockade; claims debunked
Al Mayadeen | May 6, 2026
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio rejected accusations that Washington is enforcing an oil blockade on Cuba, instead attributing the island’s deepening energy crisis and blackouts to the end of Venezuelan subsidized oil shipments and internal mismanagement.
Speaking publicly, Rubio said, “Here’s what’s happening with Cuba, okay? Cuba used to get free oil from Venezuela. They would take like 60% of that oil and resell it for cash. It wouldn’t even go to benefit the people. So the only blockade that’s happened is … the Venezuelans have decided we’re not giving you free oil anymore.”
Rubio further criticized Cuba’s leadership, stating, “The reason that I can’t fix it is not just because they’re communist. That’s bad enough, but they’re incompetent communists.”
His remarks come amid a worsening fuel and electricity crisis on the island, where oil imports have fallen sharply. Venezuela had previously supplied Cuba with subsidized crude, reportedly up to 100,000 barrels per month, under a barter system in which Havana sent medical personnel in return. That arrangement collapsed following the US-backed ouster of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in early 2026, cutting off a key energy lifeline.
Rubio’s comments also contrast with reports and assessments pointing to US sanctions and restrictions as a major factor in the island’s energy shortages, with measures targeting entities involved in supplying fuel to Cuba.
Trump admin statements casually doing backflips
Additionally, all the way back in January, the Trump administration was considering new measures aimed at forcing political change in Cuba, including the possibility of a “full blockade on oil imports to the island,” three sources familiar with the discussions told Politico.
US President Donald Trump signed an executive order threatening tariffs on countries exporting fuel to Cuba, prompting suppliers such as Mexico to halt shipments. Reports indicate that only one tanker has reached Cuba in the past four months, contributing to widespread blackouts, school closures, and growing public protests.
According to people familiar with the matter and cited by Politico, Marco Rubio at the time even backed this decision, being a vehement critic of the Cuban government.
Cuba slams US denial as ‘lies’
Cuba’s Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez dismissed Rubio’s current statements as “lying”, accusing Washington of intensifying pressure on the island as it faces historically low oil imports and a worsening humanitarian situation.
“He has simply chosen to lie. He contradicts the President and the White House spokeswoman,” Rodriguez wrote on X.
Citing the US president’s January 29, 2026, Executive Order that threatened to impose tariffs on any country exporting fuels to Cuba, he said, “It is impossible to hide the truth.”
“After four months, only one fuel tanker has arrived in Cuba. All our suppliers are being intimidated and threatened in violation of the rules that govern free trade and freedom of navigation.”
“The new Executive Order issued on May 1st establishes secondary sanctions in the field of energy. The Secretary knows only too well the harm and hardships that is being caused by the criminal oil siege that he himself suggested the President to impose on the Cuban people.”
It is worth observing that back in 2024, the United Nations General Assembly had, for the 32nd consecutive year, voted overwhelmingly in favor of a resolution calling for an end to the US blockade on Cuba, with only the US and “Israel” opposing the measure.
Only the US and “Israel” have been so insistent for years on this blockade, while framing it as something that the Cubans themselves have been asking for, and then turn around and blame Venezuela for it.
Trump threatens immediate US takeover of Cuba
Only a few days ago, Trump stated that Washington could move to take control of Cuba “almost immediately”, in remarks signaling a sharp escalation in the long-standing hostile US rhetoric toward the Caribbean island.
Speaking at an event in Florida last Friday, Trump said, “Cuba, which we will be taking over almost immediately,” adding that “Cubans got problems.”
The US president outlined a potential show of force involving a US aircraft carrier, indicating that such a move could compel Cuba to submit without direct conflict.
“On the way back from Iran, we’ll have one of our big, maybe the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier, the biggest in the world, we’ll have that come in, stop about 100 yards offshore,” he said.
He further claimed that the presence of such military force alone would force a rapid capitulation. “They’ll say ‘thank you very much. We give up,’” Trump added, concluding: “I like to finish a job.”
The reference to the USS Abraham Lincoln highlights Washington’s reliance on naval power projection as a central tool in its strategy.
Earlier in April, sources told USA Today that US defense officials were moving forward with plans to potentially conduct military operations against Cuba.
Trump’s Self-Serving Narrative Crashes Against the Reality of War
By Ted Snider | The Libertarian Institute | May 6, 2026
Within a few days at the end of March, Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky made two claims. He revealed that Russia had given him two months to withdraw all forces from areas still under its control in Donbas, or Russia would take it by force and change the terms of the settlement. Russia said that was not true.
And he said that the United States had conditioned security guarantees on Ukraine withdrawing from Donbas. “That’s a lie,” U.S. Secretary of State and National Security Advisor Marco Rubio said. “I don’t know why he says these things; they’re just not true.”
That Zelensky was constructing a false narrative about the war does not bother him because he is not trying to reflect reality; he is trying to reshape reality. With Russia’s military acquisition of Donbas appearing increasingly inevitable, American peace plans conceding it, and Ukrainians increasingly accepting it, Zelensky’s survival depends on crafting a narrative in which he did not betray the nationalists or his promise but had no choice but to surrender Donbas because he was forced by both his enemy and his supporter.
In another war, in another part of the world, another president is doing the same thing. All Iran has to do to end the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, President Donald Trump said last week is to “cry uncle, that’s all they have to do. Just say, ‘We give up.” It doesn’t matter if they really give up: they just have to say it.
Trump’s team is crafting a narrative that provides them with an off ramp to a war they have lost that tells the story of a war they have won.
The U.S. had no legal reason for its war on Iran, and what publicly stated reasons they had were forever shifting. But there seem to have been four key goals:
- Regime change.
- Removing Iran’s ballistic missile program.
- Severing Iran from its forward deterrent network, or proxies.
- Zero enrichment of uranium.
Trump has repeatedly identified regime change as a key goal of the war. He has called for it, and he has explicitly said it is “time to look for new leadership in Iran.” The promised change in regime did not occur. The narrative response to that reality has taken two forms. First, Trump simply rewrote history and said regime change was never the goal: “regime change was not our goal. We never said regime change.”
Second, Trump and his team simply continuously repeated that there had been regime change when there had not, as if saying it made it so. Aboard Air Force One on March 30, Trump told reporters that “We’ve had regime change.” One week later, he posted that “we have Complete and Total Regime Change.”
There has been no regime change. Following the assassination of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the regime underwent a seamless transition to his son, Mojtaba Khamenei, though he was specifically declared unacceptable by Trump. That is the opposite of regime change; that is regime continuity. Mojtaba Khamenei is a hardliner who was a close advisor to his father. He has been a core part of the regime, and his selection represents a preservation of, and not a change from, the regime.
Other new leaders who replaced the old, assassinated leaders, also represent regime continuity and survival. Ali Larijani’s replacement as secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, Mohammad Bagher Zolghadr, is a former commander of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps who has served in government since the days of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He is very close to Mojtaba Khamenei and has always been aligned with the hardliners in the political establishment.
When you spend $25-35 billion, destroy a country, kill thousands of people, devastate the environment, damage the United Nations, discredit international law and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and irreparably wound relations with your European and NATO allies to bring about a regime change that never materialized, just say it did. You might remember another U.S. administration in another U.S. war, saying “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality.”
As part of his checklist of goals that have been accomplished by the war, Donald Trump has repeatedly included that Iran’s “missiles are just about used up or beaten.” Trump says Iran’s military has been “beaten and completely decimated.” Secretary of War Pete Hegseth says Iran’s ballistic missile program has been “functionally destroyed.” That’s not true.
Many of Iran’s missile stockpiles were protected deep underground and were untouched by American strikes. Some that were struck were actually dummy decoys. Many of the ballistic missile launchers that were hit were repaired and reactivated within hours. Hegseth now concedes that Iran is “digging out” its struck missiles and launchers. U.S. intelligence and the military assess that Iran still has at least 60% of its missile launchers, nearly half of its missiles, and 40% of its attack drones.
And they are very capable of hitting their targets and doing damage. U.S. bases in the region suffered a degree of damage thought unthinkable before the war and have been rendered uninhabitable. Radar systems, air defense systems, and aircraft were damaged and destroyed. And recent reporting reveals that the actual damage they sustained far exceeds what has been reported.
The reality falls far short of the narrative and calls into question, not just the claim that the U.S. has won this war, but its ability to win a future war against a real power, like China.
The Trump team’s narrative has consistently told a tale of Iran’s forward deterrent network of proxies being “crushed,” amputating Iran’s ability to reach into the region. Contrary to the narrative, the surprising reality is that Iran’s proxies and partners have survived and are far more resilient, capable and integrated than the United States believed. Hezbollah has launched sophisticated missiles that the U.S. believed they no longer possessed at a rate greater than they have ever launched before. Iraqi militias are launching drone strikes on U.S. bases in the region. The Houthis entered the war and launched several barrages of missiles, some carried out in coordination with Iranian missile strikes.
The primary goal of the war on Iran was the final death of Iran’s nuclear weapons program. “There will never be a deal unless they agree that there will never be nuclear weapons,” Trump said again last week.
That nuclear narrative is the central lie in the justification of the war. Iran has never pursued a nuclear weapon. Washington knows that. The 2022 U.S. Department of Defense Nuclear Posture Review concluded that “Iran does not today possess a nuclear weapon and we currently believe it is not pursuing one.” That assessment was repeated in the 2025 Annual Threat Assessment that clearly states that U.S. intelligence “continue[s] to assess Iran is not building a nuclear weapon.” As recently as March 18, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard told a Senate Intelligence Committee that since the June bombings, “there has been no efforts [sic]…to try to rebuild their enrichment capability.” All Iran has done is insist on their right—like so many other countries—as a signatory to the NPT to enrich uranium for civilian purposes. And that is all they have ever done.
Trump was handed a mechanism for ensuring Iran could never build a nuclear bomb in the form of the 2015 JCPOA nuclear agreement, which Iran was honoring and which was working. Trump was the author of the current problem because he illegally pulled out of the agreement.
There has been zero progress in negotiations toward forcing Iran to terminate its civilian enrichment program. As at the start of the war, the right to enrich continues to be an absolute red line for Iran.
Trump’s vocabulary alters the narrative. The most concerning 970 pounds of 60% highly enriched uranium is rendered insignificant by renaming it “nuclear dust.”
Trump’s narrative not only renders the highly enriched uranium insignificant, it renders it irrelevant. He doesn’t really care about it because it is “so far underground,” the Americans can watch it, and the Iranians can’t get it. “I had one goal,” Trump said, “They will have no nuclear weapon, and that goal has been attained.”
At times, Iran’s enriched uranium is insignificant, at times it is irrelevant, and at other times it is resolved. According to Trump’s narrative, Iran has already agreed to hand over all of its enriched uranium. “They’ve agreed to give us back the nuclear dust,” he said. The reality, of course, is that, though Trump says it, Iran has agreed to no such thing.
Iran still possesses a quantity of its enriched uranium. More importantly, it still possesses advanced scientific knowledge of how to enrich uranium and the legal right to do so. Most importantly, despite starving sanctions and the most lethal bombing the U.S. can deliver, protecting its right to enrich uranium for civilian purposes remains a redline that the U.S. has been unable to erase.
That is the reality. The rest is fiction: a narrative fiction crafted by Trump’s team to give them a way to tell an angry and betrayed public that they won the war when none of the goals—and all of the nightmares—have been achieved.
Though it may have cost $40-50 billion and used up half of its critical munitions, it is not a war but an “excursion.” Aspects of operation “Epic Fury” are rebranded for a public that is no longer buying it as “Project Freedom.”
And in an act of outrageous sophistry, it turns out that none of this matters because there isn’t a war. Seeking to circumvent the demand of the War Powers Resolution to receive permission from Congress to wage war after sixty days of troops being deployed, On May 1, Trump notified Congress that “hostilities” against Iran “have terminated.” Erase Trump’s threats, and the ships, aircraft and tens of thousand of troops in the region. Erase the fact that the U.S. blockade of the Strait of Hormuz is an act of war under international law and that the U.S. fired on an Iranian flagged ship only days ago. Erase that the day before, Trump was briefed by CENTCOM on new plans for potential military action against Iran and that, days later, U.S. forces sank seven Iranian boats.
This is reality. But the reality is erased by a narrative fiction crafted by the Trump team in which the war is over because they define it as over. So, none of this matters any longer because the war is over.
This article was originally delivered as a speech at the West Suburban Peace Coalition Educational Forum on May 4, 2026.
Hezbollah denies activity in Syria amid persistent and false claims
Al Mayadeen | May 5, 2026
Hezbollah’s Media Relations categorically denied the false accusations issued by the Syrian Interior Ministry, which claimed to have dismantled a “Hezbollah-affiliated cell” that was planning to carry out security operations inside Syrian territory.
In a statement issued on Tuesday, Hezbollah noted the repeated accusations issued by the Syrian government despite the resistance’s consistent assertions that it maintains no activity in Syria.
It further said that the repetition of such allegations “raises serious questions and confirms that there are those seeking to ignite tension and discord between the Syrian and Lebanese peoples.”
Consequently, Hezbollah said it wishes only well for Syria and its people, and that any threat to Syria’s security would also constitute a threat to Lebanon’s security. It also reiterated that it never sought and would never seek to destabilize the security of any state, stressing that its confrontation remains against the Israeli entity and its expansionist project.
“Hezbollah has been and will remain in a defensive position in confronting the Zionist enemy and its expansionist projects, an enemy of Lebanon and Syria that occupies their lands and covets their resources and the wealth of their peoples,” the statement concluded.
Hezbollah urges vigilance
Several statements have been issued by Syria’s transitional leadership accusing Hezbollah of operating inside its territories, which have been consistently rejected. This is also a trend that stretches beyond Syria, with recent fabricated allegations coming out of Bahrain and Kuwait.
Hezbollah has warned against such narratives, urging the countries to remain vigilant in the face of what appears to be a foreign plot to ignite tensions between Arab nations and the Axis of Resistance.
Israeli telecom networks used for mass surveillance across countries
Al Mayadeen | May 4, 2026
A probe by the digital research group Citizen Lab has uncovered that telecommunications infrastructure owned by Israeli companies has been weaponized to track citizens in more than 10 countries over the past three years, exploiting decades-old network protocols and modern 5G systems to transform them into sophisticated tracking devices.
According to a report published by the Israeli news outlet Haaretz, the investigation revealed that infrastructure ranging from legacy networks built in the 1970s to the latest 5G systems has been repurposed into surveillance tools using advanced spyware programs. Since November 2022, over 15,700 attempts to pinpoint phone locations have been detected across numerous countries, including Thailand, South Africa, Norway, Bangladesh and Malaysia, all routed through the networks of “Israel”-based telecommunications firms.
The findings raise serious questions about “Israel’s” role in the global surveillance industry, as the very infrastructure designed to connect people has been turned into a mechanism for tracking them without their knowledge or consent.
Internal documents cited by Haaretz revealed that Verint, the parent company of Cognyte, sold an SS7-based location tracking system called SkyLock to a government client in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
The SS7 protocol, originally developed to route calls and texts, support international roaming, and enable interoperability between mobile operators, has been systematically exploited for surveillance purposes.
The investigation also found that Fink, a Swiss telecommunications company, enabled Israeli surveillance firms such as Rayzone to impersonate legitimate cellular carriers and connect to older mobile networks. This allowed the firms to track users worldwide by abusing the SS7 signaling protocol.
The exploitation was not limited to legacy systems. Next-generation Diameter protocols, which manage 4G and 5G networks, were also compromised, according to the findings. One particularly notable method identified was SIMjacking, where a hidden text message sent to a target device forces the SIM card to reveal its location without the user ever seeing the message.
The phone-tracking operations were carried out through the networks of Israeli telecom companies 019Mobile and Partner Communications. 019Mobile responded by stating that it is a virtual operator and that its identity may have been impersonated, denying any involvement in tracking activities.
No immediate responses were received from Fink, Partner Communications, Exelera Telecom, Cognyte, or Verint.
The investigation exposes a disturbing reality: Israeli telecommunications technology, sold and deployed around the world, is not merely passive infrastructure but has been deliberately weaponized for mass surveillance.
The involvement of major Israeli firms in selling tracking systems to authoritarian governments, and the exploitation of global telecom networks by Israeli surveillance companies, points to a systematic pattern rather than isolated incidents.
As the US-Israeli war on Iran continues to dominate headlines, the international community has once again turned a blind eye to “Israel’s” role as a global leader in surveillance and cyber-weapons. From Pegasus spyware to SS7 exploits, Israeli technology has been used to track journalists, activists, and ordinary citizens across multiple continents.
US claim of sinking Iranian boats ‘a lie’, senior military official tells IRIB
Press TV – May 4, 2026
A senior Iranian military official has rejected a claim by the United States military that it has sunk several Iranian boats as part of an attempt to open the Strait of Hormuz, the IRIB News reports.
The statement by the unidentified commander was cited in a Monday report by the IRIB News, where the official reacted to comments by the US Central Command (CENTCOM) about an alleged confrontation between Iranian and US naval forces in regional waters earlier in the day.
“The US claim regarding the sinking of a number of Iranian combat boats is a lie,” said the commander.
Head of CENTCOM Admiral Brad Cooper said earlier on Monday that the US military had destroyed six Iranian small boats and intercepted missiles and drones fired at US warships, as he acknowledged that the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) had acted to stop Washington’s attempts to break Iran’s control over the Strait of Hormuz.
That came after US President Donald Trump announced he had ordered the US military to begin an operation to break Iran’s control over the Strait and allow commercial ships to pass through, after more than two months of being stranded in regional waters because of the US-Israeli aggression against Iran.
The IRGC warned in response that any attempt by US military or commercial vessels to pass through the Strait of Hormuz without coordination with Iranian authorities would be met with swift and decisive action.
Iran has controlled the Strait since the early days of the US-Israeli aggression that began in late February, allowing only ships that are deemed non-hostile and that observe security protocols announced by the Iranian military to transit the waterway.
The control has left nearly 3,000 ships and some 20,000 sailors stranded on both sides of the Strait, while causing a major surge in international oil prices.
The IRIB also quoted the Iranian military official as denying reports that Iran had attacked targets in the United Arab Emirates, saying Tehran had no such plans.
That came after UAE authorities said they had intercepted missiles fired at the Persian Gulf country while failing to stop drones exploding at an oil site.
“STAGED”: Conspiracy Theories Are Everywhere!
We can’t imagine why…
By Kevin Barrett | May 3, 2026
On April 23, the 410th death anniversary of William “All the World’s a Stage” Shakespeare (and his trusty Hispanic sidekick Cervantes) CNN published a thought piece entitled “How Would an Assassination Attempt Be Staged?” Two days later, on April 25, somebody staged yet another Trump assassination attempt, this time at the White House Correspondents Dinner at the Washington, DC Hilton.
According to the official narrative, the Hilton shooting was staged by a lone producer, director, casting director, lead actor, and stuntman (it was a dangerous scene) named Cole Tomas Allen. We are told, and video seems to confirm, that Allen descended a back stairway from his hotel room, sprinted past a security checkpoint, fired a shot which struck a Secret Service officer’s bulletproof vest, evaded return fire, tripped on a magnetometer box and fell to the ground, and was jumped on by cops, never having gained access to the actual ballroom where the event was taking place. Allen left a brief manifesto calling himself a “friendly federal assassin” who was “no longer willing to permit a pedophile, rapist, and traitor to coat my hands with his crimes.”
Surrounding the event were some odd coincidences. As I wrote the morning after the shooting:
Trump’s press secretary, Karoline “Machine Gun Lips” Leavitt, predicted last night’s shooting two hours before it happened: “There will be some shots fired tonight!”… Fox News reporter Aishah Hasine was in the midst of describing Leavitt’s husband Nicholas Riccio half-bragging half-warning her of what was about to go down, when suddenly and for no apparent reason (beyond the obvious one) Fox cut off the feed…
Weird Israeli connections also surfaced, as is par for the course with these kinds of events, including:
The patsy’s social media profile featuring a picture of him wearing an IDF sweatshirt; the patsy’s name being allegedly researched in Israel less than 24 hours before the attack; and the shooting erupting at the exact moment that an Israeli magician was terrifying Melania by exposing private information she had thought was secret.
If powerful insiders staged the event, perhaps using Allen as a mind-controlled patsy, what might have been their motive or motives? Social media users argued that the shooting greased the skids for Trump’s secure White House ballroom, which had been facing legal and political challenges. The Guardian noted: “Trump’s quick pivot to claiming that the shooting incident confirms the need for a more secure ballroom at the White House, and rightwing pundits’ near-uniformity in messaging along the same lines in the immediate response, heightened the conspiracy framing.”
The Israeli connections suggested another possible motive: reminding Trump just who were the “magicians” who could stage assassination events, and who held terrifying secrets that could ruin his and Melania’s lives. The Guardian reported what many believe: “Israel is blackmailing him for untold reasons, perhaps related to the Jeffrey Epstein files, and dragging the US into war in Iran.”
The Guardian’s phrasing subtly injects confusion where none is necessary. Blackmailing Trump for untold reasons? Back when it was Russia being accused of blackmailing and controlling Trump, everyone knew the reasons why a foreign state would want to blackmail and control a US president. Is the Guardian pretending that it can’t even imagine why Israel would want to blackmail Trump? Unless, of course, they were using untold in the sense of “a quantity so huge that it cannot be measured, counted, or fully described.” Could the author, Rachel Leingang, be hinting at the obvious fact that Israel would have countless reasons to want to control the US president? Did she sneak that one past her editors?
Perhaps those “untold’ reasons, Leingang tells us, might be “related to the Jeffrey Epstein files, and dragging the US into war in Iran.” Is Leingang pretending to be too stupid to understand what she is saying, in a clumsy effort to avoid responsibility for unambiguously and explicitly conveying what everyone knows or strongly suspects to be true? The moral: If you write for mainstream media, never offer a clear, straightforward summary of what “conspiracy theorists” believe, because it might sound reasonable and convincing. Instead, muck it up a bit, add some confusion, and give the reader the impression that it’s the “conspiracy theorists” who are confused.
CNN’s “How Would an Assassination Attempt Be Staged?”, published 48 hours before the latest shooting, exhibits a similar technique of seemingly deliberate obfuscation. Noting that the hashtag #staged has been picking up momentum, reflecting ever-growing skepticism about the July 13, 2024 “Trump shooting” in Butler, Pennsylvania, the author, Harmeet Kaur, offers an overly complicated mishmash of reasons why staging a political PR event would be…overly complicated. And that, of course, is why nobody would ever do such a thing.
Kaur begins by pretending that she doesn’t understand what the term staged could possibly mean in the context of a political PR stunt. After a detour through the etymology and philology of the term staged (“from the Old French ‘estage,’ meaning ‘dwelling,’ and its verb form ‘estager,’ meaning ‘to stay somewhere.’ ‘Estage’ is also related to the Latin ‘stagium’”) Kaur notes that by the 1930s staged was being used to describe faked crime scenes. Such doings, she suggests, are rare and exotic. The plain, obvious fact that almost any serious crime, committed by criminals with above-room-temperature IQs, will involve “staged” presentations of evidence and/or the lack thereof, including such simple “staging” as wiping away fingerprints or wearing ski masks, apparently doesn’t register with her.
Nor does Kaur note that a certain ethnoreligious group, whose genocidal crime headquarters, I mean “state,” is the number one suspect in the Butler and Charlie Kirk shootings as well as countless other state crimes against democracy, has a well-documented history of staging crimes for political gain. As you watch the following half-hour video compilation of mainstream media reports of Jews hoaxing “antisemitic” attacks on themselves, keep two things in mind: 1) This is just the tip of an enormous iceberg; and 2) That iceberg of thousands of similar cases represents just the dumb and/or unlucky ones who got caught.
The US clearance rate for ordinary crimes, mostly committed by impulsive, none-too-bright criminals, is less than 45% for violent crimes and less than 15% for property crimes. Miscreants who plot their crimes carefully—as high-level political criminals do—are obviously going to get away with the vast majority of their misdeeds, even before we factor in the likelihood that they have corrupted law enforcement and the media. What is surprising about the Butler, Pennsylvania “Trump shooting” is not that they managed to pull off such a complex and difficult operation, but that they did it so casually and clumsily, not even bothering to create even the slightest wound on Trump’s ear.
Roughly two and a half hours after he was taken off the rally stage, Trump says in a Truth Social statement, “I was shot with a bullet that pierced the upper part of my right ear. I knew immediately that something was wrong in that I heard a whizzing sound, shots, and immediately felt the bullet ripping through the skin. Much bleeding took place…” Yet not one shred of convincing evidence, not least of all the extensive medical evidence that would exist had Trump actually taken a bullet to the ear, supports the claim that Trump’s ear was wounded in any way. Nor does he appear to have suffered the hearing damage that might have been expected.
Whoever was in charge of the Secret Service detail must have known that Trump was in no danger. Less than a minute after the volley of shots, Trump was allowed to stand up and shake his fist in front of the flag in an obviously pre-planned photo op. Apologists for the Secret Service conspirators claim that the determination “shooter is down” reassured them that it was perfectly okay to allow Trump to stand up and expose himself to more potential bullets. But had the event been authentic, how could they have possibly known that there was only one shooter?
Kaur’s CNN article avoids even entertaining such questions. Like Leingang’s Guardian article on the Hilton shooting, it offers an ad hominem argument against the “conspiracy theorist” by representing him as a deliberately discombobulated straw man, whose supposed incoherent, confusing arguments are actually CNN’s own deliberately distorted rendering.
Kaur hauls out Spencer Parsons, “an associate professor of media production at Northwestern University and an independent filmmaker who has staged shooting scenes,” to claim that staging the Butler “Trump shooting” scene would be so difficult as to be essentially impossible. Parsons claims that a “staged shooting scene” requires vast numbers of people: “the director, camera operators, camera technicians, lighting technicians, sound engineers, special effects coordinators, safety coordinators and so on.”
Talk about misdirection! Why would ANY such people be necessary for a high-level criminal operation involving a deceptive shooting?! Were camera, lighting, sound, special effects, and safety technicians necessary when hypnotized patsy Sirhan Sirhan fired a volley of random shots, distracting onlookers while the professional killer pressed a revolver to the back of Robert F. Kennedy’s head and pulled the trigger, leaving powder burns on his skull?
Kaur tells us that setting up a patsy to take the blame for a shooting is impossibly complicated:
Then there’s the issue of the fake assassin himself. The task would require an extraordinarily skilled marksman, someone who could aim close enough to the candidate’s head to make it look like he’d intended to hit him without actually hitting him. (Acquaintances of the gunman who tried to shoot Trump told reporters that he was rejected from his high school’s rifle club because he was such a bad shot.)
And to make the situation seem believable, the Secret Service would have to kill the designated shooter after he opened fire, an outcome the person in the gun-wielding role either wouldn’t anticipate or would have to be willing to accept.
Kaur again sets up a preposterous straw man: A conspiracy theorist stupid enough to think Thomas Crooks fired shots that came anywhere near Trump’s head, and that Crooks was a conscious, witting, fully-informed participant. But nobody thinks that! What skeptics actually think is that Crooks, like most other patsies going back to Sirhan, was probably mind-controlled. (For an introductory discussion including a demonstration of MK-Ultra style hypnotic mind-control, check out Jesse Ventura’s “Mind-Controlled Assassins and Programmed Killers.”) Crooks, like Oswald, was “just a patsy” who didn’t shoot anyone. The actual shooting, which did not and could not have caused a bullet to come anywhere near Trump’s head, but which likely did strike three onlookers, killing one of them, was fired from the building behind and to the left of the one that hypnotized patsy Crooks had climbed onto. For details, check out my interview with filmmaker John Hankey, and watch his film below.
Kaur then implies that it would have been too difficult or impossible for Trump to use a squib to create the fake blood he smeared on his face like warpaint for the photo op:
The blood would be another consideration, Parsons says. Film crews simulate gunshot wounds via squibs, small explosive devices that spout fake blood when detonated — some conspiracy theories surrounding Trump’s assassination attempt claimed that he used a squib because the blood on his face was supposedly only seen after he raised his hand to his cheek, though researcher Katherine FitzGerald noted at the time that the first appearance of blood was not clear from the videos.
Another technique for staging bloodshed might involve the candidate superficially wounding himself with a small razor blade, like professional wrestlers do, but that also presents challenges…
Wait a minute! What does Kaur mean, also presents challenges?! The first paragraph quoted above fails to present the slightest argument or evidence that Trump or a Secret Service confederate would have faced the slightest “challenge” in using a squib to produce the fake blood. The word also is a lie. Kaur hopes the careless reader will gloss over it.
Having refuted nothing while flailing about with straw men, Kaur concludes:
Given all of this, Parsons finds the idea that an assassination attempt of this scale could be “staged” to be “tremendously unlikely.” “This is just astronomically difficult to stage,” he adds. “The whole thing, from a filmmaking perspective, seems to be just immensely, immensely difficult and really based on a lot of chance.”
What would be so hard about putting an MK-Ultraed patsy on a rooftop, a professional sniper in a difficult-to-spot location where he could shoot a couple of bystanders, and giving Trump a blood squib after rehearsing “hit the deck, smear the blood, count to fifty, get up, shake your fist in front of the flag”? Sure, you and I couldn’t do it, but we don’t control the top of the federal command chain.
Setting up that scenario wouldn’t require precisely the same skill set that Parsons, the film-and-TV guy, enjoys. But if you think that people with “deceptive shooting” skill sets don’t exist, you must not know much about special forces, intelligence agencies, organized crime, and the rather large area where they overlap. That’s why someone like Joe Kent, the former Counterrorism chief who knows people with such skill sets, can easily see that incidents like the Butler and Charlie Kirk shootings are extremely suspicious, and point directly at the overlapping territory inhabited by Israel, Israeli-linked organized crime, and their assets in US military, intelligence, and police agencies… and, perhaps most importantly, the mainstream media that insists on obfuscating such matters.


