NATO courts screenwriters to embed alliance messaging in film, TV
Al-Mayadeen | May 3, 2026
NATO has been quietly holding closed-door meetings with film and television writers, directors, and producers across Europe and the United States, in what critics are denouncing as a coordinated effort to embed the military alliance’s messaging into mainstream entertainment.
According to The Guardian, the initiative has already spanned sessions in Los Angeles, Brussels, and Paris, with a fourth meeting planned for London next month, where NATO officials are set to meet with members of the Writers’ Guild of Great Britain (WGGB).
The meetings, held under Chatham House rules, meaning participants may use information discussed but are not permitted to identify other attendees, focus on what organizers describe as the “evolving security situation in Europe and beyond.”
A WGGB email reviewed by The Guardian indicated that three separate projects are already in development that were “inspired, at least in part,” by those conversations.
James Appathurai, a former NATO spokesperson now serving as the alliance’s deputy assistant secretary general for hybrid, cyber and new technology, is expected to attend the London session alongside other officials.
In language that alarmed many recipients, the invitation suggested that “even if something so simple,” as NATO’s core message of cooperation and collective security, “finds its way into a future story, that will be enough.”
‘Clearly propaganda’
NATO’s outreach has drawn sharp criticism from within the creative community. Irish screenwriter Alan O’Gorman, whose film Christy won best film at the 2026 Irish Film and Television Awards, called the initiative “outrageous” and “clearly propaganda,” telling The Guardian that many writers come from countries that have “suffered under wars that NATO has joined and propagated.”
O’Gorman said those invited were “pretty offended that art would be used in a way that was supporting war,” and framed the meetings as part of a broader effort to cultivate pro-NATO sentiment in light of fearmongering across European media about weakened defenses.
Screenwriter and producer Faisal A. Qureshi, who applied to attend one session before a scheduling conflict prevented him, raised more structural concerns. He warned that the “risk for any creative who dips into this unattributable world of intelligence or military briefings is that they can get seduced into thinking they now have some secret knowledge,” one that normalizes moral compromise in the name of the greater good.
Qureshi questioned whether writers given such privileged access would genuinely “challenge or interrogate” the information fed to them, or simply absorb it.
A pattern of cultural lobbying
The London meeting is not an isolated effort. In 2024, eight prominent Hollywood screenwriters, including a writer and executive producer on Friends and a producer on High Potential, were flown to NATO headquarters in Brussels, where they met then-Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg. The trip was organized by the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies.
The initiative also mirrors recommendations from the Centre for European Reform, which earlier this year called on governments to directly engage cultural figures, including screenwriters and producers, to build public support for rising defense budgets and “better tell the story” of why military investment is necessary.
NATO, for its part, framed the sessions as demand-driven, saying the meetings “follow from interest expressed by members of the industry to know more about what NATO is about and how it works.”
CHD Scientist: CDC, FDA COVID Vaccine Safety Monitoring ‘Insulting, and Many People Are Injured’
By Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D. | The Defender | April 29, 2026
Federal health officials under the Biden administration failed abysmally to look for COVID-19 vaccine safety signals, according to congressional testimony delivered today by Children’s Health Defense (CHD) Senior Research Scientist Karl Jablonowski.
The government’s vaccine safety monitoring “over the past several years has been insulting, and many people are injured,” Jablonowski wrote in his written testimony.
History repeats itself if we don’t learn our lessons, Jablonowski warned.
“The COVID-19 pandemic created over 100 billionaires in the United States and over 1,000 billionaires around the world,” Jablonowski wrote. “Anything that profitable is going to repeat.”
Jablonowski, who holds a doctorate in biomedical and health informatics from the University of Washington’s School of Medicine, spoke as a witness at the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations hearing, “Unmasked: How Biden Health Officials Purposely Turned a Blind Eye Toward COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Signals.”
Hours before the hearing, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), subcommittee chair, released a report detailing how Biden-era federal health officials refused to use a state-of-the-art statistical tool for detecting COVID-19 vaccination signals in VAERS — even though they knew the tool they were using was too broken to pick up on safety signals, including sudden cardiac death.
Johnson’s report, which cited roughly 600 pages of emails, revealed that in 2021, officials with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) told an FDA researcher to “cease and desist” using the state-of-the-art tool to analyze COVID-19 vaccine injury reports in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).
Johnson obtained the emails after he subpoenaed the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in January 2025 for COVID-19 vaccine safety records and pandemic-related communications.
FDA was ‘blind’ to COVID vaccine injury reports in VAERS
In his testimony, Jablonowski detailed how each of the federal government’s three vaccine safety monitoring systems — VAERS, V-safe and Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) — had “pitfalls” and “failed” to adequately assess safety issues with the COVID-19 vaccine and other vaccines.
The failures of vaccine safety monitoring “can be, and were, catastrophic,” he said.
For instance, the FDA insisted on monitoring COVID-19 vaccine reports using a method that it knew didn’t work. The FDA knew the method was likely to give inaccurate results if similar vaccines — such as the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines — were included in the dataset. This is called masking.
“The FDA was completely blind to COVID-19 vaccine adverse events,” Jablonowski wrote. He said the FDA could have used an improved statistical method accounting for masking.
A 2022 peer-reviewed paper in Drug Safety showed that the improved method detected roughly 25 statistically significant COVID-19 vaccine safety signals — including sudden cardiac death, Bell’s palsy and pulmonary infarction — that the FDA’s older method missed.
In an earlier interview with The Defender, Jablonowski explained why it was so harmful for the FDA to continue using the older method:
“Imagine a night watchman has to find something on the ground. But instead of holding a flashlight, he is wearing sunglasses. In the morning, he says he didn’t find anything. That’s true, but it’s because he was using a tool that impeded his ability to see.”
As of March 27, 1,675,590 adverse events were reported to VAERS following COVID-19 vaccination, according to OpenVAERS. That number includes over 39,077 reports of death, 29,200 reports of myocarditis or pericarditis, and 18,009 reports of Bell’s palsy.
A national survey conducted in November 2025 found that roughly 1 in 10 U.S. adults who received the COVID-19 vaccine experienced “major” side effects.
V-safe was designed to collect ‘inconsequential’ data
Jablonowski told lawmakers that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) COVID-19 vaccine safety monitoring tool, V-safe, was designed to collect only “inconsequential” information that no one really cares about.
The V-safe app invited COVID-19 vaccine recipients to check off boxes to indicate what, if any, side effects they experienced after getting the shot.
However, the box options were for common short-term vaccine side effects that most people would consider “inconsequential,” such as chills, headache, joint pain, muscle or body aches, fatigue or tiredness, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain or rash.
If a person experienced a more serious problem, they had to manually type it into the “other” text field, Jablonowski noted. He said:
“It is with horror that we find 366 individuals typed ‘myocarditis’ in the ‘other’ free-text field, a condition requiring a medical diagnosis. The horror is amplified by the nearly 50,000 registrants who typed ‘chest pain’ into the ‘other’ free-text field.”
Vaccine Safety Datalink is off-limits to independent researchers
Jablonowski also detailed how VSD, a collaborative database of patient information from 13 integrated healthcare organizations covering over 15.5 million people, also fails the public.
VSD data can ostensibly be used to detect vaccine safety issues in near-real time, Jablonowski said.
The problem is that only a small handful of scientists are ever allowed to look at the data. Jablonowski said:
“This many million-dollar taxpayer funded resource is not available to any scientist outside of the 13 Managed Care Organizations (MCO) or the federal government without independent IRB [independent review board] applications approved by all 13 MCOs, an estimated $250,000 per project.”
In other words, independent researchers are realistically barred from analyzing the data. “Transparency is simply unattainable,” Jablonowski said.
Watch Jablonowski’s opening statement here.
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.
COVID Conniving Receives First Federal Indictment
By Jim Bovard | The Libertarian Institute | May 1, 2026
David Morens, a former top advisor to COVID Czar Tony Fauci was indicted this week and “charged with conspiracy against the United States; destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in federal investigations; concealment, removal, or mutilation of records; and aiding and abetting,” according to the Justice Department press release.
Morens allegedly helped top federal health officials cover up the potential role of federal grants in spurring the COVID pandemic. The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requires federal agencies to preserve and disclose federal records with some narrow exceptions. In early 2021, Morens emailed a colleague, “I learned from our foia lady here how to make emails disappear after i am foia’d but before the search starts, so i think we are all safe.”
Morens added, “Plus i deleted most of those earlier emails after sending them to gmail.” In a previous email, he assured his collaborators, “I have spoken to our FOIA folks” and “I should be safe from future FOIAs. Don’t ask how…”
Fauci doesn’t need to worry about getting indicted since President Joe Biden, on his last morning in office, pardoned any crimes that Fauci might have committed in the previous decade. Fauci justified COVID mandates because average citizens “don’t have the ability” to determine what is best for them. Congressional investigations revealed that Fauci was at the center of string-pulling to shirk responsibility on COVID.
Top federal officials scrambled to erase the federal role in bankrolling reckless gain of function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China, the most likely source of the COVID virus that killed more than seven million people around the world. That type of research seeks to genetically alter organisms to enable the spread of viruses into new species. As MIT professor Kevin Esvelt asked in 2021, “Why is anyone trying to teach the world how to make viruses that could kill millions of people?” The risks were compounded because the Wuhan Institute had a very poor safety rating. Two years earlier, the State Department confidentially “warned other federal agencies about safety issues at Wuhan labs studying bat COVID,” but the public disclosure of that alert was delayed until 2022—long after President Biden illegally mandated COVID vaccines for a hundred million American adults.
If COVID-19 had been initially recognized as the result of one of the biggest government boondoggles in history, it would have been far more difficult for American politicians and government scientists to pirouette as saviors as they seized sway over daily life. Instead, politicians, bureaucrats, and the media stampeded most of the American public with the notion that total submission to boneheaded decrees was their only hope to survive.
Attorney General Todd Blanche issued a statement on the indictment of Morens:
“These allegations represent a profound abuse of trust at a time when the American people needed it most—during the height of a global pandemic.”
Luckily, there haven’t been any “profound abuses of trust” since Trump took office again—at least according to his Justice Department. Blanche added, “Government officials have a solemn duty to provide honest, well-grounded facts and advice in service of the public interest — not to advance their own personal or ideological agendas.”
Be still my beating heart. Is this a subtle signal that the Trump team will disclose the other three million documents on the Epstein scandal?
FBI chief Kash Patel announced at the indictment press conference, “Circumventing records protocols with the intention of avoiding transparency is something that will not be tolerated by this FBI.”
Has the FBI turned over a new leaf or what? The FBI is one of the most notorious FOIA violators in Washington. When FOIA was first passed in 1966, FBI chief J. Edgar Hoover ordered his agency to totally refuse compliance with the law. A federal judge slammed the FBI in 2017 for claiming it needed seventeen years to fulfill a FOIA request on surveillance of antiwar activists in the 1960s. The FBI deleted the names of Clark Kent and Lois Lane from a letter that made reference to the famous Superman characters—because disclosing them in a FOIA response would “constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” Louis Freeh, director of the FBI from 1993-2001, repeatedly denounced my articles on Ruby Ridge; but when I filed a FOIA, the FBI claimed to have no records of those published letters to the editor. They sent their response to “Mr. Brovard” so maybe that helped them not find anything.
FBI FOIA trampling is par for the Bureau covering up its destruction of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. As federal judge Terry Doughty declared in a 2023 decision, “The FBI [acted] as doorman to a vast program of social media surveillance and censorship, encompassing agencies across the federal government—from the State Department to the Pentagon to the CIA.”
Morens may be the first federal official to ever be charged with a crime for actions to evade FOIA requests. Certainly, in more than fifty years, no federal FOIA official has ever been jailed for violating the law by refusing to disclose information. I’ve received so many BS responses from FOIA officers over the decades that I have lost count. When I filed a FOIA with the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative to see what information they had on me in their files, they replied in 2010, “We have no records on Kevin Bovard.” But I wasn’t asking about my cousin.
In 2015, I heard scuttlebutt that the Justice Department pressured USA Today to cease publishing my articles bashing Attorney General Eric Holder. I filed a FOIA to get the department’s official emails to my editors, but DOJ FOIA claimed it had nothing. I only got the damning emails after I filed a follow-up FOIA request and made a lucky guess on the exact day, hour and minute the emails were sent.
For too long, deceiving the American people has been treated like a victimless crime in Washington. If the Morens indictment can set a precedent leading to more such criminal investigations of bureaucratic cover-ups, that will be a booster shot for American democracy.
OPCW Forced To Pay Damages To Whistleblower Who Found Evidence Of False Flag In Syria
The Dissident | April 30, 2026
After years of a continued cover-up, the OPCW (Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons) has been forced by the International Labour Organization to pay damages to Dr. Brendan Whelan, an OPCW scientist who found evidence that the alleged chemical weapons attack in Douma, Syria, that took place in 2018, was a false flag.
Evidence Of A False Flag Uncovered
For context, in April of 2018, the U.S., UK, and France bombed the Syrian government in response to allegations that the former Assad regime used chemical weapons on civilians in the town of Douma.
The bombing took place before inspectors from the OPCW were able to visit the scene in Douma, and the evidence for the chemical attack was based on videos and photos put out by rebel groups, which showed dead civilians foaming at the mouth and two cylinders “found” on a roof of an apartment and on a bed.
However, once the OPCW team was able to inspect Douma, they found a significant body of evidence suggesting the attack was a false flag used to trigger Western intervention.
Ian Henderson, one of the inspectors at the scene, found that the two chlorine cylinders found at the scene were “manually placed rather than being delivered by aircraft”.
Going into further detail on this assessment, Henderson explained in his book released last year that , the damage of the cylinder found at location two did not match up with the damage to the roof at the location, signalling that the cylinder was placed in an already existing crater.
Above: What the cylinder looks like at the location (picture one) vs. what it should have looked like compared to the damage to the roof (picture 2)
“The smooth unsullied nose of the Location 2 cylinder remains the contrary smoking gun” Henderson notes in his book.
Similarly, Brendan Whelan found further evidence that the attack was a false flag.
No evidence of Sarin was found at the scene, but trace amounts of Chlorine were found, leading the official narrative to be that there was a chlorine gas attack at the scene.
However, Whelan spoke to NATO state based experts who ruled out the possibility that chlorine was used at the scene based on the videos and images put out.
The minutes from the meeting with toxicology experts reads that “the experts were conclusive in their statement that there was no correlation between symptoms and chlorine exposure. In particular, they stated that the onset of excessive frothing, as a result of pulmonary edema, observed in the photos and reported by witnesses would not occur in the short time period between the reported occurrence of the alleged incident and the time the videos were recorded (approximately 3-4 hours)”.
“The key ‘take away message’ from the meeting was that the symptoms observed were inconsistent with exposure to chlorine”, the minutes from the meeting added.
Brendan Whelan wrote a final interim report on the Douma case, which incorporated these findings.
The report written by Whelan writes that “Some of the signs and symptoms described by witnesses and noted in photos and video recordings taken by witnesses, of the alleged chemical victims, are not consistent with exposure to choking agents such as chlorine or phosgene” and adds that, “The FFM team is unable to provide satisfactory explanations for the relatively moderate damage to the cylinders allegedly dropped from an unknown height, compared to the destruction caused to the rebar-reinforced concrete roofs”.
A Cover-Up Of The Evidence
The officially released OPCW interim report, however, made no mention of the above evidence and instead implied that a chlorine attack took place in Douma by the Assad regime.
Instead of addressing the concerns of Henderson and Whelan, or providing a scientific answer to the evidence they uncovered, the OPCW resorted to smears in an attempt to discredit them- a campaign that ramped up after the initial work of the OPCW investigation was leaked and released on WikiLeaks.
Ian Henderson has previously given his account of the cover-up in his aforementioned book, which I previously detailed in a summary .
But now, after a long legal battle, the OPCW has been forced to pay damages to Brendan Whelan and to reverse it decision to bar him from ever working at the OPCW again by the UN court, the International Labour Organisation.
The court ruled, in reference to disciplinary measures brought by the OPCW against Brendan Whelan, that, “There was a requirement to observe due process at the disciplinary state prior to the imposition of any sanction upon to the complainant. According to the OPCW staff regulations and interim staff rules, no disciplinary proceeding may be instituted against a staff members unless he or she had been notified of the allegations against him or her, as well as of the right to seek assistance in his or her defence and be given a responsible opportunity to respond to those allegations. These steps were not taken before the director general issues disciplinary measures against the complaint to the extent that the complainant was not provided with the charges. He was also not provided with a copy of the full investigation report. The complaint right to due process before those measures were imposed upon him was violated.”
The court ruled that “The OPCW should pay the complainant 20,000 euros in moral damages” and that “the OPCW shall also pay the complainant 2000 euros in other costs”.
Now- after this vindication- Whelan has written an article at the Substack of journalist Aaron Mate, detailing what he went through at the OPCW.
Whelan revealed that the OPCW accused him of being behind the leak of the above engineering assessment “despite having left the Organisation some eight months before the leak”.
He added that, “I asked, repeatedly, to be told the precise allegations against me; a right not only enshrined in law but in the Organisation’s protocols. They refused to elaborate or specify any charges. At that point, I ended any collaboration with an investigation that was contemptuous of the requirements for due process. The investigation proceeded regardless.”
Despite the fact that “The official investigation report, for lack of evidence, had formally exonerated Inspectors A and B [Whelan and Henderson] (as my colleague and I were referred to respectively) from leaking the sensitive document” the OPCW basely claimed the two had “deliberately and in premeditated’ fashion enabled the leak by failing to comply with the ‘specified procedures for the handling of confidential information so as to create a clear risk of unauthorised disclosure.’”
He noted that this attack was done by the OPCW in order to get out of responding to the above engineering and toxicology assessments, writing:
It was no coincidence that I and my colleague—the only individuals investigated for the leak—had protested against bias and malpractice in the conduct of the OPCW’s Douma investigation, and, in my case, had been sidelined from the investigation for doing so. The OPCW had refused to address our concerns, which had since become a public controversy. The aim of the leak inquiry, therefore, was to attack our credibility without having to refute our scientific arguments.
For this, Whelan was “issued with a letter of censure and a lifetime ban from future employment with the Organisation I had served diligently for seventeen years.”
He added that, “As the legacy media had been heavily invested in maintaining the Western line that Syrian forces had used chemical weapons in Douma, the OPCW’s ad hominem attacks on the two dissenting inspectors were treated as a vindication of the official narrative.”
This included articles in the Guardian, Reuters, and the Western government sponsored Bellingcat, which repeated the false line that Whelan and Henderson were somehow responsible for the leak.
Then, after Whelan took the issue to the International Labour Organisation, the OPCW changed it’s story, now claiming that Whelan made a “serious breach of confidentiality” because he sent a letter to the OPCW chief of cabinet expressing concern over “the suppression of the team’s Douma report and a secretive attempt to publish a doctored version”.
The new allegation from the OPCW against Whelan was now a claim that “The Appellant forwarded an email exchange between himself and the former Chief of Cabinet to Director-OSP which contained specific and detailed information about evidence gathered by the FFM [Fact-Finding mission] investigators in Douma”.
“The ‘specific and detailed information’ they were referring to was a statement in my email to the Chief of Cabinet protesting the fact that the doctored report made the unsupported claim that ‘the team had sufficient evidence to determine that chlorine was released from two cylinders.’ This statement, despite being without basis, was ‘highly protected’, they said, and shouldn’t have been shared with the senior director” Whelan added.
He added, “In other words, by informing the Director of the Office of Special Projects of a phoney claim that had been fraudulently inserted into the team’s Douma report, I was committing a ‘serious breach of confidentiality.’ It is worth noting that, because it was challenged, this unfounded assertion was omitted from the final Douma report.”
The OPCW, referring to a letter sent by Whelan to the director general of the OPCW, also claimed that it, “contained specific and detailed information gathered by FFM investigators from toxicology experts. In creating and disseminating this letter, he failed to comply with the specified procedures for the handling, protection, release, and dissemination of confidential information so as to create a clear risk of unauthorised disclosure”.
“What was also significant about this new allegation was that it was the first time management has officially acknowledged this meeting with the German toxicologists. Even mention of it was excluded from the inspection timelines in official reports. By extension, it was the first tacit admission that this crucial piece of evidence was censored from the Douma investigation,” Whelan added.
The OPCW also claimed that Whelan has “sowed discord within the Organisation”, “By sharing information ‘within the Secretariat [emphasis added] [I]caused a staff member to call into question the integrity of the Organisation’s findings in Douma.’”
In other words, the complaint from the OPCW against Whelan was that he raised his concerns that the OPCW investigation was compromised and by providing solid evidence that the toxicology report was censored, a senior OPCW director began to (correctly) believe that the investigation had been compromised.
Now that the International Labour Organization has ruled that the OPCW acted unlawfully against Whelan, it again shows that the OPCW refused to engage with Brendan Whelan and Ian Henderson’s scientific findings and instead engaged in a cover-up to forward the Western narrative about Syria.
Iran can thrive under blockade, the US and its allies cannot
By Robert Inlakesh | Al Mayadeen | May 1, 2026
While officials of the US Trump administration have repeatedly claimed that their blockade on Iran’s blockade of the Strait of Hormuz is a winning strategy, on the contrary, Tehran thrives. Instead of taking the temporary ceasefire as an opportunity to find a viable offramp, Washington has used mental gymnastics to sell the public on a non-existent get out of jail free card.
US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has claimed that Iran’s oil industry is creaking under the pressure of the blockade imposed upon its exports, even making rather outlandish comments about the inevitability of oil infrastructure blowing up as a result. While the US seizure of Iran-linked tankers and vessels does evidently have an impact, it is being enormously overblown by an American administration that is out of viable options.
The way US President Donald Trump and his senior officials are speaking, it would lead you to believe that the “uno reverse card,” as it has been mockingly referred to, was going to lead to the freefall of Tehran’s economy. Yet, the US is still adding more sanctions to Iran, attempting to seize and/or freeze more of its assets, while issuing round-the-clock threats. If the US-imposed blockade, which is failing to block all shipping to and from Iran, were so effective, then these other much lesser measures wouldn’t make sense.
Even the pro-war Zionist think tanks, like the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), have been agitating for more aggressive tactics and to escalate. For example, the Washington-based FDD recently published a Policy Brief article entitled ‘Trump Strikes at China’s Iranian Oil Trade, but It’s Not Enough’. In other words, nobody is convinced by Trump’s strategies, not even the biggest fans of the Iran war.
In the realm of reality, the Islamic Republic of Iran has survived under US sanctions for some 47 years now. Although the sanctions have had varying impacts at different phases of the ongoing conflict with the US, Iran has managed to adapt to its predicament. It survived through 8 years of brutal war with its neighbours, after former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein attacked it for the sake of the United States, and has endured the most brutal sanctions campaigns known to man.
What the US has done over the years is make Iran de facto sanctions-immune. This does not mean that they don’t work at all; clearly, the Iranian economy has taken enormous hits, and the civilian population has borne the brunt of the consequences. But the takeaway here is that the Islamic Republic is not going to buckle in a matter of weeks or months, just because the US is interdicting the passage of some Iranian vessels.
As a matter of record, back in 2018, when President Trump first imposed his maximum pressure campaign – following the decision to unilaterally pull out of the 2015 nuclear deal – the daily Iranian oil exports rapidly declined to 350,000 barrels per day. It remained this way for some 33 months, until Tehran managed to recover. The recovery led Iran back to exporting around 2.5 million barrels per day. Amidst the height of the first round of the current war, Iran even managed to break records for oil revenues generated, not seen since the triumph of the Islamic Revolution in 1979.
In addition to this, the Iranians have established a status quo under which they will not allow the Strait of Hormuz to be transited unless a toll is paid to them first; a move that has not only placed the key global chokepoint under their control, but will inevitably drive enormous profits in the long run.
Iran did not buckle under years of maximum pressure sanctions and the steep decline in their oil exports. Its Gulf neighbours will not fare so well. The damage done to US allies, like the United Arab Emirates (UAE), has already surpassed what is necessary to cause permanent damage. Emirati officials may have even doubled down on their support for the Zionist project and to see Iran destroyed, withdrawing from OPEC, and claiming they will use alternative export routes, but everyone knows those options simply do not exist.
In the end, it was always going to boil down to the US buckling under the weight of an economic fallout, due to the total closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a pressure that only grew worse following Trump’s goofy decision to impose his own blockade.
Therefore, the embarrassing failure of the Trump administration was only ever going to lead to one of two outcomes: a full US backdown or the resumption of war.
Iran slams US leadership, debunking fabrications, false war costs
Al Mayadeen | May 1, 2026
Iranian officials criticized the United States over its leadership and its justification for the US-Israeli war on Iran, debunking Washington’s fabrications and scrutinizing its political coherence and legal rationale.
In reference to the reported cost of the US-Israeli war on Iran, estimated at 25 billion dollars by the US Department of War, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi maintained that “the Pentagon is lying.”
In a post on X, Araghchi asserted that “Netanyahu’s gamble cost America $100b so far, four times what is claimed.”
He further noted that “indirect costs for U.S. taxpayers are FAR higher. Monthly bill for each American household is $500 and rising fast.”
“Israel First always means America Last,” he assertively concluded.
Trump’s contradictions reveal US decision-making made elsewhere
Mohsen Rezaei, a member of Iran’s Expediency Discernment Council, said, also took a swing at the “America first” slogan, asserting that “the contradictory statements of Trump show that real decisions in US are being made somewhere else.”
In a post on X, he argued that key decisions in Washington were being shaped by “behind-the-scenes power networks” that do not align with the “America First” slogan associated with Trump and MAGA.
Rezaei added that this demonstrates “the kind of deadlock America is facing,” emphasizing that Americans “are the ones paying the price.”
‘Self-defense’ against what?: Baghaei
Separately, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei rejected US claims that the US-Israeli war on Iran was launched in “self-defense”.
In a post on X responding to a US claim that the war was launched “at the request of and in the collective self-defense of its Israeli ally,” he questioned the legal basis for such claims, asking, “Was there any ‘armed attack’ by Iran to justify ‘self defense’?”
Baghaei rejected the claim by Washington, emphasizing that the war was “an act of AGGRESSION against the nation of Iran.”
Israel pours $730m into global propaganda machine as reputation collapses
The Cradle | May 1, 2026
Israeli lawmakers last month approved a sharp increase in the 2026 public diplomacy budget, allocating roughly $730 million to the global messaging apparatus, also known as “Hasbara,” according to a report by the Jerusalem Post on 29 April.
Surveys point to a deepening collapse in international support, as Israel’s genocide in Gaza and continued aggression toward its neighboring countries have sent the Tel Aviv’s reputation into freefall on the global stage.
The funding accounts for more than four times the previous year’s allocation, and forms part of a broader push led by Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar, who characterized the effort as a strategic imperative, saying it should be treated “like investing in jets, bombs, and missile interceptors” and calling it “an existential issue.”
The campaign spans large-scale digital outreach and political engagement aimed at bending perceptions and influencing narratives around Israel.
Around $50 million is being funneled into social media advertising, and roughly $40 million is going toward flying in foreign delegations such as politicians, clergy, and influencers as part of the outreach effort.
Officials insist the strategy improves perceptions abroad, with Israel’s consul general in Los Angeles, Israel Bachar, claiming that “Everyone who returns from the country understands better and is more supportive. But you have to fly out a lot of people.”
However, polling data cited in the reports shows a sharp collapse in public opinion towards Israel, particularly in the US.
A Pew Research Center survey found that 60 percent of US respondents now view Israel unfavorably, with declines cutting across political, religious, and demographic groups.
Analysts and researchers dismiss the spending outright, arguing it cannot offset the impact of Israel’s actions on the ground.
Communication scholar Nicholas Cull said, “Our conclusion was, it’s the policy, stupid,” referring to Israel’s policy of genocide and apartheid, and its broader military conduct as a central pillar of its expansionist agenda.
“Yes, you can do a lot with public diplomacy, and there are strategies that could help on the margins. But they’re only going to affect a small percentage, because the bulk of the impressions on issues that people care about are shaped by the actual policies, not how well you sell those policies.”
“The problem is that people don’t believe the state anymore,” said Ilan Manor, another expert cited in the report, warning that increased funding may expand reach but will not restore trust.
That push is reinforced by what Israeli officials describe as a parallel “Eighth Front” – a so-called “Digital Iron Dome” that combines mass reporting campaigns, AI-driven targeting, and coordinated influencer networks to suppress dissenting content and flood platforms with state-approved narratives in real time.
Israel had invested millions in coordinated digital influence campaigns, including a $6-million contract to shape AI outputs, targeted Gen Z messaging, and large-scale ad buys, in an effort to control online narratives and counter declining public support in the US.
The country’s propaganda arm had previously deployed a large network of at least hundreds of fake social media accounts and fabricated news sites to spread unverified claims linking UNRWA to Hamas’s 7 October Operation Al-Aqsa Flood in order to undermine its humanitarian mission in Palestine.
Leaked audios reveal pro-Israel groups ‘paid’ for US pardon of convicted drug trafficker Juan Orlando Hernandez
The Cradle | April 30, 2026
WhatsApp, Signal, and Telegram audio messages published by Canal RED and Hondurasgate on 29 April reveal pro-Israel groups “paid” for the release of former Honduran president and convicted drug trafficker Juan Orlando Hernandez (JOH) from US federal prison last year.
“The pardon money … came from a board of rabbis and people who supported Israel, and they had previously supported Yani Rosenthal,” JOH is heard saying in the leaked audios.
Yani Rosenthal is the former president of the right-wing Liberal Party of Honduras. He was convicted in December 2017 of laundering drug proceeds for a prominent Honduran drug cartel.
In 2024, JOH was convicted in a US federal court of three counts of drug trafficking and weapons conspiracy and received a 45-year prison sentence. He was also found guilty of receiving money from the former leader of the Sinaloa Cartel, Joaquin Archivaldo “El Chapo” Guzman, to finance electoral fraud.
JOH was pardoned late last year by US President Donald Trump, who called the DEA investigation into Hernández a “Biden administration set up.” Trump announced the pardon hours before Honduras’s presidential elections.
In that same social media post, Trump endorsed the current President Nasry “Tito” Asfura and threatened to cut aid to Honduras if he was not elected.
“The Prime Minister of Israel is going to give us his support. They had everything to do with my departure and negotiations,” JOH says in one of the audios released on Wednesday.
According to Canal RED, the leaked audios show that Trump’s pardon for JOH “was secured through intense lobbying led by Roger Stone and the Republican caucus … with the support of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.”
The audios also suggest that Hernandez’s return to Honduras and his upcoming presidential run are being financed by Israel.
“Mr. President, I’m here asking about my case, if there’s any resolution, if you have anything to share with me to see if there’s been any progress with the Supreme Court. I want to believe that you won’t sideline me because, thanks to me, you’re sitting in that chair … And I hope for your support. Because that’s what we discussed with President Trump,” JOH tells President Asfura in one of the leaked audios.
According to the report, Trump and Netanyahu are “seeking millions in compensation” in exchange for securing Asfura’s election and JOH’s possible reelection.
“The negotiations at the Florida residence included the expansion of Zones for Employment and Economic Development (ZEDEs), the construction of a new military base, a free trade agreement, and a law to incentivize investment in AI, whose contracts would be awarded directly to private American companies such as General Electric,” Canal RED reports.
ZEDEs, or “private states”/’model cities,” permit autonomous courts and foreign legal systems in Honduras, which civil groups say surrender sovereignty.
Additionally, a second set of leaked audios released on Thursday involving JOH, Asfura, and Honduran Vice President Maria Antonieta Mejia indicates the formation of a news outlet funded with more than half a million dollars in Honduran public funds, along with contributions from Javier Milei’s government in Argentina, aimed at ‘attacking’ the left-wing governments of Gustavo Petro in Colombia and Claudia Sheinbaum in Mexico.
Hidden costs of US Iran war push total far beyond $25bn Pentagon claim
Al Mayadeen | April 30, 2026
The Pentagon’s declared $25 billion cost of the war on Iran is likely a significant understatement of the war’s true financial burden, Bloomberg reported, citing analysts. Senior US defense officials disclosed the figure during testimony at a contentious congressional hearing on Wednesday, outlining the total cost incurred so far.
Calculations by Bloomberg, based on Pentagon data, suggest that the cost of certain munitions, destroyed equipment, and operational expenses alone amounts to around $14 billion. This includes $8 billion for munitions, $5 billion to replace lost aircraft and damaged equipment, and approximately $1 billion in operational costs for deploying two aircraft carriers and 16 destroyers over 39 days of near-continuous strikes.
The estimate does not account for the cost of repairing damaged facilities across the region, such as the US Navy’s Fifth Fleet headquarters in Bahrain, which has been repeatedly targeted in Iranian attacks. It also excludes the operational costs of all ships and aircraft involved in the military buildup prior to February 28, as well as those currently engaged in the ongoing blockade.
Pentagon figure represents narrow estimate, omits lots of costs
“It is clear that the Pentagon’s $25 billion figure represents a narrow estimate of the cost of waging war,” said Kelly Grieco, a senior fellow at the Stimson Center. “It doesn’t even include damage to bases, broader operational costs, or the Pentagon’s rising fuel bills.”
Earlier this month, Senator Richard Blumenthal told Bloomberg Television that even estimates presented to him of $2 billion per day were “a low number.” Meanwhile, the Center for Strategic and International Studies has estimated that the cost of munitions alone could reach approximately $25 billion.
During the hearing, Acting Pentagon Comptroller Jules Hurst said the $25 billion figure includes both expended munitions and operational costs but declined to provide a detailed breakdown. His remarks prompted a heated exchange between War Secretary Pete Hegseth and Representative Maggie Goodlander, a Democrat from New Hampshire, who repeatedly pressed for greater transparency.
“It is gross negligence to sit here and be unable to justify spending billions of dollars,” Goodlander said.
US losses add billions to the bill
The United States has reportedly lost dozens of aircraft during combat operations, including MQ-9 Reaper drones, F-15E strike fighters, an E-3 airborne warning and control aircraft, KC-135 aerial refueling tankers, one A-10 attack aircraft, and two MC-130J multi-mission transport planes.
Replacing these systems is expected to cost billions of dollars, while damaged or destroyed radar systems, each worth hundreds of millions, will add further to the total.
Operating costs have also mounted significantly. Aircraft carriers cost around $4.9 million per day to run, while destroyers cost approximately $600,000 daily. A carrier air wing adds another $3.8 million per day.
According to analysis by Bloomberg Economics Defense Lead Becca Wasser, the 39 days of combat alone would run about $1 billion for just two carriers and their air wings, and 16 destroyers.
Iran has launched more than 1,850 ballistic missiles at targets across the region, requiring the use of roughly 4,000 interceptor missiles in response, according to the report. While the PAC-3 missile system remains the backbone of ballistic missile defense in the region, most interceptor launches were carried out by Gulf states. Standard missile defense doctrine typically requires firing at least two interceptors per incoming target, further driving up costs.
How Cognitive Science Explains Our Looming Nuclear Crisis
By Thomas Karat | The Libertarian Institute | April 28, 2026
Bombs have been falling on Iran for fifty-nine days. As of now a ceasefire is holding, just barely, brokered under pressure from Pakistan. But before it came, a girls’ primary school in the southern city of Minab was hit on the first day of the war, at least 170 dead, most of them girls aged seven to twelve, killed by a U.S. Tomahawk missile that President Donald Trump initially denied firing. Thirty universities struck since February 28, including Iran’s equivalent of MIT. Over 2,000 Iranians killed by American-Israeli strikes. Thirteen U.S. service members confirmed dead. An American F-15E shot down over Iran. The Strait of Hormuz—20% of the world’s oil and gas—effectively closed, with China and Russia vetoing the United Nations resolution to reopen it. Gas prices heading for $4.30 a gallon and rising. Trump promising to bomb Iran “back to the stone ages.”
And underneath all of it, the detail that should be dominating every front page but isn’t: on March 21, Iranian ballistic missiles landed fourteen kilometres from Dimona— Israel’s undeclared nuclear weapons facility, the one running for six decades on the fiction that it doesn’t exist, estimated to hold 800 kilograms of weapons-grade plutonium. The reactor at Bushehr has been struck three times since the war began. The Arms Control Association has warned explicitly of radiological contamination risk across the region.
This is where we are. Now ask the question nobody in mainstream media is asking: how did we get here? Not the geopolitical answer—you can get that anywhere. The deeper answer. What made this war politically possible? What narrative ran so deep in enough Americans that a conflict of this scale, this risk, this cost, could be launched mid-negotiation—Pakistan’s foreign minister confirmed publicly that the United States and Iran were close to a diplomatic settlement when Israel launched its February 28 strikes—without triggering mass domestic revolt?
The answer is a single talking point. You have heard it thousands of times, probably without noticing its structure: forty-seven years of Iranian aggression, forty-seven years of American patience, forty-seven years of failure by every president in both parties to solve the Iran problem. It dates the conflict from the 1979 Islamic Revolution and the 444-day hostage crisis that followed—Americans held in the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, the nightly TV count, the humiliation. It frames the entire subsequent history as a story of American victimhood and Iranian intransigence. And it has been in my estimation the most effective piece of war propaganda in modern American history—not because it is true, but because of the specific cognitive architecture it exploits, which this article is going to name precisely, because naming it is the only thing that can stop it from working the next time.
The history starts not in 1979 but in 1953, when the CIA and British intelligence jointly overthrew Mohammad Mosaddegh, Iran’s elected prime minister, because he had nationalized his country’s oil. The CIA’s own declassified documents confirm the coup was “carried out under CIA direction.” Britain has still not released its files. For twenty-six years after that, the Shah’s government—sustained by American weapons and CIA training of his secret police, SAVAK—ran one of the region’s most efficient torture and imprisonment systems. The 1979 revolution was not irrational. It was direct blowback from a quarter-century of CIA-managed client state. And the hostage crisis that anchors the “forty-seven years” narrative was itself, per Gary Sick—the Iran expert on Jimmy Carter’s own National Security Council—possibly extended deliberately by Ronald Reagan’s campaign manager William Casey, who multiple witnesses say negotiated with Tehran to hold the hostages past election day in exchange for a promise of arms. The foundational American wound of this conflict may have been kept open, on purpose, for electoral advantage, by the political faction most loudly demanding Iranian accountability four decades later.
Then in 1988 the USS Vincennes, operating inside Iranian territorial waters, shot down Iran Air Flight 655—a commercial Airbus on a Dubai run—killing all 290 people aboard including 66 children. The Pentagon issued false statements about the aircraft’s flight profile. The captain was decorated. Nobody was prosecuted. This event does not appear in the “forty-seven years of Iranian aggression” narrative. It belongs to a parallel account—forty-seven years of American aggression—that the talking point is specifically engineered to prevent you from thinking about.
Here is where the cognitive science becomes urgent, because it explains not just how the talking point spreads but why correcting it with facts—including everything in the preceding three paragraphs—fails so consistently, even with audiences that are already skeptical of government. The political psychologist Jonathan Haidt established in his moral foundations research that human moral reasoning runs on several distinct evolutionary systems and critically, that libertarians score measurably lower on the Sanctity foundation, the disgust-and-contamination system that codes out-groups as morally polluted. You are, if you read this publication, statistically more resistant than the average American to the “Iran is evil, the mullahs are fanatics” framing. That part of the propaganda largely didn’t work on you. But the “forty-seven years” talking point doesn’t primarily run on disgust. It runs on three other systems that are universal and for which the libertarian movement has built almost no intellectual defense.
The first is loss aversion: Kahneman and Tversky’s finding that humans feel losses roughly twice as intensely as equivalent gains. “Forty-seven years of failure” is a pure loss narrative—not a promise of future benefit, but an open wound, a thing taken and not returned. It activates the loss-detection system before rational evaluation can engage. The second is the sunk cost mechanism: the longer the conflict, the more the accumulated investment—of attention, of sanctions, of covert operations, of proxy wars—makes the brain read escalation as rational rather than reckless. Half a century of failure becomes, neurologically, an argument for drastic action rather than against it. The third is dominance signalling: primates, including humans, carry a hard-wired system that reads unanswered challenges from rivals as weakness inviting further challenge. Forty-seven years of Iranian defiance of American authority, narrated as a sequence of inadequate responses, activates this system viscerally. Crucially, the libertarian principle of non-aggression reads inside this frame not as principled restraint but as submission. Your correct position sounds, to your neighbour’s dominance-monitoring system, like fear.
George Lakoff showed in Don’t Think of an Elephant that political frames operate below the threshold of conscious reasoning and that facts introduced into the wrong frame bounce off rather than dislodging it. The “forty-seven years” frame installs a strict father moral logic: the nation as a family whose authority must not be defied without punishment. Once that frame is active, every historical correction—the 1953 coup, the Vincennes, the October Surprise—arrives as information the brain is not structured to receive. The frame stays. The facts leave.
This is the machine that produced the war you are watching right now. The school in Minab. The missiles over Dimona. The Bushehr reactor taking strikes. The Strait of Hormuz closed while the LSE warns that bombing a country out of its desire for a nuclear deterrent is not possible and that every strike makes eventual acquisition of a weapon not less likely but more. The former director of the National Counterterrorism Center resigned and told Libertarian Institute Director Scott Horton that he had watched Israeli officials mislead Trump about the Iranian nuclear threat to manufacture the justification for this war. Pakistan’s foreign minister stated in parliament that diplomacy was actively progressing when Israel launched its surprise attack and derailed it. A Reuters/Ipsos poll found only one in four Americans supports the strikes.
The talking point has done its work. It ran for forty-seven years, activating loss detectors and dominance monitors and sunk cost accumulators and strict father frames in enough of the population to make a war with genuine nuclear escalation risk feel not just permissible but long overdue. Now fourteen kilometres separates us from a direct strike on a reactor that has been producing weapons-grade plutonium for sixty years under a policy of official denial—and the IAEA, which Iran has now suspended from cooperation, has no inspectors inside to tell us what is actually there.
The ICAN nuclear abolition campaign noted that striking nuclear installations is explicitly banned under international law. Both sides are now doing it. The International Atomic Energy Agency has called for maximum military restraint near nuclear sites. Both sides are ignoring it. The ceasefire this morning is the third since the war began, and both sides have violated the previous two.
The talking point got us here. Understanding how, at the neurological level, through the specific cognitive systems it exploited, is not an academic exercise while bombs are falling. It is the precondition for building an antiwar argument that can actually break through the frame, rather than bouncing off it for the forty-eighth year running.
The state built a machine over forty-seven years. You are watching it run. The machine works in the dark. This is the light.
Iran war launched at ‘Israel’s’ request: US memo debunks Trump claims
Al Mayadeen | April 25, 2026
A US State Department legal memo has confirmed that Washington’s military attacks on Iran were carried out in support of “Israel”, contradicting earlier claims by President Donald Trump that the decision was made independently.
Published on April 21 by Legal Advisor Reed D. Rubinstein on the state government website, the document titled “Operation Epic Fury and International Law” outlines the “justification” for US attacks launched on February 28 against Iranian missile systems, naval assets, production facilities, and nuclear infrastructure.
The memo explicitly states that the United States is engaged in the war “at the request of and in the collective self-defense of its Israeli ally,” invoking Article 51 of the UN Charter.
Trump’s version of the truth
On Monday, Trump insisted that “Israel” did not influence his decision to strike Iran, dismissing reports suggesting coordination with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and rejecting criticism from right-wing commentators.
In a Truth Social post, Trump claimed, “Israel never talked me into the war.”
This isn’t the first time he has pushed back on claims that “Israel” influenced US actions against Iran. In March, Marco Rubio told reporters that “Israel” had reportedly weighed a preemptive strike on Iran, warning it could provoke retaliation against US forces in the region and potentially help set the stage for what became known as “Operation Epic Fury.”
At the time, Trump rejected that framing, telling reporters at the start of an Oval Office meeting with Merz. “If anything, I might have forced Israel’s hand.”
“We were having negotiations with these lunatics, and I thought they were going to strike first. If we didn’t act, they would have,” he said, adding, “It was something that had to be done.”
A memo or an unintended exposé?
At the time, Trump had dismissed suggestions that “Israel” influenced the decision to strike Iran. The memo’s language, however, presents a far clearer picture, emphasizing coordination with and support for the Israeli side as a central legal basis for the operation.
Operation Epic Fury was launched with stated objectives to destroy Iran’s offensive missile capabilities, dismantle its production infrastructure, target naval forces, and prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons. The document further argues that the war is part of a broader, ongoing confrontation driven by what it describes as Iran’s regional activities, including support for allied groups and strikes on US and Israeli targets.
US officials maintain that their war on Iran complies with international law, arguing that it falls within established frameworks governing “self-defense”. Critics, however, have questioned the legality of the attacks under the UN Charter, particularly given the scale of operations, which by early April had involved thousands of attacks before a ceasefire took hold.
The memo also underscores a more politically sensitive point: Washington’s own account now formally acknowledges a role for “Israel” that Trump had previously denied and downplayed.
Featured Video
Col Douglas Macgregor: Iran TOO BIG TO INVADE
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
The myth of oil as a dwindling resource
By Bruce Everett | August 18, 2008
… Natural resources are limited by definition, but how limited? … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Col Douglas Macgregor: Iran TOO BIG TO INVADE
- The important change in Iran’s latest response to Trump
- Why the Israeli assassination strategy is leading them to defeat
- How The US Blockaded Itself In The Strait Of Hormuz
- Iran submits response to latest US proposal for ending aggression
- When Mandates and Shaming Are Ethical
- In Her Attack On Marjorie Taylor Greene, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez’s Hypocrisy Is On Full Display
- Seyed M. Marandi: Iran Rejects U.S. Deal – War Is Likely Imminent
- 46 IPCC Scientists Break Rank, Publicly Challenge Long-Standing Dogmatic Climate Claims
- Coming Off Seroquel Alone
- If Americans Knew
- Israel is outright killing not just Palestinians, but the very idea of Palestine –Daily Update
- Group indicted for insider trading allegedly used ‘going to Israel’ as code for illegal sales
- Israel is enabling a possible plague in Gaza – Daily Update
- A Conservative’s View: Trump’s War on Iran Is Destroying America
- Israel’s war on the West Bank comes for Palestinian greenhouses
- New $270 million Israeli-only roads project in the West Bank is Netanyahu’s latest bid to impose de facto annexation
- Gaza investigation: A family’s fight to find their missing relatives
- MSF: Israel’s deliberate restriction of food and aid led to alarming malnutrition levels in Gaza
- Israel earmarks $270M for Israeli-only roads (that’s apartheid) – Daily Update
- Two Supreme Court Justices were secret agents who helped Israel cover up its attack on the USS Liberty
- No Tricks Zone
- 90% Subsidized… Bielefeld Germany’s €7 Million Hydrogen Garbage Truck Fleet Sits Idle
- New Study: Declining Trends In 1980-2023 Tropical Cyclone Frequency, Accumulated Energy
- 46 IPCC Scientists Break Rank, Publicly Challenge Long-Standing Dogmatic Climate Claims
- Another Study Links Warming To Cloud Forcing, Shortwave Radiation, Natural Atmospheric Circulation
- Wind Energy Is Toxic, Hazardous To Human Health, Scientific Review Shows
- Oversupply Of Volatile Solar Energy Leads To Record NEGATIVE Prices!
- New Study: Extreme Heat Records, Heatwaves, Extreme Cold Records Declining Across US Since 1899
- It’s The Cold, Stupid! Cold 20 Times More Lethal Than Heat, Multiple Studies Show
- European Institute For Climate And Energy: “Climate Debate is Seldom About Science”
- New Study: The Climate May Be 5 Times More Sensitive To Solar Forcing Than Commonly Assumed
Aletho News 