British Council Exposed: Soft Power and Spying Tool Disguised as Cultural Outreach
By Ilya Tsukanov – Sputnik – 05.06.2025
The FSB has urged Russia’s foreign partners to investigate the subversive activities of the British Council in their countries. This is why.
Education and Culture Front Organization
Created in 1934 by the British government, the British Council’s public facing image is about the promotion of English language learning, recruitment for UK universities, educational support for teachers abroad, cultural and academic partnerships and exchanges.
In reality, as Russia’s FSB has revealed, Council activities include:
- targeting youth leaders and elites to try and sway them to support Western and British interests
- spying, from informal monitoring of the socio-economic situation inside Russia to military intel gathering in the conflict zone in Ukraine
NED’s Granddaddy
While Soros, USAID the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and other US soft power alphabet agencies were only able to set up shop in Eastern Europe in the 1980s or after 1991, the British Council had been active in the region since WWII. Expelled from the USSR in 1946, it returned in 1959 (restricted to Moscow).
After the USSR’s demise in 1991, the Council set up offices in as many as 15 Russian cities, and scores more in Ukraine, the Baltics, the Caucasus and Central Asia.
The Council terminated its activities in Russia in 2018, and was officially ruled an undesirable organization by the Russian Prosecutor’s Office on Thursday, but the FSB says it continued Russia operations long after its supposed exit, engaging in:
- recruiting staff at top Russian universities in at least four regions to spread propaganda to young people
- targeting Russians living abroad in influence ops, in the hopes that they will return home and influence policy once the Ukraine conflict ends
- collecting socio-economic and military intelligence on Kherson region using UK-based refugees
Global Spider’s Web
With a $1.7B budget and offices in over 100 countries, the Council is active:
- in Britain’s former colonial empire (especially India)
- in the EU as a British soft power tool post-Brexit
- among BRICS bloc nations
- Belarus kicked them out in 2000. Iran did so in 2009
“We would like to address partners from countries friendly to Russia: by flirting with the British and creating favorable conditions for organizations like the British Council, allowing it to work with youth, future leaders and politicians, such countries risk losing control over very important socio-political processes. Therefore, we recommend that you carefully look into the work of the British Council in your countries and, notwithstanding pressures from London, mitigate the negative consequences of its work at an early stage,” the FSB said in Thursday’s statement.
British Council’s Cousin: An Oligarch’s Private Soft Power Tool
Along with the British Council, the FSB also reviewed the subversive work of Oxford Russia Fund, a charity group which entered Russia in 2006, ostensibly funding “humanitarian programs” in education, and scholarships to Russian students studying in the UK.
In reality, it was a front for former Russian oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky’s push to create a new generation of pro-West “young leaders” in Russia. Khodorkovsky, notably, has long dreamed of a color revolution in Russia.
The Oxford Russia Fund was ruled undesirable in 2021.
Russian Foreign Intel Service Vet Blows the Lid Off Britain’s Secret Soft Power Recruitment Strategy
By Ilya Tsukanov – Sputnik – 05.06.2025
Britain is a master in the use of public and non-profit organizations for intelligence, deploying them “for centuries,” and Russia a top target, SVR Lt. Gen. (ret.) Leonid Reshetnikov told Sputnik, commenting on the FSB’s warning to Russia’s foreign partners on Thursday about the British Council’s subversive activities.
“Russia has been the main focus of this work since the time of Ivan Grozny. I say this in all seriousness,” Reshetnikov said, adding that the British have had “many years, many centuries of experience” in indirect forms of intelligence collection.
How Are Agents Recruited? A Primer
“They actively use the scientific and teaching fields. When our educators go to the UK or other countries where the British are active, they should always keep in mind that they will be studied, that informal, friendly and trusting relationships will be formed with them,” the veteran ex-secret agent explained.
The task is “studying the mood in scientific, student and teaching circles, selecting people, not necessarily recruiting (i.e. you are an agent, we pay you and you act), but making offers, for example, to give lectures, publish a brochure or a book, visit London, give lectures there, etc.”
Actually recruiting agents is the most blunt approach, and often not necessary to extract the information, facts, assessments or intentions the British intel services are looking for.
“It’s enough to have a circle of agents of influence, a circle of people who are intellectually, ideologically, culturally attached to London, to the English way of life. It’s very easy to use them in a straightforward manner. That’s the job,” Reshetnikov said.
In this area, the veteran former spy emphasized that the British are even more capable than their transatlantic cousins in the CIA.
“It’s best to keep fewer British NGOs in your country. The fewer the better, especially British ones. This is one of the most challenging intelligence services in the world to face,” Reshetnikov emphasized.
EU financing ‘extremism’ – Georgia
RT | June 6, 2025
Georgian Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze has accused the EU of inciting and financing extremism in his country. The claim comes amid a deepening rift between Tbilisi and Brussels over alleged “democratic backsliding.”
Kobakhidze insisted on Thursday that his government has “indisputable” evidence that Western actors are backing anti-government protests in the country.
”We prove this with facts, videos, and [EU] financing practices. We have direct facts about how these people are financing extremism in our country. We talk to them with facts, but they respond with general phrases, and more often lies. This is sad,” Kobakhidze said, as cited by Rustavi 2.
Parliament Speaker Shalva Papuashvili echoed the charge, stating that “extremism in Georgia is supported and financed from the budgets of the EU.” He added that he had written to EU Ambassador Pawel Herczynski detailing the accusations but had yet to receive a reply.
The ruling Georgian Dream party, which secured a decisive parliamentary majority in October 2024, has accused Western powers of interfering in the country’s domestic politics under the guise of “democracy promotion.” Officials in Tbilisi have drawn parallels to the 2014 Maidan uprising in Ukraine and say similar tactics are now being used to destabilize Georgia for refusing to adopt a confrontational stance against Russia in the Ukraine conflict.
Following Georgian Dream’s victory, a coalition of pro-Western parties alleged fraud and launched protests to force the government’s resignation. EU and US officials voiced support for the opposition, which Georgian leaders denounced as foreign meddling.
Brussels has also led a coordinated campaign against Georgia’s foreign influence transparency law, legislation that requires political organizations to disclose substantial foreign funding. Although similar laws exist across the West, the European External Action Service claimed the legislation in Georgia was “a serious setback for democracy” and warned it could “threaten the country’s EU path.”
Tensions spiked last month when French President Emmanuel Macron, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz issued a joint statement on Georgia’s Independence Day, accusing the government of “democratic backsliding.” Papuashvili dismissed the statement as “shameful,” saying it disrespected both the state and its people.
Georgia was granted EU candidate status in December 2023 but has since suspended accession talks, citing Brussels’ increasingly coercive tone. The government, however, insists that it remains committed to eventual EU membership.
Profiles in courage: Trump & Eisenhower
By M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | Indian Punchline | June 6, 2025
President Donald Trump had a difficult week. No, this isn’t about Elon Musk or Harvard University. On Wednesday, his call to Russian President Vladimir Putin didn’t go well. It turned into a ‘conversation’, as Trump wrote on Truth Social, lasting only an hour and 15 minutes, which means, setting aside the time for interpretation, it left no room for substantive discussions.
The call took place against the backdrop of the attack on Russia’s nuclear force on June 1. Trump acknowledged in his Truth Social post later that Putin spoke “strongly” about Russia’s response to come. The post was notable for its subdued tone.
We wouldn’t know whether Putin brought up Western involvement. The Kremlin merely noted that “Donald Trump reiterated that the Americans had not been informed about this [attack] in advance.”
Zelensky’s version is that the attack was in the pipeline for the past 18-month period. Yet, we are to believe, neither the CIA nor MI6 whose operatives run the show in Kiev got an inkling of it. Trump’s Truth Social post simply omitted this crucial part of the conversation with Putin, which is highly significant — and consequential.
Especially, as Kremlin-funded RT had already carried one report citing the assessment of an ex-French intelligence officer that the Ukrainian targeting couldn’t have been possible without US satellite inputs.
Earlier, Tass also had carried a similar report citing a former US naval officer who estimated that the 18 month-period was when the Biden administration was virtually on auto-pilot (due to the president’s dementia). An interesting thought in itself?
Tass quoted the American source who actually said on a War Room podcast: “So, who was it on the American side that either gave the greenlight to this or provided the initial intelligence targeting? Hey, where is William Burns and Jack Sullivan, the neocon whizkids in Biden’s team?
Again, on the same day as Trump spoke to Putin, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov warned at a news conference in Moscow, “The fact that certain circles in the United States have been and are still hatching plans to move towards eradicating Russia as a state is also undeniable… We should not underestimate the consequences of such a mindset… Russian society should remain in a state of high readiness for any intrigues.”
Interestingly, Ryabkov called on Washington and London specifically to speak up on the attack on Russian airfields. As he put it, “We demand that both London and Washington respond in a manner that stops this recent round of escalation of tensions.”
When asked about the Ukrainian attack on Wednesday in Brussels, NATO secretary-general Mark Rutte came up with an ingenious argument: “Let’s not forget that the capabilities they hit were the capabilities the Russians were using to attack innocent people going about their daily lives in Ukrainian cities and communities. So I think we should take note of that.” Clearly, the poor chap was in the loop! Rutte refused to speak further.
Equally, the social media is awash with the assessments by some prominent American experts, especially ex-CIA analysts, pointing a finger directly at the agency’s involvement. Of course, Russia has the experience and technical expertise to dig deep.
There are comparable situations. What comes to mind is the famous U-2 spy plane incident on May 1, 1961. Perhaps, Trump is finding himself in the same embarrassing situation as President Dwight Eisenhower.
Do we give the benefit of the doubt to Trump that he too was unaware of the strike on Russia’s nuclear force on June 1? To my mind, the analogy of the U-2 incident holds good — a rare cold-war era confrontation over the US’ blatant violation of Russian sovereignty and territory at a critical juncture just when the White House was navigting an improvement of relations with Russia.
Eisenhower was kept in the dark about the full details of the U-2 although countdown had begun for his planned summit meeting with Nikita Khrushchev, the Soviet leader, in Paris to discuss a Soviet-American detente (just what Trump is attempting with Putin.) The following excerpts from the archives of the Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial, Eisenhower National Historic Site are most insightful:
“[U-2 spy plane pilot Gary] Powers did have a contingency in the form of a concealed needle with the poison Saxitoxin. If injected, this would have killed him and prevented his capture. Powers did not utilize this and was surrounded by Soviet citizens very soon after he touched down. Soviet citizens soon found his United States issued firearm, and other items bearing the flag of the U.S., turning him over to Soviet officials. Powers, and what was left of his spy plane, were shipped to Moscow be researched and documented. In a matter of hours, Khrushchev was informed of the captured pilot and the wrecked U-2.
“When Powers was overdue to land at Norway [U-2 had taken off from its base in Peshawar], the CIA started to consider what might have happened. As a result, their contingency plan went into action. To prevent the public and the Soviets from learning the true nature of the U-2 aircraft, a misinformation campaign began. A NASA press release stated one of their high-altitude weather research U-2 aircraft had gone missing over Turkey, and that it may have drifted into Soviet airspace because of an unconscious pilot. A U-2 was shown off in NASA colors as well to help sell the story. Khruschev learned of this story from the Americans and decided to lay a trap for the United States and for Eisenhower.
“The Soviets released information that a spy plane was shot down but did not include any other information on the status of the aircraft or Powers. The U.S. believed it could shape the narrative further and kept releasing “reports” of oxygen difficulties in the aircraft and that the auto pilot may have sent the plane into Soviet territory. Once the deception from the United States grew large enough, on May 7th, Khruschev sprung his trap by stating the pilot was alive, and that the Soviets had captured the remains of the aircraft, which contained a camera and film of Soviet Military Installations. This destroyed the cover story and was a public embarrassment for the United States and for President Eisenhower. The President learned of this at the office of his Gettysburg residence, where he got a phone call informing him the Soviets had captured Powers. This shattered the peace and tranquility of his stay in Gettysburg, and he knew that he would be held responsible in the eyes of the Soviet Union. In a remark to an aide, Eisenhower reportedly said, “I would like to resign.”
While Eisenhower did not resign, the U-2 incident and the acute embarrassment so close to the end of his second term defined his Cold War legacy. Khrushchev cancelled the Paris summit and Soviet-American detente had to wait until Henry Kissinger consolidated his grip over US foreign policy strategies. Nonetheless, the Deep State, which loathed detente, booby-trapped Richard Nixon’s presidency!
Eisenhower’s sense of betrayal is reflected in his farewell address when he bitterly called out the Deep State and prophesied that it will someday wreck America’s democracy.
History is repeating. Look at the cascading turbulence already around Trump presidency. Eighty two out of 100 members of the Senate are co-sponsoring a bill by Senator Lindsey Graham (whose affiliation to the Deep State is legion), forcing Trump’s hands to impose “bone-breaking” sanctions against Russia, whose sole objective is to stall any improvement of US-Russia relations. Meanwhile, a call for impeachment of Trump is already in the air.
FDA exposed – hundreds of drugs approved with no proof they work
Two-year investigation reveals a broken approval system, ineffective—and sometimes deadly—drugs fast-tracked to market without evidence
By Maryanne Demasi, PhD | June 5, 2025
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved hundreds of drugs without proof they work—and in some cases, despite evidence they cause harm.
That’s the finding of a blistering two-year investigation by medical journalists Jeanne Lenzer and Shannon Brownlee, published by The Lever.
Reviewing more than 400 drug approvals between 2013 and 2022, the authors found the agency repeatedly ignored its own scientific standards.
One expert put it bluntly—the FDA’s threshold for evidence “can’t go any lower because it’s already in the dirt.”
A system built on weak evidence
The findings were damning—73% of drugs approved by the FDA during the study period failed to meet all four basic criteria for demonstrating “substantial evidence” of effectiveness.
Those four criteria—presence of a control group, replication in two well-conducted trials, blinding of participants and investigators, and the use of clinical endpoints like symptom relief or extended survival—are supposed to be the bedrock of drug evaluation.
Yet only 28% of drugs met all four criteria—40 drugs met none.
These aren’t obscure technicalities—they are the most basic safeguards to protect patients from ineffective or dangerous treatments.
But under political and industry pressure, the FDA has increasingly abandoned them in favour of speed and so-called “regulatory flexibility”.
Since the early 1990s, the agency has relied heavily on expedited pathways that fast-track drugs to market.
In theory, this balances urgency with scientific rigour. In practice, it has flipped the process. Companies can now get drugs approved before proving they work, with the promise of follow-up trials later.
But, as Lenzer and Brownlee revealed, “Nearly half of the required follow-up studies are never completed—and those that are often fail to show the drugs work, even while they remain on the market.”
“This represents a seismic shift in FDA regulation that has been quietly accomplished with virtually no awareness by doctors or the public,” they added.
More than half the approvals examined relied on preliminary data—not solid evidence that patients lived longer, felt better, or functioned more effectively.
And even when follow-up studies are conducted, many rely on the same flawed surrogate measures rather than hard clinical outcomes.
The result: a regulatory system where the FDA no longer acts as a gatekeeper—but as a passive observer.
Cancer drugs: high stakes, low standards
Nowhere is this failure more visible than in oncology.
Only 3 out of 123 cancer drugs approved between 2013 and 2022, met all four of the FDA’s basic scientific standards.
Most—81%—were approved based on surrogate endpoints like tumour shrinkage, without any evidence they improved survival or quality of life.
Take Copiktra, for example—a drug approved in 2018 for blood cancers. The FDA gave it the green light based on improved “progression-free survival,” a measure of how long a tumour stays stable.
But a review of post-marketing data showed that patients taking Copiktra died 11 months earlier than those on a comparator drug.
It took six years after those studies showed the drug reduced patients’ survival for the FDA to warn the public that Copiktra should not be used as a first- or second-line treatment for certain types of leukaemia and lymphoma, citing “an increased risk of treatment-related mortality.”
Elmiron: ineffective, dangerous—and still on the market
Another striking case is Elmiron, approved in 1996 for interstitial cystitis—a painful bladder condition.
The FDA authorised it based on “close to zero data,” on the condition that the company conduct a follow-up study to determine whether it actually worked.
That study wasn’t completed for 18 years—and when it was, it showed Elmiron was no better than placebo.
In the meantime, hundreds of patients suffered vision loss or blindness. Others were hospitalised with colitis. Some died.
Yet Elmiron is still on the market today. Doctors continue to prescribe it.
“Hundreds of thousands of patients have been exposed to the drug, and the American Urological Association lists it as the only FDA-approved medication for interstitial cystitis,” Lenzer and Brownlee reported.
“Dangling approvals” and regulatory paralysis
The FDA even has a term—”dangling approvals”—for drugs that remain on the market despite failed or missing follow-up trials.
One notorious case is Avastin, approved in 2008 for metastatic breast cancer.
It was fast-tracked, again, based on ‘progression-free survival.’ But after five clinical trials showed no improvement in overall survival—and raised serious safety concerns—the FDA moved to revoke its approval for metastatic breast cancer.
The backlash was intense.
Drug companies and patient advocacy groups launched a campaign to keep Avastin on the market. FDA staff received violent threats. Police were posted outside the agency’s building.
The fallout was so severe that for more than two decades afterwards, the FDA did not initiate another involuntary drug withdrawal in the face of industry opposition.
Billions wasted, thousands harmed
Between 2018 and 2021, US taxpayers—through Medicare and Medicaid—paid US$18 billion for drugs approved under the condition that follow-up studies would be conducted. Many never were.
The cost in lives is even higher.
A 2015 study found that 86% of cancer drugs approved between 2008 and 2012 based on surrogate outcomes showed no evidence they helped patients live longer.
An estimated 128,000 Americans die each year from the effects of properly prescribed medications—excluding opioid overdoses. That’s more than all deaths from illegal drugs combined.
A 2024 analysis by Danish physician Peter Gøtzsche found that adverse effects from prescription medicines now rank among the top three causes of death globally.
Doctors misled by the drug labels
Despite the scale of the problem, most patients—and most doctors—have no idea.
A 2016 survey published in JAMA asked practising physicians a simple question —what does FDA approval actually mean?
Only 6% got it right.
The rest assumed it meant the drug had shown clear, clinically meaningful benefits—such as helping patients live longer or feel better—and that the data was statistically sound.
But the FDA requires none of that.
Drugs can be approved based on a single small study, a surrogate endpoint, or marginal statistical findings. Labels are often based on limited data, yet many doctors take them at face value.
Harvard researcher Aaron Kesselheim, who led the survey, said the results were “disappointing, but not entirely surprising,” noting that few doctors are taught about how the FDA’s regulatory process actually works.
Instead, physicians often rely on labels, marketing, or assumptions—believing that if the FDA has authorised a drug, it must be both safe and effective.
But as The Lever investigation shows, that is not a safe assumption.
And without that knowledge, even well-meaning physicians may prescribe drugs that do little good—and cause real harm.
Who is the FDA working for?
In interviews with more than 100 experts, patients, and former regulators, Lenzer and Brownlee found widespread concern that the FDA has lost its way.
Many pointed to the agency’s dependence on industry money. A BMJ investigation in 2022 found that user fees now fund two-thirds of the FDA’s drug review budget—raising serious questions about independence.

Yale physician and regulatory expert Reshma Ramachandran said the system is in urgent need of reform.
“We need an agency that’s independent from the industry it regulates and that uses high quality science to assess the safety and efficacy of new drugs,” she told The Lever. “Without that, we might as well go back to the days of snake oil and patent medicines.”
For now, patients remain unwitting participants in a vast, unspoken experiment—taking drugs that may never have been properly tested, trusting a regulator that too often fails to protect them.
And as Lenzer and Brownlee conclude, that trust is increasingly misplaced.
- Investigative report by Jeanne Lenzer and Shannon Brownlee at The Lever [link]
- Searchable public drug approval database [link]
- See my talk: Failure of Drug Regulation: Declining standards and institutional corruption
More evidence implicates ‘Israel’ in harrowing Gaza aid massacre: CNN
Al Mayadeen | June 5, 2025
A CNN investigation has revealed compelling evidence suggesting that invading Israeli units opened fire on Palestinians gathered at a humanitarian aid site in Rafah, southern Gaza, debunking official Israeli claims and raising serious questions about the safety of the aid distribution system supported by the US and “Israel”.
The “Israeli hunger trap massacre” occurred early Sunday near the Tal al-Sultan distribution site and resulted in the killing of at least 31 Palestinians, with dozens more wounded, according to Gaza’s Health Ministry. Video evidence, geolocation analysis, and eyewitness testimonies strongly indicate that Israeli gunfire at the Gaza aid site was responsible for the victims, CNN reported.
According to the news network, more than a dozen eyewitnesses, including injured survivors, reported that Israeli troops fired in volleys at the crowd. Footage reviewed by CNN, geolocated to the Al-Aalam roundabout approximately 800 meters from the fenced aid area, shows sustained bursts of gunfire. Forensic analysis confirmed the firing pattern matched machine guns typically mounted on Israeli tanks.
Weapons experts interviewed by CNN noted the fire rate, ranging from 900 to 960 rounds per minute, aligned with Israeli FN MAG machine guns. Bullets removed from the wounded were identified as 7.62mm NATO standard, consistent with Israeli military weaponry.
Eyewitnesses described scenes of terror as they sought food. Mohammed Saqer, 43, told CNN he witnessed people being shot in the head around him. “We survived a night that was worse than we could imagine,” he said. “The reality for people was one of death and hunger searching for food.”
GHF, IOF deny responsibility despite growing evidence
The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), a US- and Israeli-backed aid mechanism operating outside UN frameworks, confirmed that Israeli forces were active in the area but denied any gunfire within or around the “aid site”. In a public statement, GHF alleged, “All aid was distributed today without incident. These fake reports have been actively fomented by Hamas. They are untrue and fabricated.”
The Israeli occupation military initially claimed no troops had fired at civilians “while they were near or within the aid site.” Later, a military source admitted to firing warning shots at individuals “about 1 kilometer away.” However, the CNN Gaza investigation presents a far more troubling account.
Pressed by CNN, the Israeli military declined to comment further. At a press briefing, IOF spokesperson Brig. Gen. Effie Defrin rejected the report entirely, calling it “false” and accusing CNN of echoing what he described as “Hamas propaganda”. He dismissed the reported casualty numbers without offering an alternative.
Yet survivors and witnesses continue to challenge the official narrative. Ihab Musleh said his 13-year-old son, Yazeed, was shot after waving at an Israeli tank. “Within seconds, he was hit with gunfire and fell to the ground,” Musleh said from the hospital.
Humanitarian fallout, global scrutiny mount
The Rafah aid convoy deaths mark the most harrowing Israeli massacres in recent months and underscore mounting global criticism of the GHF’s heavily militarized distribution system. The United Nations has warned that the initiative risks becoming a “death trap”.
Unlike UNRWA and other UN agencies, the GHF does not register aid recipients or vet civilians approaching distribution points. Despite claims that the system was created to prevent aid diversion, recent attacks suggest it lacks essential safeguards.
CNN’s reporting further revealed that multiple TikTok videos, including some taken by 30-year-old Ameen Khalifa, captured panicked scenes during the attack. Khalifa was later killed in an Israeli drone strike while attempting to return to the site two days later.
Following Sunday’s attack, GHF updated its public aid maps, placing a red stop sign over the Al-Aalam roundabout and warning Palestinians to avoid the area. Nonetheless, similar attacks occurred on Monday and Tuesday, resulting in nearly 30 additional killings. The IOF admitted its forces opened fire again after spotting “several suspects moving toward them.”
UN criticizes GHF framework as political, dangerous
UN officials have sharply criticized the GHF for creating a system that is both politically selective and operationally unsafe. In remarks before the UN Security Council, UN humanitarian chief Tom Fletcher condemned the program:
“It restricts aid to only one part of Gaza, while leaving other dire needs unmet. It makes aid conditional on political and military aims. It makes starvation a bargaining chip. It is a cynical sideshow. A deliberate distraction. A fig leaf for further violence and displacement.”
As Israeli assaults against Palestinians escalate around “aid distribution points,” the credibility of Israeli denials of civilian targeting continues to erode under growing visual and forensic evidence. Humanitarian organizations warn that if these patterns continue, the entire aid infrastructure in Gaza may collapse under the weight of mistrust, militarization, and unchecked Israeli brutality.
Netanyahu does not deny arming ISIS-affiliated group to fight Hamas
Al Mayadeen | June 5, 2025
Former Israeli Security Minister Avigdor Liberman has accused Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of secretly authorizing the transfer of weapons to an armed criminal group affiliated with the terrorist so-called “Islamic State” in Gaza without cabinet approval.
In remarks to the Kan public broadcaster, Liberman, who leads the opposition Yisrael Beytenu party, said the weapons were supplied to a group of militants near the Karem Abu Salem crossing, in an area currently under Israeli military control.
“The Israeli government is giving weapons to a group of criminals and felons, identified with Islamic State, at the direction of the prime minister,” he stated.
“To my knowledge this did not go through approval by the cabinet,” he added.
Abu Shabab clan’s reputation and recent activity
While Liberman did not name the group directly, he appeared to be referencing the Abu Shabab clan, an armed faction in Gaza reportedly opposed to Hamas.
According to Tel Aviv University researcher Michael Milshtein, the group is known in Gaza for drug trafficking, theft, and looting humanitarian aid convoys.
Footage published online in recent days, including by clan leader Yasser Abu Shabab, shows members wearing military-style uniforms emblazoned with the Palestinian flag and the label “Counter-Terrorism Mechanism.”
Security establishment kept in the dark?
Liberman added that the head of the Shin Bet is aware of the weapons transfers but questioned the level of involvement or knowledge within the Israeli occupation military.
“I don’t know how much the IDF chief of staff was in on it,” he said, referring to the Israeli military.
Netanyahu’s office does not deny Liberman allegations
In response to Liberman’s claims, Netanyahu’s office issued a statement defending the government’s multi-pronged approach to defeating Hamas.
“Israel is working to defeat Hamas through various means, based on the recommendations of all the heads of the security establishment,” the statement read.
However, it notably did not deny the allegations raised by Liberman.
Gaza’s ‘humanitarian’ façade: A deceptive ploy unraveled
By Ramzy Baroud | MEMO | June 4, 2025
Just one day before the so-called Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) began operating officially inside the Gaza Strip, its executive director, Jake Wood, resigned.
The text of his resignation statement underscored what many had already suspected: GHF is not a humanitarian endeavor, but the latest scam by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to control the Gaza Strip, after 600 days of war and genocide.
“It is clear that it is not possible to implement this plan while also strictly adhering to the humanitarian principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality, and independence,” Wood said in the statement, which was cited by CNN and other media.
This begs the question: why had that realisation become ‘clear’ to Wood, even though the aid operation was not yet in effect? The rest of the statement offers some explanation, suggesting that the American contractor may not have known the extent of the Israeli ploy until later, but knew that a disaster was unfolding – the kind that would surely require investigating and, possibly, accountability.
In fact, an investigation by Swiss authorities had already begun. The US news network, CBS, looked into the matter, reporting on 29 May that GHF originally applied for registration in Geneva on January 31 and was officially registered on February 12. However, in no time, Swiss authorities began noticing repeated violations, including that the Swiss branch of GHF is “currently not fulfilling various legal obligations”.
In its original application, GHF “pursues exclusively charitable philanthropic objectives for the benefit of the people.” Strangely, the entity that promised to provide “material, psychological or health” services to famine-stricken Gazans, found it necessary to employ 300 “heavily armed” American contractors, with “as much ammunition as they can carry,” CBS reported.
The ‘psychological’ support in particular was the most ironic, as desperate Gazans were corralled, on 27 May, into cages under extremely high temperatures, only to be given tiny amounts of food that, according to Rami Abdu, head of the Geneva-based Euro-Med Monitor, were in fact stolen from a US-based charitable organization known as Rahma Worldwide.
Following the CBS news report, among others, and following several days of chaos and violence in Gaza, where at least 49 Palestinians were killed and over 300 wounded by those who promised to give aid and comfort, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz revealed that the funding for the operation is coming directly from Israel.
Prominent Israeli politician and Knesset member Avigdor Lieberman went even further, claiming that the money, estimated by The Washington Post to be $100 million, “is coming from the Mossad and the Defence Ministry.”
But why would Israel go through all of this trouble while it can, at no financial cost, simply allow the massive shipments of aid, reportedly rotting on the Egyptian side of the border, to enter Gaza and to stave off the famine?
In Netanyahu’s mind, the aid mechanism is part of the war. In a video message, reported by The Jerusalem Post on May 19, he described the new aid distributing points, manned jointly by GHF and the Israeli army, as “parallel to the enormous pressure” Israel is putting on the Palestinians – exemplified in Israel’s “massive (military) entrance (into Gaza)” – with the aim of “taking control of all of the Gaza” Strip.
In Netanyahu’s own words, all of this, the military-arranged aid and ongoing genocide, is “the war and victory plan.”
Of course, Palestinians and international aid groups operating in Gaza, including UN-linked aid apparatuses, were fully aware that the secretive Israel-US scheme was predicated on bad intentions. This is why they wanted to have nothing to do with it.
In Israel’s thinking, any aid mechanism that would sustain the status quo that existed prior to the war and genocide starting on 7 October, 2023, would be equivalent to an admission of defeat. This is precisely why Israel laboured to associate the UN Palestinian refugee agency, UNRWA, with Hamas.
This included the launching of a virulent campaign against the UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres himself, and other top officials and rapporteurs. On July 22, the Israeli Knesset went as far as to designate UNRWA a “terrorist organisation”.
Still, it may seem to be a contradiction that the likes of extremist Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich would agree to such an ‘aid’ scheme just days after declaring that Israel’s intention is to “entirely destroy” Gaza.
However, there is no contradiction. Having failed to conquer Gaza through military force, Israel is trying to use its latest aid scheme to capitalise on the famine it has purposely engineered over the course of months.
Luring people to ‘distribution points’, the Israeli army is trying to concentrate the population of Gaza in areas that can be easily controlled through leveraging food, with the ultimate aim of pushing Palestinians out, in the words of Smotrich, “in great numbers to third countries.”
The latest scheme is likely to fail, of course, like other such stratagems in the last 600 days. However, the inhumane and degrading treatment of Palestinians further illustrates Israel’s rejection of the growing international push to end the genocide.
For Israel to stop scheming, the international community must translate its strong words into strong action and hold, not just Israel, but its own citizens involved in the GHF and other ploys, accountable for being part of the ongoing war crimes in Gaza.
More signs of Britain grooming Syria’s Al-Qaeda-rooted government
The Cradle | June 4, 2025
When Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa (previously known as Abu Mohammad al-Julani), the former Al-Qaeda emir who led the Nusra Front, was affiliated with ISIS, and later headed Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), visited Saudi Arabia to meet Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MbS) in February, he was accompanied by a surprising figure: Razan Saffour, a 32-year-old British-Syrian activist who had never set foot in Syria before the fall of former president Bashar al-Assad’s government in December.
Saffour also joined Syrian Foreign Minister Asaad al-Shaibani on his trip to the Munich Security Conference that same month. Her presence in Syria’s new ruling circle highlights Britain’s outsized role in shaping the conflict – bringing Al-Qaeda to power, whitewashing its leadership, and embedding UK operatives within its political infrastructure.
Her presence alongside Julani on official state visits signals not just personal ascension, but the triumph of Britain’s long war to launder extremist power through western-groomed proxies.
Razan Saffour was born and raised in London, studied at SOAS, and emerged as a high-profile Syrian opposition voice during the early years of the war, when she was only in her early 20s. Platformed by major western and Arab media outlets from the Persian Gulf, she was a familiar figure on the regime-change circuit. Her father, Walid Saffour, a leading Muslim Brotherhood (MB) dissident, had fled Syria in 1981 during the MB’s armed uprising against the state.
Walid Saffour would later become the Syrian opposition’s ambassador to the UK, representing the Syrian National Council. Academic Dr Dara Conduit notes that this gave “the Brotherhood an important formal diplomatic link to the UK through an undeclared member.”
Engineering regime change
By the mid-2000s, the British government had aligned with US neoconservatives and MB-linked activists to prepare a full-blown insurgency in Syria.
In October 2006, several members of an MB front group, the National Salvation Front (NSF), traveled to Washington to meet with Michael Doran, a member of the US National Security Council, to discuss plans for regime change in Syria. Doran was a close associate of prominent Jewish neoconservative and former US president George W. Bush’s administration official Elliott Abrams.
In 2009, former French foreign minister Roland Dumas was told by top British officials that “they were preparing something in Syria … Britain was organizing an invasion of rebels into Syria.” When asked why, Dumas responded, “Very simple!” because “the Syrian regime makes anti-Israeli talk.”
The covert US-UK effort to topple Assad involved training young, media-savvy Syrian activists to organize anti-government protests, as well as flooding Syria with Al-Qaeda militants from Iraq, Libya, Lebanon, and dozens of other countries to carry out false flag attacks against Syrian police and security forces.
Many were UK nationals and members of the Al-Qaeda-linked Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG). They had been allowed by British authorities to travel to Libya to topple late Libyan president Muammar al-Gaddafi, before being funneled into Syria via Turkiye.
US Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford served as the operation’s field coordinator. As former US Naval officer Wayne Madsen reported in 2011, Ford was recruiting death squads from Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, and Chechnya. His previous role as political officer in Iraq involved implementing the El Salvador Option: organizing Shia death squads to crush Sunni insurgents under Ambassador John Negroponte.
Among those released from the US-run Bucca prison in Iraq and dispatched to Syria was none other than Abu Mohammad al-Julani. He would go on to found the Nusra Front, the Syrian branch of Al-Qaeda, after orchestrating a series of suicide bombings in Damascus.
The Powell connection
While Al-Qaeda’s Syrian franchise grew, British intelligence cultivated parallel assets to manage the political front. In 2011, former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair’s chief of staff, Jonathan Powell, founded the NGO Inter Mediate, a Foreign Office-funded project designed to open secret channels with insurgent groups.
In March 2012, Powell wrote to Hillary Clinton’s advisor Sidney Blumenthal seeking US support: “We are setting up secret channels between insurgents and governments.” He boasted that his group worked “closely with the FCO (the Foreign and Commonwealth Office), NSC (National Security Council) and SIS (Special Intelligence Service, or MI-6) in London.”
“We are starting work in Syria,” Powell added, suggesting that he was communicating with the Nusra Front and other Al-Qaeda linked groups.
By this time, Walid Saffour had assumed his UK ambassadorial post for the Syrian opposition. He lobbied hard for the arming of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) – a cover or “weapons farm” for transferring NATO-grade weapons to Nusra.
His appointment gave “the Brotherhood an important formal diplomatic link to the UK through an undeclared member,” academic Dara Conduit wrote in her book detailing the history of the MB in Syria.
Armed with CIA-supplied TOW missiles and led by Julani’s suicide battalions, Nusra captured Idlib in 2015. A year later, it declared an Islamic emirate in the province, modeled on ISIS’s Raqqa. Brett McGurk, the US envoy to the anti-ISIS coalition, would later call Idlib “the largest Al-Qaeda safe haven since 9/11.”
While McGurk claimed “Idlib now is a huge problem,” the US and UK were quietly working with the Nusra, which was soon rebranded as HTS.
Arab media outlet Jusoor wrote that the “attempts of [Hayat] Tahrir Al-Sham for polishing itself began in the summer of 2017, with a campaign of contacts with the west.”
Jusoor added that HTS media official Zeid Attar had a meeting with the former UK diplomat Powell, “who manages many back channels for negotiating with designated terrorist groups either internationally or nationally.”
From terrorist to statesman
In 2019, US envoy James Jeffrey openly described HTS as an “asset” to Washington’s Syria strategy. The goal: preserve an Al-Qaeda-controlled buffer in Idlib to pressure Damascus.
Russian media later revealed that Powell had met Julani near the Bab al-Hawa crossing with Turkiye, coaching him on how to rehabilitate his image. Julani was advised to grant a western media interview to soften his profile.
PBS journalist Martin Smith soon arrived in Idlib. His April 2021 interview with Julani aired in the US, casting the Salafist extremist leader as a reformed figure who posed no threat to western interests.
In May 2024, Robert Ford revealed at a conference that he, too, had met Julani in Idlib. “In 2023, a British non-governmental organization specializing in conflict resolution invited me to help with their efforts to get this man out of the terrorist world and into regular politics,” Ford told attendees.
That NGO, according to Independent Arabia, was Powell’s Inter Mediate. In a revealing twist, Powell was appointed UK National Security Advisor on 8 November 2024 – just weeks before Julani’s HTS launched its final offensive on Damascus. By 8 December, Julani, who now goes by his government name Ahmad al-Sharaa, had assumed power.
London’s ‘post-Assad’ playbook
As Sharaa settled into the presidential palace, western and Arab media launched a PR blitz to sell him as a modern, diversity-friendly ruler. This was difficult given his previous pledges to carry out a genocide against any of Syria’s minority Alawites who refused to convert to Sunni Islam, and his role in dispatching car and suicide bombers, killing tens of thousands in Syria and Iraq over more than a decade.
An image facelift ensued nonetheless: Military fatigues gave way to tailored suits; his nom de guerre was dropped in favor of his alleged birth name. Time magazine listed Sharaa as one of the year’s 100 most influential people – at Ford’s behest, no less. And the US lifted its $10 million bounty on his head for terrorism.
Sharaa pledged to protect minorities, including the Alawites – even as Syria’s new HTS-led security forces began targeting them under the guise of counterinsurgency. HTS-led Syrian government forces were carrying out brutal massacres against Alawite civilians on the Syrian coast, during an operation to quell an armed uprising against the authorities. During a four-day period of massacres, at least 1,700 Alawite civilians, including scores of women and children, were killed.
The following February, after Razan Saffour accompanied Julani to meet MbS, The National reported that Powell had recently held a “low-key meeting” with Syria’s new government in his new role as National Security Advisor, “boosting suggestions he will play a leading role in relations.”
Syrian analyst Malek Hafez told the Syrian Observer that Powell’s team even runs a media office inside the presidential palace, “reportedly run by two women – one British, the other of Lebanese-British heritage.”
As Hafez concludes, “The rise of Ahmad al-Sharaa was not spontaneous – it was carefully engineered through a long-term, western-backed strategy, in which Britain played a disproportionately influential role among western powers.”
While London has not yet officially expressed its support for Sharaa and Syria’s new government, the UK’s “fingerprints” are increasingly visible, the Observer added.
When weighed against the hundreds of thousands of Syrians killed, the millions displaced, and the wreckage of a nation, the UK’s central role in bringing Julani to power should not be forgotten.
The United States and Greenland, Part I: Episodes in Nuclear History 1947-1968
Greenland “Green Light”: Danish PM’s Secret Acquiescence Encouraged U.S. Nuclear Deployments
Pentagon Approved Nuclear-Armed B-52 Flights Over Greenland
National Security Archive | June 3, 2025
The Trump administration’s intention to acquire Greenland, including possibly by force, has put a focus on the history of its strategic interest to U.S. policymakers. Today, the National Security Archive publishes the first of a two-part declassified document collection on the U.S. role in Greenland during the middle years of the Cold War, covering the decisions that led to the secret deployment of U.S. nuclear weapons in the Danish territory in 1958 to the 1968 crash of a nuclear-armed B-52 bomber near Thule Air Base that left plutonium-laced debris scattered across miles of Arctic sea ice.[1]
The radioactive mess caused by the accident required a major clean-up and caused a serious controversy in U.S.-Denmark relations. The U.S. had never officially told Denmark that it was flying nuclear weapons over Greenland, although Danish officials suspected it; nor had the U.S. informed the Danes that it had once stored nuclear weapons in Greenland, although in 1957 they had received a tacit “green light” to do so from the Danish prime minister, according to documents included in today’s posting. But both the nuclear-armed overflights of Greenland and the storage of nuclear weapons there were in strong contradiction to Denmark’s declared non-nuclear policy. When the bomber crash exposed the overflights, Denmark tried to resolve the conflict by seeking a U.S. pledge that Greenland would be nuclear free.
This new publication revisits the nuclear and strategic history of the United States and Greenland as it emerged during the late 1940s through the crash in 1968, highlighting key declassified documents from the archival record, FOIA releases, the Digital National Security Archive (DNSA), and other sources. The analysis draws on the work of U.S. and Danish scholars who have written about the B-52 crash and the history of the U.S., Denmark, and Greenland during the Cold War, including revelations in the 1990s that prompted Danish experts to revisit the historical record.[2]
Part I, below, looks at U.S. strategic interests in Greenland in the early Cold War period, including Danish government acquiescence to the storage of nuclear weapons there, U.S. nuclear-armed airborne alert flights over Greenland, and the 1968 B-52 crash. Part II will document the aftermath of the accident, including the clean-up of contaminated ice, the U.S.-Denmark government nuclear policy settlement, and the failed search for lost nuclear weapons parts deep in the waters of North Star Bay.
Background
Greenland has been seen as an important strategic interest to United States defense officials and policymakers since World War II. After the fall of France in June 1940, the Nazis seized Denmark, and the Roosevelt administration feared that Germany would occupy Greenland, threatening Canada and the United States. In response, the U.S. insisted that Greenland was part of the Western Hemisphere and thus a territory that had to be “assimilated to the general hemispheric system of continental defense.” The U.S. began talks with Danish Ambassador Henrik Kauffmann, who was acting on his own authority as “leader of the Free Danes” and in defiance of the German occupiers. On 9 April 1941, Kauffmann signed an extraordinary agreement with Washington giving the United States almost unlimited access to build military facilities in Greenland and would remain valid as long as there were “dangers to the American continent,” after which the two parties could modify or terminate it. By the end of World War II, the U.S. had 17 military facilities in Greenland. After the liberation of Denmark from German rule, the Danish Parliament ratified the Kauffmann-U.S. agreement on 23 May 1945, but it assumed its early termination, with Denmark taking over Greenland’s defense.[3]
In 1946, the Truman administration gave brief consideration to buying Greenland because it continued to see it as important for U.S. security.[4] During 1947, with the U.S. beginning to define the Soviet Union as an adversary, defense officials saw Greenland as an important “primary base,” especially because they were unsure about long-term access to Iceland and the Azores.[5] Thus, maintaining U.S. access was an important concern, as exemplified in an early National Security Council report that U.S. bases in Greenland, along with Iceland and the Azores, were of “extreme importance” for any war “in the next 15 or 20 years.” For their part, Danish authorities had no interest in selling Greenland but sought to restore their nation’s sovereignty there; having joined NATO, they dropped their traditional neutrality approach and were more willing to accept a limited U.S. presence. In late 1949, the U.S. and Denmark opened what became drawn out negotiations over Greenland; during 1950, the U.S. even returned some facilities to Denmark, including Sandrestrom air base. But in late 1950, with Cold War tensions deepening, the Pentagon gave the negotiations greater priority, seeking an agreement that would let the U.S. develop a base at Thule as part of an air strategy designed to reach Soviet targets across the Arctic.[6]
In April 1951, the two countries reached an agreement on the “defense of Greenland” that superseded the 1941 treaty, confirmed Danish sovereignty, and delineated three “defense areas” for use by the United States, with additional areas subject to future negotiations. Under the agreement, each signatory would “take such measures as are necessary or appropriate to carry out expeditiously their respective and joint responsibilities in Greenland, in accordance with NATO plans.” Consistent with that broad guidance, the U.S. would be free to operate its bases as it saw fit, including the movement of “supplies,” and with no restrictions on its access to airspace over Greenland. With this agreement, Washington had achieved its overriding security goals in Greenland. To move the agreement through Parliament, the Danish government emphasized its defensive character, although the negotiators and top officials understood that U.S. objectives went beyond that.[7]
In 1955, a few years after the 1951 agreement, the Joint Chiefs of Staff tried to revive interest in purchasing Greenland to ensure U.S. control over the strategically important territory and without having to rely on an agreement with another government. But the JCS proposal never found traction in high levels of the Eisenhower administration. The State Department saw no point to it, since the United States was already “permitted to do almost anything, literally, that we want to in Greenland.” The 1951 agreement stayed in place for decades. Denmark and the United States finally modified it in 2004, limiting the “defense area” to Thule Air Base and taking “Greenland Home Rule” more fully into account.
Nuclear Issues
When the U.S. negotiated the 1951 agreement, nuclear deployments were not an active consideration in official thinking about a role for U.S. bases for Greenland. Yet by 1957, when U.S. government agencies, including the State Department, became interested in deploying nuclear bombs at Thule, they used the agreement’s open-ended language to justify such actions. According to an August 1957 letter signed by Deputy Under Secretary of State Robert Murphy, the Agreement was “sufficiently broad to permit the use of facilities in Greenland for the introduction and storage of [nuclear] weapons.” The problem was to determine whether Danish leaders would see it that way.
While Defense Department officials were willing to go ahead on the deployments without consulting the Danish Government, Murphy thought it best to seek the advice of the U.S. ambassador, former Nebraska Governor Val Peterson. Peterson recommended bringing the question to Danish authorities and, having received the Department’s approval, in mid-November 1957 he asked Prime Minister Hans Christian Hansen if he wished to be informed about nuclear deployments. By way of reply, Hansen handed Peterson a “vague and indefinite” paper that U.S. and Danish officials interpreted as a virtual “green light” for the deployments. Hansen raised no objections, asked for no information, and tacitly accepted the U.S. government’s loose interpretation of the 1951 agreement. He insisted, however, that the U.S. treat his response as secret because he recognized how dangerous it was for domestic politics, where anti-nuclear sentiment was strong, and for Denmark’s relations with the Soviet Union, which would have strongly objected.[8]
When Prime Minister Hansen tacitly approved the deployment of U.S. nuclear weapons in Greenland, he was initiating what Danish scholar Thorsten Borring Olesen has characterized as a “double standard” nuclear policy. On the one hand, in a May 1957 address, Hansen had stated that the government would not receive nuclear weapons “under the present conditions.” Thus, Denmark abstained from NATO nuclear storage and sharing plans as they developed in the following years. On the other hand, the Danish leadership treated Greenland differently with respect to nuclear weapons even though, as of 1953, it was no longer a colony but a county represented in Parliament. This double standard was not necessarily a preference for Denmark’s leaders but they felt constrained by the need to accommodate U.S. policy goals in Greenland. Thus, by keeping their Greenland policy secret, Hansen and his successors kept relations with Washington on an even keel while avoiding domestic political crises and pressure from the Soviet Union.[9]
In 1958, the Strategic Air Command deployed nuclear weapons in Greenland, the details of which were disclosed in a declassified SAC history requested by Hans Kristensen, then with the Nautilus Institute. According to Kristensen’s research and the Danish study of “Greenland During the Cold War,” during 1958 the U.S. deployed four nuclear weapons in Greenland—two Mark 6 atomic bombs and two MK 36 thermonuclear bombs as well as 15 non-nuclear components. That SAC kept bombs there for less than a year suggests that it did not have a clear reason to continue storing them in Greenland. Nevertheless, the U.S. kept nuclear air defense weapons at Thule: 48 nuclear weapons were available for Nike-Hercules air missiles through mid-1965. There may also have been a deployment of nuclear weapons for Falcon air-to-air missiles through 1965, but their numbers are unknown.[10]
Airborne Alert and the January 1968 Crash
If it had only been an issue of the U.S. storing nuclear weapons on the ground in Greenland for a few years, the matter might have been kept under wraps for years. But the crash of a U.S. Air Force B-52 on 21 January 1968 near Thule Air Base exposed another nuclear secret and caused serious difficulties in U.S.-Denmark relations. While the bomber crash was quickly overshadowed by North Korea’s seizure of the U.S.S. Pueblo the next day and the Tet offensive that began on 30 January, the coincidence of the three events was a major crisis for the overextended U.S.[11]
Beginning in 1961, accident-prone B-52s were routinely flying over Thule because Greenland had become even more salient to U.S. national security policy. To warn the U.S. of incoming bombers, the Air Force had deployed Distant Early Warning Line radar stations across Alaska and northern Canada during the 1950s and extended them to Greenland in 1960-1961. The Air Force also deployed the Ballistic Missile Early Warning System (BMEWS), with a site located near Thule Air Base in 1960. With BMEWS, the U.S. would receive 15 minutes of warning of a ballistic missile launch.
The warning time was important for U.S. Strategic Air Command (SAC) because it provided the opportunity to launch ground alert bomber forces in the event of an attack. But the possibility of an ICBM strike on U.S. airbases also helped inspire the emergence of airborne alert, whereby SAC kept nuclear-armed B-52s in the air 24 hours a day, ready to move on Soviet targets in the event of war. SAC began to test airborne alert in the late 1950s, and the flights soon became routine. By 1961, SAC had initiated “Chrome Dome,” with 12 B-52s flying two major routes, a Northern Route over North America and a Southern Route across the Atlantic. While SAC leaders used strategic arguments to justify airborne alert, they also had a parochial interest because it kept bombers in the air, giving pilots even more training.[12]
Airborne alert converged with Greenland in August 1961, when SAC and the Joint Chiefs of Staff approved a plan for two B-52 sorties a day to fly over the BMEWS site at Thule. Given the major importance of the BMEWS site, if the Soviets knocked it out in a surprise attack, they could disrupt U.S. early warning capabilities. Thus, SAC insisted on visual observation so that the B-52 crew could check whether the site was intact in the event there were failures in the communications links between Thule and the North American Air Defense Command in Colorado. SAC’s BMEWS Monitor was a routine operation for years, even after the B-52 crash in Palomares, Spain, led to decisions to scale back on airborne alert. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara wanted to end the program altogether but accepted a JCS compromise proposal for fewer sorties.
Danish military personnel and others nearby were aware of the daily B-52 flights. Moreover, every year there were emergency landings by U.S. bombers, with three in 1967 alone. After a nuclear-loaded B-52 crashed in western Maryland in January 1964, Eske Brun, Denmark’s Under Secretary for Greenland, wondered whether the B-52s flying over Thule carried nuclear weapons and asked U.S. Ambassador William McCormick Blair about the possibility of an accident. Blair suggested that such an “unfortunate” occurrence would be the price of defending the “free world” and that the flights were consistent with the 1951 agreement. The Danes held internal discussions about whether there were any restrictions on U.S. flights over Greenland and decided not to pursue the matter.
According to Scott Sagan, the January 1968 crash was a “normal accident waiting to happen.” The heating system failed on a bomber carrying four nuclear weapons over Thule, causing foam rubber cushions placed under the seats to catch fire. The crew could not extinguish the flames and bailed out after determining that an emergency landing was impossible, with all but one of the seven crew members surviving. While the nuclear weapons carried on the plane did not detonate when the B-52 crashed on Wolstenholme Fjord, near North Star Bay, conventional high explosives carried in the bombs did, causing plutonium contaminated aircraft parts and bomb debris to scatter about the ice for miles.[13]
To recover what they could of the bombs and assess the contamination, SAC sent an emergency team to Thule, including officials from the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). All of this occurred under incredibly difficult conditions, sub-zero temperatures, and winter arctic darkness. Danish officials joined in the effort, although they would not take part in the bomb-salvaging activity. While SAC’s disaster team discovered most of the bomb parts after the accident, it could not find some of the important pieces, which eventually necessitated an underwater search. An equally significant problem was the possible risk to the local ecology from plutonium contamination, including its impact on Inuit hunters. U.S. officials had to find a way to clean up the icy mess quickly and in a way that was satisfactory to Danish authorities.
Immediately after the accident, JCS Chair Earle Wheeler and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara ordered nuclear-armed airborne alert flights to end. SAC would continue the BMEWS Monitor using KC-135 tanker aircraft, but that ended that April 1968 when the flights were switched to the BMEWS site in Clear, Alaska. BMEWS, including the site at Thule, remained a U.S. strategic asset until 2001, when the Air Force replaced it with the Solid State Phase Array Radar System.
Soon after the accident, the Danish Foreign Ministry issued a statement that included this language: “Danish policy regarding nuclear weapons also applies to Greenland and also to air space over Greenland. There are no nuclear weapons in Greenland.” With this statement, the Government of Denmark was beginning to abandon the “double standard” by moving toward a consistent no nuclear policy. How Danish authorities worked with Washington to confirm this policy goal will be the subject of Part II.
The crash of the B-52 was no secret in Denmark, but the fact that airborne alert flights over Greenland were routine during the 1960s did not reach public attention until the early 1990s. Prompted by the revelations, the Danish Government asked the U.S. government for more information, which led the State Department to disclose to the Danish government in July 1995 that the U.S. had deployed nuclear bombs and air defense weapons in Greenland during 1958-1965. The State Department letter was secret, but its contents began to leak. The preceding month, the Danish government had released information on the Hansen paper, creating a political scandal and prompting calls for an investigation of the historical record.
The Danish Institute of International Affairs sponsored the research and published its report in 1996, Grønland under den kolde krig: Dansk og amerikansk sikkerhedspolitik 1945–1968 [Greenland During the Cold War: Danish and American Security Policy 1945-1968 ]. The report, which included a full reproduction of the Hansen paper, among other revelations, disclosed much of this once-hidden history.[14] Nevertheless, significant State Department and U.S. Embassy records remain classified and have been the subject of declassification requests by National Security Archive to the U.S. National Archives.
Israel-Backed Militias Linked to ISIS Loot Gaza Aid Under IDF Watch
By Robert Inlakesh | MintPress News | May 29, 2025
Israeli officials often claim that Hamas has been looting aid heading to Gaza, yet the evidence suggests the opposite. New reports and eyewitness accounts indicate that Israel is backing ISIS-linked militants who are working to replace Hamas security forces and are looting humanitarian aid under the watchful eye of IDF drones.
New evidence recently emerged of ISIS-linked militants in Gaza, operating inside the Israeli-controlled buffer zone and controlling roads on which aid was destined to be transported. These armed men were photographed brandishing automatic weapons, wearing Israeli military tactical vests and bearing Palestinian flag patches on their helmets.
To the naked eye, they could be mistaken for Palestinian security force officers. In fact, they are members of an infamous criminal network responsible for looting humanitarian aid. On May 21, 15 World Food Program trucks carrying flour were looted, and UN sources suggest the perpetrators were these armed factions. Yet, they claim to be a legitimate opposition group poised to replace Hamas.
For some 80 days, Israel had imposed a total blockade on all food, medical supplies, water and fuel entering the territory. As soon as a small number of trucks were allowed to enter, the militants were spotted, sporting new military gear and poised to intercept the humanitarian supplies.
ISIS-linked “Anti-Terror Services”
The leader of the Israeli-aligned militia is a man named Yasser Abu Shabab, a member of the Tarabin tribe that extends between the Naqab (Negev), Gaza and Sinai. However, he and others affiliated with the Tarabin have long been denounced as not representing the tribe due to their extensive criminal pasts.
Abu Shabab was well known in Gaza for his fierce opposition to Hamas and had been arrested for smuggling narcotics. He also maintained a direct connection to ISIS in the Egyptian Sinai. When Israeli bombing destroyed the jails run by Hamas security forces during the early days of the Gaza war, the infamous criminal managed to escape.
From there, Abu Shabab quickly began building a militant force numbering at least 100 men, many of whom were also previously imprisoned and had known ties to ISIS and al-Qaeda-linked groups.
An internal UN memo, reported by the Financial Times in November 2024, stated that Abu Shabab’s men were operating inside Israel’s buffer zone, looting aid shipments with “the passive, if not active benevolence” of Israeli forces. This is notable, as Israeli forces have routinely shot and killed civilians attempting to enter that same zone, even when coordinated in advance.
While these criminal factions began looting early into the Gaza war, they became more prominent following Israel’s invasion of Rafah on May 6, 2024. Up until that point, Hamas-led Palestinian police had helped coordinate aid deliveries through the Rafah Crossing.
This security was provided despite Israel threatening to bomb the police officers if they approached aid trucks, often forcing Gaza’s law enforcement into a hands-off role. But once Rafah was invaded and police disappeared, Israeli forces worked in proximity with criminal networks to intercept and sell stolen aid through intermediaries.
The result was a massive price hike for basic goods, with these gangs reportedly drip-feeding supplies to local sellers, maintaining artificial scarcity during a famine. Israel’s leading human rights organization, B’Tselem, has labeled the policy “manufacturing famine.”
Two sources working with aid agencies in Gaza confirmed to MintPress News that all aid entering the Strip is either subject to a bribe paid to these gangs or is partially or completely confiscated. Both spoke on condition of anonymity, stating that the gangs are widely believed to be coordinating with Israeli forces.
Prior to January 19, when a temporary ceasefire began, these gangs wore face coverings and operated as a ragtag militia. In recent weeks, however, they have rebranded themselves as the “Anti-Terror Service,” claiming to be a grassroots opposition to Hamas.
On Abu Shabab’s Facebook page, he now describes himself as a “grassroots leader who stood up against corruption and looting,” posting photos of himself patrolling roads and claiming to work with international aid organizations, to ensure the delivery of flour trucks.”
Back in November 2024, he told The Washington Post that “Hamas has left us with nothing,” even denying that his men carried weapons. He claimed that the looting was done by unarmed individuals and that they avoided stealing food intended for children. Yet aid workers and truck drivers insist his men are committing armed robbery.
Another warlord reportedly backed by Israel is Shadi al-Sufi, a convicted murderer and drug trafficker who had been sentenced to death. In 2020, he assassinated Jabr Al-Qiq, a senior commander in the PFLP’s Abu Ali Mustafa brigades. He reportedly later worked with ISIS contacts to escape to Sinai.
A senior official with a major humanitarian organization told MintPress News :
In the areas where the security forces are operating, the situation is always more stable, and they have repeatedly cracked down on black market operations. Anyone telling you the gangs are helping the people is a liar, that is all I can say.”
In November, Haaretz reported: “The IDF is aware of the problem. They said that at one point, the government had even considered making the clans to which the armed men belong responsible for distributing aid to Gaza’s residents, even though some of the clans’ members are involved in terrorism and some are affiliated with extremist organizations like the Islamic State.”
This now appears to be the Israeli strategy: to deputize these criminal gangs as a replacement security force to supplant Hamas rule. The makeover also coincides with efforts by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), a U.S.-linked initiative rumored to involve private military contractors, raising concerns that such groups may be tapped to cooperate with these armed networks.
A source affiliated with the Palestinian security forces in Gaza told Mint Press News that a similar strategy was attempted in northern Gaza, but that Hamas, working with politically unaffiliated locals, dismantled the criminal networks that began forming under Israeli supervision.
Hamas vs ISIS and Israel
Meanwhile, the UN and every major humanitarian organization that has addressed the issue have pointed the finger at the gangs, not Hamas, for looting. None have reported credible instances of Hamas stealing aid. In fact, the Biden administration even asked Israel in February 2024 to halt its targeting of Hamas-led security forces, which had been helping coordinate the delivery of humanitarian trucks into Gaza.
“Hamas is ISIS,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared. But recent actions by Israel suggest the opposite: that it is actively empowering Salafist factions to undermine Hamas in Gaza. In March, the Israeli military floated the idea of arming certain tribal clans to establish so-called “Hamas-free zones.” Among those considered was the Dughmush clan, long known for its links to ISIS.
Since Hamas was voted into power and took full control of Gaza in 2007, it has fought a years-long war against Salafi-jihadist factions inside the Strip. In 2009, it crushed an al-Qaeda-aligned uprising that left 22 dead. Sporadic bombings and assassination attempts followed.
Tensions between Hamas and al-Qaeda affiliates continued intermittently for years, marked by sporadic violence and periodic mass arrests, most notably in 2015, when Hamas detained over 50 Salafist militants after a wave of bombings targeting civilians in Gaza.
That same year, ISIS formally entered the fray. The Sheikh Omar Hadid Brigade, an ISIS affiliate, announced its presence in Gaza shortly after ISIS executed Hamas commander Sheikh Abu Salah Taha in Syria’s Yarmouk camp. Hamas responded swiftly: its security forces hunted down and killed the group’s leader, Younis Hunnar, in a gunfight.
In 2018, ISIS would officially “declare war” on Hamas, urging its followers to carry out attacks in order to overthrow the group in Gaza.
Now, in a bitter twist, Israel is backing many of these same elements. Under the guise of “aid security,” it is arming and enabling former ISIS and al-Qaeda-linked operatives, along with known traffickers and warlords, to carve out zones of control in Gaza. These forces are marketed as a grassroots alternative to Hamas. In practice, they are looting aid and destabilizing local governance under the watchful eye of Israeli drones.
White House covered up chemical spill cancer risk – report
RT | June 2, 2025
The administration of former US President Joe Biden tried to cover up serious public health risks related to a 2023 toxic chemical spill in East Palestine, Ohio, a whistleblower protection and advocacy group has claimed.
The Government Accountability Project (GAP) has published a set of documents obtained through a lawsuit from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which allegedly prove that the White House deliberately chose to withhold the true scale of the catastrophe while intentionally avoiding contact with affected residents.
On February 3, 2023, a Norfolk Southern freight train carrying toxic chemicals, including vinyl chloride, derailed near the village of East Palestine, spilling its hazardous contents into a nearby waterway. Five tankers were later also deliberately ignited in a controlled burn. The incident forced evacuations, was linked to animal deaths, and led to reports of unexplained illnesses in the weeks that followed.
Several months later, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) publicly declared that East Palestine residents were “not in danger,” citing air and water monitoring results. Biden had also praised what he called his administration’s “herculean efforts” to resolve the crisis.
The government’s response was heavily criticized at the time, with many calling out Biden for not visiting East Palestine sooner, downplaying the severity of the disaster, and prioritizing public relations over the health and safety concerns raised by residents and experts.
According to GAP investigator Lesley Pacey, the public’s fears have turned out to be justified, with internal documents showing that the White House, the EPA, and FEMA had privately discussed the serious dangers associated with the chemical spill, described internally as “really toxic,” and “deliberately kept this information from the community.”
In an interview with NewsNation published on Saturday, Pacey explained that FEMA knew that the controlled chemical burn resulted in a “really toxic plume” and that it could cause cancer clusters in the region and other health risks that would require 20 years of medical monitoring.
The information was never publicly disclosed or acknowledged by FEMA or the White House as the Biden administration chose to focus on “public reassurances” rather than “worrying about public health,” Pacey told the New York Post.
The emails obtained by GAP have also shown that FEMA’s coordinator – sent to East Palestine to oversee recovery efforts, communicate with residents and assess their needs – was actually directly instructed to avoid engaging with the locals.
“They completely botched this event from the very beginning,” Pacey surmised.
