Gaza refutes Israel’s claim of tunnel under European Hospital
MEMO | June 9, 2025
The Government Media Office in Gaza (GMO) yesterday denied Israeli claims that a tunnel was found beneath the European Hospital in southern Gaza.
In an official statement, the GMO said the Israeli occupation continues its systematic campaign to mislead the public and justify its crimes against health facilities by promoting blatant lies, the latest of which is its claim that Palestinian resistance fighters used a tunnel under the European Hospital in the southern Gaza Strip.
It stressed that the Israeli claim is “fabricated, flawed, and full of holes and does not stand up to even the slightest scrutiny and logic.”
According to the statement, the video published by the Israeli occupation army shows a narrow metal pipe that cannot fit a person, has no stairs or equipment and is located in an area used for rainwater drainage.
The GMO accused the Israeli army of digging the site and placing the pipe before filming a scene near the hospital’s emergency room, which was crowded with patients and visitors.
The GMO referred to previous Israeli allegations of the existence of tunnels under Al-Shifa Hospital and Hamad Hospital, which turned out to be old water wells.
The GMO concluded its statement saying Israel has previously announced its intention to destroy the health system in Gaza and admitted to using bunker-busting bombs totaling more than 40 tonnes to destroy the infrastructure of the European Hospital.
“So how could intact, unburned bodies be displayed at a site that the occupation claims to have bombed with such ferocity?” it added
The Silence of the Bears
By Alastair Crooke | Strategic Culture Foundation | June 9, 2025
Russia’s leadership is in ‘conclave’ determining its riposte.
Trump has been silent for two days. Unprecedented. In the last days, Ukraine and its facilitators attempted a massive attack on Russia’s strategic nuclear bomber-force; succeeded in collapsing two bridges onto civilian trains heading to Moscow; attacking the Kerch Bridge; and assassinating a Russian general via explosive body bomb.
As Clausewitz noted two centuries ago, the point of military force is to compel an outcome: i.e. that an adversary finally does what is wanted of him. Thus, in respect to military adventures there is need for clarity of thought from the outset. It must have a realisable political objective that has a prospect to be implemented.
What then, was the objective behind these Ukrainian ‘irregular’ attacks? One certainly was demonstrative – PR exercises to say that Ukraine and allied services are still capable of mounting special forces style, innovative operations. And are therefore worthy of continued support. As Colonel Doug Macgregor cautions:
“For the most part it was a PR stunt to try and convey the impression that Ukraine is capable of carrying on the war. Anything you hear from the Western outlets … are probably untrue or at least grossly exaggerated … We damaged ourselves and our relationship – what there is left of it – with Moscow … that’s the real fallout from this”.
Okay. But PR stunts are no strategy, nor do the attacks hold any prospect for a shift in the overall strategic military paradigm. It doesn’t say that the West or Ukraine has suddenly discovered a political strategy towards Russia per se. That doesn’t exist. For the most part, the innumerable western declarations come as a hodge-podge of fantasies.
The second objective however, may indeed have had a clear strategic end-state – and has demonstrated feasibility and the possibility to compel a desired outcome: The various attacks have imposed on Trump the uncomfortable reality that he, as President, does not control U.S. foreign policy. The collective Deep State has just made that plain.
As General Mike Flynn has warned:
“The Deep State is now acting outside of the control of the elected leadership of our nation … These persons in our Deep State are engaged in a deliberate effort to provoke Russia into a major confrontation with the West, including the United States”.
In effect, the likes of Generals Keith Kellogg and Jack Keane, with their adolescent narratives that only through pressure, more pressure and pain will compel Putin (always presumed to be weak) to accept a frozen conflict in the hope that it can obvert from an American defeat in Ukraine.
The British during WW2 similarly believed that the Nazi regime was not strong, and could be overthrown by strategic bombing, intended to bring about the collapse of German society. Today, General Kellogg advocates ‘bombing’ Russia with sanctions – mirroring the British conviction that such tactics ‘must be bad for morale’.
Trump’s advice from his Generals either did not meet the criterion of political realism – because it was based on fantasies of incipient Russian collapse and a hopeless misreading of Russia and its Army. Or perhaps his Advisers, either inadvertently or deliberately, ‘shafted’ Trump and his agenda of normalising relations with Russia.
What will Trump say now to Putin? That he was indeed forewarned (recall his writing just days ago that “bad things – if it were not for me – I mean REALLY BAD things would already have happened to Russia” ) and claim that his advisers did not give him the full details; or will he candidly admit that they deceived him? Alternatively, will he take the line that the CIA was merely operating to an old Presidential ‘Finding’ that authorised attacks into the depth of the Russian hinterland?
All such putative answers would spell one thing – that Trump is not in control. That he and his European allies (such as Britain) cannot be trusted.
Either way, Trump’s advisers will have understood that Zelensky and by extension his NATO enablers, were exploiting the SALT/START Treaties’ vulnerability – in order to use concealed drones, hidden in civilian containers, to attack the very bombers covered by USA-Russia treaties: Article XII of the START treaty specifically requires “a display in the open of all heavy bombers within the airbase”. This provision was a confidence building act (visible monitoring) to guard against a surprise ‘first strike’ nuclear attack.
START 1 cut long-range or strategic nuclear arsenals by 30-40 percent. New START slashed accountable deployed strategic arms by another three-quarters. In 2021, Presidents Biden and Putin extended New START until February 2026.
Of course, these unidentified enablers understood the gravity of striking the strategic nuclear force of a major rival nuclear weapons power.
How would the U.S. respond if an adversary (perhaps a non-state actor) launched a strike against strategic long-range nuclear capable bombers in the USA using cheap and easily available drones hidden in containers? We are in a new era of risk – one in which pagers and cell phones can be weaponised as bombs – and of ‘sleeper’ drones that can be remotely activated to attack airfields, either civilian or military.
Larry Johnson has observed that after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour in December 1941, intended to destroy the U.S. aircraft carriers berthed there, the Japanese Admiral Yamamoto reportedly said the following in the aftermath of Japan’s great victory at Pearl Harbour: “I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve … We have won a great tactical victory at Pearl Harbour and thereby lost the war”.
The silence of the bears will soon be ended and we will know more about Russian resolve; but a relationship in which Trump is understood to ‘mean what he says, and does what he says’ likely is over. The Russians are furious.
What happens next is unknown.
Jury Hears Conflicting Testimony in Trial Alleging Hospital’s Actions — Not COVID — Caused Teen’s Death
By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | June 6, 2025
The parents of Grace Schara, a 19-year-old with Down syndrome who died in a Wisconsin hospital days after being admitted for a COVID-19 infection, testified this week in court that their daughter died as a result of a lethal combination of drugs and a Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) order the hospital implemented without their consent.
Grace’s family sued Ascension St. Elizabeth Hospital in April 2023 and filed an amended complaint in July 2023, alleging the hospital’s COVID-19 treatment protocols directly resulted in Grace’s death in October 2021, a week after admission.
The trial began Tuesday at the State of Wisconsin Circuit Court for Outagamie County.
“This isn’t about failing to provide information. This is about providing treatment with no consent whatsoever,” Scott Schara, Grace’s father, testified on Wednesday. “Her passing was a result of combining Precedex, lorazepam and morphine in a 26-minute window and putting an illegal do-not-resuscitate order on her chart.”
The lawsuit names 14 defendants, including Ascension Health, five medical doctors and four John Doe medical providers, two registered nurses, and the Wisconsin Injured Patients and Family Compensation Fund.
The defendants argued that Schara may have died due to “a naturally progressing disease, a pre-existing condition, or a superseding or intervening cause,” Green Bay-based CBS affiliate WFRV reported.
According to the Journal Sentinel, the hospital also argued that the federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act) provided it and its doctors and staff immunity from liability during the COVID-19 pandemic.
At times during the first three days of the trial, hospital doctors and nurses who testified appeared to contradict themselves over whether Grace had been oversedated and whether her family consented to a DNR order.
Green Bay, Wisconsin-based ABC affiliate WBAY reported, “This is the first wrongful death jury trial in the country for a death listed as COVID-19 on the death certificate.” WFRV reported that “this landmark case could have far-reaching implications for how medical decisions are made, especially during a public health crisis.”
The trial could last up to three weeks. Up to 22 witnesses may testify, WFRV reported, adding that the case may draw attention “to critical issues surrounding informed consent and the rights of patients and their families in the healthcare system.”
Scharas allege lack of informed consent, violation of standards of care
During opening statements Tuesday, Warner Mendenhall, the Schara family’s attorney, said the hospital violated standards of care in their treatment of Grace.
“Instead of recognizing the life-threatening situation and reducing the medications causing the problems, this medical team did the opposite,” Mendenhall said.
Jason Franckowiak and Randall Guse, attorneys for the defendants, said hospital staff provided an appropriate standard of care, which did not lead to Grace’s death. Instead, they argued that a worsening COVID-19 infection led to her death.
Her parents testified that they became concerned after their daughter displayed allergy symptoms in late September 2021, days after the family attended a concert, and that they took her for treatment as a precautionary measure.
“We were just hoping that we would just get some supplemental oxygen,” Cindy Schara, Grace’s mother, testified Tuesday.
Scott Schara told the court that Grace “was not having any trouble breathing,” and that “it wasn’t an emergency, so there was no need to have Grace in the hospital.”
But the hospital told the family they were keeping Grace overnight “for observation” and that they would put her on a steroid “for two to three days,” after which she would be discharged. “But that’s not what happened,” Cindy Schara testified.
Instead, hospital staff gave Grace Precedex, lorazepam and morphine. Mendenhall said that Precedex “dangerously lowered” Grace’s blood pressure and pulse, and that her condition improved after its dosage was lowered.
According to Scott Schara, after Grace’s first oversedation event, Dr. Gavin Shokar, a defendant who was the primary physician in charge of Grace’s care, gave an order to stop administering Precedex, but nursing staff waited 22 minutes to do so.
Shokar testified Thursday that he was uncertain whether his order was immediately implemented. Hospital staff also provided contradictory testimony in response to the Scharas’ claims that Grace had been oversedated with these medications.
Shokar testified that he “was aware” that Grace had been oversedated at least once. Samuel Haines, a nurse at the hospital, said Grace had been oversedated “only for a brief period.”
However, Hollee McInnis, another defendant, said Grace was “not oversedated.”
A witness for the Schara family, Dr. Gilbert Berdine, an associate professor of medicine at Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, said Grace was oversedated three times during her hospital stay.
According to Grace’s parents, the family did not consent to the medications and did not find out they were administered until later.
“If they would’ve asked me for consent with those, of course, I would’ve asked a lot of questions,” Scott Schara testified. He said the hospital also didn’t tell him that they reclassified Grace’s hospital room as an ICU room.
McInnis testified that she “personally did not witness” hospital doctors obtaining consent to administer the drugs in question.
Grace’s father removed from hospital after ‘pushing to get her fed’
During his testimony, Scott Schara also recounted a “heated conversation” he had with hospital staff who rejected his request to feed Grace because she was on a BiPAP (Bilevel Positive Airway Pressure) machine — a type of non-invasive ventilation.
The confrontation led the hospital to order Scott removed from the hospital, and send an armed guard to Grace’s room to escort him out.
“That’s one of the reasons I was kicked out. I was pushing to get her fed,” Scott Schara testified. “That was the last time I saw Grace alive physically.”
Hospital staff testified that Scott Schara was removed because some nurses did not want him in the room, because he was shutting off alarms from Grace’s medical equipment at night. Staff said they also suspected he had COVID-19.
But Mendenhall said Scott’s questioning of medical staff was “exactly what he was supposed to do as a dad and power of attorney for healthcare.”
According to the Scharas’ legal team, Shokar could have overruled the order to eject Scott from the hospital. But Shokar testified that his “primary responsibility was to Grace” and that “these things are non-pertinent to her particular care.”
In subsequent days, Grace’s family was able to communicate with her solely through FaceTime calls — until the hospital took Grace’s phone away.
“Cindy and I had no opportunity to communicate with Grace unless it was initiated by the hospital,” Scott Schara testified.
Hospital repeatedly pressured family to ‘pre-authorize’ a ventilator for Grace
The Scharas also testified that hospital staff repeatedly pressured them to “pre-authorize” a ventilator for Grace, even though, according to Mendenhall, “there was no need for a ventilator.”
Cindy Schara testified that she received several calls from the hospital “asking us for a pre-authorization to put Grace on a vent if something would’ve happened in the middle of the night — that is how it was always presented.”
“There was family there, so there was no need for a pre-authorization,” she added.
Scott Schara testified that Dr. Karl Baum, one of the defendants in the case, told him that “a 20% chance” of saving Grace’s life was “better than no chance” in his efforts to convince the family to pre-approve a ventilator.
“Asking for Grace to be with a pre-authorization for a ventilator at that point was the equivalent of asking somebody for a pre-authorization for a leg amputation when they just have a sprained ankle,” Scott Schara testified.
Grace’s father also testified that Shokar acknowledged during a phone call that placing Grace on a ventilator would not have saved her life.
Shokar also had separate phone calls with Grace’s parents, purportedly to make amends after Scott was removed from the hospital. But the parents testified that the conversation transitioned to renewed efforts to get them to pre-authorize a ventilator for Grace, which they again rejected.
‘We watched her die’
Grace’s parents also testified that they repeatedly told hospital staff that they did not consent to a DNR order.
Hospital staff provided contradictory testimony as to whether Grace’s family provided consent. According to Shokar, Grace’s family ultimately agreed to a DNI — a “Do Not Intubate” order.
“We started to talk about goals of care, what you guys want to do in the worst case scenario, which would be if she were to crash, essentially cardiopulmonary arrest,” Shokar testified Thursday. “I was very confident that we came to a resolution to say, ‘This is what we want to do and this is what the family wants.’”
But according to Mendenhall, Grace’s family later learned that Shokar documented that Grace had both a DNI and DNR order, adding that they did not find out about the DNR until hours before her death. The hospital did not honor their subsequent request to remove the DNR from Grace’s chart.
Cindy Shara said they would not have agreed to a DNR order on their own, without the participation of Grace’s primary care physician, an attorney, their pastor and other family members. “It would be a terrible thing to have to decide,” she testified.
As a result of the DNR, hospital staff did not intervene during Grace’s final moments of life, Grace’s parents said. “We watched her die,” Scott Schara testified.
During her testimony, McInnis acknowledged that she was responsible for placing a wristband on Grace’s arm that would have indicated her DNR status, but could not recall whether she had placed such a wristband on Grace. “If she didn’t have one on, it would be because I had not put it on,” McInnis testified.
“I believe that denying Grace any assistance to help her in her final moments was just horrific,” Cindy Schara testified.
CHD.TV is livestreaming the trial daily.
The family’s lawsuit alleges medical negligence, violations of informed consent, and medical battery — a standard of intentional harm beyond medical negligence by doctors and other providers that, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, is rarely invoked in such legal cases.
According to the complaint, the hospital was financially incentivized to implement COVID-19 protocols that allegedly caused Grace’s death.
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.
NIH Shuts Down Research Center Founded by Fauci, as DOJ Scrutinizes Key Researchers
By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | June 5, 2025
Officials at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) plan to shut down a research center established by Dr. Anthony Fauci that issued grants to embattled researchers who promoted the “zoonotic origin” theory that COVID-19 emerged from wildlife, The Disinformation Chronicle reported today.
Fauci established the Centers for Research in Emerging Infectious Diseases (CREID) in 2020 to conduct “investigations into how and where viruses and other pathogens emerge from wildlife and spill over to cause disease in people.”
According to The Disinformation Chronicle, when CREID launched, it issued 11 grants worth $17 million, with an additional $82 million in expected funding over five years. It’s unclear how much of the money has already been spent.
Two CREID grantees have been the focus of intense scrutiny: Peter Daszak, Ph.D., of the EcoHealth Alliance and Kristian Andersen, Ph.D., of Scripps Research Institute. Both played key roles in publicly promoting the theory that SARS-CoV-2, which led to the COVID-19 pandemic, originated in wildlife.
The U.S. Department of Justice has launched “initial inquiries” into one of the CREID grants Anderson received. Last year, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) suspended all government funding for EcoHealth Alliance.
The Disinformation Chronicle quoted an NIH spokesperson, who confirmed the agency has terminated all outstanding CREID grants.
“Strengthening overall health through proactive disease prevention offers a more resilient foundation for responding to future health threats — beyond reliance on vaccines or treatments for yet-unknown pathogens,” the spokesperson said.
Andersen received a CREID grant after co-authoring zoonotic origin paper
In March 2020, Andersen co-authored “The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2,” published in Nature Medicine. The paper — widely known as the “Proximal Origin” paper — concluded that COVID-19 had a zoonotic origin. It became one of that year’s most-cited papers, accessed over 6 million times.
Government officials, including Fauci, and mainstream media outlets later cited the paper as part of efforts to discredit proponents of the theory that COVID-19 originated in and escaped from a lab.
The Trump administration is investigating whether the authors and publisher of “Proximal Origin” allowed Fauci and other key public health officials to influence the paper’s conclusions in exchange for funding — a possible quid pro quo.
According to The Disinformation Chronicle, two months after “Proximal Origin” was published, Andersen received a CREID grant.
In testimony to Congress in July 2023, Andersen said, “There is no connection between the grant and the conclusions we reached about the origin of the pandemic.” Later that month, The Intercept published documents showing that Andersen “knew that was false.”
Andersen and other virologists were initially skeptical about dismissing the lab-leak theory. But emails and documents revealed through a congressional investigation and some media outlets revealed that, under pressure from Fauci and other public health officials, Andersen endorsed the zoonotic theory in “Proximal Origin.”
During a Feb. 1, 2020, email and call between Fauci and several virologists, including Andersen, the participants expressed concern that COVID-19 might have been manipulated instead of originating in nature.
Transcripts revealed by The Nation in July 2023 showed that, in a February 2020 Slack thread, Andersen wrote to other virologists that “the main issue is that accidental release is in fact highly likely — it’s not some fringe theory.”
And on April 16, 2020, Andersen sent a Slack message to his “Proximal Origin” co-authors, stating, “I’m still not fully convinced that no culture was involved. We also can’t fully rule out engineering (for basic research).”
Andersen may have misled intelligence agencies on COVID’s origins
Andersen privately questioned the true origins of COVID-19. However, in March 2020 — one week after “Proximal Origin” was published — he participated in a U.S. Department of State briefing with other non-government scientists, where he dismissed the possibility that COVID-19 emerged from a lab leak at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China.
According to The Disinformation Chronicle, the briefing led the State Department to issue a report concluding there was no evidence that COVID-19 was developed in a lab. In 2023, Andersen testified during a sworn congressional deposition that he also briefed the CIA and FBI regarding COVID-19’s origins.
The DOJ is now likely to examine Andersen’s role in misleading U.S. intelligence agencies, The Disinformation Chronicle reported, quoting a State Department official, who said, “I don’t see how this not a criminal misleading and counterintelligence matter. This is way beyond the threshold needed for a grand jury.”
In April, the Trump administration launched a new version of the government’s official COVID-19 website, presenting evidence that COVID-19 emerged due to a leak at the Wuhan lab. The CIA, FBI, U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Congress and other intelligence agencies have endorsed this theory.
Daszak has also been under scrutiny for possible improprieties involving his research. According to The Disinformation Chronicle, Daszak was found to have undisclosed ties to the Wuhan Institute of Virology — including issuing a subaward to a researcher at that laboratory, Shi Zhengli, Ph.D., widely known as the “Bat Lady.”
In issuing its decision to bar Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance from receiving further federal funds, HHS cited the organization’s lack of response “to NIH’s multiple safety-related requests” relating to research performed at the Wuhan lab.
Journalist Paul D. Thacker, a former U.S. Senate investigator and publisher of The Disinformation Chronicle, said that congressional investigations involving Andersen and others have been problematic.
“The congressional investigations into these matters were not well managed. A lot of people are still shocked at how little got done,” Thacker said.
Last month, the NIH introduced a new policy prohibiting NIH grantees from outsourcing parts of their research to foreign entities through subawards.
Facing investigation, is Andersen looking to flee the U.S.?
Andersen, a Danish citizen, is now looking to leave the U.S. “as the noose continues to tighten,” The Disinformation Chronicle reported. He is said to be considering a position at the University of Oslo in Norway.
Sigrid Bratlie, a molecular biologist and senior adviser at Norway’s Langsikt Policy Centre, told The Disinformation Chronicle that “there is an ongoing effort from a group of scientists at the University of Oslo to recruit Andersen, and that this might be finalized in the near future.”
In October 2024, Andersen delivered a lecture at the University of Oslo on the “facts and the fiction” of the COVID-19 pandemic, claiming that critiques of his research were political attacks spread by conspiracy theorists.
The Norwegian Society for Immunology, which sponsored the lecture, later issued an apology. According to The Disinformation Chronicle, the apology stated, “In retrospect, unfortunately, it seems the purpose of his lecture was just as much about stopping the free debate in Norway on this topic.”
Thacker said that Andersen’s possible move to Norway is part of a broader trend where many scientists are expressing public dissent at the Trump administration’s policies.
“The majority of scientists I see complaining are all entrenched in liberal politics. Pretty much every one of them has a large account on [social media platform] Bluesky where allied reporters hang out to find quotes,” Thacker said.
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.
IAEA Board of Governors is 100% under control of collective West, Rosatom chief says
Press TV – June 7, 2025
Rosatom, Russia’s state atomic energy corporation, has voiced strong criticism over the subjective approach employed by the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) Board of Governors in its nuclear-related reports, stating that the decision-making body’s impartiality is heavily influenced by Western interests.
Rosatom’s CEO Alexey Likhachev said on Friday that the corporation’s relations with the UN nuclear watchdog have not been trouble-free as its reports contain signs of “double standards.”
“Certainly, I must say that we do not have smooth relations with the IAEA on the whole, to put it mildly. Of course, we often see double standards among a number of IAEA documents,” Likhachev told journalists following talks with an IAEA delegation in Kaliningrad.
Stressing that there are “several camps” within the IAEA, Likhachev said only representatives from two European countries, Hungary and Switzerland, as well as IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi, were being “objective” on nuclear issues.
“There is the Board of Governors, where the controlling stake, as we say, by almost 100% belongs to the collective West, and completely different opinions are expressed there. And therein lies the problem,” the Rosatom CEO said.
“Hungary and Switzerland assess the security situation objectively and say that strikes on nuclear infrastructure are inadmissible regardless of their origin. But the lion’s share of the board’s members criticize only purported strikes in the direction of Ukrainian facilities,” he added.
According to a report by the Russian news agency TASS, Iran’s nuclear program as well as ensuring the safety of the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP) amid ongoing Ukrainian shelling, and the work of the IAEA mission at the plant were the central topics at the talks between Grossi and Likhachev in Kaliningrad.
ZNPP, Europe’s largest power plant, has been controlled by Russian troops since late February 2022, after Moscow launched its special military operation in Ukraine partly to prevent NATO’s eastward expansion.
Since then, Ukraine has targeted the power plant using drones, heavy artillery, and multiple launch rocket systems, raising concerns of a potential Chernobyl-style nuclear incident.
Moscow has announced that it is ready to work with the IAEA to agree on “non-politicized” solutions to problems at the facility.
According to Likhachev, the situation regarding nuclear and radiation safety at the ZNPP remains “totally manageable and stable,” but the military threat is worsening as Ukraine has intensified its shelling of civilian infrastructure and provocations.
“Unfortunately, this has affected the situation at the Zaporozhye NPP and the city of Energodar. The power system has sustained damage literally every night over the last four days.”
The Rosatom CEO underlined that the presence of IAEA specialists at the ZNPP is crucial for keeping the international community informed about the situation.
Cooperation with Iran
Rosatom confirmed at the meeting its readiness to resolve any technical aspects of the Iranian nuclear issue provided that political decisions are made and multilateral agreements are reached.
Earlier this month, the IAEA claimed in a confidential report to member states that Iran had failed to report its nuclear activities at three undeclared locations and raised concerns about the country’s stockpile of uranium enriched up to 60% purity.
The agency has over the past years levied multiple politically-tainted accusations against the Islamic Republic’s nuclear file despite its own reports that have on numerous occasions attested to the peacefulness of Tehran’s nuclear program.
Rosatom also said nuclear cooperation between Moscow and Tehran will continue in multiple areas, including the construction of nuclear power units and fuel supply for the first unit of the Bushehr plant.
It added that it was engaged in joint research and development with Iran in the peaceful use of nuclear energy.
Ukraine’s most reckless attack: Was NATO behind it?
RT | June 6, 2025
While Western headlines celebrated Operation Spider’s Web as a daring feat of Ukrainian ingenuity, a closer look reveals something far more calculated – and far less Ukrainian. This wasn’t just a strike on Russian airfields. It was a test – one that blended high-tech sabotage, covert infiltration, and satellite-guided timing with the kind of precision that only the world’s most advanced intelligence networks can deliver. And it begs the question: who was really pulling the strings?
Let’s be honest. Ukraine’s Main Directorate of Intelligence didn’t act alone. It couldn’t have.
Even if no Western agency was directly involved in the operation itself, the broader picture is clear: Ukraine’s Main Directorate of Intelligence, its military, and even its top political leadership rely heavily on Western intelligence feeds. Ukraine is deeply embedded within NATO’s intelligence-sharing architecture. The idea of a self-contained Ukrainian intel ecosystem is largely a thing of the past. These days, Kiev draws primarily on NATO-provided data, supplementing it with its own domestic sources where it can.
That’s the backdrop – a hybrid model that’s become standard over the past two years. Now, let’s look more closely at Operation Spider’s Web itself. We know the planning took roughly 18 months and involved moving drones covertly into Russian territory, hiding them, and then orchestrating coordinated attacks on key airfields. So how likely is it that Western intelligence agencies had a hand in such a complex operation?
Start with logistics. It’s been reported that 117 drones were prepped for launch inside Russia. Given that numerous private companies in Russia currently manufacture drones for the war effort, it wouldn’t have been difficult to assemble the necessary devices under that cover. That’s almost certainly what happened. Components were likely purchased domestically under the guise of supplying the “Special Military Operation.” Still, it’s hard to believe Ukraine’s Main Directorate of Intelligence could have pulled off this mass procurement and assembly alone. It’s highly likely Western intelligence agencies played a quiet but crucial role – especially in securing specialized components.
Then there’s the explosives. If the operation’s command center was located in the Ural region, as some suggest, it’s plausible that explosives or components were smuggled in via neighboring CIS countries. That kind of border-hopping precision doesn’t happen without outside help. In fact, it mirrors tactics long perfected by intelligence services in both the US and Western Europe.
Because make no mistake: this wasn’t just the CIA’s playground. European services – particularly those in the UK, France, and Germany – possess the same capabilities to execute and conceal such an operation. The NATO intelligence community may have different national flags, but it speaks with one voice in the field.
The real giveaway, however, lies in the timing of the strikes. These weren’t blind attacks on static targets. Russia’s strategic bombers frequently rotate bases. Commercial satellite imagery – updated every few days at best – simply can’t track aircraft on the move. And yet these drones struck with exquisite timing. That points to a steady flow of real-time surveillance, likely derived from signals intelligence, radar tracking, and live satellite feeds – all tools in the Western intelligence toolbox.
Could Ukraine, on its own, have mustered that kind of persistent, multidomain awareness? Not a chance. That level of situational intelligence is the domain of NATO’s most capable agencies – particularly those tasked with monitoring Russian military infrastructure as part of their day job.
For years now, Ukraine has been described in Western media as a plucky underdog using low-cost tactics to take on a larger foe. But beneath the David vs. Goliath narrative lies a more uncomfortable truth: Ukraine’s intelligence ecosystem is now deeply embedded within NATO’s operational architecture. Real-time feeds from US and European satellites, intercepts from British SIGINT stations, operational planning consultations with Western handlers – this is the new normal.
Ukraine still has its own sources, but it’s no longer running a self-contained intelligence operation. That era ended with the first HIMARS launch.
Western officials, of course, deny direct involvement. But Russian investigators are already analyzing mobile traffic around the impact sites. If it turns out that these drones weren’t connected to commercial mobile networks – if, instead, they were guided through encrypted, military-grade links – it will be damning. Not only would that confirm foreign operational input, it would expose the full extent of how Western assets operated inside Russia without detection.
At that point, no amount of plausible deniability will cover the truth. The question will no longer be whether NATO participated – but how deep that participation ran.
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.
Featured Video
Laith Marouf: Hezbollah’s position on US-Iran ceasefire
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
The Dirty Little Secret behind the “Global Terrorism Index”
The Omission of Israeli Terrorism in the Occupied Palestinian Territories
By Karin Brothers | Global Research | December 6, 2014
… The Israeli settlements — all of which are illegal – have been identified as a major impediment to peace. The refusal of a major “global” terrorism report to name the Israeli settlers as one of the groups most responsible for terrorism not only misrepresents a major source of regional violence but exposes the Global Terrorism Index as a propaganda tool that supports a U.S. agenda.
In recent years, governments have been attempting to thwart terrorism by blocking supportive fund-raising. When it comes to Israeli settlements, however, the US and Canada actually encourage fund-raising by giving organizations (such as Christian Friends of Israeli Communities (CFOIC) and the Jewish National Fund) financial support in the form of donor tax-deductions.
Charities which provide funds for the Israeli settlements should be regarded as terror-financing organizations. They should not only lose their tax-deductible status, but they should be banned because they support the violation of international humanitarian law. The terror-financing laws that are being strictly enforced for Muslim charities should be applied to Christian and Jewish charities as well. … Read full article
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Trump Administration Moves To Automate U.S. Military Draft Registration
- Spain orders reopening of Tehran embassy, condemns Israel’s carpet bombing of Lebanon
- Israel faces ‘unsustainable’ strategic crisis following 40-day war against Iran: Analyst
- Iran restricts Hormuz access to 15 vessels per day under ceasefire terms: Report
- The ‘Opposition Party’ Has Done Nothing to Stop the Iran War and Much to Goad Trump Into Continuing It
- Moscow backs Tehran on status of Lebanon in US-Iran deal
- How UK Regulator Ofcom Quietly Bypassed International Law to Police American Speech
- The Black Cube Files: How Former Mossad Operatives Flipped a Nation
- Laith Marouf: Hezbollah’s position on US-Iran ceasefire: What you’re not being told
- Israel’s priority lies in destroying chances of peace between Iran, US: Ex-UN nuclear chief
- If Americans Knew
- The gallows law: Israel moves toward executing Palestinian children
- Tucker Carlson: The Path to Peace requires ending ‘special alliance’ with Israel
- This is ceasefire? Israel’s biggest massacre yet in Lebanon, another journalist killed in Gaza – Daily Update
- Tucker Carlson on Israel: This Is the Behavior of an Ally? Really?
- Gazans face a triple crisis: severe shortages of water and bread, healthcare in tatters
- NY Times reports how Netanyahu took the US into Iran War
- A sigh of relief over Iran, but Gaza and Lebanon in dire straits – Daily Update
- Thousands dead and neighborhoods razed to the ground: Aid agencies fear southern Lebanon is becoming the new Gaza
- The war the US is fighting for Israel could cost trillions
- ‘Cigarette Burns, Nail Wounds’: Toddler Tortured in Gaza to Coerce Father
- No Tricks Zone
- An Inconvenient Tree: Uncovered In Alps… Europe Much Warmer Than Today 6000 Years Ago
- New Study Reports A 60% Slowdown In Greenland’s Ice Loss Rate In The Last Decade
- Low Intensity Tornado Wrecks Major Solar Farm, Creating A Potential Toxic Dump
- New Study Finds Warming Saves Lives…Cold Temperatures 12 Times More Deadly Than Excess Heat
- German Science Blog Accuses PIK Climate Institute Of Hallucinating Climate Tipping Points
- Devastating Assessment Of Comirnaty Vaccine By Former Senior Pfizer Europe Toxicologist
- New Study: CO2 Is ‘Effectively Negligible’ As An Explanatory Climate Change Factor Since 2000
- Former Pfizer Toxicologist Dr. Helmut Sterz Tells Bundestag Hearing Pfizer Vaccine Should Have Never Been Approved
- Energy Expert: Germany’s Nuclear Phaseout Was A “500 Billion Euro Mistake”
- New Research: South Australia’s Mid-Holocene Sea Surface Temperatures Were 4°C Warmer Than Today
Aletho News 