Why the Push for a US–Iran Nuclear Deal is Not Serious – and Never Was
By Robert Inlakesh | The Palestine Chronicle | February 5, 2026
The United States has been pushing for a renewed set of negotiations, aimed at reaching a deal over Iran’s nuclear program, the very same move that was used to set up an Israeli surprise attack last year. This is not a serious effort and appears more than anything to be aimed at stalling.
In mid-January, it appeared as if a US attack on Iran was imminent, as some reports even suggested he was planning to launch airstrikes before backing out. The reason for the absence of any military action can be put down to a series of evolving factors at play, including the security concerns of Israel.
Considering that an enormous amount of the reports published in both the US and Israeli media are drip-fed from their CIA, Mossad, and government contacts, it is reasonable to assume that most of what we are hearing “leaked” from anonymous sources is part of a deliberate disinformation campaign.
Prior to Israel’s surprise attack on Iran in June of 2025, a similar deception campaign was implemented throughout both the Western and Israeli media. In addition to the constant mixed messages regarding Israeli-US intentions, there was also an effort to build the narrative of a feud between Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu and US President Donald Trump. Soon after the 12-day war began, Israeli media outlets admitted as such.
Therefore, it is safe to assume that most of what we are being fed through the “anonymous” sourcing of the corporate media is false. Nowhere is this more evident than in the outlandish claims being published, as a means of manufacturing consent for a regime change war, than with the outrageous Iran protester death toll statistics being peddled without any evidence at all.
Disinformation aside, the current attempt to revive US-Iran nuclear negotiations is already being premised on non-starters. Not only are the US going back to their maximalist demands, which prevented any serious progress through multiple rounds of discussions last year, but they are also actively threatening war on a near-daily basis, as more American military assets continue to flood into the region.
In addition to this, the Israelis have demanded the exact same prerequisite conditions they always do, that being the end of Iran’s ballistic missile program, no nuclear enrichment on Iranian soil, and a halt to all of Tehran’s regional alliances with resistance groups. Evidently, none of these conditions is even going to be entertained by the Iranians.
Unless by some miracle the Trump administration decides to totally defy Israel and its top donors, choosing to negotiate a reasonable deal that, at least in part, replicates the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), there will be nothing achieved. Instead, if negotiations are to even proceed, they will simply be designed to stall the inevitable: a military confrontation.
Donald Trump, since his first term in office, has been the most aggressive US president toward the Islamic Republic, unilaterally pulling out of the nuclear deal, implementing a criminal sanctions regime, bowing to every Israeli demand, and even assassinating Iran’s most prominent general at the time, Qassem Soleimani.
This time around, the Trump administration decided to go all the way in its support of Israel’s demands. The US came to Israel’s aid in the 12-day war and directly struck Iran, doing damage to three nuclear sites. More recently, the entirety of the collective West has stood behind a regime change attempt, led by Israeli intelligence agents on the ground. Not a single Western mainstream media outlet has even been critical of the narrative they have been fed on the issue, with some openly advocating military intervention.
Why is the US Stalling?
Unlike during the previous buildups to confrontation between the US-Israeli alliance and Iran, this time appears much more consequential. We are now far closer to an all-out regional war, which was avoided last June. Iran’s leader, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, has made it clear that any attack on Iran will result in a total war, something that was not previously threatened in this way.
What happened last month was an Israeli-led attempt to drag Iran into a bloody civil war, an attack using agents that targeted cultural sites, places of worship, the nation’s emergency services, banks, and resulted in the murder of around 300 police officers and security force members. If this ground campaign had proven successful, a series of US strikes—while still a gamble—may have proven a serious threat to the stability of Iran.
In the thinking of US and Israeli military strategists, they hoped that an American strike package could have inspired an even greater uprising against the government. Even if this led to a long and bloody civil war, like what occurred in Syria, the idea would be that over time it would cripple the nation as a whole, effectively eliminating the Iranian challenge posed to Israel for the foreseeable future.
However, Iran swiftly cracked down on the failed operation within two days, totally eliminating the ground threat posed to it. Without a ground component against the Islamic Republic, any US-Israeli air campaign—however costly—will ultimately fail to effect regime change.
The best possible outcome for Tel Aviv and Washington is an attack that will work to cripple the nation’s civil infrastructure. Although easier said than done, especially given the fact that Iran’s infrastructure was built with wartime damage in mind, the tactic would be to inflict such a significant blow that, over time, combined with the “maximum pressure” sanctions campaign, the Iranian government will fall, similar to how Syria did.
Standing in the way of such an option are a myriad of issues. There is the anxiety of the Arab regimes, such as Jordan, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and beyond, who understand the potential earthshattering implications of an all-out war with Iran. The US and Israel use their nations to stage attacks on Iran, operate air defense systems, and therefore, there are valid military targets there for Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) to go after.
In addition to this, the threats that have been coming out of Iraq are of major concern to the US, Israel, and the Arab regimes alike. The Hasd al-Shaabi, or Popular Mobilization Forces, number around 250,000 men strong. Kataeb Hezbollah, the strongest faction within the Hashd, has vowed to defend Iran. We have also heard threats that, in the event Ayatollah Khamenei is targeted, this will trigger fatwas (religious declarations) ordering jihad.
Khamenei is not only the leader of Iran, but a major Shia religious and spiritual leader who is central to the belief system of Shia Muslims worldwide. Assassinating him could therefore trigger uprisings and the mobilization of millions of Shia Muslims throughout the entire region and beyond.
Total war with Iran means significant strikes on US bases all throughout the region, a halt to the flow of oil through the strategic Strait of Hormuz. It also means the kind of firepower directed at Israel will much more likely be heavier than what we saw in June of 2025, missile attacks that could be combined with strikes from Hezbollah in Lebanon and Ansarallah in Yemen.
Keeping all of this in mind, the Israelis are clearly attempting to secure the best possible air defense strategy in order to help minimize the damage that will inevitably be inflicted upon them. Tel Aviv still has not rebuilt its infrastructure that was struck last year by Iranian ballistic missiles.
No analyst can truly predict the outcomes of a total regional war, especially if Ayatollah Khamenei is assassinated. There are simply too many factors at play. Such a war could even inspire revolution in Bahrain, Jordan, and an Iraqi war with forces inside Syria. It could bring about regime change in the UAE, even if only by an internal coup. While none of this is certain, it is nonetheless well known. Nobody is truly safe.
In addition to this, even the pro-Western Arab nations do not favor either side in such a conflict. It may work in their favor to see a weakened Iran, for instance, but not a regime change that destroys the country and places Israel as the uncontested regional hegemon. In other words, they thrive off a multipolar West Asia. In the event that Iran wins and Israel is destroyed, they also realize that this could result in their own regimes falling.
Another major question mark hangs over the roles of China and Russia in all of this. As it seems, Beijing views Tehran as an essential partner and even vowed to provide all the necessary support to Iran during the foreign-backed riots. Moscow’s stance at the time was much more neutral. Both maintain relations with Iran and have sold military equipment.
There is no difference between the opinions of the Trump administration and the Israelis on Iran, which means that no deal will be reached without war. The best possible outcome that the US could hope for is a limited conflict, one that can be managed, even if it drags on for over a month. Then, following such a war, they attempt to further weaken Iran, and due to the costly nature of the conflict, neither side seeks direct confrontation for some time.
– Robert Inlakesh is a journalist, writer, and documentary filmmaker. He focuses on the Middle East, specializing in Palestine.
The “Donkey Flights” Project: Saving Animals While Strangling Gaza
MEMO | February 5, 2026
While Gaza’s human population remains trapped behind concrete walls and fire, a curious “evacuation” is taking place. Under the banner of the “Donkey Flights Project,” an Israeli organization named Starting Over Sanctuary has been working with the IDF to collect, “rehabilitate,” and export Gaza’s donkeys to sanctuaries in France and Belgium. To the Western donor, it is a heartwarming tale of saving the innocent from “slavery” and abuse. But to the Gazans whose hospitals, ambulances, and fuel supplies have been pulverized, the removal of these animals is the final act of a scorched-earth policy.
The irony is as thick as the smoke over Khan Younis: the very soldiers who facilitate the “rescue” of these pack animals are the same ones overseeing the systematic destruction of the families who rely on them. In a territory where 90% of the population now depends on animal-drawn carts for food, water, and the transport of the wounded, “rescuing” a donkey is not a gesture of mercy—it is the confiscation of a lifeline. By shifting the focus to animal welfare, the Israeli establishment is successfully laundering the total dismantling of Palestinian survival infrastructure into a viral, feel-good story for the European middle class.
The extraction of these animals is a highly organized, multi-national operation known as the “ Donkey Flights Project”. Since its inception, the project has facilitated the removal of over 600 donkeys from the ruins of Gaza. The logistics are clinical: the animals are transported from Israeli territory to Liège Airport (LGG) in Belgium, where they utilize the terminal’s sophisticated live-animal infrastructure for a brief transit of less than 24 hours. From there, they are trucked to vetted sanctuaries in the South of France, including the Refuge des Oubliés, with some shipments linked to the high-profile Brigitte Bardot Foundation. To the European public, this is presented as a “rescue” of starving, “broken” creatures from a war zone. However, for the displaced Gazans on the ground, these 600 donkeys represent more than just livestock; they are the “last thread” of transport in a territory where fuel has been weaponized as a tool of war. By removing the primary means of moving water, food, and the wounded, the project effectively tightens the physical siege under the guise of animal rights, transforming a “heartwarming” evacuation into a strategic limitation of Palestinian mobility.
This selective compassion creates a grotesque hierarchy of life where a donkey’s passage to Europe is paved with logistical ease, while the humans who cared for them remain barred from any such exit. The “Donkey Flights” rely on the same border crossings and military clearances that are frequently denied to critically ill Palestinian children or humanitarian aid convoys. Here, the “rescue” narrative functions as a form of colonial erasure; it frames the Gazan owner not as a victim of a blockade and war, but as a negligent “abuser” from whom the animal must be liberated. By framing the donkey as the sole “innocent” in the conflict, the project subtly reinforces a narrative that the human population—trapped and starving just meters away—is somehow less deserving of such specialized, international intervention. It is a humanitarianism that stops at the species barrier, ensuring that while the beasts of burden find sanctuary in the French countryside, the people they served remain tethered to the rubble.
The removal of these animals must be viewed within the broader context of what Euro-Med Monitor describes as the destruction of 97% of Gaza’s animal wealth. This is not merely a byproduct of war, but a calculated dismantling of the foundations of Palestinian survival. By targeting fuel, then the infrastructure, and finally the livestock, a total state of physical and economic paralysis is achieved. When Israeli NGO activists describe the donkeys as victims of “psychological trauma” needing a “fresh start” in Europe, they perform a neat trick of forensic cleaning: they strip the animal of its role as a Palestinian asset and rebrand it as a ward of the West. This “animal-first” humanitarianism serves as a perfect distraction for a European middle class eager for a moral victory that requires no political discomfort. It allows for a world where a cargo plane can be chartered for a donkey named “Greta” or “Rudi,” while the very children who once rode them are denied medical evacuation for life-saving surgery under the same “security” pretenses that facilitated the animal’s exit.
Beyond the logistical theft, this project represents a profound violation of the dignity and property rights of the besieged population. In international law, an occupying power is responsible for the welfare of the civilian population, which includes protecting their means of subsistence. Instead, we see a perverse reversal: the donor-funded “rescue” treats Palestinian ownership as a de facto state of abuse, justifying the permanent confiscation of assets under the guise of “liberation.” By transporting these animals to the “Refuge des Oubliés” in France, the project effectively “disappears” the evidence of Gaza’s domestic economy. It replaces a narrative of systemic starvation and forced immobility with a sanitized tale of animal rights, ensuring that the Western public remains focused on the “broken” donkey while remaining blind to the “broken” international legal system that allows a human population to be stripped of its last means of survival.
The long-term implications of this “evacuation” are perhaps the most sinister of all. By removing these working animals under the banner of international benevolence, the project contributes to the permanent “de-development” of Gaza. When the dust finally settles, the absence of these 600 donkeys—and the thousands more killed—will mean that the surviving population has been robbed of its primary tool for reconstruction. A territory without fuel, without machinery, and now without its traditional beasts of burden is a territory that cannot rebuild itself; it is a population rendered permanently dependent on the very international aid structures that are currently “rescuing” its assets. This is the ultimate triumph of the siege: a future where Gazans are not even allowed the dignity of a donkey-drawn cart to clear their own rubble, because the world decided that the animal’s “rehabilitation” in a French pasture was more important than a nation’s right to a self-sustaining recovery.
Ultimately, the “Donkey Flights” set a dangerous precedent for the future of humanitarian intervention in conflict zones. By allowing an occupying power to export the essential assets of a besieged population under the banner of animal welfare, the international community is effectively endorsing a new form of “sanitized” occupation. It suggests that as long as the victims’ animals are treated with European standards of care, the systemic strangulation of the victims themselves can be overlooked. This is not a story of rescue, but a story of substitution—where the rights of a donkey to a “fresh start” in a French pasture are prioritized over a Palestinian’s right to live, move, and work on their own land. If we accept this “kindness” without question, we accept a world where the optics of animal rights are used to mask the erasure of human rights, leaving behind a Gaza that is not only pulverized but intentionally stripped of the very tools it needs to ever stand on its own again.
FBI document: Epstein trained as spy under Ehud Barak and worked for Mossad
MEMO | February 5, 2026
Jeffrey Epstein “was close to the former Prime Minister of Israel, Ehud Barak, and trained as a spy under him,” according to a 2020 FBI document based on direct reporting from a confidential human source (CHS). The revelation adds further weight to long-circulating allegations that Epstein, a convicted child sex trafficker, was compiling Kompromat on behalf of Mossad.
The document, dated 19 October 2020, details conversations in which the source, who had personal contact with figures in Epstein’s circle, outlines how Epstein was involved in intelligence activity coordinated with Mossad.
The CHS recounts multiple phone calls between Alan Dershowitz — Epstein’s lawyer and Harvard law professor — and Epstein. Following these calls, the document states, Mossad would call Dershowitz to debrief. The source “took notes” during these conversations and concluded that the debriefing process was part of a coordinated intelligence operation.
Dershowitz himself is quoted as having said he would have joined Mossad if he were younger. The CHS believed Dershowitz was “co-opted” by Mossad and “subscribed to their mission.”
In totality, the document presents Epstein as a co-opted Mossad agent, a view the source reinforces explicitly. The CHS stated they were “convinced that Epstein was a Mossad agent” and that his relationship with Barak and his handling by Dershowitz served this broader intelligence role.
These assertions, backed by contemporaneous notes and phone call observations, now represent some of the clearest direct testimony placing Epstein within an organised foreign intelligence apparatus, rather than as a lone criminal figure.
Sen. Schumer: I Will Continue to Fight to Give Israel All the Aid It Needs
Photo by : Haim Zach / GPO
By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | February 4, 2026
Senator Chuck Schumer said that he would fight to get Israel “all the aid that it needs.”
“I will fight for aid to Israel. All the aid that Israel needs. I will continue to fight for it,” the Senate minority leader said on Saturday. He went on to refer to Israel aid as his “baby.”
The US has provided hundreds of billions in security assistance to Israel and fought several wars in the Middle East for Tel Aviv. Following the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel, the US sent Israel $14 billion in arms that were used to conduct a genocide in Gaza.
Schumer touted his role in passing that aid package to Israel. “We delivered more security assistance to Israel, our ally, under my leadership than ever, ever before. We will keep doing that,” he told the conference of Jewish-Americans. “As long as I’m in the Senate. This program will continue to grow from strength to strength, and we won’t let anyone attack it or undo it.”
The Democratic leader of the Upper Chamber also said that he hopes the ceasefire in Gaza turns into a lasting peace. However, Israel is undermining the truce with daily strikes on Gaza. Since Saturday, Israel has killed over 60 Palestinians.
While the US holds significant leverage over Israel via military assistance, statements like Schumer’s make it clear to Tel Aviv that Washington is unprepared to threaten Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that if he does not comply with the ceasefire, Washington will end the flow of aid.
Epstein Files- Steve Bannon Admits Trump Administration Would ‘Not Cross Sheldon Adelson’ During First Term
The Dissident | February 4, 2026
In text messages between Steve Bannon and Jeffrey Epstein in 2018, now released as part of the DOJ’s Epstein releases , Bannon admitted that the Trump administration was captured by the Zionist lobby and the Zionist mega donor Sheldon Adelson.
While discussing U.S. policy towards Qatar with Epstein, Bannon admitted “Bolton [John Bolton, then National Security Advisor to Trump] only doing what Sheldon Adelson tells him to do– I got John the job but he will not cross Sheldon” to which Epstein replied, “I’m aware”.
This is further conformation that much of Trump’s foreign policy agenda during his first term was set by Sheldon Adelson, and since his passing, his wife Miriam Adelson.
During a speech to the Israeli Knesset last year, Trump boasted , “I am proud to be the best friend that Israel has ever had” then went on to list every policy he enacted at the behest of Israel, saying,
But as president, I terminated the disastrous Iran nuclear deal. And ultimately, I terminated Iran’s nuclear program with things called B-2 bombers. It was swift and it was accurate, and it was a military beauty.
I authorized the spending of billions of dollars which went to Israel’s defense, as you know. And after years of broken promises from many other American presidents, you know that they kept promising… I never understood it until I got there. There was a lot of pressure put on these presidents. It was put on me too, but I didn’t yield to the pressure. But every president for decades said, “We’re gonna do it.” The difference is I kept my promise and officially recognized the capital of Israel and moved the American Embassy to Jerusalem.
He then credited the Adelsons with these Zionist policies, pointing to Miriam in the crowd after listing them and saying, “Isn’t that right, Miriam?”
He added, “Miriam and Sheldon would come into the office. They’d call me, he’d call me. I think they had more trips to the White House than anybody else I can think of … And she loves Israel. But she loves it. And they would come in, and her husband was a very aggressive man, but I loved him. He was very aggressive, very supportive of me. And, he’d call up, ‘Can I come over and see you?’ I’d say, ‘Sheldon, I’m the President of the United States, it doesn’t work that way.’ He’d come in… But they were very responsible for so much, including getting me thinking about Golan Heights, which is probably one of the greatest things to ever happen to Israel.”
He even admitted that Miriam Adelson- who Trump admitted was “responsible for so much” cared more about Israel than America, saying, “I actually asked her, I’m gonna get her in trouble with this, but I actually asked her once, I said, ‘So, Miriam, I know you love Israel. What do you love more, the United States or Israel?’ She refused to answer. That means, that might mean, Israel”.
While introducing Miriam Adelson at an event, Trump again boasted “Miriam (Adelson) gave my campaign $250 million” adding, “her husband Sheldon was an amazing guy, he’d come up to the office, and there was nobody more aggressive than Sheldon … he would always say ten minutes it turned out to be an hour and a half and what he did was he fought for Israel, it’s all he really fought for”.
Bannon’s comments in 2018 are just further conformation that Trump’s agenda was shaped by money from Miriam and Sheldon Adelson during his first term, and since Sheldon Adelson’s passing in 2021, Miriam Adelson, during his current term.
Israel-Palestine head of HRW resigns over blocked report on Palestinians right of return
Press TV – February 4, 2026
The Israel-Palestine director of Human Rights Watch (HRW) has resigned in protest, saying the organization’s new Executive Director prevented the publication of a report exposing Israel for committing “crimes against humanity” by denying Palestinian refugees their right of return.
In separate resignations published on Tuesday, Omar Shakir, who led HRW’s Israel-Palestine team for nearly a decade, and assistant researcher Milena Ansari condemned the leadership’s decision as a break from standard approval procedures.
“I have lost my faith in the integrity of how we do our work and our commitment to principled reporting on the facts and application of the law … As such, I am no longer able to represent or work for Human Rights Watch,” Shakir wrote in his resignation letter.
The resignations have shaken one of the world’s most prominent human rights organizations.
The 33-page report, never published, documented the experiences of Palestinians displaced from Gaza, the occupied West Bank, and refugee communities in Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria.
It linked decades of denied return to clear violations of international law, including crimes that could be prosecuted.
HRW leadership claimed the report involved “complex and consequential issues” requiring further analysis before release.
In response, Shakir countered on the social media platform X, saying “the report was finalized after 7 months in review & signed off on by the MENA division, five different specialists, the Program Office & the Law & Policy Office.”
Shakir said the refusal to publish showed a disturbing unwillingness to confront Israel’s ongoing crimes.
While terms like “apartheid, genocide and ethnic cleansing” are increasingly recognized internationally, the right of return remains off-limits even within Human Rights Watch, he warned.
“The one topic … even at Human Rights Watch, for which there remains an unwillingness to apply the law and the facts in a principled way, is the plight of refugees and their right to return to the homes that they were forced to flee,” he said.
Shakir and Ansari said attempts to narrow the report’s scope to recent displacements in Gaza and the occupied West Bank weakened its legal case and silenced the voices of generations of refugees.
Over 200 HRW staff protested the report’s suppression, warning that the decision could seriously damage the organization’s credibility.
At least 7 million Palestinians live as refugees across Gaza, the occupied territories, and neighboring countries, driven from their homes during the Nakba.
The Nakba, or “catastrophe,” refers to the forced expulsion of 750,000 Palestinians by Zionist militias and the newly established Israeli regime in 1948. Thousands were killed during this genocidal campaign.
Since Israel’s genocidal assault on Gaza on October 7, 2023, the number of displaced Palestinians has risen by at least 1.5 million, intensifying a decades-long injustice.
Israel to shut water, electricity at UNRWA facilities in occupied territories
Press TV – February 4, 2026
Israel will begin cutting off water and electricity to United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) facilities in the occupied Palestinian territories, a top Israeli minister announced on Wednesday.
Israel’s Energy and Infrastructure Minister Eli Cohen told The Jerusalem Post that he will “personally” oversee the shutdown of utilities to UNRWA offices in occupied al-Quds starting today.
Cohen accused the agency of operating “in a systematic way to incite against Israel.” He said utility companies had been formally instructed to carry out the cutoff, which is expected to be completed within two weeks.”
“In principle, the law was passed about two weeks ago. Warning letters have already been sent to properties that we identified as belonging to UNRWA,” he added.
“We are now working to locate all UNRWA assets, evacuate them where necessary, and in some cases, seize the properties,” Cohen said. “Where they continue operating, we will disconnect electricity and shut down the buildings.”
Israel’s parliament, known as the Knesset, passed legislation in late December stripping UNRWA of diplomatic immunity. The law exposes the agency to legal action in Israeli courts, bars the regime’s companies from supplying it with water, electricity, or financial services, and allows authorities to seize its offices in occupied East al-Quds.
UN agencies are normally protected by diplomatic immunity under international conventions ratified by Israel. Tel Aviv’s move to revoke these protections comes amid a broader crackdown that began after it launched its genocidal war on Gaza in October 2023.
Israel also began demolishing UNRWA’s headquarters in al-Quds on Tuesday.
UNRWA Commissioner-General Philippe Lazzarini condemned the demolition, calling it “an unprecedented attack” and “a new level of deliberate defiance of international law.”
Francesca Albanese has called for Israel’s suspension from the United Nations following the regime’s destruction of UNRWA headquarters in occupied East al-Quds.
Established in 1949 by a UN General Assembly resolution, UNRWA provides assistance and protection to Palestinian refugees across Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, the occupied West Bank, and the Gaza Strip.
The shutdown of its facilities has drawn sharp international criticism since Israel first moved to curtail the agency’s operations in areas under its control.
The ban severed contact between UNRWA and Israeli authorities, severely restricting its ability to operate in Gaza and the occupied West Bank. Israel has also stopped issuing visas to UNRWA staff.
The agency, which provides essential education, healthcare and humanitarian aid to millions of Palestinians, played a central role in delivering food, medicine and shelter during Israel’s war on Gaza, with many of its schools used as shelters for displaced civilians.
New York Bans Israel-Linked Terror Group
A Good Start, But…
By Kevin Barrett | American Free Press | February 2, 2026
On January 13, the State of New York set a small but significant precedent by banning the Jewish-supremacist terror group Betar. In a settlement with the state’s Attorney General, Betar agreed to stop terrorizing New Yorkers who disagree with the group’s pro-Israel, Jewish-supremacist agenda. Simultaneously with the agreement Betar dissolved its New York operations—but vowed to reconstitute itself and continue terrorizing Americans in other jurisdictions.
Though New York did not officially deem Betar a terrorist group, it’s clear that’s exactly what it is. The definition of terrorism is: “Using violence or the threat of violence against civilians to create fear for political purposes.”
Clearly, terrorism was and remains Betar’s central mission. New York’s Attorney General Letitia James wrote: “My office’s investigation uncovered an alarming and illegal pattern of bias-motivated harassment and violence designed to terrorize communities and shut down lawful protest.” Leaked messages show the group conspired to blind peaceful anti-Israel protesters with laser weapons and attack them with chemical weapons. Betar even plotted to car-bomb New York’s mayor. They delivered dozens of bomb threats to students, professors, and other Americans.
Betar’s members conspired to attack anti-Israel protesters with lasers, asking “can we burn their eyes out?” They routinely dispensed bomb threats by delivering Israeli-style (exploding?) pagers to people whose views they disagreed with. And they conspired to commit these and other acts of terrorism with “many people in various goverment (sic) offices including the prime ministers (sic) office, shin bet and other intelligence agencies in the state of Israel” according to their own leaked text messages.
The violence wasn’t just talk. On numerous occasions, pro-Palestine demonstrations have been brutally attacked by suspected Betar thugs, who typically wear face-masks to prevent identification. In just one of many examples, peaceful protesters at UCLA were attacked by Betar-aligned terrorists armed with explosives and chemical weapons last June. Unfortunately, since the pro-Zionist-terrorism Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and other organized crime syndicates have infiltrated and bribed local and national police agencies, Betar’s Jewish supremacist terrorists are rarely brought to justice.
If you’re still wondering whether Betar is really a terrorist group, try the following thought experiment: Imagine what would happen if radical Muslims plotted to blind Jews with lasers, attack them with explosives and chemical weapons, threaten them by delivering realistic-looking bombs, and joyfully envisioned murdering a Jewish mayor of New York by blowing up his car. Clearly such a group would be immediately slapped with a terrorist designation: All its assets would be confiscated, its members would be arrested and sent to Guantanamo, all their assets would be seized, and any remaining members would be hunted down and killed using US military drones.
And what would happen to the foreign nation that supported that wave of terrorism in the US? Our federal government would immediately sanction it, freeze and confiscate its assets, bomb it, and very possibly invade it and execute its leaders.
But when the terrorists are Jewish supremacists backed by the state of Israel, the rules suddenly change. The worst thing that can happen to them is a negotiated settlement with the state of New York in which the terrorists promise to stop terrorizing New Yorkers, while vowing to continuing terrorizing Americans in other states.
Maybe it’s time to start treating Betar and similar groups the same way we treat other terrorists. After all, the whole point of declaring a “war on terrorism” after the attacks on September 11, 2001 was to punish the people who committed that atrocity and remove their ability to commit future atrocities.
But we went after the wrong people. The real 9/11 terrorists were Israeli-backed Jewish supremacists, who orchestrated the false flag demolition of the World Trade Center to hijack America’s military and use it against their regional enemies. (For details, read “9/11 Was an Israeli Job” by Laurent Guyénot; “American Pravda: October 7th and September 11th” by Ron Unz; and “Israel Did 9/11” by Wyatt Peterson.
New York’s polite closure of Betar’s local branch office is a good start. But Americans need to recognize that Betar and its state sponsors are terrorists—and treat them accordingly.
It would be logical, not to mention poetic justice, for the US government to use the extraordinary powers it seized after 9/11 to punish the real perpetrators of the demolition of the World Trade Center and the attack on the Pentagon, and to ensure that they will never again commit such an act. By recognizing that Betar and other Jewish supremacist groups are terrorists, and that the world’s worst terrorism-supporting rogue nation is the so-called state of Israel, Americans could finally do what is necessary to win the war on terror that was declared in the wake of Israel’s controlled demolition of the World Trade Center.
Saudi media takes an anti-‘Israel’ turn: WSJ
Al Mayadeen | February 2, 2026
Saudi Arabia’s state-backed media has adopted an increasingly hostile tone toward “Israel,” signaling diminishing prospects for diplomatic normalization between the two regional powers as the war on Gaza continues to reshape political calculations across West Asia.
The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) wrote on Monday that the shift has been reflected in official and semi-official outlets. In a January editorial, the daily Al-Riyadh accused “Israel” of disregarding international law and state sovereignty, stating that “wherever Israel is present, there is ruin and destruction.”
According to WSJ, religious figures have echoed the rhetoric. In a December sermon at the Grand Mosque in Mecca, Sheikh Saleh bin Humaid declared, “Oh God, deal with the Jews who have seized and occupied, for they cannot escape your power.”
Saudi officials say the increasingly sharp messaging is partly driven by the kingdom’s escalating rivalry with the United Arab Emirates, a regional competitor for economic leadership that has taken opposing positions to Riyadh in multiple West Asian conflicts. The UAE is also the most prominent Arab signatory of the series of US-backed normalization agreements with “Israel.”
Saudi officials acknowledged that the media campaign, while directed by the kingdom’s leadership, has also served as a means to sway public opinion against those normalization deals, which they described as an easy target amid widespread anger over the Gaza war.
UAE: The Israeli Trojan horse
In a recent online editorial for the Saudi publication Al-Jazirah, columnist Ahmed bin Othman Al-Tuwaijri accused Abu Dhabi of embracing Zionism to settle regional rivalries, writing that the Emirates had positioned itself as an “Israeli Trojan horse in the Arab world.”
Saudi Arabia disputes claims that the coverage is centrally coordinated but has nonetheless taken note of the tone, viewing it as a reflection of growing public anger toward “Israel” and the political pressure this creates for the leadership.
Bringing Saudi Arabia into the normalization agreements has long been a central objective for Washington and “Israel.” However, Saudi and Israeli officials say Riyadh’s calculations shifted sharply following the Gaza war, whose toll has hardened public and elite attitudes alike. While Saudi Arabia maintains that it remains open to normalization if it includes a credible pathway to a Palestinian state, officials say the urgency surrounding such a deal has diminished, allowing other foreign-policy priorities to take precedence.
Saudi media’s criticism of “Israel” is not unprecedented. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman previously referred to Israeli actions in Gaza as a genocide in November 2024. However, the current campaign marks a sharp reversal from years of quieter efforts aimed at softening public opinion and preparing Saudi society for possible diplomatic ties.
KSA-UAE dispute shaping stance on ‘Israel’
On that note, former US official Daniel Shapiro questioned whether the shift reflected a wavering commitment by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman to regional moderation, warning that abrupt policy changes in response to rivalry could undermine confidence in Saudi leadership.
According to the WSJ, Saudi Arabia’s embassy in Washington said the kingdom rejects antisemitism and remains open to normalization provided there is a firm commitment to Palestinian statehood. Defense Minister Khalid bin Salman recently traveled to Washington, meeting Jewish groups and emphasizing Saudi Arabia’s commitment to regional integration.
Washington-based analyst Mark Dubowitz said Saudi officials privately acknowledged that their dispute with the Emirates had crossed into an anti-“Israel” posture that was creating political difficulties in the United States, prompting efforts to lower tensions.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said this week that “Israel” is monitoring Saudi developments closely, warning that normalization requires partners to refrain from aligning with forces opposed to peace, while reiterating his interest in ties with a “strong and secure Israel.”
Saudi Arabia and the UAE remain deeply divided over regional influence, economic leadership, and conflicts, including Yemen, where recent territorial shifts near the Saudi border have intensified tensions. Although relations between Riyadh and Abu Dhabi are at their lowest point in decades, analysts note that both countries share long-term security and economic interests, suggesting that a thaw between the two Gulf rivals is more likely to precede any normalization between Saudi Arabia and “Israel”.
Fantasies of Fragmenting Iran Only Serve Israeli Interests
By José Niño | The Libertarian Institute | February 2, 2026
A troubling convergence has emerged among Western think tanks, Israeli politicians, and exiled opposition figures advocating for the partition of Iran along ethnic and sectarian lines. This strategy represents a dangerous escalation from traditional regime change toward what can only be described as regime destruction, a policy shift that would benefit Israeli regional ambitions while catastrophically destabilizing the Middle East and creating humanitarian disasters that would dwarf the Syrian refugee crisis.
Iran’s demographic reality forms the pretext for these proposals. Persians constitute between 51 and 61% of the population, while Azerbaijanis comprise 16 to 24%, Kurds represent 7 to 10%, with smaller populations of Arabs, Baloch, Lurs, and Turkmen rounding out the nation’s ethnic composition. Rather than viewing this diversity as a national strength, Balkanization advocates frame it as a strategic vulnerability ripe for exploitation.
The Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a rabid neoconservative organization, has positioned itself at the forefront of this campaign. Analyst Brenda Shaffer has explicitly promoted Iran’s fragmentation comparable to Yugoslavia’s violent collapse, while maintaining undisclosed financial ties to Azerbaijan’s state oil company SOCAR. Her advocacy centers on promoting secession of Iranian Azerbaijan, revealing fundamental misunderstanding of Iranian internal dynamics. Both Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and President Massoud Pezeshkian are Azerbaijani, thoroughly undermining narratives of Persian ethnic hegemony driving separatist sentiment.
Media outlets have amplified these calls with alarming explicitness. In June 2025, The Jerusalem Post editorial board urged formation of a “Middle East coalition for Iran’s partition,” proposing “security guarantees to Sunni, Kurdish and Balochi minority regions willing to break away.” The editorial advocated federalization or complete partition, explicitly comparing Iran’s potential dismemberment to Yugoslavia’s breakup. The Wall Street Journal similarly published arguments that a fractured Iran could frustrate Russian and Chinese interests while reducing threats to Israel, downplaying catastrophic risks.
Israeli political circles have demonstrated institutional support for partition. In 2023, thirty-two members of Parliament signed a declaration calling for Iran’s disintegration into six parts, advocating territorial separation from Tehran to Iranian Azerbaijan, merger of Iranian Kurdistan with Iraqi Kurdish regions, independence for Ahwaz, and alignment of Baluchistan with Pakistan. Though most lawmakers later rescinded signatures following backlash, the episode exposed significant appetite for fragmentation strategies within Israeli political establishment.
The ideological foundation for these proposals traces directly to the 1982 Yinon Plan, a strategic memorandum by Israeli journalist Oded Yinon advocating division of Middle Eastern states along ethnic and sectarian lines. The plan explicitly stated Israel must effect “the division of the whole area into small states by the dissolution of all existing Arab states,” operating on the premise that smaller states are weaker states and therefore easier to dominate. While the original document focused primarily on Arab states, contemporary partition advocacy has extrapolated these principles to Iran, effectively creating a Yinon Plan for the Iranosphere.
This represents the logical culmination of a strategy that has already produced catastrophic results across the region. Iraq’s 2003 invasion and subsequent sectarian fragmentation created hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths, millions of refugees, and the rise of ISIS rather than the democratic transformation promised. Syria’s fragmentation generated over half a million deaths and displaced half the pre-war population. Libya’s post-intervention collapse created ungoverned spaces exploited by terrorist networks and human traffickers. The pattern is consistent: balkanization produces chaos, humanitarian catastrophe, and conditions favoring extremist groups rather than stability or democracy.
For Iran specifically, partition would serve exclusively Israeli strategic interests while harming American national security. Israel seeks to leave Iran fragmented and dotted by warring statelets incapable of posing coherent challenge to greater Israeli regional ambitions. A broken Iran cannot develop nuclear capabilities, cannot support resistance movements, cannot project power beyond its borders. The United States has no corresponding interest in such outcomes. Iranian fragmentation would create massive refugee flows destabilizing neighboring states and requiring international humanitarian intervention. It would generate ungoverned territories exploited by terrorist organizations.
Turkey will never tolerate Western support for Kurdish separatism in Iran given its decades-long struggle with the Kurdistan Workers’ Party. Pakistan, already facing a Baloch insurgency movement, would view Western meddling in Iranian Balochistan as direct threat to its territorial integrity. Russia and China, both managing ethnic minority regions, would interpret Iran partition as validating their darkest suspicions about Western intentions, accelerating formation of anti-Western coalitions and hardening domestic crackdowns.
American efforts against Iran have already demonstrated the futility of maximum pressure approaches. Decades of sanctions have not produced regime change but rather entrenched hardliners and strengthened nationalist resistance. Covert operations including assassinations of nuclear scientists, Stuxnet cyberattacks, and support for exile groups have failed to alter Iranian strategic calculations. Direct military strikes destroyed facilities temporarily rebuilt within years. The historical record shows Iranian society rallies around the flag when facing external aggression rather than fragmenting along ethnic lines.
Iranian nationalism represents a powerful unifying force transcending ethnic divisions. Iran claims status as one of the world’s oldest continuous civilizations, with national identity predating modern ethnic categories. Unlike Iraq or Syria where borders reflected colonial cartography, Iran constitutes a historically integrated entity where internal diversity has coexisted with strong national consciousness for millennia.
The alternative to destructive partition fantasies requires sober policy recognizing previous failures. The United States needs fundamental strategic reorientation away from Middle Eastern interventions toward addressing genuine national security priorities. Border security in the Western Hemisphere, managing peaceful co-existence China, and rebuilding domestic infrastructure represent core American interests unrelated to fragmenting Iran.
Non-interventionism and restraint acknowledge that Iranian political evolution must emerge from internal dynamics rather than external manipulation. The lessons from Iraq, Syria, and Libya are unambiguous. Military intervention and support for fragmentation produce humanitarian catastrophes, empower extremist factions, and create conditions requiring prolonged American involvement rather than enabling withdrawal. The Middle East does not need another failed state generating refugee crises and terrorist safe havens. The American people deserve foreign policy serving national interests rather than outsourcing strategic decision-making to regional allies [?] pursuing incompatible objectives.
Iran’s partition would not take the country off the geopolitical chessboard as advocates claim. It would set that board on fire, creating unpredictable cascades of violence, displacement, and great power competition in one of the world’s most volatile regions. The humanitarian costs would be staggering, the strategic consequences counterproductive, and the benefits accruing exclusively to Israel rather than the United States or the Iranian people themselves.
A responsible approach recognizes Iran’s ninety million citizens deserve to determine their own political future, but such transformation cannot be imposed through external fragmentation. The path forward requires restraint, non-interventionism, and acknowledgment that decades of sanctions, covert operations, and military threats have consistently failed while strengthening the very regime they aimed to weaken.
American Zionists are using Trump’s Republican Party to create a multicultural supremacist elite
By Matt Wolfson | Al Mayadeen | February 2, 2026
On January 13, 2025, seven days before Donald Trump’s second inauguration as president, The Free Press, the online magazine created by the Zionist operator Bari Weiss who has powerful connections to the Trump Administration, ran a profile which may say more about the ultimate causes of America’s current policies, and where those policies will likely lead, than any other public document.
The profile was of Amy Chua, famously the author of Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother, a mostly well-received cri de Coeur for what Chua sees as rigorous Chinese parenting; and less famously the John M. Duff, Jr. Professor of Law at Yale Law School. The profile, drawing explicitly on Chua’s most publicly recognizable achievement, was titled “The Tiger Mother Roars Back,” and its subtitle reinforced its approach, an ardent rave: “Yale tried to run Amy Chua out. Now her former students, J.D. Vance and Vivek Ramaswamy, are headed to Washington. So is she.”
For people who follow the politics of America and so of America’s empire, the forwardness of this profile raises questions. Construed as a gesture of support for two politicians, Vance and Ramaswamy, who are attempting to woo the public on populist credentials, it seems misthought. There is nothing populist about Chua—and her lacks are tells about the lacks of her mentees. Indeed, it was under Chua’s mentorship that Vance wrote a bestselling book with the encouragement of another Chua mentee, Vance’s future wife Usha, blaming the failures of his lower-income Appalachian upbringing on the “cultural” deficiencies of the community which raised him. This is a view that, since entering politics with the aim of appealing to precisely that community, he has quickly disavowed. Ramaswamy, for his part, has fallen deeply and predictably afoul of populist Americans precisely by making that case in public.
So why would Weiss, who if nothing else is a strategic operator, run a piece on Chua connecting her to Vance and Ramaswamy as well as broadcasting Chua’s views, which are anathema to the people from whom Vance and Ramaswamy want support?
The answer is that, though Weiss is an ideologue focused on advancing “Israel’s” immediate interests, there is a “positive,” longer-term Zionist play in the works among her and her allies. I have reported in miniature on this play last year, in a September investigation of the philanthropic education donations of Bill Ackman, the Zionist financier: to seed a new ruling elite based on technological and management skills. But the project goes deeper. It amounts to the legitimation of a new ruling class in America centered on a narrow cadre of elites of three groups— Zionists, Hindutvas (Hindu supremacists), and, discernably but least specifically definably, East and Southeast Asian supremacists often with connections to countries where Buddhism has exercised significant influence.
These elites use their present success in America’s military corporate complex to make claims to group superiority. They then use those claims to justify special treatment for their groups and nations that allow them to solidify their power, and to solidify the hold of American empire, which they see as the rightful disseminator of “merit.” Their accelerating project will likely realize itself through the Republican Party, via Chua’s mentees, the Vances and Ramaswamy, among others, and it may ally itself with other right-wing influences as seemingly dissimilar but actually imitative as the white supremacy of Nicholas J. Fuentes. It is only now taking recognizable shape, and understanding its origins and spread is crucial to understanding the havoc it is already beginning to wreak in America and abroad.
That understanding begins with examining the arguments which influenced Vance and Ramaswamy; arguments made by Amy Chua and Jed Rubenfeld, her husband, a Yale Law professor and Jewish Zionist who writes for The Free Press. These arguments are noteworthy in that they look for “warps” in cultures to explain problems which other scholars have put down to military corporate power and its brute effects (outsourcing, conglomeration, the Wars on Crime and Drugs, unauthorized and some kinds of authorized immigration) on American life.
Indeed, the most straightforward reason why Vance’s Appalachian Americans as well as Black and Latino Americans have notably struggled is American imperial policy that has started at the top: labor outsourcing and urban mis-development, misthought immigration policies, and military corporate buildup. These policies have accrued for 60 years, and academics and writers have made the case against them for almost 50.
This book of Chua and Rubenfeld’s, where they lay out their view (The Triple Package: How Three Unlikely Traits Explain the Rise and Fall of Cultural Groups in America) does not emphasize these structural, practical explanations. Instead, Chua and Rubenfeld put “winners’” success in America over the last sixty years down to three group traits: specifically, “a superiority complex,” “insecurity,” and “impulse control.” According to The Triple Package, “a superiority complex” means “a deeply internalized belief in your group’s specialness, exceptionality, or superiority” flowing from religion, civilization, or social traits. “Insecurity” means “a sense of being looked down on, a perception of peril, feelings of inadequacy, and a fear of losing what one has.” And “impulse control” means “the ability to resist… the temptation to give up in the face of hardship or quit.”
But the paradox of Chua’s and Rubenfeld’s explanation, which they don’t appear to realize, is that, taken logically on its face, it supports the structural, practical explanations they apparently ignore. Political theory and history show that groups in the grip of triple package holders’ emotional Cartesianism (possessing an a priori thesis, superiority, in the face of insecurity, and so willing to do anything to prove the thesis right) are reliable tools of arbitrary imperial power. Indeed, empires moving aspirant, insecure, determined groups into their own managerial elite is a defining feature of the Roman Empire; the British Empire in the American colonies and India; the German Empire; and the United Arab Emirates. In America’s empire, these co-opted groups have most prominently been the three which Chua and Rubenfeld write about most often and with whom they and their family most identify: Jewish Americans, Indian Americans, and East and Southeast Asian Americans.
All three of these groups experienced marginalization and persecution at the hands of various empires (the Russian and German; the British; the American) before 1950. Their members have attendantly experienced heightened levels of insecurity; and elite cadres of two of the three groups have adopted what most scholars consider to be clearly definable supremacist ideologies: Zionism, which was founded in 1897 and Hindutva ideology, which was founded in 1925. The third type of supremacy, East and Southeast Asian supremacy, is more diffuse but clearly discernable.
Unlike Zionism, which is linked to “Israel”, and Hindutva ideology which is linked to India, there are multiple countries at play and multiple labels under which claims of East and Southeast Asian supremacy are raised. Also, the way these claims are raised often surfaces less as outright supremacy and more as “cultural essentialism”—that there’s something in this group’s cultural “essence” that makes members more “successful.” Finally, research into outright supremacist manifestations from groups associated with them is more recent, usually under the headings of Buddhist or East Asian supremacy. Nonetheless, taking these distinctions into account, East and Southeast Asian success in America’s imperial complex and corresponding claims like Chua’s to superiority are recognizable trends: some of them embraced by supremacists who praise thinkers like Chua for what critics call their cultural supremacy.
I have reported at some length about how the process of these groups claiming power in American empire played out, beginning with Jewish Zionist elites in the 1960s. I examined these Zionist elites’ acceptance into the American military corporate complex by WASPs (White Anglo-Saxon Protestants). I also pointed out that Zionists’ overall success accessing this complex came from their pursuit of narrow applied skills valued by the WASPs: economics, management theory, administrative law, engineering, finance, and technological proficiencies; a model the WASPs took quite consciously from European Empires. Zionists, in their own description, were easy marks for this kind of invitation to power that ultimately deracinates the culture of the people who accept it.
Theodor Herzl, the founder of the movement who embodies the terms of its successes and failures, was a marquee possessor of Chua’s and Rubenfeld’s triple package. He had grown up a secular Jew with little connection to his religion but a strong sense of his own superiority, and only embraced Zionist Judaism with a manic intensity when the Dreyfus Affair made him decide that he could never realize his ambitions without identifying as Jewish.
An instructive echo of Herzl’s mentality comes in the memoir of Martin Peretz, one of the early entrants into America’s corporate complex in the 1960s. Peretz, who taught at Harvard, owned The New Republic, the most influential Zionist magazine in the country, and played a prominent connective role in and near Wall Street, is in many senses a later-day Herzl. He is a high-status secular Jew with an admitted sense of insecurity who is also a fervid Zionist, and he writes in his memoir about himself and his friends who “made it” that
We were… from a strong culture that was an outsider culture, in the first generation when that culture could assert itself in American institutions. We weren’t constrained by old obligations because we were coming into a world that didn’t want us anyway. We had each other’s backs because we knew the kind of resentment arrivistes, and Jewish arrivistes, unleashed… We were the first ethnicity to break through into the ruling class institutions following the wane of Protestant influence, and we saw those institutions as the key to our flourishing.
Peretz’s Harvard mentee, Bill Ackman, the Zionist financier, is a good example of how younger Zionists operating in Herzl’s and Peretz’s tradition have swallowed this model whole. Ackman’s view of Harvard, where he is also a donor, falls along just these lines of imperial functionality:
As one of the oldest and perhaps the most notable of this country’s academic institutions, Harvard represents the gateway to elite status and to ‘making it’ in modern day American society. One need only look at the disproportionate numbers of Presidents, Nobel Laureates, and chairmen of Fortune 500 companies who have graduated from Harvard to understand the power of the Harvard degree. As a result, admission to Harvard has become the target of groups seeking upward mobility.
What goes unacknowledged here is that “elite status,” “upward mobility” and the skills that create them have only been an aspiration for most Americans since 1945, when the Cold War allowed WASPs to expand their institutions and use them to try to mold the country in their image. Before this point, most Americans understood their country as being predicated on towns and cities and states; and on a high degree of associational thickness, communal coherency, and decentralized government which allowed individuals a say in the terms of their lives. But Zionists were never open to an argument like this. Their strategy, like Herzl’s, was to enter empire and use it to rise, and it is not a coincidence that, almost immediately on accessing America’s military corporate complex, they opened America’s doors to Hindu and East and Southeast Asian operators who approached the matter of institutions and power on their terms.
The Zionists’ tool was the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act, which was sponsored by staunch Jewish Zionist Congressman Emmanuel Celler. The Act opened America’s elite universities to “high-skilled,” often upper-middle class arrivals from undemocratic or less democratic countries like India and China: people not particularly versed in constitutionalism but extremely well-versed in applied technical proficiencies valued by empire.
The most obvious beneficiaries were Hindu Americans. It was the 1965 legislation and its 1990 expansion by George H.W. Bush, the penultimate WASP president, which brought into this country the parents of Usha Vance; Vivek and Apoorva Ramaswamy; the pro-Zionist Republican operative and current Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon; and the U.S. Representatives Ro Khanna, Raja Krishnamoorthi, and Suhas Subramanyam. More decisively, as I reported in December, it has brought into the defense-tech mecca of Silicon Valley aggressive Hindu financial operators who have deep political sway. Much as, in the telling of anti-Zionist Jews like Norman Finkelstein, the converging success of Israelis and American Zionists off the largesse of America’s imperial complex hardened these players’ Zionistic belief in their Jewish supremacy, so a similar trend appears to have taken place with American Hindus who adopt some version of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Hindutva ideology. Their influence, as outlined by Andrew Cockburn in a groundbreaking article in Harpers, reaches deep and wide, in part through their connections to Zionists.
Somewhat more subtle than the Hindutva assumption of influence in America, but equally noteworthy has been the East and Southeast Asian, especially Chinese, accrual of influence here. WASPs had used their educational and financial influence to foster relationships with China going back to the 1870s. Later, Zionists took up that task: bringing Chinese elites into philanthropy and finance, aided by the 1965 legislation, which led to a sharp increase in high-skilled East and Southeast Asian immigration to America. Arguably the clearest window onto this process is the Committee of 100: a group with connections to Amy Chua founded in the late 1980s by influential Chinese Americans at the urging of Peretz ally and “Israel” defender Henry Kissinger, and with the aid of Peretz’s friend Yo-Yo Ma. As I traced in my report last year on the Committee’s growth, the Committee and some of its members have assiduously inserted themselves at crucial educational and philanthropic junctures. As I reported about their propaganda last April:
The obvious part of their message is that… America is a colorblind nation where, minus prejudice, anyone can succeed. In this schema, anyone questioning the loyalties or actions of those who have succeeded, like [members of the Committee] and their allies, are acting off of lower motives, and are anti-merit.
What is also instructive is that, despite vocal pushback to Chua’s ideas by regular readers, prominent East and Southeast Asian Americans and East Asian American organizations, including but not limited to the Committee of 100, have embraced Chua since she gained fame with her ideas and given her a public platform. Allies of Chua’s echo her arguments in a gentler way, among them the Chinese-American writer Sherryl WuDunn, a connection of Chua’s via other East Asian American organizations, whose husband Nicholas Kristof made a less constrictive, “essentialist” version of Chua’s cultural supremacist arguments in The New York Times. And cultural, ethnic, and even racial supremacists like the neoconservative Charles Murray have embraced Chua’s claims.
Jewish Zionists have been forging alliances with Hindu and East and Southeast Asian American arrivals at an accelerating rate for nearly 40 years. They have used these groups’ shared success to argue that any opposition to those groups with an outsized place in America’s military corporate complex comes from resentment and envy among people who don’t measure up.
In 1988, only 23 years after the Immigration and Nationality Act was signed, two years before the inception of the Committee of 100, and eight years before the Silicon Valley boom began, Bill Ackman, on the advice of his Harvard mentor Peretz, wrote an honors thesis entitled “Scaling the Ivy Wall: The Jewish and Asian Experience in College Admissions.” In the thesis, Ackman “draws parallels between the experience of Jews trying to gain admission to Harvard in the 1920s with the experience of applicants from Asia during the 1980s.” In 2024, gearing up for his crusade against anti-Zionism in universities, Ackman began making the rounds of newspapers, magazines, and online interviews, armed with his undergraduate thesis, arguing that the groups he wrote about in the 1980s (Jews and Asians) are technical achievers being discriminated against by opponents of merit.
That same year, Ackman’s ideological ally Bret Stephens featured in his Zionist magazine Sapir a piece quoting Ackman’s 1988 thesis by an ardent backer of Ackman’s ardent ally Vivek Ramaswamy: Rajiv Malhotra, arguably the most prominent Hindutva operating outside of India. Malhotra began this essay, an argument for “A Hindu Jewish Partnership”, by arguing that, like Asian Americans and Jews, Hindu Americans are “‘model minorities’ who have made much of the American dream” and must come together “to safeguard the world from the regressive movement against merit.” This notion that any resentment against those groups which seem to be steering American Empire flows from jealousy or resentment is shared by Amy Chua, who said, in a recent interview, that
There is tremendous resentment, fear, and insecurity about Asian-Americans because of college admissions… And then you’ve got China, a whole different source of insecurity.… Now on campus, I noticed that this anti-Chinese resentment slash fear is coming from both the Left and the Right, which is very unusual.
Tellingly, none of these arguments about “safeguarding merit” define merit as anything other than technical skills fit for empire, and this is not a bug but a feature of supremacist argument. Jewish, Hindu, and East and Southeast Asian supremacists justify their traditions based on their ability to impart skills that help empires claim power. Examples of this pattern range from Hindutvas who boast that “ancient Indians were proficient in stem cell technology and built aircrafts” in “an imagined Hindu golden age of scientific progress,” to equally remote Zionist narratives claiming that consumer innovations of all kinds originated with “Israel” to Amy Chua’s “conceptually loose” and factually dubious appropriation of her “meretricious” heritage for raising “successful” children. None of these arguments address the arguments of dissenters from within their traditions who think that, by attaching their traditions to a project of empire based on technical skills, supremacists have distorted the moral, intellectual, and cultural essences that made these traditions worth having. The most accurate description of the supremacists may in fact be “ethnopreneurs”: players who use their groups’ access to empire to show a public they assume is aspirant how to be like them, gaining recognition or profit by doing so.
The supremacists also have imitators, sometimes in the most seemingly unlikely of places. It was Nicholas J. Fuentes, nominally on the other side of the new Republican coalition from Ramaswamy and Chua and Rubenfeld and Weiss, who recently told Piers Morgan that “In Israel, they have my politics. If they had their way, it would only be Jewish people.” In fact, in “Israel”, it’s not Jewish people who are welcome; it’s only Jews openly committed to Jewishness as an imperial supremacist project, much as Fuentes is openly committed to an imperial supremacist project around white male Americans whom he says are victimized based on the superiority of their race.
Chua’s mentee J.D. Vance appears to be working to stabilize the Republican coalition in ways that may function, whatever his intent, to unite the supremacists. Even as Vance speaks implicitly in favor of including Nick Fuentes in the Republican Party and Vance’s ally Tucker Carlson gives Fuentes a platform, Vance’s most prominent ally, Erika Kirk, who is publicly committed to his 2028 presidential bid, is appearing in interviews with Zionists like Bari Weiss and Andrew Ross Sorkin. Vance only recently helped ink the deal that put Zionists, including Jared Kushner and the Ellisons, in control of TikTok; and in 2025 both Vance’s wife Usha and his mentor Chua gave rare, exclusive interviews to Weiss’s Free Press, which the Ellisons now own.
This year, Vance is scheduled to appear on CBS’s new Town Hall series, where he will be interviewed by Weiss. This looks like the rudiments of a new coalition of elites with nominally different heritages united by a shared conviction of supremacy. And policy is following suit to privilege these elites—not so much shrinking the “deep state” as Trump promised during his reelection campaign but redirecting it in ways that serve their interests:
“Israel”, with American support, is “modernizing” and “improving” Latin America and the Middle East using its technical prowess, compromising the sovereignty of nations and regions. Hindutva ideologists are coming to Silicon Valley, where Zionists arbitrate power. East and Southeast Asians are entering the Ivy League in record numbers with the aid of lawsuits from Zionist operatives, even as the Trump Administration has made no effort to shrink these universities’ power as the “gateway” to political influence.
The Muslim world, arguably Zionists’ and Hindutvas’ and Buddhist East Asians’ greatest enemy, has become our enemy. American Zionist operatives are using artificial intelligence to track anti-Zionist opinions online in conjunction with imperial outgrowths like Harvard in ways that sound quite similar to the Hindutva ideologue Rajiv Malhotra’s proposal in the Zionist magazine Sapir for an “Intellectual Iron Dome” in imitation of Israel’s defense system the Iron Dome. (This is a project seemingly imitative of Philip K. Dick’s dystopian novella The Minority Report: “to harness the powers of AI… to monitor and examine trends in antisemitism and Hinduphobia online and predict problems before they manifest.”) And, thanks to the Zionist Stephen Miller, the Trump Administration is deporting migrants of color while deracinating their “sh**hole” countries of oil in the name of serving the people for whom Fuentes claims to speak. Namely, a mostly white American population now “freed” from “third world” “leeches, killers, and entitlement junkies” but indentured in the same servitude to the military corporate elite.
In the face of unrelenting infiltration by these colonial supremacists of all sorts in pursuit of their own global Raj flowing from America, anti-imperial resistance at home and abroad, using law and popular politics, is the only sensible path.
From Iraq war crimes to Gaza’s ‘board of peace’: Why Tony Blair belongs in The Hague
By David Miller | Press TV | February 1, 2026
In the grotesque circus of international power plays, few performers rival Tony Blair for sheer audacity. The former British Prime Minister (1997-2007), once celebrated for his “Cool Britannia” sheen and Third Way politics, is now indelibly stained by the Iraq War debacle, a war built on deception that claimed hundreds of thousands of lives and shattered the region.
Yet in January 2026, Donald Trump appointed him to the Board of Peace, a White House-created entity chaired indefinitely by Trump himself to oversee Gaza’s “reconstruction” under a controversial 20-point plan.
The board’s founding executive includes heavyweights like Marco Rubio, Jared Kushner, Steve Witkoff, Marc Rowan, Ajay Banga, and Robert Gabriel—figures tied to Trumpworld and Zionist interests, with no Palestinian representation.
Blair’s role is lending “statesmanlike” cover to what is seen as a colonial oversight mechanism that could facilitate displacement and control in Gaza. This isn’t redemption; it’s impunity on steroids.
Blair belongs in The Hague facing charges for aggression and complicity in atrocities—not jet-setting as a “peace” architect. This article lays bare his record, his Zionist alliances, his profit-driven institute, his billionaire backer, and why his latest gig risks making him complicit in Gaza’s ongoing nightmare.
Blair’s war crimes: Lies, invasion, and bloodshed
Blair’s gravest sin remains the 2003 Iraq invasion, sold on bogus claims of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and Saddam Hussein’s imminent threat.
The Chilcot Inquiry (2016), an exhaustive British investigation, demolished his case: “We have concluded that the UK chose to join the invasion of Iraq before the peaceful options for disarmament had been exhausted. Military action at that time was not a last resort.”
It highlighted “flawed intelligence” that went “unchallenged” and Blair’s overestimation of his influence on George W. Bush. The infamous “dodgy dossier” asserted Iraq could deploy WMDs in 45 minutes—a claim later exposed as hyped and unreliable.
Under the Rome Statute, Blair could face ICC charges for:
- Crime of aggression: Planning and executing an illegal war without UN Security Council approval, violating the UN Charter.
- War crimes: Complicity in detainee abuses, including British forces’ role in cases like the death of Baha Mousa in custody.
- Crimes against humanity: Contribution to systematic civilian harm via indiscriminate tactics, with excess Iraqi deaths estimated in the hundreds of thousands. For example, studies estimated over 650,000 by 2006, as reported by The Guardian, citing a study in The Lancet medical journal. Later estimates put the toll at over a million.
What has been Blair’s response? “I did not mislead this country, I made a decision in good faith,” as he stated post-Chilcot. Prosecutors have tried—private attempts failed due to political barriers, as reported by the BBC on the High Court’s rejection of a 2017 bid by an Iraqi general—but the evidence mounts: the war was unnecessary, illegal, and devastating.
Blair’s Zionist ties: PM to quartet envoy, always ‘Israel First’
Blair’s pro-Israel stance is longstanding and blatant. As the British PM, he cultivated ties with Labour Friends of Israel (LFI) and accepted funding from Zionist-linked donors. He defended Israel’s actions during the Second Intifada, prioritising “security” while downplaying occupation and settlements.
Blair’s inner circle was riddled with pro-Israel influencers. Take Lord Michael Levy, a former record producer, dubbed “Lord Cashpoint” for his fundraising prowess: Introduced to Blair in 1994, Levy raised millions for New Labour, including from pro-Israel sources, and became Blair’s Middle East envoy post-2007.
Levy praised Blair’s “solid and committed support of the State of Israel,” as reported by Mishpacha Magazine. Another key figure was Sir Trevor Chinn, a major donor to Blair’s campaigns and LFI, who also funded Conservative Friends of Israel—showing cross-party Zionist commitment.
Chinn donated six-figure sums to keep Blair in power, as Lobster Magazine detailed. Then there’s Peter Mandelson, Blair’s spin master and a self-proclaimed pro-Israel advocate with family ties to the Jewish Chronicle—his father was the paper’s advertising manager as the Chronicle itself reported.
Mandelson revealed in his memoirs his “pro-Israel sentiments”, and close alliance with Levy in shaping Blair’s foreign policy. Most recently, in September 2025, Mandelson was sacked as British Ambassador to the US by Prime Minister Keir Starmer because of the disclosure of new information on his closeness to paedophile financier and Zionist intel asset Jeffrey Epstein.
The Genocide Alliance: Chinn, Mark Regev, Jacob Rothschild, Blair and Isaac Herzog (2018)
This network fuelled scandals, like the 2006-2007 cash-for-honours affair, where Levy was arrested (though not charged) over allegations of selling peerages for donations, many from pro-Israel businessmen. The probe destabilised Blair, exposing how Zionist money influenced Labour.
Enter Lord Jon Mendelsohn: As Labour’s chief fundraiser in 2007, Mendelsohn was embroiled in a donations row involving illegal third-party contributions from property developer David Abrahams, who funnelled funds through proxies.
Mendelsohn admitted knowing about the scheme but claimed ignorance of its illegality, according to The Guardian. Fast-forward: Mendelsohn now directs Abraham Accords (UK) and co-chairs the APPG for the Abraham Accords.
Both promote normalisation between the Zionist colony and Arab states—essentially “Zionising” West Asia by embedding Zionist influence in economies and politics.
In a 2023 House of Lords speech, Mendelsohn hailed the Accords as a “historic opportunity,” ignoring Palestinian erasure. This evolution from Blair-era lobby scandals to regional normalisation underscores how Zionist networks persist, repackaging occupation as “peace.”
Blair’s fingerprints are all over the Abraham Accords, the sham “peace” deal normalising Israel’s apartheid with some regional countries while burying Palestinian rights.
In 2015, Blair brokered the first secret meetings between Benjamin Netanyahu and UAE officials in London, planting the seeds for the 2020 agreements. He attended the White House signing ceremony, gushing in a statement: “This is a momentous day… a new pathway is opening up for the Middle East.” Netanyahu later credited him with the Accords’ success, per reports from 2025.
As Quartet Envoy, Blair’s “economic peace” mantra—focusing on the occupied West Bank development while sidelining Gaza and sovereignty—paved the way for these deals, which critics slam as economic bribes to Arab states to ignore Israel’s horrendous war crimes.
Blair’s involvement wasn’t altruistic; it burnished his “peacemaker” image while entrenching Zionist hegemony, bypassing UN resolutions and Palestinian self-determination. His denial of Palestine, as Le Monde put it, is complete—treating the occupied as economic pawns in a Zionist game.
As Quartet Envoy (2007–2015), tasked with advancing the peace process, Blair faced repeated accusations of bias. Palestinian officials called him an “Israeli diplomat” in all but name; he focused on Palestinian “reform” while rarely challenging Israeli policies like Gaza’s blockade or settlement expansion.
The Guardian reported in 2011: Palestinian critics attacked him for favouring Israeli “security” needs over Palestinian rights. During Israel’s 2008-2009 Gaza offensive (1,400+ Palestinian killings), Blair echoed Israeli narratives blaming the Hamas resistance movement without addressing root causes.
A Source News analysis labelled him a “complete failure” for perceived one-sidedness. He resigned in 2015 amid conflicts of interest, but his record shows transactional Zionism—aligning with power to maintain influence.
Tony Blair Institute: Policy peddler with a dark side
The Tony Blair Institute for Global Change (TBI), launched in 2016, poses as a nonprofit promoting “good governance” and tech-driven reform. Before Larry Ellison’s funding in 2021, TBI had about 267 staff in 2020, per its annual accounts.
Post-Ellison, it ballooned to over 800 by 2023, nearing 1,000 in 45+ countries by 2025, with plans for 1,000+ by end-2026, as Ellison’s $375M+ pledges fuelled explosive growth, per POLITICO. Turnover jumped from $81M in 2021 to $121M in 2022, then over $150M, enabling global ops.
Beyond AI and digital IDs, TBI advises on climate policy, net-zero transitions, and governance—often to countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE, drawing fire for whitewashing abuses.
It pushes “tech for good” like surveillance systems and economic reforms, but critics see neocolonialism. In Africa and the Global South, TBI embeds in governments, promoting privatisation and AI integration that favours Western tech giants.
Controversies pile up: TBI has consulted for many governments while raking in fees – including Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Bahrain. Most damningly, reports linked TBI discussions to Gaza “reconstruction” plans condemned as ethnic cleansing blueprints, including ideas of “paying Palestinians to leave” or redeveloping Gaza as a “Riviera.”
Middle East Eye revealed TBI’s involvement in talks evolving into proposals critics slam as displacement schemes. The Guardian noted staff participation in such calls.
TBI pushes surveillance tech and net-zero policies, often funded by questionable sources, turning “global change” into elite profit. A 2024 Consultancy.uk critique ridiculed its AI studies as overhyped, while UnHerd questioned its opacity—meaning a lack of transparency in operations and funding that raises concerns over accountability and potential conflicts of interest.
Blair and Larry Ellison: Cash for influence, Zionism, and security risks
Oracle founder Larry Ellison, a staunch Zionist lobbyist and one of the world’s richest men, has poured at least £257 million ($375M+) into TBI since 2021 via his foundation.
Lighthouse Reports exposed how this cash transformed TBI into an Oracle sales and lobbying arm—pushing cloud tech, AI, and government contracts (for example, UK NHS data deals). Ellison gets policy access and favourable regs; Blair gets funding to sustain his empire and personal brand.
Larry Ellison and Blair
Ellison’s Zionism runs deep: He’s donated over $26M to Friends of the Israel Defense Forces (FIDF), including a record $16.6M in 2017—the largest single gift ever—and $10M in 2014.
At a 2017 gala, he declared: “Since Israel’s founding, we’ve called on the brave men and women of the IDF to defend our home,” as reported by The Times of Israel.
In videos and speeches, Ellison emphasised: “For two thousand years, we were stateless. Now we have our own country, defended by the brave men and women of the IDF,” as shared on Instagram. Oracle execs echo: CEO Safra Catz once told staff to “love Israel or maybe this isn’t the job for you”.
Ellison reportedly vetted Marco Rubio for Israel loyalty as revealed in leaked emails, and Oracle built a massive underground data center in Israel amid Gaza ops.
Oracle’s ties to the Israeli military are insidious and extensive, embedding the company as a pillar of Israel’s military machine. Since 2006, Oracle has held multi-year contracts with the Israeli military affairs ministry, supplying databases, Fusion middleware, and cloud services integral to its operations.
Oracle’s complicity in occupation and genocide includes training Israeli military personnel and providing tech that bolsters military logistics and intelligence.
Post-October 7, 2023, Oracle declared “We stand with Israel,” donating $1M to Magen David Adom, sending supplies to Israeli soldiers, and inscribing “Oracle Stands with Israel” on company premises at Catz’s demand.
Oracle’s ERP systems, databases, and IT infrastructure fuel the Israeli military’s genocidal campaigns. Oracle “married the IDF,” with employees embedded in military training and cloud services enabling real-time warfare.
Palantir’s role
This rot extends to Palantir, another Zionist tech behemoth that Blair’s orbit intersects via shared pro-Israel ecosystems. Palantir, co-founded by Peter Thiel ( who “defers to Israel” on AI ethics), signed a strategic partnership with the Israeli regime in 2024 for battle tech, meeting with military officials to deploy AI platforms.
Palantir provides militarized AI to Israeli intelligence, including Unit 8200’s Data Science and AI Center, enabling automated targeting in Gaza—essentially AI-generated kill lists amid genocide.
Palantir— fueled by Jeffrey Epstein funds and Thiel’s backing—has treated Gaza as a testing ground for surveillance tech that spies globally. The tech company, alongside Google and Amazon, arms Israel’s genocidal atrocities, with AI systems predicting and facilitating mass killings.
Blair’s TBI, Oracle-infused, echoes this by designing “data-driven” Gaza plans that could integrate such tech, turning “reconstruction” into perpetual occupation.
Infiltrating British intelligence cloud services
This alliance raises alarms: Oracle holds UK national security contracts. The Ministry of Defence (MoD) signed a 2026 cloud deal for AI and legacy migration. The Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) uses Oracle Fusion for HR and finance. The Home Office inked a £54M ($72M) cloud pact in 2025.
These departments house most of the British intelligence community, like MI6 and GCHQ (FCDO), MI5 and the Homeland Security Group (Home Office), and Defence Intelligence and the Intelligence Corps (MoD). In 2021, the Cabinet Office terminated a specific procurement plan to migrate its own on-premises Oracle ERP system, so it is the only department housing British intelligence groups (including the Joint Intelligence Organisation, National Security Secretariat, National Security Council and Joint Intelligence Committee) that is not supplied by Oracle.
With Ellison’s Israeli military ties and Oracle’s Israel operations (potentially involving Unit 8200 cyber spies), backdoors pose risks—data leaks to Israeli intel could compromise UK security.
In the real world, such back doors are known to exist in the products of Israeli/Zionist firms like NSO Group with Pegasus spyware, exploited by intelligence to hack phones worldwide, as reported by The Guardian, and Cellebrite, whose tools unlock devices for surveillance as detailed by The New York Times.
Critics speculate Ellison wants Blair’s clout to secure more contracts, while Blair eyes Ellison’s billions for global sway.
Their shared obsession with digital IDs amplifies the menace, forging an Orwellian nightmare where surveillance becomes the new chains of empire.
In a World Government Summit discussion, Ellison told Blair: “The first thing a country needs to do is to unify all of their data so it can be consumed and used by the AI model,” advocating biometric IDs to replace passwords for total, inescapable control. Blair’s TBI relentlessly pushes digital IDs as “essential for modern governance,” per a September 2025 report, estimating UK implementation at £1.4 billion—but this is sinister code for dystopian tracking.
This convergence isn’t benign; it’s a blueprint for genocidal domination. In Gaza and the Levant, digital IDs could entrench Israel’s ethnic cleansing by enabling granular, AI-fuelled surveillance of Palestinians, restricting movement like digital cattle brands, and feeding into Oracle and Palantir’s targeting systems that have already slaughtered thousands.
Byline Times reported Blair’s institute designed Gaza recovery plans on “data-driven lines echoing Oracle-Palantir war systems,” potentially turning bombed-out ruins into a panopticon of apartheid, where every breath is monitored to crush resistance.
For pacification, these IDs would “identify” survivors in “humanitarian zones,” as in Blair’s Gaza International Transitional Authority proposal, which includes “digital government services and identity systems” for civil registry and permits—euphemisms for logging dissenters, enforcing starvation sieges, and facilitating forced expulsions under the veneer of “peace.”
Oracle’s Lebanon deal risks similar exposure, with data vulnerabilities amid Israel’s invasions, turning the Levant into a testing lab for Zionist tech tyranny. Blair and Ellison’s digital dystopia isn’t progress; it’s a genocidal wet dream, pacifying Gaza through algorithmic oppression while they rake in blood-soaked billions from the rubble.
It is difficult to imagine this techno-dystopia will not be enforced everywhere else the Zionists want, if they can get away with it, as they push forward with their so-called “Greater Israel” and “Pax Judaica” hews into view.
“Board of Peace”: Colonial control, potential complicity
Trump’s so-called “Board of Peace,” formalised in January 2026, vests sweeping authority in Trump (no term limit, veto power) to implement Gaza’s “humanitarian zones,” stabilisation force, and reconstruction—excluding Hamas and NGOs with “ties.”
Blair, credited with shaping elements, joins a roster heavy on Trump allies and pro-Israel figures. Al Jazeera critiqued it as putting “rights abusers in charge.”
Kushner’s vision for Gaza
The Executive Board of the Board of Peace
Key members of the board
- Jared Kushner: As an Orthodox Jew, mega donor to the genocidal ultra-Orthodox Chabad-Lubavitch cult and architect of the Abraham Accords, Kushner has described Gaza as “valuable waterfront” property, suggesting redevelopment that critics argue implies ethnic cleansing. His role on the board aligns with his history of prioritising Israeli interests, having facilitated normalisation deals that sidelined Palestinian rights, as detailed by CNBC. Kushner’s Affinity Partners firm has ties to Middle Eastern sovereign wealth funds, raising concerns over conflicts of interest in Gaza’s reconstruction, as noted by the European Council on Foreign Relations.
- Steve Witkoff: This Jewish real estate mogul and mega Trump donor is a staunch pro-Israel advocate, serving as US Special Envoy to the Middle East (West Asia), where he has emphasised close US-Israel partnership on Gaza as reported byThe Times of Israel. Witkoff, described as having a “warm Zionist Jewish heart,” has been instrumental in delivering messages to Netanyahu and advancing Trump’s Gaza plan, as highlighted by OnePath Network. His background in property development fuels speculation that he views Gaza’s rebuilding as a business opportunity, aligning with pro-Israel policies that prioritise security over Palestinian sovereignty.
- Marc Rowan: The Jewish CEO of Apollo Global Management is a major AIPAC donor and led donor revolts against universities over perceived antisemitism, including boycotting the University of Pennsylvania for hosting a Palestinian literary festival, as reported byThe New York Times. Rowan’s anti-Palestine activism includes calling for the resignation of university leaders amid pro-Palestinian protests, as detailed byThe American Prospect. On the board, his financial expertise is poised to oversee investment in Gaza’s reconstruction, but critics argue his pro-Israel stance will entrench Zionist control, as noted by the BBC.
- Martin Edelman: This Jewish lawyer with pro-Israel ties specialises in international real estate transactions and has shaped US-UAE relations, facilitating deals that align with Zionist interests as reported by Watan. Edelman’s involvement in West Asia diplomacy includes roles that support normalisation efforts, bypassing Palestinian rights as highlighted by JNS.org. His position on the board likely focuses on legal frameworks for Gaza’s redevelopment, raising concerns over favouring Israeli interests as discussed by the Jerusalem Center for Foreign Affairs.
- Benjamin Netanyahu: As Israel’s Prime Minister and the chief architect of the Gaza genocide, Netanyahu embodies ideological Zionism, adhering to the “Iron Wall” doctrine of military dominance over Palestinians as explained byThe Conversation. His unwavering expansionism has led to policies even the New York Times calls apartheid. On the Board, Netanyahu’s inclusion ensures Israeli veto power, despite fuming at the presence of Turkish and Qatari officials, as reported by CNN.
- Tony Blair: As detailed throughout this article, Blair’s transactional Zionism and history of enabling Israeli policies make him a fitting but hypocritical addition to the board.
- Marco Rubio: This evangelical Christian is a fervent pro-Israel advocate, viewing support for Israel as biblically mandated as stated in his 2015 speech to the Republican Jewish Coalition. Rubio has pushed sanctions against Hezbollah and legislation to move the US embassy to occupied al-Quds, as reported by Liberty University. His role on the board aligns with Trump’s hardline stance, emphasising US-Israel alliances as critiqued by Sojourners.
- Susie Wiles: Wiles is reportedly an Episcopalian, but is not clearly a Christian Zionist. This is despite being aligned with Mike Huckabee through Florida politics and Trump’s circle, as noted by the Sarasota Herald-Tribune. She consulted for Likud in 2020, as detailed by The Washington Post. Despite her role on the BOARD, she has been described as a stabilising force who reportedly looked “alarmed” or shot “daggers” at Trump during press conferences where he proposed the genocidal mass relocation of Gaza’s inhabitants, as reported byThe Daily Beast.
- Ajay Banga: This Indian-American Sikh has not publicly taken a position on BDS or Zionism; however, Mastercard and Citigroup under his leadership opposed BDS and reportedly maintained operations in the occupied Palestinian territories. Banga described his board role as a “once-in-a-lifetime opportunity” to rebuild Gaza. Typically, he tried to ‘both-sides’ the genocide by condemning “unbelievable loss of life” on both sides as “unconscionable,” but critics like Ghada Karmi argue his participation aligns with a pro-Western, Zionist-adjacent framework, sidelining Palestinian self-determination.
- Robert Gabriel: As Deputy National Security Advisor since May 2025, Gabriel has served in Trump’s administration with a focus on policy, having worked as a special assistant to Stephen Miller, as reported by Wikipedia. His consulting firm, Gabriel Strategies, and closeness to Miller and Susie Wiles underscore his role in advancing hardline pro-Israel policies as detailed by LegiStorm. Gabriel’s background in Trump’s campaign positions him as a key enforcer of Zionist-aligned security measures in Gaza, as noted by the Brookings Institution.
Gaza’s death toll is in excess of 70,000 since 2023, according to the Palestinian Health Ministry, which even the Zionist military accepts. Academic studies suggest around 400,000 deaths or disappearances. With the ongoing crippling blockade, the board risks enabling further atrocities—restricted access, forced compliance, displacement under “redevelopment.”
Blair’s involvement lends false legitimacy, potentially making him an accessory to crimes if the plan entrenches occupation or ethnic cleansing. As the BBC reports, no Palestinians are on the board, though some Arab/Muslim leaders have joined, such as Bahrain’s Isa bin Salman Al Khalifa, Morocco’s Nasser Bourita, Jordan’s Ayman Al Safadi, UAE’s Reem Al Hashimy, Egypt’s Hassan Rashad, Qatar’s Ali al-Thawadi, and Turkey’s Hakan Fidan, as listed by CNBC.
Despite optimism from some quarters and claims that Netanyahu was not fully informed, as CNN reported, these figures are Zionist collaborators, with Turkey as a NATO member and most notably the UAE facilitating normalisation that sidelines Palestinian rights.
Does Trump see himself as “King of the World”? Chairing for life with vetoes, the Board positions him as a global arbiter. We might ask who, upon his death, would inherit the crown? Kushner, his Zionist son-in-law, is an obvious suspect, reinforcing Zionist control over Palestine’s fate.
Arrest Blair: End the impunity
Message from London: Off to the Hague
As human rights advocates argue, Blair should face The Hague for his role in the invasion of Iraq and the war crimes there (based on the Chilcot report and the legal consensus) and his pattern of enabling power abuses—from Zionist bias to Gaza-linked schemes.
Public outrage persists: X users echo this, with posts declaring “Tony Blair should be in prison for war crimes” and calls like “Tony Blair should be heading to The Hague, not to Gaza.”
Strip his honours, prosecute under universal jurisdiction. Anything less mocks justice, say human rights campaigners worldwide as well as social media users.
Blair’s role on Trump’s board is seen widely as an ultimate insult—a war criminal overseeing “peace” in a land ravaged by over two years of genocide that his country facilitated.
Featured Video
More Iran War fallout: Maritime insurance industry shifts from London to China
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Allies Don’t Need Lobbies
By Jay Knott | Dissident Voice | September 24, 2013
In a recent article on Counterpunch, Rob Urie defended the traditional Marxist analysis of US policy in the Middle East. He argues that support for Israel is driven primarily by economic interest, not the Jewish lobby.
He starts by paying tribute to the idea that Western societies are uniquely racist. He says that the “Western narrative” claims there is an “Arab character”, and that this is “antique racist blather”. He gives no definition of these terms. Further, he establishes his credentials as part of the dominant current in the American left by claiming that “over a million people in Iraq died so ‘we’ in the West can drive SUVs.”1
When he tries to criticize bourgeois economics, he makes it clear he doesn’t understand the developments it has made since Marx’s day, using the mathematical discipline known as “game theory”. He dismisses the basic abstraction of economic theory, the idea of the rational individual, on the grounds that it is “devoid of history, culture and political context”. But abstractions are always devoid of something.
He defends a more concrete economic theory, mostly Marxist, with some input from another theorist of capitalist crisis, Hyman Minsky. This concrete theory leads him to the view that US activity in the Middle East is primarily driven by rational capitalist motives, the need to secure a supply of oil.
“Taking the totality of circumstance — former oil company executives launching war on an oil rich nation on a pretext they publicly proclaimed they didn’t believe shortly before taking office — and that upon launching their war proved to be non-existent, requires a willingness to overlook the obvious — that the war on Iraq was for oil, that is difficult to support.”1
Perhaps I’ve misunderstood him, but based on what he says in the rest of the article, this convoluted sentence seems to argue that, because president Bush and vice-president Cheney attacked Iraq on false premises, and they also said it was all about oil, and they are former oil executives, and Iraq has a lot of oil, it’s difficult to deny US attacks on Iraq are all about oil.
In fact, it’s not hard at all. As Urie points out, at times Bush and co. said that attacking Iraq was “protecting the world’s supply of oil.”1 But, as he also points out, they are congenital liars. Why should we believe them when they say they are trying to “protect” the oil supply? Protect it against what? When politicians “admit” attacks on Middle Eastern countries are wars for oil, they are parroting the neo-con party line, feeding the public, both left and right, with a plausible-sounding pretext. For right-wingers, “it’s a war for oil” is a reason to support war, and for leftists, it’s a way to feel better by complaining impotently about corporate greed. Both approaches help the war drive. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- More Iran War fallout: Maritime insurance industry shifts from London to China
- US-Israeli aggression on Iran triggers review of GCC countries’ investment pledges to Washington
- Russia slams UK plan to seize tankers suspected of carrying its oil
- Pakistan ramps up food exports to Persian Gulf nations as war deepens food insecurity
- Iran submits response to US plan, sets terms for war’s end: Tasnim
- US vs Iran: Kharg Island Talk — Bluff or Escalation? Ex-Military Officer Weighs In
- Zelensky unnecessarily involves Ukraine in the Middle East crisis
- Turkish tanker blacklisted by Ukraine hit in drone attack – media
- Canada, the U.S., and NATO: the inescapable trap
- Villains of Judea: Leonid Radvinsky
- If Americans Knew
- ‘No Innocent Children’: Far-right Israeli Lawmaker Defends Killing of Palestinian Family
- Mossad’s promises helped Netanyahu convince Trump that Iran could be toppled
- US Arms Control Official Refuses To Comment When Asked If Israel Has Nuclear Weapons
- Veterans warn US landing could be ‘more Gallipoli than Vietnam’
- Israel may be committing war crimes in Lebanon – Not a ceasefire Day 167
- In the West Bank, life is a constant battle – 3 articles
- Jacob Reses, one of the most powerful pro-Israel operatives in Trump’s Washington
- Israeli-US assaults kill or injure 87 children a day – Not a ceasefire Day 166
- ‘Forever live by the sword’: Understanding Israelis’ massive support for Iran war
- UN’s special rapporteur on human rights says Israel is systematically torturing Palestinians
- No Tricks Zone
- 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
- Storing Green Energy To Last Germany 10 Days Would Require A 60-Million Tonne Battery
- New Studies: UK Sea Levels Were 4 Meters Higher Than Today During The Mid-Holocene
- Destructive Green New Deal: German Energy And Metal Group Warns Of Drastic Crisis
- New Study Documents A 20-Year Pause In Arctic Sea Ice Decline – Driven By Internal Variability
- Wake-up Call: Survey Shows Majority Of Germans Now Favor Postponing Climate Targets!
Aletho News 