Journalist Peter Oborne sets out six ways the state broadcaster has wilfully misled audiences on Israel’s destruction of Gaza
By Jonathan Cook | June 20, 2025
Veteran journalist Peter Oborne eviscerated the BBC this week over its shameful reporting of Gaza – and unusually, he managed to do so face-to-face with the BBC’s executive news editor, Richard Burgess, during a parliamentary meeting.
Oborne’s remarks relate to a new and damning report by the Centre for Media Monitoring, which analysed in detail the BBC’s Gaza coverage in the year following Hamas’ one-day attack on 7 October 2023. The report found a “pattern of bias, double standards and silencing of Palestinian voices.” These aren’t editorial slip-ups. They reveal a systematic, long-term skewing of editorial coverage in Israel’s favour.
Oborne was one of several journalists to confront Burgess.
Oborne makes a series of important points that illustrate why the BBC’s slanted, Israel-friendly news agenda amounts to genocide denial, and means executives like Burgess are directly complicit in Israeli war crimes:
1. The BBC has never mentioned the Hannibal directive, invoked by Israel on 7 October 2023, that green-lit the murder of Israeli soldiers and civilians, often by Apache helicopter fire, to prevent them being taken captive by Hamas. The Israeli media has extensively reported on the role of the Hannibal directive in the Israeli military’s response on 7 October, but that coverage has been completely ignored by the BBC and most UK media outlets.
Israel’s invocation of the Hannibal directive – essential context for understanding what happened on 7 October – explains much of the destruction that day in Israel usually attributed to Hamas “barbarism”, such as the graveyard of burnt-out, crumpled cars and the charred, crumbling remains of houses in communities near Gaza.
Hamas, with its light weapons, did not have the ability to inflict this kind of damage on Israel, and we know from Israeli witnesses, video footage and admissions from Israeli military officers that Israel was responsible for at least a share of the carnage that day. How much we will apparently never know because Israel is not willing to investigate itself, and media like the BBC are not doing any investigations themselves, or putting any pressure on Israel to do so.
2. The BBC has never mentioned Israel’s Dahiya doctrine, the basis of its “mowing the lawn” approach to Gaza over the past two decades, in which the Israeli military has intermittently destroyed large swaths of the tiny enclave. The official aim has been to push the population, in the words of Israeli generals, back to the “Stone Age”. The assumption is that, forced into survival mode, Palestinians will not have the energy or will to resist their brutal and illegal subjugation by Israel and that it will be easier for Israel to ethnically cleanse them from their homeland.
Because Israel has been implementing this military doctrine – a form of collective punishment and therefore indisputably a war crime – for at least 20 years, it is critically important in any analysis of the events that led up to 7 October, or of the genocidal campaign of destruction Israel launched subsequently.
The BBC’s refusal even to acknowledge the doctrine’s existence leaves audiences gravely misinformed about Israel’s historical abuses of Gaza, and deprived of context to interpret the campaign of destruction by Israel over the past 20 months.
3. The BBC has utterly failed to report the many dozens of genocidal statements from Israeli officials since 7 October – again vital context for audiences to understand Israel’s goals in Gaza.
Perhaps most egregiously, the BBC has not reported Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s biblically-inspired comparison of the Palestinians to “Amalek” – a people the Jews were instructed by God to wipe from the face of the earth. Netanyahu knew this clearly genocidal statement would have especial resonance with what now amounts to a majority of the combat soldiers in Gaza who belong to extreme religious communities that view the Bible as the literal truth.
The hardest thing to prove in genocide is intent. And yet the reason Israel’s violence in Gaza is so clearly genocidal is that every senior official from the prime minister down has repeatedly told us that genocide is their intent. The decision not to inform audiences of these public statements is not journalism. It is pro-Israel disinformation and genocide denial.
4. By contrast, as Oborne notes, on more than 100 occasions when guests have tried to refer to what is happening in Gaza as a genocide, BBC staff have immediately shut them down on air. As other investigations have shown, the BBC has strictly enforced a policy not only of banning the use of the term “genocide” by its own journalists in reference to Gaza but of depriving others – from Palestinians to western medical volunteers and international law experts – of the right to use the term as well. Again, this is pure genocide denial.
5. Oborne also points to the fact that the BBC has largely ignored Israel’s campaign of murdering Palestinian journalists in Gaza. A greater number have been killed by Israel in its war on the tiny enclave than the total number of journalists killed in all other major conflicts of the past 160 years combined.
The BBC has reported just 6 per cent of the more than 225 journalists killed by Israel in Gaza, compared to 62 per cent of the far smaller number of journalists killed in Ukraine. This is once again vital context for understanding that Israel’s goals are genocidal. It hopes to exterminate the main witnesses to its crimes.
6. Oborne adds a point of his own. He notes that the distinguished Israeli historian Avi Shlaim lives in the UK and teaches at Oxford University. Unlike the Israeli spokespeople familiar to BBC audiences, who are paid to muddy the waters and deny Israel’s genocide, Shlaim is both knowledgeable about the history of Israeli colonisation of Palestine and truly independent. He is in a position to dispassionately provide the context BBC audiences need to make judgments about what is going on and who is responsible for it.
And yet extraordinarily, Shlaim has never been invited on by the BBC. He is only too ready to do interviews. He has done them for Al Jazeera, for example. But he isn’t invited on because, it seems, he is “the wrong sort of Jew”. His research has led him to a series of highly critical conclusions about Israel’s historical and current treatment of the Palestinians. He calls what Israel is doing in Gaza a genocide. He is one of the prominent Israelis we are never allowed to hear from, because they are likely to make more credible and mainstream a narrative the BBC wishes to present as fringe, loopy and antisemitic. Again, what the BBC is doing – paid for by British taxpayers – isn’t journalism. It is propaganda for a foreign state.
Burgess’ answer is a long-winded shrugging of the shoulders, a BBC executive’s way of acting clueless – an equivalent of Manuel, the dim-witted Spanish waiter in the classic comedy show Fawlty Towers, saying: “I know nothing.”
Other lowlights from Burgess include his responding to a pointed question from Declassified journalist Hamza Yusuf on why the BBC has not given attention to British spy planes operating over Gaza from RAF base Akrotiri on Cyprus. “I don’t think we should overplay the UK’s contribution to what’s happening in Israel,” Burgess answers.
So the British state broadcaster has decided that its duty is not to investigate the nature of British state assistance to Israel in Gaza, even though most experts agree what Israel is doing there amounts to genocide. Burgess thinks scrutiny of British state complicity would be “overplaying” British collusion, even though the BBC has not actually investigated the extent or nature of that collusion to have reached a conclusion. This is the very antithesis of what journalism is there to do: monitor the centres of power, not exonerate such power-centres before they have even been scrutinised.
Labour MP Andy McDonald responded to Burgess: “To underplay the role of the UK is an error.”
It is more than that. It is journalistic complicity in British and Israeli state war crimes.
Here are a few key statistical findings from the Centre for Media Monitoring’s report on BBC coverage of Gaza over the year following 7 October 2023:
As is only too evident watching Burgess respond, he is not there to learn from the state broadcaster’s glaring mistakes – because systematic BBC pro-Israel bias isn’t a mistake. It’s precisely what the BBC is there to do.
Al Mayadeen | June 21, 2025
British news outlets on Saturday revealed that the UK government is preparing to ban Palestine Action, a pro-Palestinian direct action group, by classifying it as a terrorist organization. This move, spearheaded by Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, is expected to be announced in a ministerial statement on Monday and will require parliamentary approval. If enacted, the ban would criminalize membership and support for the group under the Terrorism Act 2000.
The proposed proscription follows a high-profile protest at RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire, where Palestine Action activists gained access to the military airbase and sprayed red paint on two aircraft. The group described the action as part of a campaign to disrupt the UK’s complicity in “Israel’s” assault on Gaza. “Activists have interrupted Britain’s direct participation in the commission of genocide and war crimes across the Middle East,” the group said.
Video footage released by the group showed two individuals entering the base at night on electric scooters, with one spraying red paint into the engine of a Voyager aircraft, used to transport British leaders and refuel allied jets. A spokesperson for the group declared: “Despite publicly condemning the Israeli government, Britain continues to send military cargo, fly spy planes over Gaza and refuel US and Israeli fighter jets.”
Though the RAF claimed the damage is being assessed and does not expect major operational disruptions, the incident has sparked a wider security review across UK military bases. The government’s response has drawn criticism for targeting activism rather than addressing its own military entanglements.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer condemned the protest as “disgraceful” and labeled it “an act of vandalism,” while counter-terrorism police and the Ministry of Defence continue their investigations.
Disruptive Solidarity
Founded in 2020 by Huda Ammori, a British-Palestinian activist, and Richard Barnard, Palestine Action is known for its non-violent yet disruptive tactics aimed at corporations that profit from the Israeli military-industrial complex.
The group has previously shut down two Elbit Systems-linked arms factories in Oldham and Tamworth and forced companies like Dean Group International to cut contracts with Israeli weapons manufacturers. Their disruptive tactics—ranging from factory occupations and sabotage to sustained divestment pressure, have challenged British institutions to reckon with their role in supplying the machinery of occupation.
Friday’s action at Brize Norton marks one of the group’s most significant actions yet, directly confronting a military base central to the UK’s support operations.
Critics say the proscription is a politically motivated attempt to silence dissent against Britain’s role in arming and supporting “Israel”. “We represent every person who stands for Palestinian liberation. If they want to ban us, they ban us all,” Palestine Action posted on X. The Palestine Solidarity Campaign called the move “outrageous,” defending the group as a non-violent direct action network.
The planned ban raises serious concerns about the criminalization of solidarity with Palestine and the suppression of dissent.
RT | June 21, 2025
US ambassador to the UN Dorothy Shea stated at a UN Security Council meeting on Friday that Iran must be stopped from developing a nuclear bomb, despite IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi recently saying the agency found no evidence that Tehran is pursuing such a weapon. Analysts say Washington’s narrative resembles past efforts to justify regime change in the Middle East.
Last week, Israel launched airstrikes on Iran, citing an imminent threat that Tehran would make a nuclear weapon. Iran, insisting its nuclear program is peaceful, retaliated with strikes on Israeli targets. The Israeli assault came days after the IAEA reported that Iran had enriched uranium to 60% – which is short of the 90% required for weapons.
However, since the strikes started, Grossi has claimed that his agency had no proof that Iran was actually trying to build a nuclear weapon, stressing that enriched uranium alone does not constitute a bomb. US intelligence agencies also maintain there is no evidence Iran is pursuing nuclear arms. Nevertheless, President Donald Trump has claimed Iran was “very close” to acquiring a bomb and warned the US could intervene if it doesn’t agree to scrap its nuclear program.
Shea declared the US “continues to stand with Israel” and backs its campaign against “Iran’s nuclear ambitions.” She insisted that the US “can no longer ignore that Iran has all that it needs to achieve a nuclear weapon,” lacking only a decision from its supreme leader.
Some analysts say US rhetoric on Iran echoes President George W. Bush’s 2002 claims about Iraqi WMDs, which led to a US invasion despite no stockpiles being found. Former Trump adviser Steve Bannon told journalist Tucker Carlson this week that the entire operation against Iran “that came out of nowhere” is in fact an attempt by the US “deep state” to orchestrate regime change in Iran.
“We have a system that has its own national security policy… that is the fight we have to take on today,” Bannon stated, suggesting that Trump should not succumb to pressure from US war hawks and involve American military in the conflict. Tucker Carlson also said that while he supports Trump, he fears the consequences if he yields to pressure and joins the Israeli strikes. “I think we’re gonna see the end of the American empire,” he warned, criticizing Washington hawks for dragging the country into another war.
Journalist Steve Coll told NPR this week that using US intelligence to justify strikes mirrors the Iraq war narrative. He noted that while Israel calls its attacks preemptive, the objective remains vague.
“[Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu has spoken of regime change and urged Iranians to rise up – just like George H.W. Bush did in 1991 with Iraq,” Coll said. “There’s no sign of a planned invasion, yet talk of toppling Iran’s government persists.”
Other observers, including former US President Bill Clinton, suggested Israel’s “undeclared war” on Iran may also be driven by another goal – Netanyahu’s desire to stay in power. Shea made a notable slip during her UN remarks, initially blaming Israel for “chaos and terror” in the Middle East before correcting herself to attribute it to Iran. RT’s Rick Sanchez and journalist Chay Bowes called her words a “Freudian slip” while discussing the situation in an episode of Sanchez Effect on Friday, with Sanchez adding, “She accidentally said the truth out loud.”
The Cradle | June 20, 2025
Fourteen military cargo planes have arrived in Israel since the start of Tel Aviv’s brutal war against Iran, the Israeli Defense Ministry confirmed.
According to the ministry, the shipments are part of a broader flow of 800 military cargo planes that have arrived in Israel since the start of the genocidal war against Gaza in October 2023.
The ministry stated the shipment is “part of efforts to strengthen operational continuity and support all the IDF’s needs, both for achieving the goals of the war and for improving readiness and stockpiles.”
Most of these planes originated from the US, while the rest came from Germany.
The ministry confirmed that the latest shipments, which arrived on 19 June, are carrying equipment for Israel’s defense systems, which are being used to intercept Iran’s retaliatory ballistic missile strikes against Israeli targets.
Military cargo planes are expected to continue arriving in the coming weeks, the Israeli Defense Ministry added. It said that these shipments are part of a joint effort involving the Defense Procurement Administration, procurement delegations in the US and Germany, the Israeli army’s Planning and Force Build-Up Directorate, and the Israeli Air Force.
The US has continued to funnel massive amounts of weapons and military equipment into Israel, and has deployed warships and fighter jets to the region to help the Israeli army in its attempts to shoot down Iranian missiles.
Middle East Eye reported on 14 June that before the Israeli attack on Iran last Friday, the US covertly delivered about 300 Hellfire missiles to Israel.
Since the genocide of Palestinians in Gaza began, Washington has delivered over 90,000 tons of armaments and military equipment.
“The US is a partner in the Israeli aggression against Iran, even if it does not participate publicly,” Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on 20 June.
Over the past few days, there has been widespread anticipation over a potential decision by US President Donald Trump to directly enter the war against Iran – particularly for joint strikes on the Fordow nuclear facility.
“Based on the fact that there’s a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future, I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks,” Trump said on Thursday.
Reports in Hebrew media have said Trump may be trying to deceive the Iranians, and could be planning to enter the war much sooner.
Iran’s ambassador to the UN said in Geneva on 18 June that Tehran will “respond seriously and strongly” if Washington directly enters the Israeli war.
The Islamic Republic had previously warned that all US bases in the region were within its reach and would be targeted if Washington launched an attack against the country.
Glenn Diesen | June 19, 2025
Seyed Mohammad Marandi is a professor at Tehran University and a former advisor to Iran’s Nuclear Negotiation Team. Prof. Marandi discusses the US preparations to enter the war directly, and Iran’s preparations to fight the US. Trump will only accept Iran’s surrender, yet he does not appear to have the means to achieve this objective. What will happen if US strikes are ineffective and US military assets in the region are attacked? The only path forward now is reckless escalation.
It is, and has always been, about regime change and breaking the Axis of Resistance
By Robert Inlakesh | RT | June 19, 2025
The claim that has been adopted by the United States, Israel and its European partners, that the attack on Iran was a “pre-emptive” attempt to stop Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons, is demonstrably false. It holds about as much weight as the allegations against Iraq’s Saddam Hussein in 2003 and this war of aggression is just as illegal.
For the best part of four decades, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been claiming that Iran is on the verge of acquiring a nuclear weapon. Yet, every single attempt to strike a deal which would bring more monitoring and restrictions to Iran’s nuclear program has been systematically dismantled by Israel and its powerful lobbying groups in Western capitals.
In order to properly assess Israel’s attack on Iran, we have to establish the facts in this case. The Israeli leadership claim to have launched a pre-emptive strike, but have presented no evidence to support their allegations that Iran was on the verge of acquiring a nuclear weapon. Simply stating this does not serve as proof, it is a claim, similar to how the US told the world Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction.
Back in March, the US Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard testified before a Senate Intelligence Committee that the intelligence community “continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.”
On top of this, Iran was actively participating in indirect negotiations with the US to reach a new version of the 2015 Nuclear Deal. Donald Trump announced Washington would unilaterally withdraw from the agreement in 2018, instead pursuing a “maximum pressure” sanctions campaign at the behest of Israel.
Despite the claims of Netanyahu and Trump that Iran was violating the Nuclear Deal, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) released a report which stated Iran was in full compliance with the deal at the time.
If you trace back every conversation with neo-conservatives, Israeli war hawks and Washington-based think tanks, their opposition to the Obama-era Nuclear Deal always ends up spiraling into the issues of Iran’s ballistic missile program and its support for regional non-State actors.
Israeli officials frequently make claims about Iran producing a nuclear weapon in “years”, “months” or even “weeks,” this has become almost second nature. Yet their main issue has always been with Iran’s support for groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, who strive for the creation of a Palestinian State.
Proof of all this is simple. Israel, by itself, cannot destroy Iran’s vast nuclear program. It is not clear the US can destroy it either, even if it enters the war. An example of the US’ ineffectiveness at penetrating Iranian-style bunkers, built into mountainous ranges, as many of Iran’s nuclear facilities are, was demonstrated through the American failure to destroy missile storage bases in Yemen with its bunker-buster munitions, which were dropped from B-2 bombers.
Almost immediately after launching his war on Iran, Netanyahu sent out a message in English to the Iranian people, urging them to overthrow their government in an attempt to trigger civil unrest. The Israeli prime minister has since all but announced that regime change is his true intention, claiming that the operation “may lead” to regime change.
Israel’s own intelligence community and military elites have also expressed their view that their air force alone is not capable of destroying the Iranian nuclear program. So why then launch this war, if it is not possible to achieve the supposed reason it was “pre-emptively” launched?
There are two possible explanations:
The first is that the Israeli prime minister has launched this assault on Iran as a final showdown in his “seven front war,” with which he hopes to conclude the regional conflict through a deadly exchange that will ultimately inflict damage on both sides.
In this scenario, the desired outcome would be to conclude the war with the claim that Netanyahu has succeeded at destroying or has significantly degraded Iran’s nuclear program. He would also throw in claims, like we already see him making, that huge numbers of Iranian missiles and drones were eliminated. This would also make the opening Israeli strike, which killed senior Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commanders and nuclear scientists, make sense. It would all be the perfect blend of propaganda to sell a victory narrative.
On the other hand, the assumption would be that Tehran would also claim victory. Then both sides are able to show the results to their people and tensions cool down for a while. If you are to read what the Washington-based think-tanks are saying about this, most notably The Heritage Foundation, they speak about the ability to contain the war.
The second explanation, which could be an added bonus that the Israelis and US are hoping could come as a result of their efforts, is that this is a full-scale regime change war that is designed to rope in the US.
Israel’s military prestige was greatly damaged in the Hamas-led attack on October 7, 2023, and since that time there has been no victory achieved over any enemy. Hamas is still operating in Gaza and is said to have just as many fighters as when the war began, Hezbollah was dealt significant blows but is still very much alive, while Yemen’s Ansarallah has only increased its strength. This is an all round stunning defeat of the Israeli military and an embarrassment to the US.
As is well known, Iran is the regional power that backs all of what is called the Axis of Resistance. Without it, groups like Hezbollah and Hamas would be significantly degraded. Evidently, armed resistance to Israeli occupation will never end as long as occupied people exist and live under oppressive rule, but destroying Iran would be devastating for the regional alliance against Israel.
The big question however, is whether regime change is even possible. There is a serious question mark here and it seems much more likely that this will end up on a slippery slope to nuclear war instead.
What makes the Israeli-US claim that this war is somehow pre-emptive, for which there is no proof at all, all the more ridiculous of a notion, is that if anything, Iran may now actually rush to acquire a nuclear weapon for defensive purposes. If they can’t even trust the Israelis not to bomb them with US backing, while negotiations were supposed to be happening, then how can a deal ever be negotiated?
Even in the event that the US joins and deals a major blow to the Iranian nuclear program, it doesn’t mean that Iran will simply abandon the program altogether. Instead, Tehran could simply end up rebuilding and acquiring the bomb years later. Another outcome of this war could end up being Israeli regime change, which also appears as if it could now be on the table.
Robert Inlakesh is a political analyst, journalist and documentary filmmaker currently based in London, UK. He has reported from and lived in the Palestinian territories and currently works with Quds News. Director of ‘Steal of the Century: Trump’s Palestine-Israel Catastrophe’.
By Amro Allan | Al Mayadeen | June 18, 2025
Iran’s Foreign Minister has made it clear in multiple statements that the Islamic Republic remains open to re-engaging the diplomatic track, provided that the US-Israeli aggression against the country comes to an end. At the same time, however, IRGC Commander Brigadier General Mohammad Pakpour has declared, “Even if the Israeli attacks stop, we will continue our mission to the end.” These seemingly contradictory positions raise a key question: What exactly is Iran’s objective in this confrontation, and how should its strategy be understood? More pressingly, what role is the United States playing on the battlefield?
Tehran understands that the ultimate goal of the current assault, launched in the early hours of June 13, is not simply aggressive, but existential. The US-Israeli axis seeks nothing less than the collapse of the Islamic Republic itself. According to most military analysts, neutralizing Iran’s nuclear programme through conventional means is well beyond the capabilities of the Israeli military. This is particularly true when it comes to heavily fortified enrichment facilities like Natanz and Fordow, which are among the most secure sites in the world against aerial and missile strikes.
To strike such hardened targets, advanced bunker-busting munitions would be required, arms that are exclusively in the hands of the US military. What’s more, the only aircraft capable of delivering these weapons—the B-2 stealth bomber—operates solely under the command of the United States Air Force. Some experts even question whether these bombs would be effective against Iran’s most deeply buried and reinforced sites.
Both Washington and Tel Aviv are fully aware of these limitations, which cast serious doubt on their publicly stated rationale for launching the war. This scepticism is only reinforced by Netanyahu’s early appeal, issued just hours after the attack, urging Iranians to rise up against their own government, a move that tacitly reveals the true aim of the aggression.
This level of strategic ambition has been absent from previous assaults on Iran. The assassination of Lieutenant General Qassem Soleimani, Commander of the IRGC Quds Force, in January 2020, “Israel’s” missile strike on the Iranian consulate in Damascus in April 2024, and the attack on an air defense site near Isfahan inside Iran later that month, none of these triggered the same level of overt intent to destabilise the Iranian state.
It is this shift in objective that explains Iran’s evolving response. Unlike past retaliatory actions, such as the missile strike on the Ain al-Assad US base in January 2020, or Operation True Promise 1 and 2 of April and October 2024, Iran’s current posture signals a long-term strategic engagement rather than a calibrated response.
Tehran does not appear eager to escalate the conflict into a regional war, fully aware that such a scenario could have catastrophic consequences not just for itself, but for the wider Middle East. Still, it is determined to impose a high cost on its adversaries, one that restores the balance of deterrence and redraws the lines of power in the region.
This approach was articulated clearly by Iranian Leader Sayyed Ali Khamenei, who warned, “We will not allow the Zionists to escape unscathed for this great crime. The Zionist entity has committed a grave miscalculation—one that will bring ruin upon them, by God’s grace.”
It is in this context that General Pakpour’s remarks must be understood. Iran’s continuation of Operation True Promise 3 is not dependent on whether “Israel” halts its attacks. Rather, it is driven by a broader aim: to establish new rules of engagement and a new balance of power, irrespective of short-term developments.
At the same time, the Foreign Minister’s comments point to Iran’s reluctance to turn this war into a fight for national survival, unless forced to do so by further escalation from the other side.
But “Israel’s” failure to cripple the Islamic Republic in its initial, high-stakes strike, an operation designed to fundamentally alter the regional power balance, makes direct American involvement more likely in the days ahead. Washington may now feel compelled to interfere in order to accomplish what Tel Aviv could not.
All this suggests that the risk of escalation remains high. The war could soon expand to include oil infrastructure across the Gulf and target US military bases scattered throughout the region.
This leaves a crucial question hanging in the balance: Will key regional powers, Egypt, Turkey, Algeria, and Pakistan, recognize the gravity of what is unfolding? And will they act accordingly, acknowledging that the war being waged by the US-Israeli alliance poses a serious threat to their own security, sovereignty, and future stability?
Trump orders ‘unconditional surrender’ by Iran. Who’s listening?
By M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | Indian Punchline | June 18, 2025
Israel’s blitzkrieg against Iran five days ago is failing spectacularly. The Russian media reported that: i) Israel’s Rafael weapons complex has been destroyed; ii) Haifa oil refinery is in flames; iii) the Iron Dome has been breached; iv) and, Israel’s air dominance is a figment of imagination.
On Tuesday, Iran fired cruise missiles for the first time against Israel. Another wave of Iranian missile and drone attack targeted the Nevatim Airbase in southern Israel, where stealth fighter jets, transport aircraft, tanker aircraft and machines for electronic reconnaissance/surveillance, etc. are stationed.
Some Iranian reports claim that “plumes of smoke were rising from areas near the Dimona nuclear facility,” where an estimated 90 Israeli nuclear warheads are stored. If true, this must be highly embarrassing for Israel which has been maintaining a policy of deliberate ambiguity in regard to its nuclear capabilities as well as for President Donald Trump who is constantly hectoring Iran while turning a blind eye on Israel’s clandestine nuclear weapon stockpiles right under his nose — apart from exposing the IAEA.
According to the independent Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, Israel’s nuclear warheads are capable of being delivered anywhere within a maximum radius of 4,500 km by its F-15, F-161, and F-35I “Adir” aircraft, its 50 land-based Jericho II and III missiles, and by about 20 Popeye Turbo cruise missiles, launched from submarines.
Suffice to say, rational minds among the Israeli elite feel worried. Typically, Danny Yatom, former head of Mossad, is quoted as saying, “Iranians will not kneel; they will not raise the flag of surrender and they will not give in!”
The American broadcast television network NBC has reported that Israel asked Iran, through western mediators, to stop its retaliatory attacks and return to nuclear negotiations. This would probably explain Trump’s bombastic post on Sunday in Truth Social that Israel and Iran will end their violent conflict by “making a deal” through his mediation. Trump wrote, ”We will have peace, soon, between Israel and Iran. Many calls and meetings now taking place.” He even drew the analogy of his success in brokering peace between India and Pakistan recently.
However, the realisation may have since dawned on Trump that Iranians will not forget or forgive the assassinations of their military commanders or the destruction and loss of life of dozens of civilians in the Israeli Blitzkrieg, which targeted Iran’s nuclear facilities, military infrastructure, and residential buildings in Tehran and other cities.
Trump has a major decision to take in coming days as regards the next move — specifically, how to rescue Israel from the attritional war that lies ahead. Pressure for US military intervention is mounting. Trump is obligated one way or another to all three segments of the Israel Lobby — Zionists, evangelical Christians and wealthy Jewish elites who are kingmakers in American politics.
The pendulum is wildly swinging in Trump’s mercurial mind. He was in an irritable mood at the G-7 summit in Canada on Monday, cut short his trip and picked a nasty public quarrel with French President Emmanuel Macron for simply commenting that Trump hurried back to wrap up a ceasefire.
Trump wrote angrily, “Publicity seeking President Emmanuel Macron, of France, mistakenly said that I left the G7 Summit, in Canada, to go back to D.C. to work on a “cease fire” between Israel and Iran. Wrong! He has no idea why I am now on my way to Washington, but it certainly has nothing to do with a Cease Fire. Much bigger than that. Whether purposely or not, Emmanuel always gets it wrong. Stay Tuned!”
Four hours later, he clarified, “I have not reached out to Iran for “Peace Talks” in any way, shape, or form. This is just more HIGHLY FABRICATED, FAKE NEWS! If they want to talk, they know how to reach me. They should have taken the deal that was on the table — Would have saved a lot of lives!!!”
Seven hours later, Trump claimed, “We now have complete and total control of the skies over Iran. Iran had good sky trackers and other defensive equipment, and plenty of it, but it doesn’t compare to American made, conceived, and manufactured “stuff.” Nobody does it better than the good ol’ USA.”
But a few minutes later, Trump threatened Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei: “We know exactly where the so-called “Supreme Leader” is hiding. He is an easy target, but is safe there — We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now. But we don’t want missiles shot at civilians, or American soldiers. Our patience is wearing thin. Thank you for your attention to this matter!”
Seven minutes later, another nasty post followed in capital letters: “UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!”
That was 9 hours ago. Presumably, Trump wound up Tuesday by ordering Iran to crawl on its knees. The chances of Iran obliging him are zero. In fact, the Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff of Iran’s Armed Forces Major General Abdolrahim Mousavi said on Tuesday that the operations carried out so far have served as a deterrent warning, and the actual “punitive operations” are set to begin soon. The general asked the inhabitants of Tel Aviv and Haifa “to leave these areas for the sake of their lives.”
In fact, an Iranian commentary underscored yesterday that “Israeli strikes on Iran’s energy infrastructure and southern ports near the Persian Gulf could shift the nature of the conflict dramatically… This is precisely what Iran identifies as its strategic red line.”
The commentary continues: “What we’re witnessing is a multi-level hybrid conflict, a complex puzzle involving direct warfare, proxy engagement, diplomatic pressure, and a simmering “cold peace”—all unfolding at once… But such a scenario is unsustainable, as Israel… knows it cannot endure a prolonged high-intensity conflict.
The commentary estimates that a ceasefire “would likely be a tense calm or a “cold peace” rather than true stability.” Because, “What’s emerging now is a fluid and brutal new balance of power… The Persian Gulf, Israel, the Axis of Resistance, and the global energy market are no longer separate arenas—but interconnected pieces in a simultaneous, high-stakes game.” (here)
The great dilemma for Trump is that there’s no quick fix solution in sight. On his way back to the US yesterday evening, Trump said he wanted a “real end” to the conflict and that he was “not too much in a mood to negotiate.” German Chancellor Friedrich Merz also noted that Trump was indeed considering that option. The US is rapidly building up its forces in the Gulf region.
However, US intervention may trigger a continental war that will outlive Trump’s presidency and destroy his presidency, as Bush’s 2003 Iraq invasion destroyed his. And Trump might as well forget about America First, MAGA, Ukraine, Taiwan, tariff wars, immigration, inflation, China, etc.
Even European allies won’t stand by Trump. Macron told reporters on the sidelines of the G7 summit after Trump’s departure, “The biggest mistake today would be to try to do a regime change in Iran through military means because that would lead to chaos.” Macron warned that “no one can say what comes next…We never support actions of regional de-stabilisation.”
Do not forget that the skeptics include Vice President JD Vance also, whose suspicion of foreign entanglements had its origins in his time as a US Marine in Iraq, where he became disillusioned with America’s interventionist regime change projects and ill-fated ‘forever wars’ in the region.
By Peiman Salehi – New Eastern Outlook – June 18, 2025
In June 2025, the world witnessed the outbreak of a full-scale war between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Zionist regime of Israel. This conflict, extending far beyond the military sphere, is reshaping political, media, and geopolitical landscapes. At the onset of hostilities, Israel initiated a surprise operation targeting several high-ranking Iranian military commanders and scientists. Tel Aviv saw this act as a significant achievement, anticipating it would plunge Iran into psychological disarray and delay its response.
Yet, this assumption proved gravely flawed. The Islamic Republic swiftly recovered and, within days, launched a series of unprecedented strikes on key Israeli cities such as Haifa and Tel Aviv. The extent of the damage inflicted on strategic infrastructure suggested a deep disruption in the psychological and political equilibrium, signaling a fundamental shift in the rules of engagement. As the conflict escalated, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made concerted efforts to draw the United States into the fray. Donald Trump, who initially reacted with sarcasm to the news of Iranian casualties, soon reversed his tone, presenting himself as a mediator. This rhetorical pivot reflects not a genuine desire for peace, but rather concern over the conflict’s expanding consequences.
From Tehran’s perspective, the war is not simply a reactionary campaign, but a calculated effort to alter the regional balance of power. Iran’s approach indicates a strategic vision aimed at redefining the security architecture of West Asia. Analysts now grapple with a pivotal question: will the war remain confined to regional boundaries, or evolve into a broader global confrontation? The varying positions of nuclear powers from East and West point to emerging global realignments. Nations like Pakistan, India, China, and Russia view the crisis through their distinct strategic lenses.
Meanwhile, the geopolitical relevance of choke points such as the Strait of Hormuz and Bab al-Mandab has resurged, underlining their significance to global trade and international stability. This war increasingly appears to be a confrontation between two competing visions of world order. The liberal, US-centric model—characterized by interventionism, hegemonic ambitions, and asymmetric power structures—is facing unprecedented resistance. In its place, a multipolar order championed by emerging powers is gaining traction.
If this moment is seized wisely by independent states and resistance movements, it could mark a turning point in contemporary political history. The world, once declared to have reached the “end of history,” is now experiencing the return of history, fueled by the renewed agency of sovereign nations.
Ultimately, to counter imperial interventions and dismantle imposed global frameworks, this war must be understood not merely as an isolated event, but as a transformative juncture in international relations. Resistance today is not limited to a regional force—it is a global discourse that challenges domination. The choice between submission and resistance is no longer Iran’s alone; it is one that history must now resolve.
Al Mayadeen | June 18, 2025
A sharp divide is emerging within Donald Trump’s MAGA base over the war on Iran, with some of the president’s most vocal allies, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, commentator Tucker Carlson, and Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk, openly questioning whether he is abandoning his “America First” foreign policy.
Following a week of deadly strikes and Trump’s abrupt departure from the G7 summit in Canada, these conservative voices are warning that a deeper US role in the Middle East could fracture the coalition that helped propel Trump to power.
Trump, who has long campaigned on non-interventionism, is now facing backlash from within his movement.
On X, Charlie Kirk wrote, “No issue currently divides the right as much as foreign policy,” adding that he feared a “massive split among MAGA” could disrupt their progress. He and others warned that any perception of Trump backing US military involvement could unravel his core message and political future.
Trump flew back to Washington unexpectedly this week amid rising tensions, and issued a dramatic social media warning, “Everyone should immediately evacuate Tehran!” claiming the US knows the location of Iran’s Leader Sayyed Khamenei, but does not intend to target him, “for now.”
These remarks have reignited speculation that Trump may support direct US military action, such as supplying “Israel” with bunker-buster bombs to target Iranian nuclear facilities. However, the State Department and US military have already ordered the voluntary evacuation of nonessential personnel from select diplomatic sites in the region.
Meanwhile, Senator Lindsey Graham is urging Trump to go further. “If that means providing bombs, provide bombs. If that means flying with Israel, fly with Israel,” Graham said on Face the Nation, arguing that now is the moment for Trump to help eliminate Iran’s nuclear program.
MAGA figures accuse Trump of breaking his anti-war promise
Trump’s consideration of a broader US role is facing strong resistance from the same voices who once championed him as a disruptive force in US foreign policy.
Tucker Carlson, long a loyal supporter, warned that Trump is veering dangerously close to betraying the voters who backed him for staying out of foreign wars. “You’re not going to convince me that the Iranian people are my enemy,” Carlson said on Steve Bannon’s War Room podcast.
Carlson also aimed at pro-Trump media allies like Sean Hannity, challenging them to hold Trump accountable for his foreign policy stance. Trump responded to the criticism by calling Carlson “kooky” and reiterating that “IRAN CAN NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON!”
Furthermore, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene sided with Carlson, saying she shared his anti-interventionist principles. She posted, “Foreign wars, intervention, and regime change put America last, kill innocent people, make us broke, and lead to our destruction,” adding that “That’s not kooky. That’s what millions of Americans voted for.”
Kirk: MAGA youth voted for peace, not another war
Charlie Kirk, while still supportive of Trump, has echoed concerns about mission drift, noting that younger Trump voters were especially drawn to his record of avoiding new wars. “This is the moment that President Trump was elected for,” Kirk said on Fox News. But later added: “There is historically little support for America to be actively engaged in yet another offensive war in the Middle East.”
He continued, “The last thing America needs right now is a new war…Our number one desire must be peace, as quickly as possible.”
In a similar event, in April, some MAGA-aligned podcasters expressed doubts about looming tariffs and market disruptions. Earlier, Trump criticized Biden’s decision to let Ukraine use US long-range weapons but stopped short of advocating a full aid cutoff, another move that drew rebukes from his isolationist flank.
While these disputes have not derailed Trump’s base, the war on Iran marks one of the clearest tests of whether his coalition can stay united if he edges closer to military engagement abroad
By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | June 17, 2025
A new poll shows that a majority of Americans want President Donald Trump to engage in negotiations with Iran and do not want Washington to support Tel Aviv’s offensive war against the Islamic Republic.
The survey, conducted by YouGov following the unprovoked Israeli attack on Iran, found 60% of Americans do not want Trump to enter the newest conflict in the Middle East, compared to just 16% of voters who want Washington to aid Tel Aviv’s military operation.
Even among Americans who voted for Trump in 2024, only 19% support entering the conflict. A majority of Republicans said they want Washington to stay out of the war.
While the US has not conducted direct strikes on Iran yet, Washington has provided substantial support to Tel Aviv’s war machine. The US has given Israel the arms and intelligence Tel Aviv needed to launch its bombing campaign.
Additionally, Israeli officials say Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu worked together privately to convince Tehran that a deal was possible and no attack was imminent.
The YouGov poll also found that three in five Americans believe Trump should engage the Iranians in talks to end the war. Only 18% of voters are opposed to negotiations with the Islamic Republic.
However, talks between Washington and Tehran appear increasingly unlikely. On Tuesday, Trump posted on Truth Social that Iran must agree to an “UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER” to end the war.
Overall, Americans disapproved of Trump’s handling of the Middle East by a slight margin. Thirty-seven percent of respondents said they approve of Trump’s Iran policy, against 44% who disapprove.
By Muhammad Shehada | The New Arab | June 10, 2025
A political earthquake hit Israel last week when former Defence Minister Avigdor Liberman revealed that “the Israeli government is giving weapons to a group of criminals and felons, identified with Islamic State [in Gaza], at the direction of the prime minister”.
Netanyahu has since admitted that Israel had been “running” proxy militias in Gaza, but tried to put a positive spin on it, claiming that such a move aims to challenge Hamas’s rule.
But branding these gangs as potential rivals to Hamas masks the very goal of why Israel created them in the first place. Around 300 untrained thieves, drug dealers, criminals, and convicted murderers cannot overpower Hamas’s estimated 30,000 militants.
Their actual role has more to do with advancing Israel’s genocide, starvation, and ethnic cleansing in Gaza while creating plausible deniability.
Furthermore, recent evidence indicates that Israel may have been collaborating with some of these Islamic State-linked elements even before 7 October.
Abu Shabab: A front for an Israeli proxy?
The most prominent gang leader in Gaza is Yasser Abu Shabab. His name first appeared in August 2024 on Hamas-linked social media groups as the figure responsible for looting the vast majority of humanitarian aid and reselling it on the black market for astronomical prices.
A senior security source told The New Arab that Abu Shabab’s gang had been active for months before then.
Local authorities knew Abu Shabab well. He was serving a long sentence in prison for the possession of large quantities of drugs, according to three knowledgeable sources. He was one of many inmates who escaped under the cover of Israel’s war on Gaza in October 2023.
Some other inmates were released on parole when Israel began bombing government facilities. Israeli newspapers like Maariv and Yediot Ahronot confirmed Abu Shabab’s criminal history through people close to him, and even added that he had links to the Islamic State (IS) through smuggling drugs from Sinai into Gaza.
Police in Gaza were perplexed when he emerged as a top gang leader. The security source told The New Arab that Abu Shabab is 35 years old, thin, weak, short (around 150cm in height), uncharismatic, illiterate, has strabismus in one eye, and has never received military training.
To them, he didn’t seem like someone with the leadership skills necessary to form a group of 300 armed militants, steal truckloads of aid, and store it under the radar.
Local authorities quickly decided that Abu Shabab was merely a front for an Israeli astroturfing campaign to maintain its policy of starvation in Gaza after the international community pressured Netanyahu to ease his total siege and allow a trickle of aid into the enclave.
What made this clear, according to them, is how Israeli drones bombed emergency committee volunteers or police officers every time they came close to thwarting a looting attempt by that gang in particular.
By late September 2024, Abu Shabab was talked about in Gaza as an Israeli-backed collaborator, not just a gang leader. That is when Hamas militants attempted to ambush him, firing around 90 bullets at a vehicle they thought belonged to Abu Shabab.
The vehicle, however, was identical to the one used by Islam Hijazi, the program officer of a US charity called Heal Palestine. She was tragically killed in the incident.
Two months later, Abu Shabab received widespread media attention after he burned a fuel truck and completely shut down the route used by aid convoys to retaliate against another Hamas ambush that killed his brother Fathi and 21 other members of his gang.
Soon after, the Washington Post revealed that the UN had named Abu Shabab in an internal memo as the main figure behind aid looting under “passive or active IDF protection”. This left little room for doubt that Abu Shabab’s gang was a tool for Israel to maintain starvation while externalising blame.
Mapping gang leaders: IS, ex-PA intel officers, and murderers
Abu Shabab’s deputy is thought to be Ghassan al-Dahini, 38, reportedly a former lieutenant in the Palestinian Authority (PA). Dahini is the one running the gang’s operations on the ground and actively trying to recruit new members, along with Saddam Abu Zakkar, per local authorities. His Facebook profile displays Israeli hostage emojis.
Another senior Palestinian security source told The New Arab that Dahini was a member of the “Army of Islam”, the extremist group responsible for kidnapping journalist Alan Johnston in 2007.
The group pledged allegiance to IS in 2015. Ghassan’s brother, Mohammed, died in prison after he was detained on drug-related offences, and Ghassan himself was imprisoned twice in March 2020 and November 2022, per the source. He added that “the Army of Islam relied on Dahini for the Sinai smuggling routes”.
On Sunday, Dahini posted a video of himself in military gear in Eastern Rafah close to Israel’s perimeter fence. He was standing next to a white pickup truck with a UAE license plate from Sharjah and firing a brand-new Serbian Zastava rifle.
Another prominent gang leader in Rafah is Shadi Soufi, a convicted murderer who was awaiting a death sentence before 7 October for killing a Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) leader. Like Yasser, he also escaped prison during the war and was named by humanitarian organisations as responsible for looting aid under Israeli protection in Rafah.
Soufi, al-Dahini, and Abu Shabab are from the same Bedouin Tarabin clan that stretches across Rafah, Israel’s Negev desert, Egypt’s Sinai, and Jordan. Abu Shabab’s family recently disowned him for collaborating with Israel and said they will go after him to hold him accountable.
Another prominent leader of the Abu Shabab gang is Essam Soliman Nabahin, 35, a convicted murderer and IS member. He was implicated in a series of bombings against Hamas in 2015 by extremist Salafist groups and escaped to Sinai to formally join IS’s ranks. He caught the attention of Egyptian media in 2017 after taking part in attacks against the Egyptian army.
Nabahin’s name resurfaced in June 2023 when the police raided a house in central Gaza where he was hiding. He killed a police officer and was convicted in a military court before his escape in the early days of the war.
Israel says Nabahin was previously “recorded launching rockets into Israel without coordination with Hamas”.
Local authorities in Gaza have long suspected that IS-linked individuals like Nabahin were being pushed by Israel’s Shin Bet to fire one or two primitive projectiles sporadically to give Israel a pretext to strike Gaza and bomb specific targets. Hence, the police detained those militants repeatedly.
A senior Palestinian security source told The New Arab that authorities in Gaza caught a collaborator in 2018 who directed such occasional rocket attacks to give Israel cover for military action in Gaza.
Other members of the gang include multiple known drug dealers and convicted murderers.
How is Israel helping them?
Israel’s government has admitted it provided weapons to these gangs, mostly rifles and other light weaponry, in addition to money and equipment. Footage posted by Abu Shabab’s gang showed them driving in white pickup trucks with machineguns on top that looked virtually identical to those of Hamas.
In addition, Israel provides these gangs with safe refuge in areas fully depopulated by the Israeli military, like Rafah, and declared “extermination zones”, where any Palestinian entering would be killed on the spot. They are also provided with logistical support, protection, and even access to Israeli territory.
A Palestinian journalist documented one case of a gang member crossing into Israel, which could explain how those gangs disappeared completely during the ceasefire last January.
On the ground, the Abu Shabab gang has established warehouses operated with forklifts where they store looted aid. They have also established a military complex, according to the UN, which said the Israeli army would force aid convoys to drive through the areas where the gangs had positioned their militants and put up checkpoints to loot trucks.
And where the Israeli military goes, so do the gangs. After Israel issued forcible expulsion orders for Khan Younis and raided the European hospital and its surrounding area, Abu Shabab moved into the ‘Jarghoun’ villa in that very same area, per security sources.
On Tuesday, Israeli news channel i24 reported that Israel had launched airstrikes to protect the gang after it was attacked by Hamas militants in southern Gaza. The strikes killed four Hamas members.
What role do the gangs play on Israel’s behalf?
The Israeli-backed gangs in Gaza have become an unofficial arm of the Israeli military. For instance, whenever Israel gets pressured to allow food into Gaza, it immediately unleashes the gangs to maintain their use of starvation as a weapon of war, while blaming it on Hamas.
Experts believe Israel is using starvation as a tool for genocide by imposing conditions on a group “calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part”. Prolonged starvation inflicts permanent mental and physical damage, particularly on children.
Israel has also been using these gangs to orchestrate chaos and engineer societal collapse through attacks on markets, shops, private businesses, homes, warehouses, soup kitchens, and other places vital to maintaining the population’s survival.
For instance, in early May 2025, a gang attacked a communal kitchen in Gaza. As soon as volunteers arrived to stop the looting, Israel bombed it and killed six volunteers, which implies it was a coordinated attack.
The Israeli army also sends the gangs on reconnaissance and surveillance missions in dangerous areas. Last month, Hamas released footage of an ambush it carried out against armed men in Rafah whom it thought were undercover Israeli troops. They turned out to be Abu Shabab militants.
Israel also uses the gangs to infiltrate Palestinian society and gather intelligence, as well as to kidnap and interrogate Palestinians by luring them with the promise of food, as documented by Palestinian journalist Younis Tirawi.
Israel is using proxy gangs for the final phase of the war
The most concerning use of these gangs, however, is Israel’s recently announced plan to push Gazans into camps in Rafah on Egypt’s borders to depopulate and destroy “everything that remains” of the rest of the enclave. This is a precursor to Israel’s declared goal of the mass expulsion of Palestinians into Egypt and other countries.
The Abu Shabab gang recently announced establishing an encampment area in eastern Rafah near the Egyptian borders and is using the very aid they have been systematically looting to lure starved Gazans into moving there.
This announcement was preceded by a clear rebranding psyop, where the same gang responsible for looting aid suddenly and shamelessly declared itself as a new “security force” that aims to “protect aid from looting”. They have since emerged in brand-new military and police uniforms in the Israeli-designated buffer zone in Rafah, where no Palestinians are allowed to enter.
Remarkably, Israel has allowed these gang members to wear Palestinian flags and insignia on their uniforms, while at the same time refusing to let the Palestinian Authority’s staff at the Rafah border crossing wear any such symbols.
In other words, Israel is using these gangs as a front. The Israeli army knows that if it orders Gazans to come to camps in eastern Rafah, people will immediately know it’s a trap for mass expulsion. But if a uniformed Palestinian force with good PR on social media makes such a demand, some people might fall for the trap.
Israel has used this same proxy tactic in Lebanon against Palestinians in 1982, where the Israeli military bolstered the South Lebanon Army (SLA) and used it and other militias to commit the Sabra and Shatila massacre, which saw 3,500 Palestinians killed.
Those collaborators collapsed after the Israeli army’s withdrawal from Southern Lebanon, as their leaders surrendered or fled to Israel. The same fate awaits these new Israeli-backed gangs once the Gaza genocide comes to an end.
Muhammad Shehada is a Palestinian writer and analyst from Gaza and the EU Affairs Manager at Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor.
Follow him on Twitter: @muhammadshehad2
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
By Lisa Pease | Consortium News | September 16, 2013
More than a half century ago, just after midnight on Sept. 18, 1961, the plane carrying UN Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld and 15 others went down in a plane crash over Northern Rhodesia (now Zambia). All 16 died, but the facts of the crash were provocatively mysterious. … continue
Aletho News If Americans Knew No Tricks Zone
Aletho News 