No, New York Times, We Don’t Need to Dam the Bering Strait
By Anthony Watts | Climate Realism | April 29, 2026
The New York Times (NYT) reports in “A New Idea to Save the Climate? Dam the Bering Strait.” that scientists have proposed building a 50-mile-long dam between Alaska and Russia to stabilize the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) in order to prevent climate catastrophe. This is a seriously risky idea. The proposal is not an engineering plan grounded in observational need, but rather is computer-model thought experiment based on speculative tipping-point scenarios not justified by data concerning the AMOC or an understanding of what the possible future consequences might be for humans, the oceans, and sea life.
The author describes an article published in Science Advances where the idea of a cross continental dam across the Bering Strait is proposed as a “proof of concept,” noting that the dam could, under certain modeled conditions, prevent an AMOC collapse. It further explains that the findings come from a computer model of Earth’s climate, not from direct evidence that the AMOC is about to fail. That distinction is critical.
As Climate Realism has reported in dozens of articles, the AMOC has been the subject of repeated alarmist headlines over the past decade. Some studies have projected weakening. Others have suggested relative stability. Still others have found mechanisms, such as Southern Ocean wind-driven upwelling, which may be strengthening the AMOC. The scientific literature has moved in three directions: collapse, steady-state persistence, and even partial strengthening depending on assumptions.
What has not emerged is observational evidence of imminent shutdown.
The NYT acknowledges that “the uncertainty is very, very large,” quoting a climate scientist who says researchers do not know how close the AMOC is to collapse.
The proposed intervention outlined in the study would block the Bering Strait to alter freshwater flows between the Pacific, Arctic, and Atlantic Oceans. The model simulations suggest that if the AMOC is still strong, closing the strait might help maintain salinity and stabilize circulation. But if the AMOC is already weak, the same intervention could accelerate collapse.
In other words, the intervention could help, harm, or do nothing depending on timing and initial conditions.
That is not a control mechanism; it is a Las Vegas style gamble on a global scale.
The proposal relies on climate model outputs run under specific forcing assumptions. Models are useful tools, but they are not reality. Ocean circulation at the scale of the AMOC involves complex thermohaline processes, wind forcing, stratification, and deep-water formation, most of which aren’t well understood and, at best if accounted for at all in climate models, are only imperfectly represented even in state-of-the-art systems.
Moreover, the underlying modeling framework uses coarse resolution that does not fully resolve the Bering Strait’s dynamics, instead parameterizing throughflow behavior. From that abstraction comes a proposal to physically block a major ocean gateway. The AMOC is critical to coastal communities and the health and lifecycles of sea life. There is no evidence the models accounted for ancillary impacts on these communities or species – the only focus was keeping the AMOC from collapsing, though, it turns out, the proposed cure may, in fact, cause the collapse.
The scale of the proposal itself should give pause. An 80-kilometer barrier in Arctic conditions across an international boundary is not comparable to ordinary coastal infrastructure. The NYT notes that once built, such a structure “couldn’t easily be taken down.” Geoengineering does not come with an undo button.
The Bering Strait is also a biological choke point linking Pacific and Arctic ecosystems. Blocking it would alter nutrient transport, salinity gradients, and marine migration pathways. The ecological consequences are acknowledged only briefly in the NYT coverage, yet they could be profound.
There is also a glaring contradiction embedded in this narrative. For years, readers have been told that the AMOC is fragile, sensitive to freshwater perturbations, and prone to tipping points. If that is true, why would deliberately shutting off a major ocean exchange be considered a sane idea? If the system is robust enough to tolerate such intervention, then perhaps the entire AMOC collapse narrative deserves reconsideration.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) states that while AMOC weakening is likely under high-emissions scenarios – scenarios which are not just improbable but likely impossible, there is low confidence in a collapse before 2100. That is a far cry from imminent shutdown requiring Arctic mega-dams. The NYT article concedes that scientists do not know how close the AMOC is to collapse.
What we are seeing is a pattern. As climate modeling grows more dramatic, proposed interventions grow more extreme: carbon capture and permanent storage; solar radiation blocking; and now ocean dams. Each rest on the assumption that models reliably predict nonlinear system behavior decades in advance.
Before entertaining planetary-scale geoengineering, a simpler question should be asked: where is the observational evidence of near-term failure? The RAPID array has been monitoring the AMOC since 2004 and shows variability but not collapse. Paleo records indicate multidecadal fluctuations long before industrial emissions.
Ocean circulation is complex. Uncertainty is high. Models disagree. And now, on that uncertain foundation, we are asked to consider blocking an ocean strait. This is mad scientists from the movies type stuff. The NYT shouldn’t have even given this proposal an audience.
This is not sober climate reporting by The New York Times. It amplifies a speculative modeling exercise as if it were visionary thinking. When the cure involves restructuring planetary oceanic circulation based on uncertain and likely flawed simulations, skepticism is not denial, it is prudence in the face of a crazy idea with unknown consequences. The evidence that humans actually control the climate is exceedingly weak, but this proposal, if enacted, would certainly cause unforetold and unpredictable climate disruptions that we haven’t even begun to consider.
Crazy plans don’t become reasonable just because some group of scientists propose them. And crazy plans, just because they are floated, don’t necessarily merit the attention of a major media outlet, promoting it as a reasonable idea.
“STAGED”: Conspiracy Theories Are Everywhere!
We can’t imagine why…
By Kevin Barrett | May 3, 2026
On April 23, the 410th death anniversary of William “All the World’s a Stage” Shakespeare (and his trusty Hispanic sidekick Cervantes) CNN published a thought piece entitled “How Would an Assassination Attempt Be Staged?” Two days later, on April 25, somebody staged yet another Trump assassination attempt, this time at the White House Correspondents Dinner at the Washington, DC Hilton.
According to the official narrative, the Hilton shooting was staged by a lone producer, director, casting director, lead actor, and stuntman (it was a dangerous scene) named Cole Tomas Allen. We are told, and video seems to confirm, that Allen descended a back stairway from his hotel room, sprinted past a security checkpoint, fired a shot which struck a Secret Service officer’s bulletproof vest, evaded return fire, tripped on a magnetometer box and fell to the ground, and was jumped on by cops, never having gained access to the actual ballroom where the event was taking place. Allen left a brief manifesto calling himself a “friendly federal assassin” who was “no longer willing to permit a pedophile, rapist, and traitor to coat my hands with his crimes.”
Surrounding the event were some odd coincidences. As I wrote the morning after the shooting:
Trump’s press secretary, Karoline “Machine Gun Lips” Leavitt, predicted last night’s shooting two hours before it happened: “There will be some shots fired tonight!”… Fox News reporter Aishah Hasine was in the midst of describing Leavitt’s husband Nicholas Riccio half-bragging half-warning her of what was about to go down, when suddenly and for no apparent reason (beyond the obvious one) Fox cut off the feed…
Weird Israeli connections also surfaced, as is par for the course with these kinds of events, including:
The patsy’s social media profile featuring a picture of him wearing an IDF sweatshirt; the patsy’s name being allegedly researched in Israel less than 24 hours before the attack; and the shooting erupting at the exact moment that an Israeli magician was terrifying Melania by exposing private information she had thought was secret.
If powerful insiders staged the event, perhaps using Allen as a mind-controlled patsy, what might have been their motive or motives? Social media users argued that the shooting greased the skids for Trump’s secure White House ballroom, which had been facing legal and political challenges. The Guardian noted: “Trump’s quick pivot to claiming that the shooting incident confirms the need for a more secure ballroom at the White House, and rightwing pundits’ near-uniformity in messaging along the same lines in the immediate response, heightened the conspiracy framing.”
The Israeli connections suggested another possible motive: reminding Trump just who were the “magicians” who could stage assassination events, and who held terrifying secrets that could ruin his and Melania’s lives. The Guardian reported what many believe: “Israel is blackmailing him for untold reasons, perhaps related to the Jeffrey Epstein files, and dragging the US into war in Iran.”
The Guardian’s phrasing subtly injects confusion where none is necessary. Blackmailing Trump for untold reasons? Back when it was Russia being accused of blackmailing and controlling Trump, everyone knew the reasons why a foreign state would want to blackmail and control a US president. Is the Guardian pretending that it can’t even imagine why Israel would want to blackmail Trump? Unless, of course, they were using untold in the sense of “a quantity so huge that it cannot be measured, counted, or fully described.” Could the author, Rachel Leingang, be hinting at the obvious fact that Israel would have countless reasons to want to control the US president? Did she sneak that one past her editors?
Perhaps those “untold’ reasons, Leingang tells us, might be “related to the Jeffrey Epstein files, and dragging the US into war in Iran.” Is Leingang pretending to be too stupid to understand what she is saying, in a clumsy effort to avoid responsibility for unambiguously and explicitly conveying what everyone knows or strongly suspects to be true? The moral: If you write for mainstream media, never offer a clear, straightforward summary of what “conspiracy theorists” believe, because it might sound reasonable and convincing. Instead, muck it up a bit, add some confusion, and give the reader the impression that it’s the “conspiracy theorists” who are confused.
CNN’s “How Would an Assassination Attempt Be Staged?”, published 48 hours before the latest shooting, exhibits a similar technique of seemingly deliberate obfuscation. Noting that the hashtag #staged has been picking up momentum, reflecting ever-growing skepticism about the July 13, 2024 “Trump shooting” in Butler, Pennsylvania, the author, Harmeet Kaur, offers an overly complicated mishmash of reasons why staging a political PR event would be…overly complicated. And that, of course, is why nobody would ever do such a thing.
Kaur begins by pretending that she doesn’t understand what the term staged could possibly mean in the context of a political PR stunt. After a detour through the etymology and philology of the term staged (“from the Old French ‘estage,’ meaning ‘dwelling,’ and its verb form ‘estager,’ meaning ‘to stay somewhere.’ ‘Estage’ is also related to the Latin ‘stagium’”) Kaur notes that by the 1930s staged was being used to describe faked crime scenes. Such doings, she suggests, are rare and exotic. The plain, obvious fact that almost any serious crime, committed by criminals with above-room-temperature IQs, will involve “staged” presentations of evidence and/or the lack thereof, including such simple “staging” as wiping away fingerprints or wearing ski masks, apparently doesn’t register with her.
Nor does Kaur note that a certain ethnoreligious group, whose genocidal crime headquarters, I mean “state,” is the number one suspect in the Butler and Charlie Kirk shootings as well as countless other state crimes against democracy, has a well-documented history of staging crimes for political gain. As you watch the following half-hour video compilation of mainstream media reports of Jews hoaxing “antisemitic” attacks on themselves, keep two things in mind: 1) This is just the tip of an enormous iceberg; and 2) That iceberg of thousands of similar cases represents just the dumb and/or unlucky ones who got caught.
The US clearance rate for ordinary crimes, mostly committed by impulsive, none-too-bright criminals, is less than 45% for violent crimes and less than 15% for property crimes. Miscreants who plot their crimes carefully—as high-level political criminals do—are obviously going to get away with the vast majority of their misdeeds, even before we factor in the likelihood that they have corrupted law enforcement and the media. What is surprising about the Butler, Pennsylvania “Trump shooting” is not that they managed to pull off such a complex and difficult operation, but that they did it so casually and clumsily, not even bothering to create even the slightest wound on Trump’s ear.
Roughly two and a half hours after he was taken off the rally stage, Trump says in a Truth Social statement, “I was shot with a bullet that pierced the upper part of my right ear. I knew immediately that something was wrong in that I heard a whizzing sound, shots, and immediately felt the bullet ripping through the skin. Much bleeding took place…” Yet not one shred of convincing evidence, not least of all the extensive medical evidence that would exist had Trump actually taken a bullet to the ear, supports the claim that Trump’s ear was wounded in any way. Nor does he appear to have suffered the hearing damage that might have been expected.
Whoever was in charge of the Secret Service detail must have known that Trump was in no danger. Less than a minute after the volley of shots, Trump was allowed to stand up and shake his fist in front of the flag in an obviously pre-planned photo op. Apologists for the Secret Service conspirators claim that the determination “shooter is down” reassured them that it was perfectly okay to allow Trump to stand up and expose himself to more potential bullets. But had the event been authentic, how could they have possibly known that there was only one shooter?
Kaur’s CNN article avoids even entertaining such questions. Like Leingang’s Guardian article on the Hilton shooting, it offers an ad hominem argument against the “conspiracy theorist” by representing him as a deliberately discombobulated straw man, whose supposed incoherent, confusing arguments are actually CNN’s own deliberately distorted rendering.
Kaur hauls out Spencer Parsons, “an associate professor of media production at Northwestern University and an independent filmmaker who has staged shooting scenes,” to claim that staging the Butler “Trump shooting” scene would be so difficult as to be essentially impossible. Parsons claims that a “staged shooting scene” requires vast numbers of people: “the director, camera operators, camera technicians, lighting technicians, sound engineers, special effects coordinators, safety coordinators and so on.”
Talk about misdirection! Why would ANY such people be necessary for a high-level criminal operation involving a deceptive shooting?! Were camera, lighting, sound, special effects, and safety technicians necessary when hypnotized patsy Sirhan Sirhan fired a volley of random shots, distracting onlookers while the professional killer pressed a revolver to the back of Robert F. Kennedy’s head and pulled the trigger, leaving powder burns on his skull?
Kaur tells us that setting up a patsy to take the blame for a shooting is impossibly complicated:
Then there’s the issue of the fake assassin himself. The task would require an extraordinarily skilled marksman, someone who could aim close enough to the candidate’s head to make it look like he’d intended to hit him without actually hitting him. (Acquaintances of the gunman who tried to shoot Trump told reporters that he was rejected from his high school’s rifle club because he was such a bad shot.)
And to make the situation seem believable, the Secret Service would have to kill the designated shooter after he opened fire, an outcome the person in the gun-wielding role either wouldn’t anticipate or would have to be willing to accept.
Kaur again sets up a preposterous straw man: A conspiracy theorist stupid enough to think Thomas Crooks fired shots that came anywhere near Trump’s head, and that Crooks was a conscious, witting, fully-informed participant. But nobody thinks that! What skeptics actually think is that Crooks, like most other patsies going back to Sirhan, was probably mind-controlled. (For an introductory discussion including a demonstration of MK-Ultra style hypnotic mind-control, check out Jesse Ventura’s “Mind-Controlled Assassins and Programmed Killers.”) Crooks, like Oswald, was “just a patsy” who didn’t shoot anyone. The actual shooting, which did not and could not have caused a bullet to come anywhere near Trump’s head, but which likely did strike three onlookers, killing one of them, was fired from the building behind and to the left of the one that hypnotized patsy Crooks had climbed onto. For details, check out my interview with filmmaker John Hankey, and watch his film below.
Kaur then implies that it would have been too difficult or impossible for Trump to use a squib to create the fake blood he smeared on his face like warpaint for the photo op:
The blood would be another consideration, Parsons says. Film crews simulate gunshot wounds via squibs, small explosive devices that spout fake blood when detonated — some conspiracy theories surrounding Trump’s assassination attempt claimed that he used a squib because the blood on his face was supposedly only seen after he raised his hand to his cheek, though researcher Katherine FitzGerald noted at the time that the first appearance of blood was not clear from the videos.
Another technique for staging bloodshed might involve the candidate superficially wounding himself with a small razor blade, like professional wrestlers do, but that also presents challenges…
Wait a minute! What does Kaur mean, also presents challenges?! The first paragraph quoted above fails to present the slightest argument or evidence that Trump or a Secret Service confederate would have faced the slightest “challenge” in using a squib to produce the fake blood. The word also is a lie. Kaur hopes the careless reader will gloss over it.
Having refuted nothing while flailing about with straw men, Kaur concludes:
Given all of this, Parsons finds the idea that an assassination attempt of this scale could be “staged” to be “tremendously unlikely.” “This is just astronomically difficult to stage,” he adds. “The whole thing, from a filmmaking perspective, seems to be just immensely, immensely difficult and really based on a lot of chance.”
What would be so hard about putting an MK-Ultraed patsy on a rooftop, a professional sniper in a difficult-to-spot location where he could shoot a couple of bystanders, and giving Trump a blood squib after rehearsing “hit the deck, smear the blood, count to fifty, get up, shake your fist in front of the flag”? Sure, you and I couldn’t do it, but we don’t control the top of the federal command chain.
Setting up that scenario wouldn’t require precisely the same skill set that Parsons, the film-and-TV guy, enjoys. But if you think that people with “deceptive shooting” skill sets don’t exist, you must not know much about special forces, intelligence agencies, organized crime, and the rather large area where they overlap. That’s why someone like Joe Kent, the former Counterrorism chief who knows people with such skill sets, can easily see that incidents like the Butler and Charlie Kirk shootings are extremely suspicious, and point directly at the overlapping territory inhabited by Israel, Israeli-linked organized crime, and their assets in US military, intelligence, and police agencies… and, perhaps most importantly, the mainstream media that insists on obfuscating such matters.
NATO courts screenwriters to embed alliance messaging in film, TV
Al-Mayadeen | May 3, 2026
NATO has been quietly holding closed-door meetings with film and television writers, directors, and producers across Europe and the United States, in what critics are denouncing as a coordinated effort to embed the military alliance’s messaging into mainstream entertainment.
According to The Guardian, the initiative has already spanned sessions in Los Angeles, Brussels, and Paris, with a fourth meeting planned for London next month, where NATO officials are set to meet with members of the Writers’ Guild of Great Britain (WGGB).
The meetings, held under Chatham House rules, meaning participants may use information discussed but are not permitted to identify other attendees, focus on what organizers describe as the “evolving security situation in Europe and beyond.”
A WGGB email reviewed by The Guardian indicated that three separate projects are already in development that were “inspired, at least in part,” by those conversations.
James Appathurai, a former NATO spokesperson now serving as the alliance’s deputy assistant secretary general for hybrid, cyber and new technology, is expected to attend the London session alongside other officials.
In language that alarmed many recipients, the invitation suggested that “even if something so simple,” as NATO’s core message of cooperation and collective security, “finds its way into a future story, that will be enough.”
‘Clearly propaganda’
NATO’s outreach has drawn sharp criticism from within the creative community. Irish screenwriter Alan O’Gorman, whose film Christy won best film at the 2026 Irish Film and Television Awards, called the initiative “outrageous” and “clearly propaganda,” telling The Guardian that many writers come from countries that have “suffered under wars that NATO has joined and propagated.”
O’Gorman said those invited were “pretty offended that art would be used in a way that was supporting war,” and framed the meetings as part of a broader effort to cultivate pro-NATO sentiment in light of fearmongering across European media about weakened defenses.
Screenwriter and producer Faisal A. Qureshi, who applied to attend one session before a scheduling conflict prevented him, raised more structural concerns. He warned that the “risk for any creative who dips into this unattributable world of intelligence or military briefings is that they can get seduced into thinking they now have some secret knowledge,” one that normalizes moral compromise in the name of the greater good.
Qureshi questioned whether writers given such privileged access would genuinely “challenge or interrogate” the information fed to them, or simply absorb it.
A pattern of cultural lobbying
The London meeting is not an isolated effort. In 2024, eight prominent Hollywood screenwriters, including a writer and executive producer on Friends and a producer on High Potential, were flown to NATO headquarters in Brussels, where they met then-Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg. The trip was organized by the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies.
The initiative also mirrors recommendations from the Centre for European Reform, which earlier this year called on governments to directly engage cultural figures, including screenwriters and producers, to build public support for rising defense budgets and “better tell the story” of why military investment is necessary.
NATO, for its part, framed the sessions as demand-driven, saying the meetings “follow from interest expressed by members of the industry to know more about what NATO is about and how it works.”
OPCW Forced To Pay Damages To Whistleblower Who Found Evidence Of False Flag In Syria
The Dissident | April 30, 2026
After years of a continued cover-up, the OPCW (Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons) has been forced by the International Labour Organization to pay damages to Dr. Brendan Whelan, an OPCW scientist who found evidence that the alleged chemical weapons attack in Douma, Syria, that took place in 2018, was a false flag.
Evidence Of A False Flag Uncovered
For context, in April of 2018, the U.S., UK, and France bombed the Syrian government in response to allegations that the former Assad regime used chemical weapons on civilians in the town of Douma.
The bombing took place before inspectors from the OPCW were able to visit the scene in Douma, and the evidence for the chemical attack was based on videos and photos put out by rebel groups, which showed dead civilians foaming at the mouth and two cylinders “found” on a roof of an apartment and on a bed.
However, once the OPCW team was able to inspect Douma, they found a significant body of evidence suggesting the attack was a false flag used to trigger Western intervention.
Ian Henderson, one of the inspectors at the scene, found that the two chlorine cylinders found at the scene were “manually placed rather than being delivered by aircraft”.
Going into further detail on this assessment, Henderson explained in his book released last year that , the damage of the cylinder found at location two did not match up with the damage to the roof at the location, signalling that the cylinder was placed in an already existing crater.
Above: What the cylinder looks like at the location (picture one) vs. what it should have looked like compared to the damage to the roof (picture 2)
“The smooth unsullied nose of the Location 2 cylinder remains the contrary smoking gun” Henderson notes in his book.
Similarly, Brendan Whelan found further evidence that the attack was a false flag.
No evidence of Sarin was found at the scene, but trace amounts of Chlorine were found, leading the official narrative to be that there was a chlorine gas attack at the scene.
However, Whelan spoke to NATO state based experts who ruled out the possibility that chlorine was used at the scene based on the videos and images put out.
The minutes from the meeting with toxicology experts reads that “the experts were conclusive in their statement that there was no correlation between symptoms and chlorine exposure. In particular, they stated that the onset of excessive frothing, as a result of pulmonary edema, observed in the photos and reported by witnesses would not occur in the short time period between the reported occurrence of the alleged incident and the time the videos were recorded (approximately 3-4 hours)”.
“The key ‘take away message’ from the meeting was that the symptoms observed were inconsistent with exposure to chlorine”, the minutes from the meeting added.
Brendan Whelan wrote a final interim report on the Douma case, which incorporated these findings.
The report written by Whelan writes that “Some of the signs and symptoms described by witnesses and noted in photos and video recordings taken by witnesses, of the alleged chemical victims, are not consistent with exposure to choking agents such as chlorine or phosgene” and adds that, “The FFM team is unable to provide satisfactory explanations for the relatively moderate damage to the cylinders allegedly dropped from an unknown height, compared to the destruction caused to the rebar-reinforced concrete roofs”.
A Cover-Up Of The Evidence
The officially released OPCW interim report, however, made no mention of the above evidence and instead implied that a chlorine attack took place in Douma by the Assad regime.
Instead of addressing the concerns of Henderson and Whelan, or providing a scientific answer to the evidence they uncovered, the OPCW resorted to smears in an attempt to discredit them- a campaign that ramped up after the initial work of the OPCW investigation was leaked and released on WikiLeaks.
Ian Henderson has previously given his account of the cover-up in his aforementioned book, which I previously detailed in a summary .
But now, after a long legal battle, the OPCW has been forced to pay damages to Brendan Whelan and to reverse it decision to bar him from ever working at the OPCW again by the UN court, the International Labour Organisation.
The court ruled, in reference to disciplinary measures brought by the OPCW against Brendan Whelan, that, “There was a requirement to observe due process at the disciplinary state prior to the imposition of any sanction upon to the complainant. According to the OPCW staff regulations and interim staff rules, no disciplinary proceeding may be instituted against a staff members unless he or she had been notified of the allegations against him or her, as well as of the right to seek assistance in his or her defence and be given a responsible opportunity to respond to those allegations. These steps were not taken before the director general issues disciplinary measures against the complaint to the extent that the complainant was not provided with the charges. He was also not provided with a copy of the full investigation report. The complaint right to due process before those measures were imposed upon him was violated.”
The court ruled that “The OPCW should pay the complainant 20,000 euros in moral damages” and that “the OPCW shall also pay the complainant 2000 euros in other costs”.
Now- after this vindication- Whelan has written an article at the Substack of journalist Aaron Mate, detailing what he went through at the OPCW.
Whelan revealed that the OPCW accused him of being behind the leak of the above engineering assessment “despite having left the Organisation some eight months before the leak”.
He added that, “I asked, repeatedly, to be told the precise allegations against me; a right not only enshrined in law but in the Organisation’s protocols. They refused to elaborate or specify any charges. At that point, I ended any collaboration with an investigation that was contemptuous of the requirements for due process. The investigation proceeded regardless.”
Despite the fact that “The official investigation report, for lack of evidence, had formally exonerated Inspectors A and B [Whelan and Henderson] (as my colleague and I were referred to respectively) from leaking the sensitive document” the OPCW basely claimed the two had “deliberately and in premeditated’ fashion enabled the leak by failing to comply with the ‘specified procedures for the handling of confidential information so as to create a clear risk of unauthorised disclosure.’”
He noted that this attack was done by the OPCW in order to get out of responding to the above engineering and toxicology assessments, writing:
It was no coincidence that I and my colleague—the only individuals investigated for the leak—had protested against bias and malpractice in the conduct of the OPCW’s Douma investigation, and, in my case, had been sidelined from the investigation for doing so. The OPCW had refused to address our concerns, which had since become a public controversy. The aim of the leak inquiry, therefore, was to attack our credibility without having to refute our scientific arguments.
For this, Whelan was “issued with a letter of censure and a lifetime ban from future employment with the Organisation I had served diligently for seventeen years.”
He added that, “As the legacy media had been heavily invested in maintaining the Western line that Syrian forces had used chemical weapons in Douma, the OPCW’s ad hominem attacks on the two dissenting inspectors were treated as a vindication of the official narrative.”
This included articles in the Guardian, Reuters, and the Western government sponsored Bellingcat, which repeated the false line that Whelan and Henderson were somehow responsible for the leak.
Then, after Whelan took the issue to the International Labour Organisation, the OPCW changed it’s story, now claiming that Whelan made a “serious breach of confidentiality” because he sent a letter to the OPCW chief of cabinet expressing concern over “the suppression of the team’s Douma report and a secretive attempt to publish a doctored version”.
The new allegation from the OPCW against Whelan was now a claim that “The Appellant forwarded an email exchange between himself and the former Chief of Cabinet to Director-OSP which contained specific and detailed information about evidence gathered by the FFM [Fact-Finding mission] investigators in Douma”.
“The ‘specific and detailed information’ they were referring to was a statement in my email to the Chief of Cabinet protesting the fact that the doctored report made the unsupported claim that ‘the team had sufficient evidence to determine that chlorine was released from two cylinders.’ This statement, despite being without basis, was ‘highly protected’, they said, and shouldn’t have been shared with the senior director” Whelan added.
He added, “In other words, by informing the Director of the Office of Special Projects of a phoney claim that had been fraudulently inserted into the team’s Douma report, I was committing a ‘serious breach of confidentiality.’ It is worth noting that, because it was challenged, this unfounded assertion was omitted from the final Douma report.”
The OPCW, referring to a letter sent by Whelan to the director general of the OPCW, also claimed that it, “contained specific and detailed information gathered by FFM investigators from toxicology experts. In creating and disseminating this letter, he failed to comply with the specified procedures for the handling, protection, release, and dissemination of confidential information so as to create a clear risk of unauthorised disclosure”.
“What was also significant about this new allegation was that it was the first time management has officially acknowledged this meeting with the German toxicologists. Even mention of it was excluded from the inspection timelines in official reports. By extension, it was the first tacit admission that this crucial piece of evidence was censored from the Douma investigation,” Whelan added.
The OPCW also claimed that Whelan has “sowed discord within the Organisation”, “By sharing information ‘within the Secretariat [emphasis added] [I]caused a staff member to call into question the integrity of the Organisation’s findings in Douma.’”
In other words, the complaint from the OPCW against Whelan was that he raised his concerns that the OPCW investigation was compromised and by providing solid evidence that the toxicology report was censored, a senior OPCW director began to (correctly) believe that the investigation had been compromised.
Now that the International Labour Organization has ruled that the OPCW acted unlawfully against Whelan, it again shows that the OPCW refused to engage with Brendan Whelan and Ian Henderson’s scientific findings and instead engaged in a cover-up to forward the Western narrative about Syria.
Why don’t UK media mention the Israel lobby?
By Mark Curtis | Declassified UK | April 27, 2026
Britain’s national media fails to recognise the influence – and even the existence – of an Israel lobby, our new media analysis shows.
Declassified researched two years of reporting by seven British media outlets and found only 16 mentions of the phrase Israel lobby without speech marks.
Nearly all those mentions are in comment articles rather than news pieces and none we found expound on what influence such an Israel lobby might have.
The phrase “Israel lobby” – used with speech marks – is slightly more common in these outlets, with 26 mentions in two years, and tends to be used to quote others in a disparaging way or to suggest such a lobby does not exist.
For example, one Guardian article refers to “the trope of the ‘Israel lobby’”. The Daily Mail reported in May 2024 of hecklers at a speech by then foreign secretary secretary David Lammy “accusing the MP of having taken ‘shady money’ from the ‘pro-Israel lobby’ on the grounds that he once lawfully accepted £30,000 from a Zionist lobbyist named Trevor Chinn.”
In fact, British businessman Trevor Chinn has funded Keir Starmer and several senior Labour ministers and was awarded the Israeli medal of honour for his “dedication” to and “love” for Israel.
Of the seven media outlets analysed – BBC articles, Express, Guardian, Independent, Mail, Telegraph and Times – the BBC and the Express are the most extreme, and no mentions of the phrase Israel lobby, used without speech marks, could be found at all in their publications.
The BBC is failing to mention the Israel lobby while having regular meetings with it. As Declassified recently revealed, the BBC held nine meetings with Jewish groups strongly sympathetic to Israel in the first year of the Gaza genocide.
The Guardian was found to have made only five mentions of an Israel lobby without speech marks, three of which are in comment pieces by columnist Owen Jones.
By contrast, independent Scottish newspaper The National, which has consistently criticised UK policy towards Israel, has mentioned the Israel lobby 23 times in the two year sample period, never in speech marks.
The Israel lobby in Britain is extensive. Declassified has revealed that a quarter of MPs have been funded by pro-Israel individuals and groups, as have one half of Keir Starmer’s Cabinet.
Neither of these findings have been reported in the mainstream media, as far as Declassified is aware.
British ministers and officials are known to hold off-the-books meetings with pro-Israel lobbyists, and under Keir Starmer’s government, the Foreign Office has held numerous meetings with pro-Israel advocacy groups such as Board of Deputies of British Jews and the European Leadership Network (ELNET).
The UK government’s total proscription of the Lebanese movement Hezbollah in 2019 was the work of pro-Israel lobbyists while lobby group We Believe in Israel has taken credit for the UK government’s proscription of Palestine Action last year.
As long ago as 2009, a landmark Channel Four documentary, Inside Britain’s Israel Lobby, which was presented by journalist Peter Oborne, revealed the close relationship between the Israel lobby and the Conservative and Labour parties, and its attempts to curb criticism of Israel in the media.
The Israel lobby’s influence over UK politics is likely to be greater than any other state except perhaps the US, and certainly far more than Russia which has received decidedly more media attention.
Friends of Israel
The British media’s failure to explicitly acknowledge an Israel lobby comes alongside nearly 300 articles in these seven outlets during the two years mentioning either Labour Friends of Israel (LFI) or Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI), of which dozens of MPs are supporters.
These lobby groups are invariably mentioned in the media without any analysis of their influence or even that they are explicitly part of a lobby that advocates for goals which benefit a foreign country, such as opposing an arms embargo on Israel.
The Independent has mentioned the phrase “influential Labour Friends of Israel” group three times, and the Times once, without mentioning how it is influential.
Yet CFI has been the largest donor of free overseas trips for MPs in recent years, and both CFI and LFI refuse to provide a list of their funders. LFI says its work is funded by “the generosity of members of the Jewish community and those who share our commitment to the State of Israel”. It adds that it “does not receive any money from the Israeli government or the Israeli Embassy”.
The Times has mentioned the phrase Israel lobby, without speech marks, on only four occasions in the two years, but has mentioned Labour Friends of Israel in over 50 articles. That LFI might be a part of a broader Israel lobby has apparently not been spelled out by the Times to its readers.
These omissions might be because the seven media outlets we analysed often function as part of the Israel lobby that they refuse to sufficiently recognise. The most extreme is the Telegraph, which routinely publishes articles supportive of Israel during its genocide in Gaza, illegal war on Iran and brutal attacks on Lebanon.
The paper has recently called to restore UK military ties to Israel, headlined with “Israel condemns ‘hateful and racist’ Greens”, and published an article by pro-Israel writer Jake Wallis Simons headlined “The case for Trump attacking Iran”, among many similar articles.
Some articles in these outlets suggest that recognition of an Israel lobby is anti-semitic. One opinion piece in the Telegraph runs: “Anti-Semitism is a conspiracy theory about how the world works. You think you live in a democracy, it runs, but actually there is this secret invisible system of Jewish power that rules the world through the banking system, the media and the Israel lobby.”
Similarly, the Guardian reported on Labour MP Diane Abbott in May 2024 stating: “She apologised for liking tweets about the influence of the Israel lobby, which she admitted could be interpreted as an antisemitic trope.”
The Guardian has been found to cave in to pro-Israel pressure, to amplify Israeli propaganda, and to be responsible for the same “systemic bias, deliberate distortion and deceptive underreporting” on Israeli crimes as the rest of the British media.
When the vice chair of LFI, Damian Egan, was forced to pull out of a school visit in January this year due to pressure from a pro-Palestinian group, both the Independent and the Times chose to focus on Egan simply being Jewish, headlining: “Jewish MP’s visit to local school cancelled after pro-Palestine campaign”.
Over 100,000 people have recently signed a petition calling for a public inquiry into pro-Israel influence on politics and democracy.
Note – our media analysis covered the period 7 April 2024 to 7 April 2026, using the Nexis media database and conducting website searches of the seven media outlets.
Mark Curtis is the co-director of Declassified UK, and the author of five books and many articles on UK foreign policy.
Iran FM to hold no talks with Americans in Islamabad; US media lied again: Report
Press TV – April 24, 2026
Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi will not hold any talks with US officials during his underway visit to the Pakistani capital Islamabad, despite CNN’s claiming otherwise, a report says.
On Friday, Tasnim News Agency rebuffed a report published earlier by the network concerning the top diplomat’s visit to the city, which is to be followed by trips to the Omani capital Muscat and the Russian capital Moscow.
CNN claimed that Donald Trump intended to send regional envoy Steve Witkoff as well as the US president’s son-in-law and advisor Jared Kushner to Pakistan for “negotiations with Araghchi.”
Commenting on the report, Tasnim wrote, “This is despite the fact that, at present, no negotiations with the Americans are on the agenda at all, and Mr. Araghchi’s trip to Islamabad is not for talks with the United States.”
Rather, the foreign minister will discuss with the Pakistani side Iran’s considerations regarding cessation of unprovoked aggression against the Islamic Republic, the agency added.
It noted how Araghchi, himself, has officially stated that the purpose of these visits was close coordination with partners on “bilateral” issues and consultation on regional developments.
However, “US officials and media outlets have, for more than 10 days, been fabricating narratives about a new round of negotiations, with several false reports being published almost daily regarding the start of talks,” Tasnim wrote.
“In one of the most unusual cases, US media and officials claimed for more than three days that JD Vance, Trump’s vice president, was on his way, yet he never arrived at the destination!”
Iran and the United States held a first round of talks in Islamabad earlier this month. However, the process stopped short of yielding an agreement amid Washington’s maximalist demands and its insistence on its unreasonable positions.
The Islamic Republic has categorically refused to rejoin the process unless the US lifted an illegal blockade it has imposed on Iranian vessels and ports. Tehran has also asserted that, as long as the blockade is still in place, it has no intention of reopening the strategic Strait of Hormuz that it has shut down to all traffic in retaliation.
ELNET taking UK journalists on secret pro-‘Israel’ propaganda tours
Al Mayadeen | April 24, 2026
A lobbying organization, ELNET, has been quietly arranging trips to “Israel” for British journalists and retired military personnel, according to an investigation published by Declassified. The tours coincide with the Israeli military’s ongoing campaign that has killed over 259 Palestinian and Lebanese journalists since 2023.
The investigation noted that on Wednesday, journalist Amal Khalil and photographer Zeinab Faraj were reporting from southern Lebanon when an Israeli airstrike targeted them. Khalil was killed and Faraj was seriously injured. The Israeli military is responsible for two-thirds of all journalist killings globally in 2025, the report states.
While systematically killing Palestinian journalists, Declassified reported that the Israeli government has blocked foreign media workers from entering Gaza, effectively creating a blackout of its military operations.
ELNET created to counter criticism of ‘Israel’
According to the investigation, ELNET was founded in 2007 with the stated aim of “countering the widespread criticism of Israel in Europe.” The group is increasingly viewed as the European equivalent of AIPAC, the powerful American-Israeli lobby.
Declassified found that journalists who participated in ELNET delegations have written for major British publications including the Telegraph, Spectator and Mail on Sunday. The group has also taken former British military officers to “Israel”, who subsequently portrayed the IOF’s operations in Gaza in a favourable light.
Professor Des Freedman of Goldsmiths told Declassified that such trips are not genuine fact-finding missions but rather “junkets specifically designed to generate pro-Israel coverage.” He added that embedded journalism of this kind is “utterly scandalous during a genocide when the rest of the world’s media have been locked out of Gaza.”
ELNET has close links to Israeli government
The investigation reveals that ELNET maintains close ties to the Israeli government. Its board members include two former advisors to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The group was invited to a 2024 meeting with foreign minister Gideon Sa’ar to discuss improving “public diplomacy”, and its delegations are frequently organized “in partnership” with the Israeli Foreign Ministry.
Emmanuel Navon, who directed ELNET’s “Israel” office between 2023 and 2025, described “Israel’s” offensive into Rafah as “necessary” and dismissed concerns about Palestinian civilians, Declassified reports.
ELNET’s UK branch is directed by former MP Joan Ryan, who once chaired Labour Friends of Israel. Under her leadership, the group has sought to cast doubt on casualty figures from Gaza, calling them “demonstrably unreliable and strategically manipulated.” The UK branch has also condemned British recognition of a Palestinian state as a “PR win” for Hamas and urged the restoration of arms exports to “Israel.”
Journalist declared ‘war must go on’ after ELNET trip
Declassified identified British journalist Zoe Strimpel, who writes for the Sunday Telegraph, as one participant in an ELNET delegation. Days after returning from “Israel”, she wrote in The Spectator that “most people” in “Israel” agree that “the war must go on until Hamas is completely destroyed.”
In a separate Telegraph article, Strimpel dismissed accusations of “Israeli ‘genocide’ in Gaza” as “grotesquely false”. When approached by Declassified about her participation in the ELNET trip, she declined to offer any defensive response, stating, “The more pro-Israel the better in my view.”
Another participant, David Rose, wrote for the Jewish Chronicle after his trip that “the trauma experienced throughout Israeli society means serious consideration of the longer-term relationship between Israel and the Palestinians is almost impossible to contemplate.”
Former British generals toured Gaza with ELNET
The investigation also revealed that former British military officers have joined ELNET delegations. Retired British army officer Sir John McColl, who served as a NATO commander in Europe, joined a September 2024 delegation that met with Netanyahu and former Security Minister, both wanted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes.
The group received briefings from Israeli military commanders and spent time in Gaza “observing troops in action.” Shortly after returning, McColl wrote in The Times that the Israeli military’s “rules of engagement in Gaza are at least as rigorous as those of the British army.” ELNET subsequently listed McColl’s article as one of its “recent successes” in an impact report.
Three other former British military figures on that delegation were Johnny Mercer, Colonel Richard Kemp and Major Andrew Fox. Fox later wrote on Substack, “When does a journalist become a legitimate military target? Many not often enough.”
Wired for War: Israel’s Black Cube and the infiltration of Europe
Israeli spies-for-hire interfered in elections in Cyprus and Slovenia
RT | April 23, 2026
Political hit-jobs in Cyprus and Slovenia are just the tip of an election interference iceberg in Europe, involving a dark nexus of Israeli spies, defense chiefs, and tech companies. The threat is real, but the EU is staying silent.
Targeting the EU: Israeli spy firm’s open admission
A week after Cyprus assumed the EU’s rotating presidency in January, a video appeared on social media – from a relatively obscure account named ‘Emily Thompson – showing President Nikos Christodoulides’s brother-in-law, a former energy minister, and a major construction magnate discussing influence-peddling arrangements between Christodoulides and foreign investors. Across a series of surreptitious recordings, the three also allege that Christodoulides took cash bribes during his 2023 campaign, and was taking cash to block EU sanctions against Russian business figures.
Cypriot authorities immediately declared that the video bears all “the characteristics of organized Russian disinformation campaigns.” Anonymous EU diplomats told Euractiv that Brussels viewed Moscow as the prime suspect, and authorities in Nicosia said that they had reached out to the US and Israel for assistance in identifying the video’s source. AP and Euronews headlined likely Russian involvement.
The release of the video undermined Christodoulides – triggering the resignations of his most senior aide and his charity director wife – and put a black mark on Cyprus’ stint at the helm of the EU.
The ‘Videogate’ scandal simmered in the background until last week, when Black Cube, an Israeli private intelligence agency, admitted that it had recorded and edited the video. The company said that it had compiled the video on behalf of a private client – not a state actor – and that it “has cooperated with the Cypriot authorities and expresses confidence that they will establish the truth and bring those responsible to justice.”
What is Black Cube?
A screenshot from Black Cube’s website
Founded in 2011 by “veterans of Israel’s elite intelligence units,” Black Cube describes itself as “the world’s leading human intelligence firm,” capable of finding “hard evidence otherwise impossible to obtain” in support of “high-profile litigations, arbitrations, and white-collar crime cases.”
The term ‘Human Intelligence’, or ‘HUMINT’, is key here. Unlike open-source intelligence (OSINT), which relies on uncovering publicly-available information, HUMINT is gathered through covert surveillance, interrogation, and the management of sources and informers through bribery, blackmail, or intimidation. It is the kind of illegal or quasi-legal tradecraft usually practiced by state intelligence agencies.
Black Cube co-founders Dan Zorella and Avi Yanus are veterans of this underworld. Zorella served in the Israel Defense Forces’ (IDF) military intelligence directorate, and Yanus was a strategic planning officer in the IDF. The company’s board is a who’s who of the Israeli intelligence and defense establishment, and includes:
- Meir Dagan (now deceased), former Mossad director
- Efraim Halevy, former Mossad director
- Yohanan Danino, former Israeli Police commissioner
- Major General Giora Eiland, former Israeli National Security Council chief
- Asher Tishler, dean of the College of Management Academic Studies, and consultant to the IDF
Black Cube’s international advisory board
Black Cube’s client list is long and controversial. The company was hired by US President Donald Trump’s aides in 2018 to undermine the Iran Nuclear Deal; worked for then-president of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Joseph Kabila, to spy on his political opponents; and spied on journalists investigating NSO Group – another Mossad-linked Israeli tech company, best known for its ‘Pegasus’ spyware.
Disgraced movie mogul Harvey Weinstein hired Black Cube in 2016 to silence and discredit numerous women accusing him of sexual abuse. Weinstein was encouraged to hire Black Cube by former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, a close associate of Jeffrey Epstein who co-founded Paragon Solutions, yet another spyware and surveillance company.
Israeli spy-tech infiltration of EU?
These examples illustrate the web of ties between Israel’s tech sector and its military, political, and intelligence establishment. Black Cube’s client list suggests that it will work for anyone willing to pay, but its recent activity in Slovenia points to a deeper alignment between the company and the goals of the Israeli state, and demonstrates the danger foreign clients face when they hire the company and others like it to do their dirty work.
Zorella, Eiland, and two other Black Cube employees arrived in Ljubljana in late December, where they met with former Prime Minister Janez Jansa, according to a report by the 8 March Institute, a liberal Slovenian NGO. Jansa, a conservative, was running for election against liberal Prime Minister Robert Golob at the time.
The purpose of the visit became clear in early March, when – just like in Cyprus – a series of covertly-recorded audio and video files hit social media. They showed associates of Golob’s Svoboda party discussing penny-ante corruption within the Slovenian government with undercover Black Cube employees posing as foreign investors. The officials bragged about their influence over the media, their connections to Golob, and their ability to offer access to the prime minister for a fee.
Jansa’s Slovenian Democratic Party (SDS) held the videos up as proof of corruption within Golob’s government, and the scandal almost won him the election. Ultimately, Svoboda beat SDS by a margin of only 0.67%.
Jansa initially denied, but later admitted to, meeting with Black Cube. He has not admitted to hiring the company, however. Slovenia’s Intelligence and Security Agency (SOVA) has since determined that Black Cube “intended to discredit individuals politically, which may pose a threat to national security and influence democratic elections.” SOVA added that “this interference was most likely commissioned from within Slovenia,” but it is still not completely clear by whom.
The Israeli government had a stake in the election. Under Golob, Slovenia has recognized the State of Palestine, banned the import of goods from illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank, and weighed joining South Africa’s genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Jansa, on the other hand, is a close ally of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and has equated recognition of a Palestinian state with “supporting the terrorist organization Hamas.”
Does Black Cube work for Israel?
Nobody has accused Israel of ordering Black Cube to intervene in the Cypriot election, but in this case, Netanyahu’s interests and the interests of the Cypriot opposition overlap.
Black Cube is one of many defense and intelligence startups filled with ‘former’ Israeli spooks and security chiefs. Although these companies are private, profit-making enterprises, their leaders are often more loyal to Israel than to the bottom line, as another example from Slovenia demonstrates.
Two weeks before the election, Golob’s government chose not to join the ICJ genocide case against Israel. Slovenian Foreign Minister Tanja Fajon told reporters that the government had no other option: “Many of the country’s cyber defense systems are of Israeli origin,” she explained, adding that to join the lawsuit “would jeopardize Slovenia’s national security.”
Fajon confirmed that she had been pressured into making this decision. “It is clear that these pressures exist, we are all subjected to them by superpowers, and ultimately this must be taken into account when deciding,” she said.
It is unclear whether the continuation of Black Cube’s campaign against Golob was a part of the pressure campaign, or whether Fajon was threatened by the Israeli state or the companies responsible for the country’s cyber defense systems. Regardless, the message is clear: Israeli companies are willing to interfere in EU elections, and by relying on Israeli technology, EU countries are trading sovereignty for security – neither of which they will get.
What is the EU doing about Israeli interference?
EU officials have used the most spurious claims of “Russian interference” to justify their own election meddling. RT has covered cases where Brussels-aligned actors have alleged, without basis, interference in Romania, Hungary, and Bulgaria.
However, when it comes to the activities of Black Cube in Cyprus and Slovenia, Brussels has stayed silent.
Slovenian authorities urged European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to probe the company’s work in the runup to last month’s election, arguing that “such interference by a foreign private company poses a clear hybrid threat against the European Union and its Member States,” according to a letter published by Politico.
The commission has not even publicly acknowledged receiving the letter.
Yet there are far more cases of Black Cube and its ilk interfering in European elections. RT will look at these cases in depth over our ‘Wired for War’ series and ask, why is the EU so willing to ignore blatant meddling happening within its own borders?
Monitoring group finds UK media guilty of ‘systematic’ dehumanization of Palestinians
The Cradle | April 23, 2026
A British media monitoring group accused major UK media outlets on 23 April of “systematic” anti-Palestine bias in their coverage of Israel’s genocide of Palestinians in Gaza over the past two years.
NewsCord announced it had analyzed thousands of articles published by BBC, The Guardian, and Sky News in their coverage of Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza since 2023.
The group quantified various bias metrics, including “attribution, passive voice, source qualification, humanization, legal framing, and the reporting of documented genocidal statements by Israeli officials.”
NewsCord found systematic patterns of anti-Palestine bias in the reporting of all three news outlets. For example, the BBC names Israel as the perpetrator in just 50 percent of reports of casualties and uses passive voice, which obscures responsibility, in 80 percent of sentences reporting casualties from Israeli attacks.
The Guardian names the perpetrator in just 54 percent of cases.
All three routinely label the Gaza Health Ministry as “Hamas-affiliated” in an effort to undermine the credibility of its casualty and death counts, even though the UN and Israeli military view the ministry’s reporting as credible.
In contrast, the outlets only noted the credibility of the UN in one percent of instances when the international body’s reports are cited.
Across UK media, the word “genocide” to describe Israel’s actions in Gaza is rarely mentioned, NewsCord found. This is despite the International Court of Justice issuing provisional measures ordering Israel to halt its military operations to prevent its troops from perpetrating genocide, and despite the findings of the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory that Israel has committed genocide.
Rights groups Amnesty International and Israeli-based B’Tselem have also concluded Israel is guilty of genocide in Gaza.
Additionally, none of the three UK news outlets have reported on documented genocidal statements by Israeli officials that are cited as evidence of intent in ICJ proceedings, NewsCord added.
Shortly after the genocide began, Netanyahu referred to Palestinians in Gaza as “Amalek,” recalling a story from the Jewish Torah in which God commands the ancient Israelites to eradicate an entire people, including every last woman and child.
The monitoring group also found that Palestinian voices were given far less prominence, as measured by word count, compared with Israeli perspectives, and that detainees were more often humanized only when Israeli.
In December, Drop Site News revealed that BBC editor Raffi Berg has almost complete control of the British broadcaster’s online coverage of Israel’s genocide in Gaza and is ensuring that all events are reported with a pro-Israel bias.
“This guy’s entire job is to water down everything that’s too critical of Israel,” one former BBC journalist said.
Pro-Israel bias is not just an issue in the UK media, but in the western media broadly.
A media-analysis report released by Media Bias Meter last November titled “Framing Gaza” presented data showing that major western outlets mention “Israel” far more often than “Palestine” in both headlines and article bodies.
The outlets in question included the New York Times (NYT), BBC, Le Monde, the Globe and Mail, The Guardian, Reuters, AP, and AFP.
According to the dataset, NYT uses “Israel” in headlines 1,868 times and “Palestine” only 10 times, a ratio of 187 to 1.
The disproportionate pattern appears across the other outlets, with BBC showing 1,100 uses of “Israel” in headlines and 91 uses of “Palestine,” Le Monde showing 1,087 versus 65, and De Telegraaf showing 952 versus 65.
How A Fake Iranian Terror Group Was Invented To Proscribe IRGC in Europe
The story of Ashab al-Yamin
By David Miller | Tracking Power update | April 21, 2026
Now that several more “attacks” have been credited to this fake group, here is my investigation on the topic.
A series of arson attacks and alleged incidents targeting alleged Jewish-linked sites across Europe have been attributed to a little-known group called Harakat Ashab al-Yamin al-Islamia (HAYI), or Ashab al-Yamin. The group has been widely described in media and security circles as an Iran-backed network, allegedly linked to the IRGC.
Since March 9, HAYI has been credited with what some analysts describe as “hybrid warfare” style operations spanning multiple countries from Greece and Belgium to France, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. Among the most high-profile incidents was the burning of four ambulances in Golders Green, North London, on March 22.
The emergence of this group coincides with the escalation of the US-Israeli war against Iran. In parallel, media outlets and pro-war commentators have warned that Tehran could expand the conflict by carrying out attacks across Europe.
But a closer examination raises serious questions about its actual existence and the pro-Israel groups pushing this narrative.
Several of the incidents attributed to HAYI do not appear to have directly targeted Jewish communities. Others remain murky, with limited verified information about the perpetrators. And beyond scattered claims and online statements, there is little concrete evidence that this group as described actually exists.
In the fog of war, narratives can move faster than facts.
At the same time, governments across Europe and the UK are moving to formally designate the IRGC as a terrorist organization — a policy long pushed by pro-war, pro-Israel lobbying networks. Many of the same actors amplifying the HAYI narrative are also leading that campaign within Western media to manufacture consent for war and accelerate this political objective of proscription. While raising the possibility that unverified claims of an Iran-linked threat are being leveraged to shape public fear and justify sweeping new security measures tied to the widening war.
This investigation examines each reported attack, the sources promoting the HAYI narrative, and how claims of a coordinated campaign may be shaping public perception — fueling fears of rising antisemitism, calls for expanded security measures and proscribing the IRGC as a terrorist organisation amid an illegal war.
But what is Ashab al-Yamin? Where did it come from and does it exist at all?
This investigation reveals that there is no such group. It appears to be a fictional cut out. Half of its reported activities simply did not occur. The other half were so amateurish, and inconsequential – with not a single injury – One theory is that they may have been messily undertaken by hired gig criminals and/or incompetent Sayanim, the name given to Mossad’s network of little helpers in countries all over the world. This investigative analysis shows that even the Zionist regime and its assets in establishment think tanks acknowledge that so-called “gig criminals” have been involved in this series of events, in a striking parallel with similar events in Australia (fourteen of them between October 2024 and January 2025) which were similarly low impact with no casualties, declared to be “fake” by Australian police in March 2025. … continue
Iran’s judiciary rejects Trump’s claim on ‘planned execution’ of 8 women
Press TV – April 21, 2026
Iran’s Judiciary has dismissed claims by US President Donald Trump that eight women are facing imminent execution in Iran.
In a statement issued on Tuesday, the Judiciary clarified that some of these individuals have been released, while others are facing charges that, if upheld by the court, may lead to imprisonment.
“Trump was misled once again by fake news,” the statement said.
Trump requested clemency on their behalf in a post on social media earlier in the day.
The Judiciary also stated that following the foreign-backed riots in January, Trump made a baseless assertion, falsely thanking Iran for halting the execution of more than 800 prisoners—a completely baseless claim lacking any credible evidence.
“It’s not surprising, as this marks yet another instance of his misleading assertions,” the statement read.
In recent days, Trump has reiterated a similar unfounded claim, referencing anti-Iranian media reports.
In his latest social media post, Trump re-posted an American-Jewish activist’s claim that eight women are facing execution, urging the Iranian leadership to release the eight.
He also claimed that the women’s release could be a great start to US-Iran negotiations.
In recent months, numerous false claims regarding purported death sentences for various individuals have circulated in anti-Iranian media.
Iran condemns assassination threats against Iranian negotiators amid US talks
Press TV – April 11, 2026
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei has called for public condemnation of the assassination threats leveled against Iranian negotiators amid ongoing talks with the United States that are aimed at permanently ending the US-Israeli aggression against the country.
In a post on his X account on Saturday, Baghaei said threats in the US government and media space for assassinating the Iranian negotiators, in case the current talks fail, are part of a discourse that seeks to normalize extortion through violence.
“Is this not, in effect, a policy discourse that normalizes extortion through the threat or public incitement of terror, violence, and manslaughter?” he said in the post.
The spokesman, who is himself accompanying the Iranian delegation in the Pakistani capital of Islamabad for the negotiations with the US, said the threats have come amid claims by the US government accusing Iran of lacking good faith and engaging in extortion amid the talks.
“This express public incitement for state terrorism must be denounced by all,” said Baghaei.
Experts believe the far-right political camp in the US is obviously dismayed by the outcome of the US-Israeli aggression on Iran, which began in late February and ended in a Pakistani-mediated two-week ceasefire last week.
The aggression started and continued with the assassination of senior Iranian political and military leaders, aimed at bringing about a regime change in Iran.
However, the US government finally accepted Iran’s conditions as a baseline for launching the current negotiations in Pakistan.
Iranian authorities have indicated that they would seek compensation for all assassinations committed by the US and the Israeli regime in Iran.
Featured Video
Iran War Confusion & Mixed Messaging /Lt Col Daniel Davis
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
The Tragic Consequences of believing Anti-Science
The Naked Emperor’s Newsletter | January 17, 2023
I try not to write about anyone who has died because if it was my family member I would not want to read any speculations about their death. However, in this case I feel that justice has not been given a chance and therefore it needs highlighting. ... continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Cuba, Nicaragua, Mexico – Pentagon Reportedly Eyeing Targets in Latin America
- Rubio ‘lying’: Cuba slams denial of US blockade; claims debunked
- US, Iran inching closer toward one-page MoU to end war: Axios
- Trump’s Self-Serving Narrative Crashes Against the Reality of War
- ‘Project Freedom’ perishes in 48 hours as Trump retreats under the wall of Iran’s asymmetric deterrence
- Iran War Confusion & Mixed Messaging /Lt Col Daniel Davis
- Israel threatens Gaza flotilla activists with death after abduction
- Met refuses to probe British nationals accused of war crimes in Gaza
- Hezbollah denies activity in Syria amid persistent and false claims
- Melkite bishops concerned over Israeli demolitions in South Lebanon
- If Americans Knew
- An All-American Retort to Israel’s Invasion of Lebanon
- How Dr. Adam Hamawy’s experience as a surgeon in Gaza inspired him to run for Congress
- Under Trump, Green Card Seekers Face New Scrutiny for Views on Israel
- With World Distracted by War, Extremist Settlers Intensify Attacks in West Bank
- Israel’s brutality toward Gaza flotilla activists – 3 articles
- “Spitting and humiliation are daily. People are afraid to walk in Jerusalem with Christian symbols.”
- How the US-Israel Relationship Weakens America and Harms the World
- 1 in 5 amputees in Gaza is a child, UN warns amid prosthetic care crisis
- 6,000 Gazans lack prosthetic and/or rehabilitation care – Daily Update
- As in Gaza, Israel is targeting rescue workers in South Lebanon, killing more than 100 since March
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study: Declining Trends In 1980-2023 Tropical Cyclone Frequency, Accumulated Energy
- 46 IPCC Scientists Break Rank, Publicly Challenge Long-Standing Dogmatic Climate Claims
- Another Study Links Warming To Cloud Forcing, Shortwave Radiation, Natural Atmospheric Circulation
- Wind Energy Is Toxic, Hazardous To Human Health, Scientific Review Shows
- Oversupply Of Volatile Solar Energy Leads To Record NEGATIVE Prices!
- New Study: Extreme Heat Records, Heatwaves, Extreme Cold Records Declining Across US Since 1899
- It’s The Cold, Stupid! Cold 20 Times More Lethal Than Heat, Multiple Studies Show
- European Institute For Climate And Energy: “Climate Debate is Seldom About Science”
- New Study: The Climate May Be 5 Times More Sensitive To Solar Forcing Than Commonly Assumed
- EV Industry Reached $70 Billion In Losses In 2024 Due To Delusional Green Ideologies
Aletho News 