FT hit job on Zelensky is a clue as to Trump’s thinking
By Martin Jay | Strategic Culture Foundation | July 25, 2025
It’s finally happened. After months of pundits wondering when would the moment come when western media would finally take a clear and decisive stand against Ukraine’s venal president, it has finally happened – and by the most ardent pro-EU broadsheet to note. The all-out hit piece on Zelensky recently by the Financial Times should indicate that something is about to happen in Ukraine and it will probably involve the president either having his own Ceausescu moment or simply fleeing the country. How long has he got?
Legacy media always likes to be on the right side of history and for the FT to come out like this with the piece that they’ve written must be ominous. It was published at the same time as the British conservative political chronicle The Spectator did much the same thing. Timing seems to be worth noting given that a few days beforehand unconfirmed ‘reports’ on social media were claiming that Trump had indicated to Zelensky that he needs to step down with even suggestions of who would take his role. It also comes amidst a series of reports which show that Zelensky’s panicking has reached an all-time high with the recent arrest of the of the anti-corruption activist Shabunin. Interestingly, that same day, ex-Minister Oleksandr Kubrakov was also targeted. In both raids at their homes, armed men showed no warrants and blocked lawyers from attending the searches, it is claimed. The arrest of the anti-graft campaigner is significant as is the take of the FT itself: The article says: “A crackdown on the country’s most famous anti-corruption crusader can’t be happening without at least the silent approval from President Zelenskyy, if not active permission,” it explains.
The significance and timing of the FT piece should not be underestimated. It’s not simply that on the battlefield itself that the Russians are advancing and that it becomes more openly accepted that the Ukrainians simply don’t have the men to fight this war, but more about Zelensky himself who is beginning to be portrayed as a dictator now clinging onto power and using all of the vestiges of martial law to crack down on even the faintest trace of dissent. Ukraine is now a totalitarian state with the level of Zelensky’s paranoia now starting to become widely known and discussed. The FT, one of those media giants which largely supported Zelensky and which barely considered elements of his brutal measures worth even reporting, such as the appalling murder of U.S. blogger Gonzalo Lira, is now reporting on even campaigners merely being roughed up by Zelensky’s henchmen – a considerable U-turn and worth noting is the detail it goes into with its zeal. Indeed, it has been the FT which has chosen not to cover a number of stories since the beginning of the war which many would argue created a positive aura around Zelensky which can be noted even as recently as in May when a key opponent of Zelensky was assassinated in broad daylight by a gunman in front of the victim’s children’s school in Madrid. In this case, the murder of Andriy Portnov was covered, but he was portrayed as a criminal “wanted in Kiev for treason”.
The FT’s support of Zelensky is over, we can assume.
It noted that “Shabunin and Kubrakov labelled the recent raids as politically motivated, adding that the SBU had presented no court-issued warrants and would not allow time for their lawyers to be present for the searches”.
Vitaliy Shabunin even is quoted in the article as explaining what the stunt was supposed to achieve. He told the paper, “Zelenskyy is using my case to send a message to two groups that could pose a threat to him. The message is this: if I can go after Shabunin publicly — under the scrutiny of the media and despite public support — then I can go after any one of you”.
The FT goes even further in its analysis of the situation and could even be assessed of being a catalyst to a revolution in the making.
“This is a straight-up, Russian-style scenario of dividing society, which could lead to protests in the streets”, Oleksandra Ustinova MP was quoted in the piece as saying.
The author suggests that the West has little interest any more in keeping up any pretence up that Ukraine is some sort of western democratic country which has had to give up on some of its democratic tenets. This apathy, it claims, is responsible for Zelensky now pushing his authoritarian, brutal control to new levels.
A western diplomat in Kiev who has worked closely with Ukraine’s civil society said the cases of Shabunin and Kubrakov “aren’t isolated events”.
“There’s a sense inside Ukraine’s presidential office that the west and especially the U.S. has shifted its focus,” the diplomat said. “That rule of law and good governance no longer matter as much.” With U.S. attention elsewhere, Zelensky is testing how far he can go, the FT claims, but doesn’t say that this is because he is in his last days and believes he can stay in power if he cracks down even further against those who could potentially pose a threat to him or even question his strategy. The recent dispatch of anti-aircraft missiles from Trump is not expected to do anything as the gesture represents way too little, way too late for it to have any impact. The corner that Trump is backing himself into with this 50-day deadline with Putin is more likely going to result in the man child in the Oval office looking for an easy victim which can distract voters away from the real story of him having to back down from the outlandish threats he has made to Putin.
Western media admits humanitarian catastrophe in Ukraine
By Lucas Leiroz | July 23, 2025
Western media is finally admitting that Ukraine is lying about its official casualty figures. A recent article published by Le Monde revealed that there is ample evidence that military casualties in Ukraine are much higher than official figures indicate, given the growing demand for cemetery space for new burials.
According to Le Monde, all cemetery areas in Ukraine reserved for soldiers are already fully occupied. The overload is forcing authorities to use common cemetery space, which is normally reserved for civilians, as well as to establish various projects to expand current cemeteries and create new ones. The demand for burial space is enormous as more and more dead bodies arrive from the front lines.
“Sections reserved for soldiers are at capacity. Across the country, teams of architects have been working on memorials that reflect not only the scale of the ongoing carnage but also the evolving ideas about national identity,” the article reads.
The journalists interviewed several local Ukrainian architects involved in cemetery construction. Currently, this is one of the country’s main demands, with projects in several regions to build cemeteries exclusively for the burial of soldiers killed on the battlefield. The new cemeteries being built are truly large, with space for approximately ten thousand dead or more. This is consistent with a growing number of casualties, revealing a contradiction between this and the official data published by the Ukrainian government.
The article describes one of the projects, commenting on a cemetery being built along the highway connecting Kiev to Odessa. The project is said to be particularly sensitive, considering that the cemetery will destroy rural communities in the region, causing environmental problems such as deforestation.
“It’s a sandy track, well-hidden among the pines, off the highway connecting Kiev to Odesa in the Hatne region. (…) This is the highway exit that will serve as Ukraine’s future national military memorial cemetery. The project is enormous, highly sensitive and not just because environmental activists and residents of the small village of Markhalivka – 40 kilometers from the capital, but right at the base of the future cemetery – worry about deforestation and the loss of their rural quiet. In the village, only a new brown sign, the color used to mark national sites, marks the road that leads trucks to the site. It reads in English: ‘National Military Memorial Cemetery.’ The first section, designed to hold 10,000 graves and already laid out with broad granite paths, benches and lime trees, is due to receive its first burial this summer. But in the long term, ‘130,000 or even 160,000’ people will be laid to rest at this future burial ground, explained architect Serhi Derbin,” the text adds.
The scale of these cemeteries contrasts sharply with Kiev’s repeated claims of minimal losses, exposing a growing gap between official discourse and the physical reality of war. While government spokespeople continue to insist on controlled casualty rates, the magnitude of the planned cemeteries suggests a conflict with a much greater human cost. The death toll clearly highlights the Kiev regime’s absolute military bankruptcy. There is no way a country can maintain this level of casualties and continue to have “control” over the military situation. If casualties continue at this level, there will soon simply no longer be enough people to fight in the ranks of the neo-Nazi regime.
As is the case in every conflict situation around the world, both sides avoid publishing their real figures. However, there is abundant evidence of the humanitarian tragedy in Ukraine. For example, there have recently been several rounds of body swaps. The difference in numbers was alarming, with a few hundred Russians bodies compared to thousands of Ukrainians. This, combined with information about cemeteries, shows that there are undoubtedly many more Ukrainians dead than Russians—a vital information for assessing which side will win this war.
Until recently, Western media was complicit in hiding the Ukrainian reality. However, the situation has reached an unsustainable point. No one believes narratives like “military stalemate” or “Russian failure” anymore. It’s clear to everyone that the Ukrainian military crisis is irreversible and that Kiev has no future in this conflict. So, to maintain credibility, Western outlets are gradually beginning to admit that the situation in Ukraine is catastrophic.
What these newspapers fail to admit, however, is that the cause of this tragedy is the Kiev regime’s irrational insistence on continuing to fight an unwinnable war. To stop hostilities, Ukraine simply needs to accept Russian peace terms. The quicker the capitulation, the fewer Kiev’s human and territorial losses will be.
Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert.
You can follow Lucas on X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram.
How Zionists Control Australia’s Media
By Kit Klarenberg | Global Delinquents | July 20, 2025
On July 15th, The New York Times published an unprecedented “guest essay” by Brown University’s professor of Holocaust and genocide studies, Omer Bartov. In it, he formally accused Israel of perpetrating genocide in Gaza, and “literally trying to wipe out Palestinian existence.” Bartov, a Zionist and Occupation Force veteran, previously emphatically denied this was the case in a November 2023 op-ed for the outlet. More generally, America’s newspaper of record has hitherto whitewashed, distorted, and obscured Tel Aviv’s horrific crimes on an industrial scale.
Its editors previously explicitly ordered reporters to avoid “inflammatory terms” such as “ethnic cleansing”, “occupied territory”, “genocide”, and even “Palestine”. Wholly fabricated stories about Hamas atrocities and mass rape fed to the outlet by Israeli government, military and intelligence sources have been exposed as tissues of lies by the newspaper’s own staff, but not retracted. As such, for Bartov to acknowledge the Zionist entity is committing genocide, and The New York Times to provide him with a platform to say so, is no small thing.
It speaks volumes about the state of the Western media that admission of this inarguable fact by any source can be considered remotely noteworthy. Since the beginning of Israel’s unconscionable assault on Gaza in October 2023, it has been unambiguously evident the ZOF’s indiscriminate rampage is concertedly genocidal in nature. In April too, the UN formally accused Tel Aviv of committing “genocidal acts” in Gaza, consciously and intentionally “calculated to bring about the physical destruction of Palestinians as a group.”

Palestinians traverse ZOF-inflicted ruins in northern Gaza
This finding, along with identical conclusions drawn by Western rights groups and legal scholars, mysteriously escaped the attention of major news outlets. The obvious question arises as to how the mainstream media remained silent so long – to the point of active complicity – not merely about the Zionist entity’s 21st century Holocaust in Gaza, but Israel’s historic abuse, persecution and slaughter of the Palestinian people. An answer is provided in veteran Australian journalist John Lyons’ 2017 biography, Balcony Over Jerusalem.
Buried in the book is a comprehensive account of how Australia’s Israeli lobby systematically plunges its poisonous hooks into influential editors and reporters Down Under, ensuring they act as dependable propagandists for Tel Aviv. The details are of enormous wider relevance, for as this journalist has previously documented, foreign media outreach is a dedicated, devastatingly effective means by which occupation, land theft, and ethnic cleansing hardwired into Zionism has been successfully concealed from Western audiences for decades. Identical operations are undoubtedly in force across the globe.
‘Hardline Side’
Lyons’ disclosures about the Zionist lobby’s mephitic influence in Australia are all the more remarkable given the author evidently does not perceive Palestinians to be wholly innocent victims. His book’s blurb perversely frames them and Zionists as equal parties in a “devastating war”, and boasts how he has “confronted Hamas officials about why they fire rockets” into Tel Aviv. There is zero insinuation in its contents Lyons denies or even vaguely questions Israel’s ultimate right to exist in some form or other.
Moreover, Balcony Over Jerusalem is rife with sentimental passages recalling trips to the Zionist entity to interview senior officials old and new, his long-running personal friendships with Australian Jews, and work on a major project investigating Jewish identity. This renders Lyons’ critical insights particularly valuable. The vicious backlash that erupted against the author from the Israel lobby within and without Australia in response to his book, which has raged ever since, is also instructive. Those same elements initially sought to foster a warm bond with the veteran journalist.
Lyons explains how once appointed deputy editor of the Sydney Morning Herald in the early 1990s, his “phone began ringing with requests for meetings” with local Jewish groups. Only later did he learn, “once you have ‘deputy’ in your title or are perceived as being on the rise within your media organisation you become a target for cultivation” by Australia’s “fiercely efficient pro-Israel lobby.” Public affairs apparatchiks at local Zionist organisations pestered him for a “year or so” to accept an all-expenses-paid tour of Israel.
Lyons eventually accepted, and in 1996 made his first visit to Tel Aviv, funded by the Melbourne-based Australia/Israel and Jewish Affairs Council. He recorded how “it has become almost a rite of passage for deputy editors of any major Australian news outlet to be offered a ‘study trip’ to Israel.” A senior AIJAC official boasted to Lyons the organisation had “sent at least 600 Australian politicians, journalists, political advisers, senior public servants and student leaders on these trips over the last 15 years.”
Lyons’ “assessment” was, “by ‘educating’ rising media executives, the Israeli lobby has in place editors” across Australia “who ‘understand’ the Israeli-Palestinian conflict” exclusively from the Zionist entity’s warped perspective, and report on local events accordingly. “I barely know an Australian newspaper executive who has not been on one of these trips,” he noted. Lyons and other senior staffers at major local media outlets were flown to Tel Aviv “for five days of wining, dining and briefings (including a stay in a kibbutz).”
Once inside the Zionist entity, he “quickly realised how narrow a range of opinions we were receiving” on the reality on-the-ground there. The trip’s organisers “set us up for an hour or so… to hear the point of view of the Palestinian Authority, but apart from that we were getting only one side of the story – and a hardline side at that.” It rapidly became clear to Lyons “the whole point of the trip was to defend Israel’s settlements in the Palestinian territories.”
‘Like Dresden’
In search of a “broader perspective”, Lyons asked his hosts to visit Hebron, Israel’s illegally occupied portion of the West Bank. The trip was spurred by his understanding that “in Hebron you can see the raw conflict,” as “it’s the only Palestinian city where there is an Israeli settlement in the middle of the Palestinian population; normally, the settlements are separated.” At that time, “several hundred settlers” lived “in the middle of 200,000 Palestinians.”
These settlers were and remain protected by the ZOF, and “the same rules of engagement for the army apply” as in other areas illegally annexed and occupied by Tel Aviv. Immediately upon arrival in Hebron, “the cruelty” of Zionist occupation was “there for all to see.” Lyons saw “how the conflict between the settlers and Palestinians played out at the most basic level.” It is a stomach-churning, life-threatening daily reality hidden from the outside world.
Hebron’s streets are typically empty, as “Palestinians are not able to drive on some roads or walk on others.” Years later, he took his editor on a trip there – they remarked, “it’s like Dresden after the bombing.” Arriving late at night, the pair encountered a “heavy Israeli Army presence” and a “certain eeriness” in the silent, deserted city. His stunned editor asked a ZOF soldier at a “closed checkpoint” into Jerusalem, “where are the Palestinians?” The militant smirkingly replied, “they’re all tucked up in bed!”

A street in Hebron where Palestinians are forbidden to tread
In Hebron, Lyons saw how Palestinians placed “wire over their market stalls to stop them being hit when Jewish settlers living above them throw bricks, chairs, dirty nappies and rotting chickens onto them.” He also witnessed Israeli soldiers “decide, without notice, to lock the Palestinians into the old part of the city at night, behind big security gates that look like cages.” The situation has only worsened subsequently, with illegal settlements – and concomitant ZOF repression – expanding exponentially. Lyons’ appraisal of the West Bank under Zionist rule is stark:
“If the whole world could see the occupation up close, it would demand that it end tomorrow. Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians would not pass muster in the West if the full details were known. The only reason Israel is getting away with this is because it has one of the most formidable public-relations machines ever seen, and enormous support from its diaspora communities… Military occupations look ugly because they are ugly. Israel’s reputation will bleed as long as its control over another people continues.”
Such perspectives are vanishingly rare among the countless Australian opinion-formers who have been treated to Zionist lobby-financed tours of Israel. As Lyons records, “wave after wave of journalists, editors, academics, student leaders and trade union officials” have been whisked to Tel Aviv “to hear the same spin from the same small group of people used to defend Israel’s policies in the West Bank” over the years. Few have followed Lyons’ example in actually visiting the area, to see the horror with their own eyes.
Nonetheless, Lyons’ outlook wasn’t fully fatalistic. He noted that while the Zionist entity’s Hasbara tactics “worked for the first few decades of the occupation, now virtually every incident between an Israeli soldier and a Palestinian is filmed by a mobile phone,” exposing the ZOF’s routine savagery to overseas audiences. Fast forward to today, and the Gaza genocide has been televised globally in real-time not merely by fearless Palestinian journalists, who have often paid for their courage with their lives, but Israeli militants who sickly film their own hideous crimes.

The impact of these horrendous images on global public perceptions of the Zionist entity has been catastrophic, and irreversible. Polls consistently show across the West, even in the few countries that harboured some sympathy for Tel Aviv following October 7th, the overwhelming majority of citizens hold deeply unfavourable views of Israel. Support for the entity and its genocidal actions is becoming increasingly indefensible, as the monstrous truth becomes writ ever-larger. It can only be considered an unspeakable tragedy so many innocent Palestinians had to die for us to reach this point.
No, CBS Boston, Climate Isn’t Making “Extreme Heat the New Normal”
By Anthony Watts | Climate Realism | July 9, 2025
In the CBS Boston (CBS-B) article titled “Is extreme heat the new normal in Boston? What hitting 102 degrees tells us about climate change,” Jacob Wycoff claims that Boston’s recent heat wave is a symptom of climate change and the “new normal.” This is misleading. In fact, long-term temperature records do not support the notion that heat waves are becoming more intense or more frequent in Boston or across the United States. Historical weather data shows that extreme heat events in Boston are neither unprecedented nor evidence of a climate emergency. The notion that a few hot days in June are proof of a systemic climate shift is simply not supported by the broader climate record.
“What used to be ‘unusual’ is fast becoming our new normal,” Wycoff writes. “And if we don’t act to slow warming, this kind of heat won’t be the exception, it’ll be the expectation.
“If greenhouse gas emissions remain unchecked, Boston’s average summer highs could rise by 9 degrees by 2100,” says Wycoff.
Wycoff’s story, as is usually the case in mainstream media stories about climate change, promotes speculative model projections, while ignoring real world data and trends to the contrary.
It’s a familiar tactic: choose the most aggressive, worst-case emissions scenario and present it as destiny. Climate Central, the source for much of the CBS-B story, uses computer model projections based on RCP 8.5, for example. Yet as noted on Climate Realism, even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has stepped back from emphasizing RCP 8.5 as a likely pathway, recognizing that is implausible if not impossible.
This climate alarmist framing glosses over essential context: heat waves like the one Boston just experienced have happened before, well before recent increases in carbon dioxide emissions, and are often the result of local urbanization effects—not global climate trends.
Let’s start with the basic fact that the recent heat in Boston, while certainly hot, is far from unprecedented. According to the National Weather Service data, Boston hit a record high of 102 degrees for June on June 24, 2025. But historical data shows that Boston has experienced significantly high temperatures long before modern climate anxieties took hold. Boston’s previous record June temperature of 100℉ was June 6. 1925, 100 years of global warming ago. The highest all time ever recorded temperature in Boston was 104°F in July 1911, followed by 103°F in July 1926. The city also saw 102°F temperatures in 1911, 1975, and 1977. You can see these highs in the graph below with the most recent one on the far right in the figure below.

Figure: Hottest annual temperatures recorded in Boston, Massachusetts for each year between 1893 and 2025.
So, if recently increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is responsible for this “new normal” as Wycoff claims, how did these even hotter events happen in the past when carbon dioxide levels were lower? His narrative falls apart in this context.
So, no—extreme heat is not the new normal in Boston. It’s part of a long-standing, intermittent pattern of hot weather events. In fact, the heat experienced in June 2025 didn’t even break Boston’s all-time record. It was simply the hottest June day since 1872, not the hottest day ever.
Nor are extended heatwaves new to Boston. In June 1872, Boston experienced eight days of temperatures above 90°F. Boston also had a multi-day stretch of 100-degree temperatures in July 1911, a heat wave that was deadlier and more extreme than what the city experienced in June 2025. That 1911 event resulted in numerous fatalities across the Northeast, a fact documented well before climate change became the default explanation for every summer hot spell.
The CBS-B article cites Climate Central’s claim that Boston’s overnight summer temperatures have increased by 2 degrees Fahrenheit over the past 50 years. But this trend is almost certainly influenced by the well-known Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect, which causes cities to retain more heat, especially overnight, due to heat-absorbing infrastructure like asphalt, concrete, and buildings. This is not a climate crisis; this is local urbanization.
The UHI effect is well-documented and accounts for much of the localized warming in urban centers. In fact, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) acknowledges that “cities tend to be warmer than rural areas, particularly at night, because buildings, roads, and other infrastructure absorb heat during the day and release it slowly after the sun goes down.”
Boston, like most major metropolitan areas, has undergone significant growth over the last century. The city’s population has grown substantially over the past 70 years. With more people bringing with them the development of more houses, buildings, streets, bridges, concrete, blacktop, machinery, and denser development, all of which contribute to warmer temperatures. The temperature increase isn’t a global phenomenon playing out on a Boston street corner—it’s a localized, urbanized one.
Furthermore, the idea that climate change is singularly responsible for making hot days “six times more common” in Boston is based on computer model forecasting, not measured trends. CBS-B leans heavily on Climate Central’s Climate Shift Index, which is a modeled estimate—not direct measurement—of climate influence. These types of attributions rely on climate models that, as Climate Realism has repeatedly shown, consistently overstate future warming compared to observed reality. Research by Roy Spencer Ph.D., has demonstrated that most climate models overestimate warming by up to 50 percent compared to satellite data.
What CBS-B also fails to mention is that heat-related deaths in the U.S. have been declining, not increasing. Thanks to modern air conditioning, improved healthcare, and public awareness, society is far more resilient to heat than it was a century ago. According to a 2022 study published in The Lancet, cold weather still kills significantly more people than heat does.
The CBS-B story is a prime example of lazy climate reporting. It cherry-picks recent temperatures, ignores over a century of weather history, and repeats activist talking points without challenge. CBS-B’s failure to carry out basic fact checking resulted in a story that was alarmingly misleading. The story is an example of the type of “journalism” that is eroding the public’s trust in journalists and mainstream media outlets they report for.
Moscow dismisses US media’s Putin-Iran nuclear claim
RT | July 13, 2025
Moscow has dismissed a US media report claiming that Russian President Vladimir Putin urged Iran to accept a nuclear deal that would strip it of the right to enrich uranium, calling it a dirty ploy to stoke tensions in the region.
In a statement on Sunday, the Russian Foreign Ministry slammed Western outlets as a “tool” in the hands of the political establishment and “deep state,” which it said does not hesitate to resort to any means, including provocative acts and “fake news.”
Russian officials singled out the US outlet Axios, which it described as a “toilet tank” that consistently spreads targeted disinformation, mentioning in particular its recent article titled “Scoop: Putin urges Iran to take ‘zero enrichment’ nuclear deal with US, sources say.”
The Axios story, the ministry said, was “apparently yet another dirty, politicized campaign launched with the aim of escalating tensions around Iran’s nuclear program.” It also reiterated that Moscow’s position remains that the crisis around Iran’s nuclear program should be resolved “exclusively by political and diplomatic means.”
On Friday, Axios reported, citing European and Israeli officials, that Putin told both US President Donald Trump and officials in Tehran following the 12-day Israel-Iran war that he would support a nuclear deal involving “zero enrichment.”
One European official told the paper that Putin encouraged Tehran to move in this direction in order to aid talks with Washington, but noted that the Iranians declined to consider the idea.
Iran’s Tasnim news agency, citing sources, reported that Tehran had received no such messages from Putin.
The US has insisted that Iran commit to zero enrichment as part of a potential nuclear deal, a demand Tehran has dismissed as unacceptable, explaining it needs such capacity for its civilian nuclear program. Iran also maintains it has no plans to create a nuclear bomb.
Case closed after ‘Russian disinfo’ claims led to persecution of NZ journalist

By Kit Klarenberg | The Grayzone | July 12, 2025
Journalist Mick Hall was accused of slipping “Russian disinformation” into copy at New Zealand’s state broadcaster, sparking an international furor about Kremlin infiltration. Following an intel agency investigation, his name was cleared.
Now, Hall tells The Grayzone how a simple copy editing dispute brought him into Five Eyes’ crosshairs.
Until two years ago, Mick Hall was a fairly obscure journalist publishing wire copy for Radio New Zealand (RNZ), far-removed from media capitals like Washington and London where international opinions are shaped. But in June 2023, Hall suddenly became the target of Five Eyes intelligence agencies when he was accused by Western sources – including his own employer – of inserting “Russian disinformation” into wire stories.
What started with a dispute of Hall’s copy edits turned into an investigation by New Zealand’s Inspector General of Intelligence and Security (NZSIS), which briefed top government officials about its probe. For months afterward, major Western media outlets fretted that Kremlin agents had infiltrated New Zealand’s national broadcaster.
But Hall insisted he had been unfairly accused and defamed by a pro-war element driven into the throes of paranoia by the Ukraine proxy war. In November 2024, he lodged a formal complaint against the NZSIS, demanding to know whether Wellington’s primary intelligence service “acted lawfully and properly” and followed “correct procedure” in its investigation, and if any information gathered about him “was shared appropriately, including with overseas partners.”
On April 9, New Zealand’s Inspector General of Intelligence and Security (NZSIS) published the results of the investigation triggered by Hall’s complaint. The Inspector General report noted its investigation lasted between June 10 and August 11 2023, and was closed due to “no concerns of foreign interference” being identified.
The Inspector General acknowledged the intelligence services’ probe was initiated purely due to public “allegations [emphasis added] of foreign interference,” rather than substantive evidence of any kind, and expressed sympathy that Hall found it “disconcerting to discover” he had “come to the attention of an intelligence agency… particularly as a journalist reporting on conflicts where different views can validly be expressed.” However, it concluded NZSIS’ actions were “necessary and proportionate”, and the agency acted “lawful [sic] and properly.”
Hall’s name had been cleared, but he had been denied any recompense for being smeared as a Kremlin agent, and having his career in national media effectively destroyed.
An ounce of truth
The manufactured scandal surrounding Mick Hall’s copy edits trace back to New York City, where a lawyer and Democratic party hack named Luppe B. Luppen erupted in outrage at something he happened across on RNZ’s website.
In a Twitter/X post, Luppen complained that RNZ had republished a Reuters article authored by the news agency’s Moscow bureau chief Guy Faulconbridge, with “utterly false, Russian propaganda” inserted. Namely, that the February 2014 Maidan “revolution” was in fact a “violent” US-sponsored “colour revolution,” provoking a civil war in eastern and southern Ukraine, during which local “ethnic Russians” were “suppressed.”
Mick Hall was responsible for inserting this wording.
He told The Grayzone, “it always seemed odd to me a New York-based lawyer would come across a republished Reuters story on a small national broadcaster’s website in the South Pacific – I’ve not read too much into it, but it felt strange at the time, and still does.” Nonetheless, Hall believed his changes were legitimate given the story’s content, and stands by his decision to this day.
Since joining RNZ in September 2018 as a “digital journalist” and subeditor, he was responsible for selecting and processing news stories from international news agencies and wire services for republication on the broadcaster’s website. Hall frequently found that copy by the BBC, Reuters, and other prominent Western news services contained extraordinary bias and distortions. He felt compelled to balance the coverage by adding context, or amending and deleting passages which seemed overtly ideological.
When the Ukraine proxy war erupted in February 2022, Hall sensed that Western news agencies were not even attempting to conceal their biases any longer.
Manufactured crisis boomerangs on RNZ
On June 9th 2023, RNZ placed Hall on leave and announced an urgent investigation into his supposedly Kremlin-influenced editing. By this point, the foundations of an international scandal had been laid. For months afterwards, “disinformation experts”, think tank hawks, mainstream ‘journalists’ and politicians whipped up a paranoid, conspiratorial frenzy over Hall’s edits. The BBC, Independent, New York Times and Reuters cranked up the controversy with blanket coverage. The Guardian’s obsessively anti-Russian Luke Harding took a particularly keen interest.

Olga Lautman, a Ukrainian nationalist from arms industry-funded think tank CEPA, strongly suggested that Hall was taking orders from the Russian state to insert “disinformation” into RNZ’s output. This libelous conjecture was not helped by RNZ chief Paul Thompson offering a servile public apology, in which he begged for forgiveness for “pro-Kremlin garbage… [ending] up in our stories.” An internal audit identified “inappropriate” edits made by Hall in 49 stories, out of 1,319 he worked on for RNZ in total – exactly 3.71%.
At his lawyer’s suggestion, Hall produced a detailed document listing every story he edited that had been flagged by RNZ for supposedly “inappropriate” tampering. He included personal explanations for why changes were made and passages inserted, along with expert supporting commentary from figures such as economist Jeffrey Sachs and political scientist John Mearsheimer. However, Hall gave up after just 39 stories. “The reasons RNZ flagged the remaining 10 – such as referring to Julian Assange as a journalist – were so ridiculous, it seemed a waste of time,” he explained.
RNZ subsequently appointed an independent panel to assess the fiasco. In a bitter irony, the report they published on July 28 2023 was a rebuke to Hall’s accusers. It declared that “not all of the examples of inappropriate editing identified by RNZ were found by the panel to be inappropriate.” Moreover, the panel accepted Hall “genuinely believed he was acting appropriately,” and “was not motivated by any desire to introduce misinformation, disinformation or propaganda.”
While the report accused Hall of several cases of “inappropriate editing,” breaching both RNZ’s editorial policy and its contractual agreement with Reuters, the panel did not conclude this was deliberate, but a well-intentioned effort to add “balance and accuracy into the stories.” Moreover, the edits flagged by the panel as “inappropriate” were usually factual, and contained valuable historical context. For example, Hall amended a May 2022 story about the attempted evacuation of Mariupol to note that Azov Battalion “was widely regarded before the Russian invasion by Western media as a Neo-Nazi military unit.”
That Azov’s extremist background, history and ideology has been obfuscated and whitewashed since the proxy war began is a basic statement of fact. The panel even acknowledged the group’s neo-Nazi links had “been noted, reported on and debated” previously, but bizarrely found Hall’s “uncritical and unexplained inclusion” of this inconvenient truth “had the effect of unbalancing the story.” This was despite the panel admitting, “experienced people operating in good faith can and do disagree” on editorial standards, which are in any event “matters for judgment”.
Conversely, the review was extremely scathing of how Hall’s “errors were framed” by RNZ’s leadership. Their conduct was found to have “contributed to public alarm and reputational damage which the panel believes was not helpful in maintaining public trust.” It furthermore concluded “the wider structure, culture, systems and processes that facilitated what occurred” were the state broadcaster’s responsibility. Grave “gaps” in supervision and training of RNZ’s “busy, poorly resourced digital news team” were identified. For example, “limitations on changing content” from newswires weren’t clearly communicated to staff.
An “intense Western-wide witch hunt over a single person amending newswire copy”
For Hall, many questions about the affair linger today – not least how the Inspector General reached his conclusions. The report states, “much of the information my inquiry has considered is highly classified, which limits the information I can provide you to explain my findings.” It is difficult to conceive what “highly classified” information NZSIS “considered” given the public nature of the allegations against Hall. What’s more, both the independent review panel and NZSIS cleared him of any wrongdoing within two months of the first accusations.
Similarly curious was the vague language which filled the three-page report. For example, it claimed that NZSIS had taken “relatively limited steps” in investigating Hall. Yet it failed to clarify which steps were taken. Confusing matters even further, the Inspector General admitted “NZSIS shared information about the conclusion of its enquiries with interested parties… to allay concerns of foreign interference.” The identity of those “interested parties,” and why it was NZSIS’ responsibility to ameliorate their baseless anxieties, was also unclear.
“We’ll likely never know the answer to any of these mysteries. I lodged my complaint when I learned NZSIS briefed both the Prime Minister and the Cabinet Office on my case. I also have grounds to believe at least one of Wellington’s Western intelligence partners was given information on me,” Hall tells The Grayzone.
“This was a simple matter of minor procedural errors on my part, and disagreement over editorial standards with RNZ’s management, which could’ve been quietly and professionally resolved internally. Instead, I was thrust into the glare of the international media and the Five Eyes global spying network. The intense Western-wide witch hunt over a single person amending newswire copy at a tiny news outlet could indicate there was some kind of deeper, darker coordination at play. Again though, we’ll probably never know.”
“Politically motivated” UK intelligence report maligns Iran
Press TV – July 10, 2025
Iran has categorically rejected a report by the United Kingdom’s parliament’s intelligence watchdog as “unfounded and politically-motivated,” warning that such a “hostile” move reveals a broader attempt of distortion aimed at maligning the Islamic Republic’s legitimate regional and national interests.
On Thursday, Britain’s Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament (ISC) alleged that Iran has “significantly increased” its threats within the UK, claiming that Iranian spies have been behind at least 15 attempts to kill or kidnap British-based individuals since 2022.
The accusations drew a swift response from the Iranian Embassy in London, which issued a “categorical rejection of the unfounded, politically motivated and hostile allegations” leveled by the ISC against Tehran.
“The Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran firmly denies all allegations made in these sections and considers them to be baseless, irresponsible, and reflective of a broader pattern of distortion intended to malign Iran’s legitimate regional and national interests. These claims not only lack substantive evidence but also contradict the Islamic Republic of Iran’s principled commitment to international law, sovereign equality, and peaceful coexistence,” the statement stressed.
The embassy also emphasized that not only is the report not grounded in reality and unhelpful in resolving misunderstandings, but it also presents false information to the public and policy-makers, thereby distorting the understanding of the issue and leading to miscalculations.
“The suggestion that Iran engages in or supports acts of physical violence, espionage, or cyber aggression on British soil or against British interests abroad, is wholly rejected. Such accusations are not only defamatory but also dangerous, fueling unnecessary tensions and undermining diplomatic norms,” it further emphasized.
Iran’s Embassy in London also advised the authors of the report to focus on the real roots of the region’s challenges—namely, the grave crimes and illegal aggressions committed by the Israeli regime with the support of its Western allies—instead of making baseless accusations against Iran.
“When western countries turn a blind eye to all the war crimes, genocide, crimes against humanity, and aggression which are certainly violations of international law by the Israeli regime, they inevitably have to open their eyes to genuine reactions against the aggressors,” it added.
The statement also denounced the continued weaponization of baseless intelligence assessments in an attempt to justify hostile policies, urging the UK to “refrain from further disseminating false information that damages bilateral relations and regional stability.”
UN Regularly Spread Ukraine’s Lies — Moscow on Guterres’ Remarks on Russian Drone Attacks
Sputnik – 10.07.2025
United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres and his subordinates regularly spread the lies fabricated by Kiev and Western countries, the Russian Foreign ministry said on Thursday, commenting on the UN chief’s remark about the allegedly largest series of attacks by Russian UAVs and missiles.
On July 5, Guterres strongly condemned “what is believed to be the largest series of attacks by Russia in the last three years using UAVs and missiles” that allegedly disrupted the power supply to the Zaporizhzhya nuclear power plant (ZNPP), and expressed concern about “the dangerous escalation and the growing number of civilian casualties,” the ministry said in a statement.
“[Antonio] Guterres and his subordinates regularly pick up and replicate the lies fabricated by the Kiev regime and Western capitals and aimed at discrediting Russia. They consistently keep silent about Kiev’s flagrant violations of international humanitarian law or, at best, limit themselves to calls for restraint on both sides. With such double standards, the Secretariat’s leadership grossly violates Article 100 of the UN Charter, which requires it to adhere to the principles of impartiality and equidistance,” the ministry said.
It is absurd to assume that Russia has grounds to create difficulties for the safe operation of the ZNPP, as it is Moscow that is responsible for ensuring the safety of the plant, the statement read, adding that the Russian armed forces only strike Ukraine’s military targets, while Kiev constantly attacks civilian targets.
“Russia insists that UN officials abandon their biased course, demands that they stop acting as mouthpieces for Western propaganda and disseminators of disinformation and fakes, take a neutral and responsible position befitting their status, and rely only on verified sources of information,” the statement said.
Hamas rejects US allegations of Gaza aid centre attack
MEMO | July 7, 2025
The Government Media Office in Gaza has officially rejected claims by the US State Department alleging that the Palestinian resistance carried out a “bomb attack” targeting American personnel at aid distribution centres operated by the so-called “Gaza Humanitarian Foundation – GHF”.
In a statement issued on Sunday, the office said the accusations were entirely baseless and part of a clear attempt to justify the continued killing and starvation of Palestinian civilians in Gaza. It added that the claims reflect full alignment with the Israeli military narrative, which aims to legitimise war crimes by using fabricated security pretexts to justify excessive force against civilians.
The statement described GHF not as a humanitarian organisation, but as a security and intelligence front supported by both Israel and the United States.
The media office held the foundation responsible for the deaths of 751 civilians, injuries to 4,931 others, and the disappearance of 39 people. These casualties, it said, resulted from the chaos and danger surrounding the aid distribution centres established by the foundation in exposed and unsafe areas.
The statement stressed that the US State Department’s narrative seeks to whitewash the image of an organisation involved in war crimes. It also pointed out that over 130 international humanitarian organisations refuse to cooperate with GHF, viewing it as a cover for Israeli military objectives.
The IAEA and OPCW – How International Organisations Became Tools of War
21st Century Wire | July 2, 2025
Dr. Piers Robinson is a political scientist, a former professor at the University of Sheffield, as well a research director at the International Center for 9/11 Justice, whose recent article on Substack is titled, “The IAEA and OPCW: Watchdogs for Peace or Propagandists for War?” looks at the IAEA’s questionable operations in Iran, and the similarities to the abused OPCW in Syria, and in general the role of “lying through institutions”, and plying war-propaganda through third-party institutions.
Recent events in Iran have all but exposed how these supposed ‘watchdog’ institutions have been coopted and used by US and British intelligence in order to fabricate another case for war.
Pascal Lottaz, host of Neutrality Studies, talks with the co-director for the Organisation for Propaganda Studies, Dr Piers Robinson, about this, as well as the broader geopolitical implications at play here. Watch:
How Israeli propaganda mills recycled fabricated claims of intercepting Iranian missiles
By Ivan Kesic | Press TV – July 5, 2025
For the third time, the Israeli regime has declared an implausible success rate in intercepting Iranian ballistic missiles, this time touting a fanciful figure of 86 percent, a claim parroted with little scrutiny by much of the Western mainstream media.
This week, Israeli media outlets relayed statements from the regime’s war ministry claiming that 86 percent of Iranian missiles and 99 percent of drones were intercepted during the June 2025 Israeli war against Iran.
The figures, they said, were drawn from 12 days of the war, during which Iran launched 532 ballistic missiles in approximately 42 barrages targeting the occupied Palestinian territories. According to the same sources, about 300 missiles landed in “open areas,” while 200 were allegedly intercepted by Israeli and American air defense systems.
The interception systems credited include Israel’s David’s Sling, Arrow 2 and 3, along with the US-supplied THAAD and Aegis systems, altogether costing around 5 billion shekels, or nearly $1.5 billion.
In a triumphant assessment, the Israeli war ministry claimed their interception prevented over $15 billion in potential property damage and “saved countless lives.”
Some Zionist officials went even further, asserting that only 25 to 31 Iranian ballistic missiles actually struck targets within the occupied territories.
Despite the glaring inconsistencies in these numbers, and their defiance of both available evidence and basic mathematics, Western media repeated the claims almost reverently, offering little in the way of critical examination.
A pattern of fabricated success
This is not a one-off occurrence. It marks the third time the Israeli regime has released clearly falsified data on interception success rates, only to see these narratives absorbed uncritically into Western discourse.
After Iran’s Operation True Promise 1 and 2 in April and October last year, Israeli regime officials boasted a now-familiar “99 percent” interception rate. In the second operation alone, they claimed 200 Iranian ballistic missiles were launched, implying that only two managed to bypass Israeli defenses.
Yet satellite imagery tells a vastly different story. At Nevatim Airbase, one of the three key Iranian targets (alongside Tel Nof Airbase and Mossad headquarters), 33 Iranian missiles made direct contact, 26 of which caused severe structural damage, including to five hangars.
These figures alone debunk Israel’s exaggerated claims, as does independent footage from civilian sources, which recorded dozens of strikes, far more than the “three” the regime was willing to admit.
Tel Nof Airbase saw direct hits that triggered secondary explosions among stored munitions. At least two missiles impacted areas near Mossad’s headquarters. In total, over 40 Iranian missiles successfully penetrated much-hyped Israeli defenses during Operation True Promise 2, twenty times more than Israeli officials conceded.
Their missile launch count was also exaggerated. Visual evidence confirms that 53 missiles were launched in three waves: 25 from Kermanshah, 18 from Tabriz, and 10 from Shiraz. This suggests that over 75 percent of Iranian missiles struck their intended targets, an accuracy rate far closer to Iranian estimates of 90 percent than the Israeli claim of 1 percent success.
The same distortions appeared after Operation True Promise 1, with Israel again insisting it intercepted “99 percent of 300 missiles and drones”—a figure clearly contradicted by publicly available footage capturing numerous impacts.
Latest round of deception
As with the previous two retaliatory operations, the latest Israeli claims, of an 86 percent interception rate, 300 harmless impacts in open areas, and only 30 successful Iranian strikes, lack any verifiable evidence.
Most Iranian retaliatory strikes and Israeli interception attempts occurred at night and were recorded in numerous public videos. These show luminous streaks of incoming missiles, and often, impact explosions, across the occupied territories.
All Israeli systems engaged, David’s Sling, Arrow 2/3, and THAAD use hit-to-kill technology, designed to intercept missiles at long ranges and high altitudes. When successful, these intercepts generate massive hypersonic collisions that produce blinding explosions visible across the region.
If Israel had indeed intercepted 200 ballistic missiles, as claimed, there would be a flood of corroborating footage from personal and security cameras, all time- and date-stamped.
But such evidence is conspicuously absent. Even the Israeli military, known for showcasing its “successes,” has failed to release convincing proof.
Nor is there any physical evidence of widespread missile debris in Iraq or Jordan, which should exist if large numbers of missiles had been intercepted in those areas.
Conversely, hundreds of videos document Iranian missiles piercing Israeli defenses and detonating across the occupied territories. If most Iranian missiles were truly falling into uninhabited open zones, as claimed, the regime would be eager to release images proving it. Instead, photo and video censorship has been rigorously enforced.
In fact, the scale of destruction suggests widespread strikes on Israeli military infrastructure, not craters in farmland. Israeli media themselves have pegged total damage at $12 billion, with projections reaching $20 billion when indirect costs are counted.
These staggering figures are inconsistent with the claim that only 25–31 missiles hit, unless one believes each missile inflicted $500, 800 million in damage, an implausible notion.
The official 86 percent success rate also contradicts a statement by a senior Israeli intelligence officer to American media, who admitted that by the seventh day of fighting, only 65 percent of Iranian missiles were being intercepted.
He attributed this drop in effectiveness to Iran’s deployment of faster, more maneuverable, and more sophisticated missiles.
Initially, Iran had used older liquid-fueled ballistic missiles, such as Shahab-3, known for their slow speed and predictable trajectories, making them easier to intercept. However, these outdated models were paired with decoys, confusing air defense systems and draining interceptor stockpiles.
Despite the extensive documentation of missile attacks, no comprehensive analysis has yet detailed how many Iranian missiles and Israeli interceptors were deployed, or what the true interception rate was.
Open-source analysts have attempted estimates using nighttime footage from Jordanian photographer Zaid M. al-Abbadi, but his recordings cover only a fraction of the conflict, nighttime only, with limited geographical and vertical scope.
Nonetheless, they point to a clear trend: Iranian missiles breached Israeli air defenses far more often than official figures admit, and did so with a frequency higher than the number of interceptors deployed.
Diversions and disinformation
In addition to exaggerating interception figures, the Israeli regime employs a range of propaganda tactics to conceal its failures and downplay Iranian achievements.
During Operation True Promise 1, iconic images of glowing Iranian missiles above Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock in occupied Jerusalem al-Quds stunned the world, symbolizing Iran’s reach and resolve.
In response, Israeli regime officials, most notably UN ambassador Gilad Erdan, offered the bizarre narrative that Israel was “protecting Al-Aqsa from Iranian missiles,” attempting to sow discord between Iran and the wider Muslim world.
In truth, those missiles were aimed at Nevatim Airbase, located 65 kilometers south of occupied Jerusalem al-Quds.
Similarly, during Operation True Promise 3, Israeli propagandists claimed Iran had deliberately struck the Al-Jarina Mosque in Haifa. In reality, a missile hit the Sail Tower regime building complex 50 meters southeast, with the mosque sustaining only minor facade damage from shockwaves.
Israel also falsely alleged Iranian attacks on schools and homes. But released images show damage consistent not with Iranian warheads, but with malfunctioning Israeli interceptors.
Perhaps the most egregious example was the claim that Iran targeted Soroka Hospital. In fact, the damage was from a strike on a nearby C4I military intelligence HQ. The regime routinely positions military infrastructure adjacent to civilian areas, then manipulates resulting collateral damage as evidence of Iranian wrongdoing.
Facilities like the Kirya military base in Tel Aviv and the military-linked Weizmann Institute are presented as “civilian” in official narratives. Moreover, videos of Iranian missile strikes on these sites are heavily censored, and sharing such footage risks severe legal punishment.
Finally, Israeli propaganda claims that missile victims are mostly “non-Israelis”—while failing to mention that non-Jewish residents are often banned from entering bomb shelters.
During the recent war, Palestinians, Chinese workers, and Turkish journalists all testified to being denied shelter access, highlighting both systemic discrimination and the hypocrisy of Israeli victimhood narratives.
Can international institutions be reformed?
By Raphael Machado | Strategic Culture Foundation | June 30, 2025
It appears that Israel and Iran have postponed World War III and, for now, seem to adhere to the ceasefire negotiated by Donald Trump (likely with the help of other countries). But even if the “12-Day War” has stopped and missiles are no longer flying back and forth, doubts remain about the fate of Iran’s nuclear program.
The U.S. government insists that Iran’s nuclear program no longer exists, while Iran maintains that its nuclear program is still operational. All signs indicate that the Iranians are correct and that the U.S. is once again constructing a purely simulated parallel reality for the sake of narrative power projection.
But the main issue is not this—it is, in fact, something few have mentioned, as recently noted by Sergey Lavrov: the role of Rafael Grossi and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
The IAEA was founded in 1957 as an “autonomous” agency—though linked to the UN—with the goal of monitoring nations’ use of nuclear energy to promote peaceful applications and prevent the construction of nuclear weapons. In this capacity, IAEA teams visit nuclear power plants, research centers, and other facilities related to national nuclear programs to conduct safety checks and oversee enrichment levels.
However, it is important to note that despite its claims of “autonomy,” the IAEA was established at the insistence of the U.S., shortly after the abandonment of the post-WWII “utopian” idea of keeping nuclear weapons under the exclusive control of the UN. The institution has always been closer to the interests of the Western Bloc than to those of the Eastern Bloc or the Non-Aligned Movement.
That said, in the past, the IAEA did challenge U.S. claims about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, under the leadership of Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei.
But even during ElBaradei’s tenure, there were signs of a shift toward Western alignment. In writings from that period, ElBaradei advocated for a revival of the utopian, globalist vision of nuclear energy monopolized by a “multinational” agency—much like the various Western agencies controlled or influenced by the U.S. ElBaradei himself became a collaborator with the U.S. after his term ended, participating in the color revolution orchestrated in Egypt against Hosni Mubarak.
It was only during Yukiya Amano’s leadership that the IAEA’s collaboration with the U.S. became evident, thanks to WikiLeaks revelations. According to documents obtained by Julian Assange, in a meeting between Amano and U.S. diplomats, Amano explicitly stated that he was aligned with the U.S. regarding staffing decisions and the stance to be taken on Iran’s nuclear program. This, of course, meant that Amano filled the IAEA with U.S. collaborators. He was later accused by IAEA staff themselves of having a pro-Western bias.
This context helps explain the behavior of Rafael Grossi, Amano’s successor.
Fast-forward to June: Grossi prepared a report accusing Iran of failing to meet its obligations to the IAEA and scheduled a board meeting for the same day Trump’s 60-day ultimatum on negotiations with Iran expired. According to CNN, the U.S. contacted several board members to persuade them to vote in favor of Grossi’s resolution. The purpose was to lend an institutional veneer of legitimacy to Israel’s attacks against Iran.
Grossi’s report was entirely based on information provided by Mossad, which alleged the existence of previously unknown nuclear facilities containing traces of enriched uranium.
All evidence suggests that Grossi was aware of the imminent attack and collaborated in creating a pretext to justify Israel’s actions. This is further corroborated by the fact that Grossi has never once turned his attention to Israel’s nuclear program, which remains entirely opaque, free from any international inspections.
In light of these revelations, it is alarming that, as Grossi told the Financial Times earlier this year, he intends to run for UN Secretary-General. Given his track record, it is plausible that he will have U.S. backing, which would greatly aid his candidacy.
Cases like this are not isolated. We have seen how the International Criminal Court (ICC) moved to accuse Vladimir Putin and Russia of “kidnapping” Ukrainian children. The World Health Organization (WHO), meanwhile, attempted to override national sovereignty during the pandemic. The IMF is routinely used to deindustrialize Third World countries.
The list could go on.
The key issue, however, is this: Given the current state of international institutions, can they be reformed?
Or will we need to abandon them—as Iran did with the IAEA—and build new ones from scratch?
