Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

US admits F-35 program failure after decades and trillions spent

Al Mayadeen | October 7, 2025

Nearly 25 years after awarding Lockheed Martin the contract to build the Joint Strike Fighter Program, Responsible Statecraft analyst Dan Grazier says that the US government has finally admitted that the F-35 will never achieve the combat capabilities it was designed to deliver.

A new Government Accountability Office (GAO) report released last month details the program’s ongoing issues and includes a key acknowledgment: “The program plans to reduce the scope of Block 4 to deliver capabilities to the warfighter at a more predictable pace than in the past.”

Grazier says that this statement, while phrased bureaucratically, is a quiet admission that the F-35 will not meet its original goals. “Reducing the scope of Block 4” effectively means that planned combat capabilities are being abandoned.

The Joint Strike Fighter Program began in the early 2000s as the Pentagon’s most ambitious weapons development initiative, a single aircraft platform meant to serve multiple branches of the US military and allied nations.

However, as the GAO report notes, many of the F-35’s core design elements remain incomplete. Officials were unable to finish the jet’s baseline development on time or within budget. Instead of admitting failure, they rebranded the process as the “modernization phase,” also known as Block 4, to mask ongoing design work.

Grazier says “reducing the scope” of this modernization effort confirms that many of the F-35’s touted features in areas like electronic warfare, weapons integration, and navigation will never materialize.

Lockheed Martin’s ‘modernization’ phase masks ongoing failures

The decision marks a stunning reversal for the Pentagon, which for years defended the F-35 as the future of aerial warfare. With costs exceeding $2 trillion, the program has become the most expensive weapons project in history.

For two decades, Lockheed Martin and US military officials promised a revolutionary fighter jet that would ensure American air superiority for generations. Instead, the GAO findings reveal a project mired in delays, performance shortfalls, and spiraling expenses.

The report also highlights how the Pentagon reclassified unfinished development work as “modernization” to secure continued funding and avoid scrutiny from Congress.

Fallout for US allies and global weapons sales

Grazuer states that the ramifications of the F-35’s shortcomings go beyond wasted money. 19 countries have purchased or plan to operate the aircraft, including the United Kingdom, Norway, and Italy, many of whom were partners in the program from the outset.

These nations invested heavily, expecting the world’s most advanced fighter jet. Instead, they now face rising costs and reduced performance. For allies that committed billions based on Washington’s assurances, the admission could strain future defense spending cooperation and arms sales.

If the US military cannot deliver the promised technology, Grazier says skepticism toward future US weapons programs may grow, reducing trust in the country’s defense industry.

A symbol of flawed defense spending and mismanagement

The Responsible Statecraft report says the F-35 program has become a cautionary tale of overreach, that of an effort to design one aircraft to meet the needs of multiple branches and allies, while serving political and industrial interests at home.

As critics note, trying to build a single jet to satisfy at least 15 militaries worldwide was doomed from the start. What was intended as a triumph of innovation has turned into a $2 trillion emblem of waste, inefficiency, and failed accountability in US defense policy.

For the Pentagon and Lockheed Martin, Grazier says the F-35 may not stand as the future of warfare, but as a monument to the limits of ambition and the dangers of unchecked defense spending.

October 7, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , | Leave a comment

Pro-EU Czech PM concedes election defeat

RT | October 4, 2025

The right-wing party of agricultural tycoon Andrej Babis, branded the ‘Czech Trump’ by local media, has come out ahead in the Czech general election with 97% of the vote counted, according to official results.

The ANO movement is now set to replace the current center-right cabinet led by Prime Minister Petr Fiala. He has already congratulated Babis, conceding defeat and stating the outcome of the vote must be respected.

Speaking to reporters after his victory became evident, Babis once again rejected longstanding accusations of being anti-EU and insisted he merely wants to “save” the bloc.

“We want to save Europe… and we are clearly pro-European and pro-NATO,” Babis told Reuters.

ANO will seek a one-party cabinet but will have to enter talks with two minor parties to secure an outright majority, Babis said. One of the parties is believed to be the far-right SPD, which has long been considered a potential coalition partner.

“We went into the election with the aim of ending the government of Petr Fiala and support even for a minority cabinet of ANO is important for us and it would meet the target we had for this election,” SPD deputy chairman Radim Fiala said in a televised speech. In contrast to ANO, his party maintains an explicit anti-EU and anti-NATO stance.

Another potential coalition partner is the Motorists, who strongly oppose the EU’s environmental policies. They and the SPD received nearly 7% and 8% of the vote respectively, and joining forces with ANO would be sufficient to secure a majority.

During his campaign, Babis repeatedly criticized the EU’s handling of immigration and the Green Deal, as well as opposing EU membership for Ukraine. He also pledged to drastically cut aid for Kiev, promising more domestic spending instead. Babis signaled he would end the so-called ‘Czech initiative’ project, dedicated to supplying ammunition to Ukraine, calling the scheme overpriced.

October 4, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

US strikes another vessel off Venezuela, killing four

Al Mayadeen | October 3, 2025

The United States has escalated its military campaign in Latin America, carrying out yet another deadly strike off the coast of Venezuela under the false pretext of fighting narcotics trafficking.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced the latest strike in a post on X, celebrating the destruction of a small vessel that US officials claimed was carrying drugs. A video accompanying the post showed the boat erupting into flames, a scene observers say reveals Washington’s growing reliance on extrajudicial force and its willingness to kill without evidence, trial, or accountability.

“Four male narco-terrorists aboard the vessel were killed in the strike,” Hegseth wrote, asserting that it “was conducted in international waters just off the coast of Venezuela while the vessel was transporting substantial amounts of narcotics — headed to America to poison our people.” He vowed, “These strikes will continue until the attacks on the American people are over!!!!”

The latest strike brings the death toll to at least 21 people across four attacks in recent weeks, none of whom have been positively identified as traffickers. Washington has offered no independent proof linking the victims to drug networks, raising concerns that the US is unilaterally executing individuals in foreign waters under a fabricated pretext.

This new military doctrine stems from President Donald Trump’s declaration that the United States is now in “armed conflict” with drug cartels, reclassifying them as “terrorist organizations”, a move legal scholars have condemned as an attempt to bypass international law. A Pentagon notice sent to Congress, obtained by AFP, claimed: “The president determined these cartels are non-state armed groups, designated them as terrorist organizations, and determined that their actions constitute an armed attack against the United States.” The same document described alleged smugglers as “unlawful combatants”, stripping them of legal protection under the Geneva Conventions.

Rights groups have warned that such terminological manipulation echoes past US practices, from the “war on terror” to the invasions of Panama and Iraq, where legal gray zones were exploited to justify preemptive violence and regime change.

Political Theater and Extrajudicial Killings

The Trump administration has openly celebrated these operations as demonstrations of strength rather than law enforcement. Trump’s communications director, Steven Cheung, declared that traffickers had been “turned into stardust.” On Truth Social, Trump himself echoed the narrative, writing: “A boat loaded with enough drugs to kill 25 TO 50 THOUSAND PEOPLE was stopped, early this morning off the Coast of Venezuela, from entering American Territory.”

But independent analysts and international law experts argue that the campaign bears all the hallmarks of a covert regime change operation. The strikes come amid an unprecedented US military buildup near Venezuela, including the deployment of F-35 warplanes to Puerto Rico, marking the largest show of force in the Caribbean in more than three decades. Venezuela’s Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino condemned the presence of US jets near Venezuelan airspace as “a provocation” and “a threat to our national security.”

October 4, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

32% of Mass Shooters Are Veterans. 0% of Media Outlets Will Say So.

By David Swanson | Let’s Try Democracy | September 29, 2025

Two U.S. military veterans allegedly shot and killed at least three people each this past weekend, Thomas Jacob Sanford in Michigan, and Nigel Max Edge in North Carolina. So, it is a safe bet that they will both be added (with, almost certainly, no mention of their status as veterans) to the database maintained by Mother Jones that I have for years been using as a starting point to track statistics on mass shootings.

It’s been almost two years since I posted an update. In that time, Mother Jones has added seven mass shootings to its database. These two new ones will make nine. Of those other seven, one of the shooters — bizarrely, and I hope nobody gets reprimanded — is actually identified as a veteran by Mother Jones. Another of the seven was 14 years old and yet another was 67; they don’t factor into calculations about men under 60. Another was a veteran of an institution that uses the word “veteran” to associate itself with the military: football. He blamed his football injuries for his crime. He counts statistically as NOT a military veteran. In a quick internet search, I’ve been unable to identify any of the others as military veterans either, so will count them as non-veterans. But it’s worth noting that often in the past I’ve managed to find out about veteran status only after lengthy searching.

So, the data has now changed from 40 of 127 mass shooters (who are men under 60) being military veterans when last I wrote about this to now 43 of 134 mass shooters being military veterans. That’s 32%, up from 31%. That figure has been between 31% and 36% for as long as I’ve been doing these calculations

In the United States, only a very small percentage of men under 60 are military veterans.

In the United States, at least 32% of male mass shooters under 60 (which is almost all mass shooters) are military veterans.

As I reported in June 2023, a University of Maryland report touching on this topic was virtually ignored by media outlets.

But here are the facts:

Looking at males, aged 18-59, veterans are well over twice, maybe over three times as likely to be mass shooters compared with the group as a whole. And they shoot somewhat more fatally.

The numbers have changed slightly since I began writing about this:

The training and conditioning and arming of shooters is of far less interest to media outlets than “motivation,” but what we should actually know about shooters’ ideology is not unrelated to the disproportionate presence of military veterans in the list of mass shooters. These are people who have been armed and trained and conditioned at public expense and then generally thanked for the supposed service of what they’ve done when it has not yet included shooting any of the wrong people.

All sorts of correlations are carefully examined when it comes to mass shooters. But the fact that the largest institution in the United States has trained many of them to shoot is scrupulously avoided.

Many of those mass shooters who are not military veterans tend to dress and speak as if they were. Some of them are veterans of police forces with military-sounding titles, or have been prison guards or security guards. Counting those who’ve been in either the U.S. military or a police force or a prison or worked as an armed guard of any kind would give us an even larger percentage of mass shooters to consider. The factor of having been trained and employed to shoot is larger than just the military veterans, yet carefully ignored by every single U.S. corporate media outlet (that sounds like an exaggeration, but can you prove it wrong?).

Some of the non-military mass-shooters have worked as civilians for the military. Some have tried to join the military and been rejected. The whole phenomenon of mass-shootings has skyrocketed during the post-2001 endless wars. The militarism of mass-shootings may be too big to see, but the avoidance of the topic is stunning.

Needless to say, out of a country of over 330 million people a database of 134 mass shooters is a very, very small group. Needless to say, statistically, virtually all veterans are not mass shooters. But that can hardly be the reason for not a single news article ever mentioning that mass shooters are very disproportinately likely to be veterans. After all, statistically, virtually all males, mentally ill people, domestic abusers, Nazi-sympathizers, loners, and gun-purchasers are also not mass-shooters. Yet articles on those topics proliferate like NRA campaign bribes.

There seem to me to be two key reasons that a sane communications system would not censor this topic. First, our public dollars and elected officials are training and conditioning huge numbers of people to kill, sending them abroad to kill, thanking them for the “service,” praising and rewarding them for killing, and then some of them are killing where it is not acceptable. This is not a chance correlation, but a factor with a clear connection.

Second, by devoting so much of our government to organized killing, and even allowing the military to train in schools, and to develop video games and Hollywood movies, we’ve created a culture in which people imagine that militarism is praiseworthy, that violence solves problems, and that revenge is one of the highest values. Virtually every mass shooter has used military weaponry. Most of those whose dress we are aware of dressed as if in the military. Those who’ve left behind writings that have been made public have tended to write as if they were taking part in a war. So, while it might surprise many people to find out how many mass shooters are veterans of the military, it might be harder to find mass shooters (actual veterans or not) who did not themselves think they were soldiers.

There seems to me to be one most likely reason that it’s difficult to find out which shooters have been in the military (meaning that some additional shooters probably have been, about whom I’ve been unable to learn that fact). We’ve developed a culture dedicated to praising and glorifying participation in war. It need not even be a conscious decision, but a journalist convinced that militarism is laudable would assume it was irrelevant to a report on a mass shooter and, in addition, assume that it was distasteful to mention that the man was a veteran. That sort of widespread self-censorship is the only possible explanation for the complete whiting out of this story.

The phenomenon of shutting down this story does not exactly require a “motive,” and I would like to recommend to reporters on mass shootings that they, too, devote a bit less energy to the often meaningless hunt for “a motive,” and a tad more to considering whether the fact that a shooter lived and breathed in an institution dedicated to mass shooting might be relevant.

UPDATE SEPTEMBER 29, 2025: 

Shockingly, CBS News did one article on this topic two years ago. Here it is. The seven people who wrote it used a database from the Violence Project and did not separate out men or men of any particular age. They concluded that 26% of mass shooters were veterans, as compared to 7% of all people. In other words, a mass shooter is over 3 times as likely to be a veteran.

It’s always seemed more relevant to me to remove the very few mass shooters who are female or young or old, and then compare to 18-59-year-old men in the general population. The closest I can come to putting an exact number on that is like this. The U.S. Census says that in 2024, males 19-59 were 88,300,644 or 25.96% of the population. (This is imperfect because it looks at only one year, because it is an estimate, because it leaves out 18 years olds, and because it includes non-citizens who were not eligible for or did not live in the United States at the age for being in the U.S. military.) According to the Department of Veterans Affairs, of men aged 20-59 (so, missing 18-19-year-olds), 6,565,138 as of 2024 were veterans. That’s 7.43% of all men aged 19-59. If we compare 32% with 7%, mass shooters are over 4.5 times more likely to be veterans.

October 4, 2025 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Militarism | | Leave a comment

Ukraine’s Patriots can’t tackle Russian missiles – FT

RT | October 2, 2025

The Russian military has modified its missiles to better evade Ukrainian air defenses, including US-made Patriot systems – often seen as a key linchpin of Kiev’s shield – the Financial Times reported on Thursday, citing officials in Kiev and the West.

According to officials interviewed by the FT, Russian missiles can now follow a normal arc before veering into a steep terminal dive or executing maneuvers that “confuse and avoid” Patriot interceptors. The outlet cited recent strikes against Ukrainian drone facilities as a strong indication that Russia has likely upgraded the Iskander-M mobile system and the air-launched Kinzhal.

One former Ukrainian official called the added maneuverability “a game changer for Russia,” the newspaper reported, adding that deliveries of US-supplied Patriot interceptors, essentially the only weapon in Ukraine’s arsenal capable of tackling Moscow’s ballistic missiles, are not coming as quickly as planned.

The paper also noted that data released by the Ukrainian Air Force shows that the rate of interception of Russian ballistic missiles improved over the summer, reaching 37% in August, but then fell to just 6% in September.

Ukraine shares data on Patriot battlefield performance with the Pentagon and weapons producers, according to the FT. Officials told the outlet that while efforts are being made to improve the Patriots’ performance, they often lag behind Moscow’s evolving tactics.

Ukraine’s Air Force flagged similar concerns in May. Spokesman Yury Ignat said that the ballistic trajectories of the Iskander-M missiles “have been improved and modernized” while the projectiles could fire off radar decoys. He also complained that Ukraine’s domestically designed air defenses are unable to shoot down most of the Russian missiles, while those produced in the West are used to cover key infrastructure and other high-priority targets.

Moscow has repeatedly said its strikes only target military-related infrastructure, defense industry, and troop deployment bases and are never aimed at civilians.

October 2, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

EU leaders ‘want to go to war’ with Russia – Orban

RT | October 2, 2025

The EU leadership appears intent on pushing the bloc into a war with Russia, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban said on Thursday.

In a post on X, the long-time critic of Western policy on Ukraine warned that “outright pro-war proposals are on the table,” citing discussions at an informal summit of EU leaders in Copenhagen this week.

“They want to hand over EU funds to Ukraine. They are trying to accelerate Ukraine’s accession with all kinds of legal tricks. They want to finance arms deliveries. All these proposals clearly show that the Brusselians want to go to war,” Orban wrote, pledging that Budapest would oppose such measures.

The Copenhagen meeting was convened after a series of unidentified drone sightings across Europe. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said her government could not determine the origin of the aircraft but claimed that “we can at least conclude that there is primarily one country that poses a threat to Europe’s security – and that is Russia.”

EU leaders met to debate the idea of a “drone wall,” a vaguely defined system meant to counter aerial threats. Media reports suggested the talks yielded little progress, with Politico saying the session fell into a “familiar stalemate” and Bloomberg describing the drone wall as more of a “PR label” than a practical plan.

Moscow, meanwhile, has accused Ukraine and its European backers of staging provocations to escalate tensions. Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) claimed this week that the recent drone incursion into Polish airspace – blamed on Moscow by Warsaw – was actually a Ukrainian false-flag operation and predicted more such incidents ahead.

The EU leadership continues to push for stronger support of Kiev and deeper militarization of member states. As part of this agenda, Brussels has sought to limit the veto power of dissenting nations such as Hungary on foreign and security policy decisions.

October 2, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , , | Leave a comment

US to Provide Ukraine With Intelligence for Strikes Deep Into Russia – Reports

Sputnik – 02.10.2025

US President Donald Trump has allowed intelligence agencies and the Pentagon to provide Ukraine with intelligence for strikes deep into Russia against energy infrastructure facilities, The Wall Street Journal newspaper reported, citing US officials.

Washington is also asking NATO countries to provide similar support, the report said on Wednesday.

In addition, the United States is considering supplying Ukraine with Tomahawk and Barracuda missiles, as well as other missiles with a range of about 500 miles (804 kilometers), the report added.

Russia has said that arms supplies to Ukraine hinder the conflict settlement, directly involving NATO countries in it. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that any cargo containing weapons for Ukraine would be a legitimate target for Russia.

October 2, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Leaked Israeli Transcripts Reveal Trump Lied About Attack on Iran

Mainstream media won’t cover this story

By Kevin Barrett | American Free Press | September 30, 2025

Israel’s June 13 attack on Iran, which the US joined on June 22, was framed as a desperate attempt to pre-empt an imminent Iranian nuclear threat. On June 21, Donald Trump insisted that his Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, was mistaken when she testified, in March, that Iran was not building a nuclear weapon.

According to CBS News, a reporter asked Trump: “What intelligence do you have that Iran is building a nuclear weapon? Your intelligence community had said they have no evidence that they are at this point.” Trump responded: “Well then, my intelligence community is wrong. Who in the intelligence community said that?” The reporter answered: “Your director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard.” “She’s wrong,” Trump insisted. Later he told reporters aboard Air Force One: “I don’t care what she said, I think they were very close to having one.”

It was all a big lie. Trump was getting his so-called intelligence from Israel, which was reeling from a wave of Iranian counter-strikes and desperately needed the US to join the war. Shockingly, we now know that Israel never really believed that Iran was building a nuclear bomb.

Recently-leaked Israeli documents show that Israel’s real motives for attacking Iran, and drawing the US into its war, were very different from the “immanent nuclear threat” claim. On September 14, Israeli Channel 13 published leaked transcripts of Netanyahu’s security cabinet meetings just before and during the June war. According to Netanyahu’s own words, and those of his advisors, the real aim of the war was not to pre-empt an imminent Iranian bomb—they knew there was no such threat—but rather to kill Iran’s Supreme Leader and as many other leaders as possible, slaughter top Iranian scientists, inflict maximum damage on Iran’s ballistic missile sites, terrorize the Iranian people, cause a mass exodus from Tehran, and thereby, hopefully, instigate a regime change. The nuclear threat, Netanyahu admitted, was “within a few years,” not days, weeks, or months.

Even Netanyahu’s claim that Iran would build nuclear weapons “within a few years” may have been grossly exaggerated. The leaked transcripts show a senior military figure explaining that the real military rationale for bombing Iran—aside from the attempt to instigate regime change—was “to improve Israel’s strategic balance” and “preventing Tehran from going nuclear in the long term.”

Let that sink in. Israel was trying to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons “in the long term.” What does that mean, in years? I knew the approximate answer, but asked ChatGPT anyway: “When military strategists talk about ‘the long term’ what is the time frame, in years, they’re referring to?”

ChatGPT replied:

“Short term: Months to 1–2 years (immediate operations, contingencies, current deployments).

Medium term: About 3–7 years (building readiness, procurement cycles, training new units, near-future conflicts).

Long term: Typically 10–30 years…”

So to the extent that there was any real prospect of Iran building nuclear weapons, it was in the time frame of ten to thirty years. Yet Netanyahu and Trump risked World War III by massively bombing Iran on a blatantly false pretext—a pretext that makes George W. Bush’s lies about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction seem tame by comparison.

Ironically, the failed Israeli-American attack on Iran may create the very scenario it ostensibly sought to avoid. Iran’s aging Supreme Leader has repeatedly re-issued a religious edict banning nuclear weapons and other WMD. He insists that such weapons are sinful. That’s why strategists have long known—as Tulsi Gabbard said, and a top military advisor to Netanyahu confirmed—that it is highly unlikely that Iran will build a nuke in the foreseeable future…at least it was unlikely, until Netanyahu and Trump kicked the hornet’s nest with their June attack. That attack caused the Iranian people to rise up in fury behind a new generation of hardline leaders, far more militant than the current Supreme Leader, who are open to the argument, now supported by the majority of the Iranian people, that Iran must scrap its prohibition on WMD and build or buy nuclear bombs to deter future attacks.

According to a leading expert, Theodore Postol of MIT, Iran may have already built nuclear weapons in response to the June attack. In an interview with Glenn Diesen headlined “Iran Is Now an Undeclared Nuclear State,” Postol explained that the Israeli-US attack didn’t harm Iran’s now-hidden stockpile of 60% enriched uranium, which can be quickly, easily, and secretly made into bombs.

So the real reason Iran wasn’t building nukes was that it didn’t want them. But now, thanks to Netanyahu and Trump, it probably does.

The June attack wasn’t just a big lie, and a crime. It was a mistake—a blunder of epic proportions.

September 30, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , | Leave a comment

Why the US is so open about its intentions for Lebanese civil war

By Robert Inlakesh | Al Mayadeen | September 30, 2025

The United States is now openly admitting that it is arming the Lebanese military to fight its own people and that it won’t allow Lebanon to defend itself against the Israelis. This is no mistake and is instead part of a clear-cut strategy, designed to plunge the nation into chaos.

Although Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam has openly followed orders from his American allies, choosing to pursue the disarmament of Hezbollah without any national defense strategy, a move opposed by the majority of the Lebanese public, it seems that the US is still not impressed.

While some have been duped into believing the policy of pursuing disarmament depends on the willingness of the Lebanese military, this way of reading the current American plot is completely wrong. Disarming Hezbollah is just step one in a much more complex strategy.

Since the ceasefire on November 27, 2024, the Zionist regime has continuously bombarded Lebanese territory, anywhere and at any time. They have committed around 5,000 total violations, continuing to expand their military presence in the south of Lebanon, where the Zionist leadership vows to remain indefinitely.

It is crucial at this stage to ask why, especially since airstrikes, specifically those that kill civilians, only complicate the US-assigned tasks of the Lebanese government, bringing both shame and embarrassment, particularly to Nawaf Salam.

One way of looking at the airstrikes is that the Israelis are seeking to degrade the capabilities of Hezbollah and prevent them from rebuilding following the war. Yet, their strikes are simply not effective enough to make a significant dent in this regard, although they may be hitting some sensitive targets on occasion.

This leaves us with the obvious explanation: the ongoing military assault is part of a war of perception which Hezbollah should behave in a very calculated way to deal with. The Israelis achieve two objectives by carrying out more and more provocative violations of Lebanese sovereignty: they project an image of dominance and attempt to bait Hezbollah into responding.

Some would then ask: Why does Hezbollah not respond? A question sometimes asked rhetorically in order to infer that they are too weak to do so.

The answer is quite simple. Hezbollah has put up a limited military front for almost an entire year in support for Gaza, responding to each Israeli escalation in what it considered a calculated manner. Yet all this merely allowed “Israel” to hatch a plot which harmed not only Hezbollah, but Lebanon as a whole. Despite this, the Zionist regime failed to finish the job, and Hezbollah not only survived but fought a defensive war to a stalemate.

If Hezbollah decides to respond in a limited manner to Israeli aggressions, it would provide the perfect excuse for the occupying entity to launch a large-scale military operation which would significantly damage Lebanon. In return, if Hezbollah does not manage to achieve major and overt military victories in such a confrontation, it would be a devastating blow.

In other words, the next confrontation has to be on a much greater scale than anything seen before, a military campaign in which Hezbollah manages to shock not only the Israelis, but the world, and most importantly, the Lebanese people themselves.

The martyred Secretary General of Hezbollah, Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah, often spoke of the media war with the Zionist entity, treating it with great seriousness. This was because public perception shapes not only political outcomes, but also the course of battles on the ground through morale.

Prior to September 2024, the stock of Hezbollah was incredibly high. The public perception was that the Resistance was capable of defeating the Israelis by itself. This is why the end of the war and its results, the renewed occupation of Lebanese lands, brought shock. In reality, Hezbollah’s capabilities were never matching those of the Israelis, yet the tenacity of the Lebanese fighter and the Resistance’s planning created such an impression, especially following the 2006 war.

The perception of Hezbollah’s strength made the Israeli terrorist pager attack and assassination strikes against its leadership all the more devastating, because the public believed such attacks to be impossible.

This is something that the US has since weaponised, with figures like US envoy Morgan Ortagus even declaring that Hezbollah is over. This brings us to her fellow American envoy Tom Barrack’s recent interview with Sky News Arabia.

Barrack explicitly asserted that the US is supplying the Lebanese army to fight its own people, even laughing at the idea that this support is intended to confront “Israel”. While some analysts interpreted Barrack’s statements as ill-advised or mistaken, they couldn’t be further from the truth, there is a reason why he speaks with such confidence.

The U.S. Trump administration understands full-well that the Lebanese army is not capable of removing Hezbollah’s weapons by force alone. The Americans and their Israeli allies may be many things, but they are not naive on this issue. They understand that many strings must be pulled if Hezbollah is actually going to suffer a blow which will lead to significant military degradation.

Part of this strategy is to try and publicly humiliate not only Hezbollah, but also the Lebanese State and people as a whole. Meanwhile, the Israelis are performing their part in this plot and are escalating their provocative actions, now implementing tactics such as deliberately carrying out civilian massacres, like the one that occurred in Bint Jbeil recently. Also, they are now attempting to clear portions of southern Lebanon by issuing evacuation orders before bombing civilian buildings.

What the likes of Nawaf Salam don’t appear to understand is that they are totally disposable in this equation. Meaning that there is even a danger he could be assassinated by the Israelis or Americans in order to pin the blame on Hezbollah and its allies.

Right now, the US and “Israel” are plotting against Lebanon. They will seek to carry out actions which will be just as detrimental, if not more, than what we witnessed last September, and they are under no illusions about whether the Lebanese army could simply disarm Hezbollah for them.

The Israelis are openly seeking the so-called “Greater Israel”, as per their Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s own admission earlier this year. A common misconception about the “Greater Israel Project” is that it would mean occupying Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, parts of Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and even Türkiye, in the same way it did in Palestinian occupied territories.

In fact, the man who first conceived the “Greater Israel” model, Oded Yinon, in his academic article back in 1982, advocated for an Israeli empire, under which the nations of the region would be broken down into sectarian regimes and ethno-states, all of which would be effectively demilitarized and under the de-facto control of the Zionist Entity.

When the Zionist regime occupied southern Lebanon following the 1982 invasion, during which 20,000 people were killed, it relied on the “South Lebanon Army” to carry out its agenda. A similar system was not set up in the occupied West Bank. There, the Zionists instead injected their population to build illegal settlements and Judaize the area, while collaborators managed the territory under Israeli rule.

Similarly, in Syria, the Zionists are not necessarily interested in settling Daraa, for instance, they would much rather demilitarize the entire south, except the collaborator regime they hope to implement in Sweida. Officials in Tel Aviv have also made it clear that they will never tolerate the rebuilding of the Syrian Arab Army; they will only allow a military force comparable to that of Lebanon.

All of this is to say that there is a psychological war being waged on the people of Lebanon and region at large. Hezbollah is still very much militarily capable of taking the fight to the Israelis, but how they do it is of great importance. We know well that the Resistance still possesses considerable capabilities, because we witnessed newly revealed weapons right up until the final days of the war, many of them in clear abundance.

One mistake that the US may be making, however, is that all its rhetoric about Hezbollah could well backfire.

September 30, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Illegal Occupation, Militarism | , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Kremlin Threatens to Attack US Troops Who Help Ukraine Fire Tomahawk Missiles Into Russia

By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | September 29, 2025

Russian officials warn Washington that US troops assisting Ukraine using Tomahawk missiles would become targets. The remarks were a response to Vice President JD Vance, who said the White House is considering sending the long-range munitions to Kiev.

Kremlin Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov questioned what role the Americans would have in assisting Ukraine in firing Tomahawk missiles. “The question… is this: who can launch these missiles…? Can only Ukrainians launch them, or do American soldiers have to do that?” Peskov told reporters.

“Who is determining the targeting of these missiles? The American side or the Ukrainians themselves?” he added. In 2023, The Discord Leaks revealed that there were 100 US troops in Ukraine, along with approximately 100 soldiers from several European nations.

Andrey Kartapolov, head of the Russian State Duma’s defence committee, explained that the American troops could become targets if they assist Ukraine in attacking Russia with Tomahawk missiles. “And no one will protect them. Not Trump, not Kellogg, nor anyone else,” he said.

The threats from Moscow follow several aggressive statements from Washington and Kiev. Trump claimed on Truth Social that Ukraine was in a position to win the war and the Russian military was a “paper tiger.”

Then, President Zelensky called for the US to give Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine and threatened to attack the Russian leadership. Vance and Trump’s envoy to the conflict, Keith Kellogg, gave some legitimacy to Zelensky’s remarks by explaining that the White House was considering allowing Europe to buy Tomahawk missiles for Ukraine.

Kellogg went on to argue that Ukraine should be allowed to conduct strikes deep inside Russian territory. “Use the ability to hit deep. There are no such things as sanctuaries,” he said.

Tomahawks have a range of about 1,500 miles.

Peskov downplayed the impact the missiles would have on the conflict. “Even if it happens that the United States sends its Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine, currently, there is no cure-all that could be a game changer on the front lines for the Kiev regime. No magical weapons exist, and Tomahawk or other missiles simply won’t be a game changer,” he said.

September 29, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Orban vows to fight ‘warmongering bureaucrats’ in Brussels

RT | September 29, 2025

The European Union is now a “war project” that puts the economies of its members at risk, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has said, vowing to oppose Brussels’ belligerent policies.

Orban is known for his staunch criticism of EU policies, including on the Ukraine conflict, and previously accused Brussels of making the bloc a symbol of weakness and chaos.
Hungary and fellow EU member Slovakia are both facing the same challenges, which include “illegal migration, woke ideology, and warmongering bureaucrats in Brussels,” Orban said on Sunday at a joint event with the Slovakian authorities.

“We will continue to defend our sovereignty, our values, and our future!” Orban said in a post on X to mark the occasion. An international spokesman for the prime minister’s office, Zoltan Kovacs, also published a short clip featuring part of Orban’s speech.

“Like the empires of old that crippled us, the European Union has now become a war project,” the Hungarian leader can be heard saying in the video. Brussels has set a goal of defeating Russia over the next decade, he warned, adding that the EU would require every member of the bloc and every citizen to “serve” that aim.

Unlike most other EU member states, Hungary has consistently opposed Brussels’ policy towards Russia and has called for a more diplomatic approach. Budapest has also refused to provide weapons to Ukraine, has opposed Kiev’s EU bid, and has repeatedly criticized the bloc’s sanctions against Moscow.

Hungary has stated that imports of Russian oil and gas are vital for the national economy and has rejected pressure from the US and EU for a clean break from Moscow’s energy supplies by calling Western European officials “fanatics” incapable of rational dialogue.

Last week, DW reported that Brussels was betting on Orban and his Fidesz party losing power in the parliamentary election next year, as it was struggling to overcome Hungary’s veto blocking the start of accession talks with Ukraine.

Last month, Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto also claimed that EU officials were conspiring to overthrow the “patriot Slovak, Hungarian, and Serbian governments” and replace them with puppet regimes.

September 29, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , , , | Leave a comment

Nuclear-Armed Sweden: Blueprint or Bluff?

By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 29.09.2025

Fresh from abandoning centuries of neutrality, Swedish politicians are now openly discussing nuclear weapons. What’s really behind this dramatic shift? Mikael Valtersson, former Swedish Armed Forces officer, breaks it down for Sputnik.

Why Nukes are on Sweden’s Agenda

It’s driven by a “fear of a Russian threat” which is “a consequence of Sweden’s and its European allies’ provocative policies against Russia,” Valtersson explains.

“We will see more of the fear-mongering from Europe in the coming years.”

Sweden wasn’t neutral in the Cold War:

  • Airfields readied for NATO jets
  • Military intelligence was shared between Sweden and NATO
  • Even during tensions over the Vietnam War, military cooperation with NATO never stopped

Though sided with NATO, Sweden doubted its nuclear shield. Therefore, in the 1950s–60s Sweden ran its own nuclear weapon program.

“When the politicians stopped the fission weapons program the Swedish Defense forces continued with fusion weapons instead until the politicians banned all nuclear weapons development when they realized this.”

Nuclear Plan is Not Viable

But an independent Swedish nuclear program isn’t viable. Why?

  • It would come at enormous economic costs
  • Already very large amounts of money are spent on rearmament and supporting Ukraine
  • Swedes don’t want to spend even more on nukes

Europe might start a common nuclear weapons program, but Sweden will not do it on its own, according to the pundit.

“Europe’s military-industrial complex is using the ‘Russian threat’ to strengthen its very reduced size after the Cold War.”

September 29, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »