Timeless or most popular

Feeling Better, Getting Worse: How Psychiatric Drugs Create the Illusion They Cure

An Essay on Short-Term Improvement, Long-Term Dependence, and the Evidence Patients Never See

Lies are Unbekoming | April 9, 2026

Of 18,426 patients enrolled in 71 antidepressant trials — 67,319 pages of clinical data, a stack seven metres high, obtained from drug regulators and read for the first time by Peter Gøtzsche’s research group — 12 percent more dropped out while taking the drug than while taking placebo.¹

The psychiatrists’ position is that these drugs do more good than harm. The patients, through their behaviour, delivered the opposite verdict. They preferred the sugar pill.

Nobody who takes a psychiatric drug and reports feeling better is lying. The experience is real. But what produced it, what it is made of, and what it costs — none of this is what the patient was told. Six mechanisms account for almost everything people attribute to their medication. None of them require the drug to be treating a disease.

The Prescription

A person in distress sits across from a doctor. Fifteen minutes later they leave with a diagnosis and a prescription. They are told they have a chemical imbalance that the drug will correct. They may be told depression runs in families — that there is a genetic predisposition, a biological vulnerability they inherited. They are told to give it a few weeks.

The chemical imbalance theory has been abandoned by every serious researcher in the field.² No gene or set of genes for depression has ever been identified despite decades of searching and billions in funding. As Peter Breggin observed, there is no substantial scientific evidence that depression is genetic in origin — and telling patients otherwise leaves them convinced they are stuck with an innate defect, dependent on experts, and resigned to lifelong medication.⁴⁵ The drug was approved on the basis of trials lasting five to six weeks.³ Long-term effects have never been properly studied.⁴ And the condition being treated has a spontaneous remission rate so high that the head of the NIMH’s depression section once observed that most depressive episodes “will run their course and terminate with virtually complete recovery without specific intervention.”⁵

The patient knows none of this. They go home, swallow the pill, and wait.

The First Weeks: Time Heals What the Pill Takes Credit For

Depression, before pharmacology claimed it, was understood to be self-limiting. NIMH psychopharmacologist Jonathan Cole wrote in 1964: “Depression is, on the whole, one of the psychiatric conditions with the best prognosis for eventual recovery with or without treatment. Most depressions are self-limited.”⁶ His colleague Nathan Kline: “In the treatment of depression, one always has as an ally the fact that most depressions terminate in spontaneous remissions. This means that in many cases regardless of what one does the patient eventually will begin to get better.”⁷

Cole and Kline were not dissidents. They were among the most prominent figures in American psychopharmacology.

A study tracking eighty-four patients through untreated depressive episodes found that 23 percent recovered within one month, 67 percent within six months, and 85 percent within a year.⁸ Mark Posternak, the researcher, noted that his results confirmed Kraepelin’s century-old observation that untreated depression typically clears within six to eight months. Dean Schuyler, who headed the NIMH’s depression section, recognised the problem as early as 1974: spontaneous recovery rates were so high that it was difficult to “judge the efficacy of a drug, a treatment or psychotherapy in depressed patients.”⁹

Antidepressants take four to six weeks to produce their claimed effect. Spontaneous recovery begins immediately and continues at roughly 2 percent per week.¹⁰ A person who starts a drug during a depressive episode is beginning treatment at the moment when natural recovery is already underway. A month later, they feel better. The drug gets the credit. The calendar does not.

The Side Effects That Sell the Cure

In the NIMH’s review of all antidepressant studies, well-controlled trials showed 61 percent of drug-treated patients improved versus 46 percent on placebo — a net benefit of 15 percent.¹¹ Irving Kirsch, reviewing FDA data on Prozac, Effexor, Serzone, and Paxil, found the drug-placebo difference on the Hamilton Rating Scale was 1.8 points. The UK’s National Institute for Clinical Excellence had established 3 points as the minimum for clinical significance.¹² The best Danish meta-analysis found a difference of 2 points, and the smallest effect that can actually be perceived on this scale is 5 to 6 points.¹³

That is the margin on which billions of prescriptions rest.

Breggin identified why even this margin exists. He called it the “enhanced placebo effect.” A patient on a sugar pill senses, consciously or not, that nothing powerful has entered their system. An antidepressant produces noticeable physical effects — dry mouth, nausea, drowsiness, sexual dysfunction, weight change. The patient feels these and concludes, reasonably, that they are taking potent medicine. The side effects convince the patient the drug is real. This conviction amplifies the placebo response.¹⁴

Investigators tested this in at least seven studies comparing tricyclic antidepressants to “active” placebos — chemicals that produce unpleasant side effects like dry mouth but have no antidepressant properties. In six of the seven, there was no difference in outcomes.¹⁵ When both pills cause side effects, neither is superior. A Cochrane review confirmed the finding.¹⁶

The entire marginal advantage of antidepressants over placebo may be an artefact of broken blinding. Patients and clinicians can guess who is on the drug and who is on the sugar pill, because the drug has obvious physical effects. This knowledge contaminates every rating, every assessment, every reported outcome.

The NIH-funded St. John’s wort trial demonstrated this by accident. Because St. John’s wort causes side effects similar to an antidepressant, this trial was genuinely blinded — neither patients nor clinicians could tell who was taking what. Results: 24 percent of the herbal group had a full response, 25 percent of the Zoloft group, 32 percent of the placebo group. Zoloft did not outperform placebo. The investigators concluded that the herb was ineffective and neglected to mention that their own drug had failed the same test.¹⁷

The Flattening

Psychiatric drugs produce their effects the same way in patients, healthy volunteers, and laboratory animals. Gøtzsche, drawing on clinical trial data, lists what these effects actually are: numbing of feelings, emotional blunting, drowsiness, reduced concern about oneself and others, diminished capacity for sexual function and romantic attachment.¹⁸

These are not side effects. They are the effects. The drug does not selectively remove depression while leaving everything else intact. It reduces the brain’s capacity to generate emotional intensity across the board. A person who was in anguish may interpret this flattening as recovery. A clinician observing calmer behaviour will rate the patient as improved. Both are observing something real. Neither is observing the treatment of a disease.

Breggin made the point precisely: antidepressants reduce emotional responsiveness generally, which is why they are prescribed not only for depression but for anxiety, panic attacks, obsessive-compulsive behaviour, bulimia, chronic pain, and aggression. They are not treating different diseases through different mechanisms. They are producing the same blunting effect across all of them.¹⁹

The rating scales used to measure “improvement” cooperate with this illusion. The Hamilton Depression Rating Scale — the standard instrument — scores items like sleep quality, appetite, and psychomotor behaviour. A sedated patient who sleeps more and eats more registers as improved. Breggin observed that psychiatric improvement standards are often behavioural (”sleeps better,” “gaining weight”) rather than psychological (”feels better about life,” “actively building a better future”).²⁰ A tranquillised patient and a recovered patient score identically.

Patient self-ratings tell a different story. In Greenberg and Fisher’s meta-analysis of newer antidepressants, patient self-ratings showed virtually no benefit beyond placebo.²¹ The doctors see improvement. The patients, asked directly, do not.

In Denmark, researchers surveyed patients on antidepressants. Half agreed the drugs altered their personality and that they had less control over their thoughts and feelings. The psychiatrists who received these results refused to believe what their own patients told them, called the patients ignorant, and recommended “psychoeducation.”²² The patients’ relatives, independently surveyed, agreed with the patients.

Breggin described a further mechanism operating in some patients: mild organic brain syndrome. Antidepressants, through their general toxicity, can produce a delirium characterised by memory difficulties, confusion, impaired judgment, and mood instability. A patient in this state may experience artificial euphoria or generalised apathy and be evaluated as “improved” — because depression requires a relatively intact brain to sustain itself. Damage the brain sufficiently and the depression lifts, not because the distress has been addressed, but because the capacity to experience it has been impaired.²³ A Yale study found this drug-induced delirium appeared two to four weeks after starting treatment — the exact interval when “therapeutic response” is expected — in more than one-third of patients over age forty.²⁴

The Attempt to Stop

Months pass. Perhaps years. The patient decides to stop. They feel well. They are tired of the side effects. They may have read something that unsettled them.

Within days: headaches, dizziness, nausea, insomnia, agitation, anxiety, confusion, fatigue, flu-like symptoms, electric shock sensations. As many as 50 percent of patients who stop antidepressants experience these withdrawal effects.²⁵

The symptoms vanish when the drug is restarted. The trap closes.

Patient and doctor both conclude that the return of distress proves the drug was treating a real condition. The depression has “come back.” The drug is “needed.” But the symptoms are not relapse. They are withdrawal. The brain, having adapted to the presence of a chemical that altered its neurotransmitter activity, protests the chemical’s removal.

Gøtzsche coined a term for this: “abstinence depression.” A depression that occurs in a patient who is not currently depressed but whose drug is stopped too quickly. Its hallmark: symptoms appear rapidly after discontinuation and disappear within hours when the full dose is resumed. A real depressive episode does not respond to a pill within hours. The speed of response is the diagnostic marker that separates withdrawal from genuine relapse.²⁶

He demonstrated this with a cold turkey trial. Stable, well patients were secretly switched to placebo for 5 to 8 days. Twenty-five of 122 patients on sertraline or paroxetine met criteria for depression during that window. Gøtzsche calculated the expected number of genuine relapses in such a short period, based on known relapse rates from an adolescent depression study: 0.03. Effectively zero. Every one of the twenty-five “relapses” was a withdrawal reaction.²⁷

The profession does not call these symptoms “withdrawal.” It calls them “discontinuation syndrome.” Gary Greenberg described this renaming for what it is: in any other context, a malaise that appears when you stop a drug and disappears when you restart it is called dependence with withdrawal. Calling it “discontinuation syndrome” keeps antidepressants at a comfortable distance from alcohol, benzodiazepines, and opioids.²⁸

The clinical consequences are specific. Breggin described the vicious circle: a patient attempts to stop the drug and experiences withdrawal. The treating professionals mistake withdrawal for relapse. The drug is reinstated. The patient — who might have recovered fully without the medication — is now physiologically dependent on a chemical they were told was safe to stop at any time.²⁹ A study of twenty-two children withdrawn from the tricyclic Tofranil documented this pattern: staff attributed the children’s withdrawal symptoms to “mental illness,” to stress, to allergies, even to viral illness. Antidepressants were restarted in children who were “mistakenly diagnosed as relapsing during the withdrawal period.”³⁰

Gøtzsche reviewed the five most-used psychiatry textbooks in Denmark and found that their withdrawal guidance is wrong and frequently dangerous. Doctors taper too quickly and in linear fashion rather than the exponential taper the drugs’ pharmacology demands. None of the textbooks acknowledged that withdrawal symptoms and disease symptoms are often identical.³¹

The Long Decline

European psychiatrists began noticing the pattern in the 1960s. German physician H. P. Hoheisel reported in 1966 that antidepressant exposure appeared to be “shortening the intervals” between depressive episodes. A Yugoslavian doctor observed the drugs were causing “chronification” of the disease. Bulgarian psychiatrist Nikola Schipkowensky agreed: the tricyclics were inducing “a change to a more chronic course.”³²

Dutch physician J. D. Van Scheyen examined ninety-four depressed patients over five years. Long-term antidepressant medication, he found, “exerts a paradoxical effect on the recurrent nature of the vital depression” — the drugs increased the rate of recurrence and shortened the time between episodes.³³

In 1994, Italian psychiatrist Giovanni Fava forced the question into the open. The drugs, he argued, perturb neurotransmitter systems in ways that produce compensatory brain changes. When the drug is stopped, these changes operate unopposed, producing withdrawal and increasing vulnerability to relapse. The longer someone takes the drug, the worse this becomes. Antidepressants, Fava concluded, “may propel the illness to a more malignant and treatment unresponsive course.” He raised the possibility that the drugs cause “irreversible receptor modifications” that “sensitize” the brain to depression.³⁴

Ross Baldessarini of Harvard confirmed it: half of all patients withdrawn from antidepressants relapsed within fourteen months, and the longer a person had been on the drug, the higher the relapse rate upon withdrawal.³⁵

The profession’s response was not investigation. Donald Klein of Columbia University told Psychiatric News: “The industry is not interested, the NIMH is not interested, and the FDA is not interested. Nobody is interested.”³⁶

Instead, the history was rewritten. The pre-drug studies showing that depression was episodic and self-limiting were declared “flawed.” The 1999 APA Textbook of Psychiatry stated that it was previously believed “most patients would eventually recover from a major depressive episode. However, more extensive studies have disproved this assumption.” Depression was now “a highly recurrent and pernicious disorder.”³⁷

The drugs worsen the long-term course of the illness. Rather than withdraw the drugs, the profession rewrote the natural history of the illness to match the drug-damaged outcomes.

The long-term studies are unambiguous. British researchers found that never-medicated depressed patients experienced a 62 percent symptom reduction in six months; drug-treated patients, 33 percent.³⁸ A WHO study found that patients diagnosed and treated with psychiatric drugs fared worse — in both depressive symptoms and general health — over one year than those not exposed to the drugs.³⁹ In a five-year study of 9,508 depressed patients, those on antidepressants were symptomatic nineteen weeks per year, versus eleven weeks for those on no medication.⁴⁰ An NIMH study found the eighteen-month stay-well rate was highest for cognitive therapy (30 percent) and lowest for antidepressants (19 percent).⁴¹

The STAR*D trial — $35 million of NIMH money, over four thousand “real-world” patients — was announced with the claim that about 70 percent of those who stayed in the study “became symptom-free.” Ed Pigott and colleagues spent more than five years analysing the actual data. The real figure: 3 percent of patients who entered the trial remitted, stayed well, and remained in the study during the one-year follow-up. Confronted with the 3 percent number, investigator Maurizio Fava acknowledged it was accurate. The investigators had known all along.⁴²

The Patients Vote

Those 18,426 patients across Gøtzsche’s 71 trials voted with their feet. Twelve percent more chose to stop taking the drug than chose to stop taking placebo.¹ The finding is worse than it appears, because some of the patients randomised to placebo were suffering cold turkey withdrawal from drugs they had been taking before the trial. Even with this handicap, the placebo group was more willing to continue.

Gøtzsche’s team attempted to assess quality of life — the outcome that matters most to patients. The data was virtually non-existent. Out of 131 studies, three had published quality-of-life results. The data was not missing because it was not collected. It was missing because the results were unfavourable.⁴³

A Danish parliamentarian asked the Minister of Health whether it was reliable to conclude that antidepressants improved quality of life when only three of 131 studies had published data on the question. The minister referred the question to the drug agency, which replied that an effect on quality of life had been found in the studies where it was measured. Quality of life was measured in far more studies than those that published their findings.⁴⁴

What Was Not Disclosed

The feeling was real. It was produced by the natural passage of time and the body’s tendency toward spontaneous recovery. By the placebo effect of receiving treatment from an authority figure. By the enhanced placebo effect of a pill that produces noticeable physical sensations. By emotional blunting that reduced the capacity to feel distress along with the capacity to feel everything else. And in some patients, by a mild organic brain dysfunction that made the sustained experience of depression temporarily impossible.

When it came time to stop, the drug produced withdrawal symptoms indistinguishable from the original condition. Patient and doctor both interpreted this as proof that the disease had returned and the medication was needed for life. The dependence was renamed “discontinuation syndrome.”

For those who stayed on, the drug altered brain chemistry in ways that increased vulnerability to future episodes, shortened the intervals between them, and converted an episodic, self-limiting condition into a chronic one. This conversion was attributed not to the treatment but to a revised understanding of the disease. The textbooks were rewritten to match the drug-damaged outcomes.

At no point was the patient given accurate information. Not about the spontaneous remission rate. Not about the drug’s negligible advantage over placebo. Not about the blunting. Not about the withdrawal. Not about the long-term prognosis.

Three percent of STAR*D patients recovered and stayed well. The investigators announced 70 percent. Sixty-seven thousand pages of clinical trial data sat unread until one research group opened them and discovered that patients preferred placebo. Quality of life data was collected and buried. The profession was told the drugs were sensitising the brain to depression and responded that nobody was interested in investigating.

The patient was told they had a chemical imbalance. They were told the drug would correct it. They were told depression ran in their family and that they were genetically predisposed. They were told to give it a few weeks. Every element of that narrative has been contradicted by the profession’s own research.

The feeling was real. What produced it was not what they said.

References

Sharma, T., et al. “Drop-out rates in placebo-controlled trials of antidepressant drugs.” Int J Risk Saf Med 30 (2019): 217–232. Discussed in Gøtzsche, P.C. “Is psychiatry a crime?” (2024), p. 21.
Moncrieff, J., et al. “The serotonin theory of depression: a systematic umbrella review of the evidence.” Molecular Psychiatry (2022). See also Lacasse, J.R., Leo, J. “Serotonin and Depression: A Disconnect between the Advertisements and the Scientific Literature.” PLoS Med (2005).
Breggin, P.R. Toxic Psychiatry. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1991, pp. 160–163.
Deshauer, D., et al. “Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors for unipolar depression.” Canadian Medical Association Journal 178 (2008): 1293–1301.
Schuyler, D. The Depressive Spectrum. New York: Jason Aronson, 1974. Cited in Whitaker, R. Anatomy of an Epidemic. New York: Broadway Paperbacks, 2010, p. 150.
Cole, J. Cited in Whitaker, Anatomy of an Epidemic, p. 150.
Kline, N. Cited in Whitaker, Anatomy of an Epidemic, p. 150.
Posternak, M.A., et al. “The naturalistic course of unipolar major depression in the absence of somatic therapy.” J Nerv Ment Dis 194 (2006): 324–329. Cited in Whitaker, Anatomy of an Epidemic, pp. 163–164.
Schuyler, D. Cited in Whitaker, Anatomy of an Epidemic, p. 150.
Posternak, J Nerv Ment Dis (2006).
NIMH review of antidepressant studies. Cited in Whitaker, Anatomy of an Epidemic, p. 151.
Kirsch, I., et al. “Initial severity and antidepressant benefits.” PLoS Medicine 5 (2008): e45. Cited in Whitaker, Anatomy of an Epidemic, pp. 152–153.
Jakobsen, J.C., et al. “Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors versus placebo.” BMC Psychiatry 17 (2017): 58. Leucht, S., et al. “What does the HAMD mean?” J Affect Disord 148 (2013): 243–248. Cited in Gøtzsche, “Is psychiatry a crime?” p. 19.
Breggin, P.R. Toxic Psychiatry, pp. 159–160.
Whitaker, Anatomy of an Epidemic, p. 151.
Moncrieff, J., Wessely, S., Hardy, R. “Active placebos versus antidepressants for depression.” Cochrane Database Syst Rev (2004): CD003012.
Hypericum Depression Trial Study Group. “Effect of Hypericum perforatum in major depressive disorder.” JAMA 287 (2002): 1807–1814. Cited in Whitaker, Anatomy of an Epidemic, p. 153.
Gøtzsche, P.C. “Is psychiatry a crime?” (2024), p. 9.
Breggin, P.R. Toxic Psychiatry, pp. 163–164.
Ibid., pp. 160–161. Fisher, S. and Greenberg, R. The Limits of Biological Treatments for Psychological Distress. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1989.
Greenberg, R., et al. Meta-analysis of newer antidepressant drugs. Cited in Breggin, P.R. Talking Back to Prozac. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1994, pp. 89–92.
Kessing, L., et al. “Depressive and bipolar disorders: patients’ attitudes and beliefs towards depression and antidepressants.” Psychological Medicine 35 (2005): 1205–1213. Cited in Gøtzsche, “Is psychiatry a crime?” p. 21.
Breggin, Toxic Psychiatry, pp. 164–166.
Davies, R., et al. “Confusional Episodes and Antidepressant Medication.” American Journal of Psychiatry (July 1971). Cited in Breggin, Toxic Psychiatry, pp. 165–166.
Greenberg, G. Manufacturing Depression. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2010, pp. 281–282.
Gøtzsche, “Is psychiatry a crime?” pp. 104–105.
Rosenbaum, J.F., et al. “Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor discontinuation syndrome.” Biol Psychiatry 44 (1998): 77–87. Analysis in Gøtzsche, “Is psychiatry a crime?” pp. 104–105. Expected relapse rate calculated from Lewinsohn, P.M., et al. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatr 33 (1994): 809–818.
Greenberg, Manufacturing Depression, pp. 281–282.
Breggin, P.R. Toxic Psychiatry, pp. 169–171.
Law, W., III, et al. American Journal of Psychiatry (May 1981). Cited in Breggin, Toxic Psychiatry, pp. 169–170.
Gøtzsche, “Is psychiatry a crime?” pp. 104–105. See also Gøtzsche, P.C. Mental Health Survival Kit and Withdrawal from Psychiatric Drugs. Ann Arbor: L H Press, 2022.
Hoheisel, Schipkowensky, and others cited in Whitaker, Anatomy of an Epidemic, pp. 155–156.
Van Scheyen, J.D. Cited in Whitaker, Anatomy of an Epidemic, p. 156.
Fava, G. “Do antidepressant and antianxiety drugs increase chronicity in affective disorders?” Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics 61 (1994): 125–131. Fava, G. “Holding on: depression, sensitization by antidepressant drugs, and the prodigal experts.” Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics 64 (1995): 57–61. Cited in Whitaker, Anatomy of an Epidemic, pp. 157–159.
Viguera, A. “Discontinuing antidepressant treatment in major depression.” Harvard Review of Psychiatry 5 (1998): 293–305. Cited in Whitaker, Anatomy of an Epidemic, p. 156.
“Editorial sparks debate on effects of psychoactive drugs.” Psychiatric News, May 20, 1994. Cited in Whitaker, Anatomy of an Epidemic, p. 159.
Hales, R., ed. Textbook of Psychiatry. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press, 1999, p. 525. Cited in Whitaker, Anatomy of an Epidemic, pp. 159–160.
Ronalds, C., et al. “Outcome of anxiety and depressive disorders in primary care.” British Journal of Psychiatry 171 (1997): 427–433. Cited in Whitaker, Anatomy of an Epidemic, p. 162.
Goldberg, D., et al. “The effect of detection and treatment on the outcome of major depression in primary care.” British Journal of General Practice 48 (1998): 1840–1844. Cited in Whitaker, Anatomy of an Epidemic, p. 168.
Whitaker, Anatomy of an Epidemic, pp. 168–169.
Shea, M.T., et al. “Course of depressive symptoms over follow-up.” Archives of General Psychiatry 49 (1992): 782–787. Cited in Whitaker, Anatomy of an Epidemic, p. 156.
Pigott, H.E., et al. “Efficacy and effectiveness of antidepressants.” Psychother Psychosom 79 (2010): 267–279. Gøtzsche, “Is psychiatry a crime?” pp. 27–28.
Paludan-Müller, A.S., et al. “Extensive selective reporting of quality of life in clinical study reports and publications of placebo-controlled trials of antidepressants.” Int J Risk Saf Med 32 (2021): 87–99. Discussed in Gøtzsche, “Is psychiatry a crime?” pp. 21–22.
Gøtzsche, “Is psychiatry a crime?” p. 22.
Breggin, P.R. Talking Back to Prozac. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1994, pp. 73–74. See also Breggin, Toxic Psychiatry, pp. 109–141 (chapter on genetics of psychiatric disorders).

April 11, 2026 Posted by aletho | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | SSRIs | Comments Off on Feeling Better, Getting Worse: How Psychiatric Drugs Create the Illusion They Cure

‘Nobody Told Me’: Former Mental Health Patient Calls Out Dangerous Side Effects of Psychiatric Drugs

By Jill Erzen | The Defender | April 1, 2026

The mental health system is failing children by treating everyday struggles as “chronic illness requiring lifelong pharmaceutical treatment,” former psychiatric patient Laura Delano told lawmakers this week.

“What we are calling a mental health crisis is, in large part, a crisis of overmedicalization,” she said at a March 26 roundtable held by the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform’s Subcommittee on Health Care and Financial Services.

Delano said many challenges people face are “rooted in nutrition, sleep, stress, trauma, substance use, relationships, vocation, environment, economics, meaning, faith and purpose.” Yet the system often reduces those issues to medical diagnoses, she said.

Drawing on her own 14 years in the mental health system, Delano told lawmakers her experience reflects a broader trend.

Now the founder of Inner Compass Initiative and author of “Unshrunk: A Story of Psychiatric Treatment Resistance,” Delano said more Americans are seeking mental healthcare than ever, but outcomes — including suicide rates among young people — continue to worsen.

‘Two meds became three, four, five. My life unraveled’

Delano said she began treatment at 13. She was diagnosed with bipolar disorder and told she would need medication for life.

“You’re told this is an incurable illness. You’ll have this for the rest of your life. It’s manageable with medications, but you will never not have it,” she said. “And that’s the story that many, many people are being told about these conditions, which is simply not true.”

Over time, her diagnoses expanded and her prescriptions multiplied.

“Two meds became three, four, five,” she said. “My life unraveled.”

She said she gained weight, developed chronic health issues and became “increasingly anxious and suicidal.”

“Eventually, I couldn’t work or take care of myself,” she said.

Delano told lawmakers her experience points to a lack of informed consent.

“Nobody told me” that many psychiatric drugs were approved based on trials lasting “on average 6 to 12 weeks,” or that the long-term effects of taking multiple drugs together have “never been properly established.”

She said she wasn’t warned that medications could cause “serious physical health problems,” impair sexual function or, in some cases, increase suicidal thoughts.

When she tried to stop taking the drugs, she said she experienced withdrawal symptoms, but was told it was a relapse.

“Nobody told me that what I experienced … was withdrawal,” she said. “Instead, I was told that my worsening state meant my illness was so severe that it was now resistant to any treatment.”

At 25, Delano said she believed there was no hope. She attempted suicide.

‘This is the next opiate crisis, and I think it’s bigger’

Delano’s testimony comes as mental health outcomes worsen, even as diagnoses and prescriptions keep rising.

From 2007 to 2021, the suicide rate among people ages 10-24 increased by 62%. In 2023, over 49,000 Americans died by suicide — the highest number on record, and about 20,000 more than in 2000.

Among adolescents in 2024, 2.6 million reported serious suicidal thoughts, 1.2 million made a plan, and 700,000 attempted suicide.

At the same time, diagnoses have surged. Today, about 23.4% of U.S. adults — roughly 61.5 million people — experienced mental illness. This includes more than 36% of young adults.

Medication use has climbed alongside those numbers.

Since 2006, the use of SSRIs in children has more than doubled. A December 2025 report found that 6.1 million U.S. children ages 17 and under are taking at least one psychiatric drug.

“This is the next opiate crisis, and I think it’s bigger,” Delano said.

Doctors are increasingly medicalizing ‘normal human unhappiness’

Other experts at the roundtable raised similar concerns about diagnosis and treatment.

Dr. Sally Satel, a psychiatrist and senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, said clinicians often blur the line between clinical depression and life challenges.

“I can’t tell you how many people … once got a diagnosis [of depression], but their diagnosis is really demoralization,” she said.

“Do we need medications for that?” Satel asked. In some cases, what patients need to hear is, “Your life is difficult. You’re actually having a rational response to a difficult life,” she said.

Satel also said psychiatrists do not prescribe most psychiatric medications.

Primary care providers and midlevel practitioners write many of the prescriptions, she said. “That’s definitely … a problem.”

“We are overdiagnosing,” she added. “We’re turning … normal human unhappiness into … diagnoses that we then prescribe medications for that probably won’t work.”

‘Doubling down on what we’re doing … is not going to get us anywhere’

Dr. David Hyman, a physician and legal scholar, drew a similar distinction.

“Sadness and depression are two different things,” he said. Treatment — and not necessarily with medication — should focus on the latter, he added.

He also warned against a system that increasingly defaults to prescribing. “Doubling down on what we’re doing, which isn’t working, is not going to get us anywhere better than where we are,” he said.

Hyman challenged how psychiatric drugs are evaluated over time.

While medications must show safety and efficacy to gain approval, he said, there is no consistent system to study the long-term effects or what happens when patients stop taking them.

“There’s not a mechanism or systematic reevaluation of things after they’ve been approved,” he said.

Tapering can take ‘not just months, but years’

Delano said that gap is especially clear when patients try to taper off medications.

Asked how often patients receive full information about their diagnosis and medications, she said: “From what I’ve seen, never.”

“It took 13 years to realize I needed to get out,” Delano said. But getting off the drugs is “incredibly difficult.”

“We have a system set up that makes it incredibly easy to start these drugs that were really only ever studied for … short-term use,” she said. “Yet, most people stay on them long term for years and have zero safe off-ramps.”

Without clear guidance, people often stop too quickly, feel worse and assume they need the drugs indefinitely, she said.

Delano called for updated drug labels, public education and clinical guidelines for gradual tapering.

She stressed that these medications can create physical dependence. “Not addiction, it’s different than addiction,” she said. It’s a biological effect that can make stopping difficult.

“It sounds so unfathomable that a capsule … might require chipping away … over not just months, but years,” she said. Yet for some patients, that level of gradual tapering is necessary, she added.

Now 16 years off psychiatric medications, Delano said her experience drives her work.

“It’s urgent that we better understand what is happening in people’s brains and bodies from using these medications long term and from trying to get off them,” she said.

Watch an excerpt from the subcommittee hearing here:

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

April 11, 2026 Posted by aletho | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | United States | Comments Off on ‘Nobody Told Me’: Former Mental Health Patient Calls Out Dangerous Side Effects of Psychiatric Drugs

REWRITING THE RISK? INSIDE THE GOVERNMENT’S VACCINE SAFETY MESSAGING

The HighWire with Del Bigtree | April 2, 2026

Jefferey examines newly surfaced internal communications suggesting that messaging around potential stroke risks following COVID-19 vaccination may have been altered at the highest levels of government, including the Joe Biden White House. Drawing on reported emails from federal health agencies, the segment explores how language describing a “moderately elevated” safety signal was revised to “slightly elevated,” raising serious questions about transparency, public health communication, and risk disclosure during the vaccine rollout.

The analysis also highlights how terminology shifts, from “potential risk” to “preliminary signal”, may have softened public perception of adverse events at a critical moment when booster doses were being distributed to tens of millions of Americans. With coordinated messaging efforts involving the CDC, FDA, and select media and expert networks, the discussion frames these developments as part of a broader strategy to manage public response rather than fully inform it.

Beyond stroke-related concerns, the conversation expands into other reported safety signals, including myocarditis and cardiovascular stress markers observed in certain populations following vaccination. Internal deliberations and delayed public warnings are presented as evidence of systemic gaps in adverse event reporting and physician awareness, potentially impacting early detection and response to emerging risks.

Framed within the larger debate over censorship, government accountability, and medical transparency, Jefferey raises critical questions about how public health decisions are communicated—and who ultimately controls that narrative. As scrutiny intensifies over pandemic-era policies, the discussion underscores the importance of open scientific dialogue, rigorous safety monitoring, and restoring trust in public health institutions moving forward.

April 6, 2026 Posted by aletho | Deception, Timeless or most popular, Video | COVID-19 Vaccine, United States | Comments Off on REWRITING THE RISK? INSIDE THE GOVERNMENT’S VACCINE SAFETY MESSAGING

“Davos Can Really Replace the UN”

Inside the book that maps the architecture behind global governance — from the Epstein files to the Pact for the Future

Lies are Unbekoming | April 1, 2026

On June 13, 2019, the United Nations and the World Economic Forum signed a partnership deal to “accelerate the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.” That same evening, WEF president Börge Brende — Norway’s former Foreign Minister — had dinner with Jeffrey Epstein at Epstein’s Manhattan townhouse. The Epstein files, released January 2026, contain an exchange between the two from the previous year. Epstein to Brende: “Davos can really replace the UN. C21, cyber, crypto . genetics… intl coordination.” Brende back to Epstein: “Exactly — we need a new global architecture. World Economic Forum (Davos) is uniquely positioned — public private.”

The next day, the UN General Assembly adopted the framework for restructuring global governance.

That sequence — the partnership signing, the Epstein dinner, the candid admission about replacing the UN with a public-private architecture, and then the formal adoption — opens Jacob Nordangård’s The Digital World Brain. Pages two and three. Footnoted to the UN resolution number, the Epstein files, and the General Assembly record.

I keep coming back to it because it captures what this book does that almost nothing else in the independent research space manages. I’ve followed Jacob’s work for years now and interviewed him about his research. Each book peels back another layer of the same institutional architecture, and each time I think he’s reached the limit of what can be documented, the next one goes further. Nordangård doesn’t speculate. He doesn’t editorialize much. He lays institutional actions next to each other in chronological order and lets the pattern announce itself.

The Researcher

Nordangård has a PhD in Technology and Social Change from Linköping University. Master’s degrees in geography and in culture and media production. He’s taught at three Swedish universities. His doctoral work traced how institutional networks shape EU biofuels policy — mapping the actors, the funding flows, and the coordination mechanisms that produce outcomes which look spontaneous but aren’t.

He’s been applying that same method to global governance for over a decade now, across five books. Rockefeller: Controlling the Game followed the money behind the climate agenda from the 1950s forward — Rockefeller Foundation grants to climate scientists, Rockefeller Brothers Fund involvement in virtually every major environmental conference and agreement. The Global Coup d’Etat documented the pre-existing plans that the pandemic accelerated. The Digital World Brain, first published in Swedish in 2022 and now out in an expanded English edition, takes the UN Secretary-General’s 2021 report Our Common Agenda and its twelve commitments apart, chapter by chapter, tracing the institutional genealogy behind each one.

The man also fronts a doom metal band called Wardenclyffe whose lyrics are drawn from his research. Make of that what you will.

What the Documents Actually Say

Our Common Agenda proposes twelve commitments. Read casually, they sound like boilerplate — leave no one behind, protect the planet, build trust, upgrade digital cooperation. The kind of language that slides past without friction.

Nordangård slows down and traces where each commitment came from, who drafted it, who funded the drafting, and what it requires in practice. A “new social contract” that ties your individual obligations to planetary boundaries defined by a scientific council you didn’t elect. Digital identity for every person on earth, connected to monitoring infrastructure. A Futures Lab to collect and analyse data on citizens’ attitudes, opinions, and life choices using AI. A Climate Governance Council. A Special Envoy to speak on behalf of future generations — meaning, in practice, an unelected office with a mandate to override present democratic decisions in the name of people who don’t yet exist.

Traced back through the commissions and think tanks that produced them, these twelve commitments form a three-layer governance structure. At the top, an upgraded United Nations with enforcement powers and a standing army. Beneath that, anticipatory governance — mass data collection feeding AI systems that predict behaviour and detect non-compliance. And at the base, multi-stakeholder governance: public-private partnerships implementing decisions at every level of society.

The preparatory work goes back to at least 2015, when the Albright-Gambari Commission — supported by the Stimson Center, a Washington think tank sitting at the intersection of the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, and the major philanthropic foundations — recommended a World Conference on Global Institutions to coincide with the UN’s 75th anniversary in 2020.

Two months before that anniversary conference could take shape, COVID-19 shut down the world. The questions that had been prepared for member state discussions — “What are today’s most fundamental global challenges? How is the UN standing up to new challenges?” — suddenly had a very specific answer.

The New Material

This English edition adds two chapters covering events through early 2026, and they’re the reason even readers of the Swedish original need this book.

The Pact for the Future was signed at the UN Summit of the Future in September 2024. Nordangård documents the signing and the opposition — such as it was. Russia objected. But Russia’s complaint wasn’t about individual freedom or democratic accountability. It was about ensuring Russian participation as an equal partner in the new architecture. The BRICS nations voted against Russia’s procedural amendment. They didn’t want to stop the digital governance infrastructure. They just didn’t want to be junior partners in it.

The chapter called “The Great Disruptor” will unsettle people across the political spectrum, which is probably the point. Nordangård maps the network connections between the Trump administration and the very institutions Trump’s supporters believe he opposes. J.D. Vance came up through Peter Thiel’s venture capital world. Thiel sits on the Bilderberg Group’s steering committee — alongside WEF’s Börge Brende. His company Palantir was seed-funded by the CIA’s In-Q-Tel and is a partner of the WEF’s Centre for the Fourth Industrial Revolution. ICE is now using Palantir’s AI surveillance to generate “confidence scores” for tracking immigrants. Elon Musk’s grandfather ran the Canadian branch of Technocracy Inc. Musk himself was named a WEF Young Global Leader in 2008. The book includes an appendix table of Young Global Leaders with ties to the Trump administration. It runs long.

Nordangård isn’t arguing that Trump is a puppet. He’s documenting that the institutional connections run in every direction, and that what looks like opposition may be accelerating the dissolution of the old order in ways that serve the same technocratic endpoint. The evidence is specific enough that readers can evaluate it themselves.

But the most unsettling material in the new edition is a May 2025 white paper from the WEF’s Global Government Technology Centre called The Agentic State. Nordangård catches something in the title that the authors may not have intended to advertise. In psychology, the “agentic state” is Stanley Milgram’s term for the mental condition in which a person stops seeing themselves as responsible for their own actions and becomes an instrument of authority. It’s the mechanism that made ordinary people administer what they believed were lethal electric shocks in Milgram’s obedience experiments.

The white paper’s meaning is the other one — a state governed by AI agents. But the resonance hangs in the air.

The paper proposes that laws can evolve from static rules into “a far more dynamic living system, continuously interpreted, tested, and refined by agents.” Human legislators would set “broad societal goals.” Everything else — specific rules, thresholds, requirements — gets “adjusted dynamically by agents with limited or no human intervention.” Compliance becomes continuous, monitored in real time by AI systems issuing yes/no attestations across health, safety, financial, environmental, and ethics domains. Citizen input comes through “emotion detection in digital interactions” feeding into the system’s self-adjustment loops.

The authors ask what safeguards would be needed if AI agents could “issue fines or trigger legal action in real time.” They don’t answer their own question. They move on.

This isn’t a leaked memo. It’s a public white paper from a WEF-affiliated centre whose founding strategic partners include IBM, Microsoft, SAP, Oracle, and Huawei. Its lead author is the Chief Information Officer of the Estonian government. Nordangård’s contribution is placing it in the context of everything else in the book. After 250 pages of institutional genealogy, the paper reads less like futurism and more like a product specification.

The book runs 283 pages with more than 250 footnotes, a multi-page bibliography, and appendix tables cross-referencing WEF Young Global Leaders to government positions, milestones in the digital ID agenda, and the full timeline of climate governance from a 1971 MIT study through the 2024 Pact for the Future. It’s dense, and it demands an engaged reader. This is a reference work — the kind of book you come back to six months later when something shows up in the news and you want to understand which institutional thread it connects to.

Where It Comes From

The concept of a “World Brain” was articulated by H.G. Wells in 1938. Oliver Reiser, a philosophy professor at the University of Pittsburgh, developed it further through the 1940s and 1970s into a vision he called the “World Sensorium” — all of humanity integrated into a collective technological organism, governed by a World Organisation, guided by what he termed “radio-eugenics.” His book Cosmic Humanism and World Unity was published posthumously by the World Institute, which operated from offices at the United Nations Plaza in New York.

This wasn’t fringe material that got ignored. It ran directly through the Club of Rome, the Club of Budapest, the World Future Society, and into the bodies that drafted Our Common Agenda. Nordangård traces the institutional lineage. That lineage is the book’s spine.

In 1968, Columbia University professor Zbigniew Brzezinski — later US National Security Advisor, co-founder of the Trilateral Commission with David Rockefeller — wrote that new technologies could make possible “extensive population control, including the monitoring of each citizen and maintaining up-to-date files on their health or personal behaviour.” Power, he wrote, would “gravitate into those who control information and can correlate it most rapidly,” encouraging “tendencies during the next several decades toward a technocratic dictatorship, leaving less and less room for political procedures as we now know them.” That was 1968. The technology now exists to do everything Brzezinski described. The institutional architecture to deploy it is what this book documents.

The Proportionality Problem

One detail from the conclusion stays with me. Human-generated CO2 represents roughly 4% of total atmospheric carbon dioxide, which itself makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere. That comes out to about 16 parts per million. To influence a fraction of those 16 parts per million, the plan requires digitising, monitoring, tokenising, and subjecting to real-time compliance enforcement essentially everything — food production, energy, transportation, land use, individual consumption. All overseen by unelected “Planetary Stewards.”

Nordangård asks the obvious questions. How much energy will the Digital World Brain itself consume? Can the stated carbon targets be reached without measures indistinguishable from permanent authoritarian control? The white papers don’t address this.

Read the Documents

The Pact for the Future has been signed. The Global Digital Compact is annexed to it. The WHO Pandemic Agreement was adopted in May 2025. The Agentic State white paper is online for anyone to read. The UN-WEF partnership agreement is a matter of public record. The foundation funding behind the organisations that drafted all of this is disclosed in their own annual reports.

What Nordangård has done across 283 pages and more than 250 footnotes is demonstrate that these are not independent initiatives happening to converge. They are components of an architecture that has been under construction for decades, advanced by identifiable people through documented channels. He’s brought the receipts.

The book ends on a note of conviction — that this system, however carefully engineered, cannot ultimately prevail against what he calls humanity’s “natural intelligence.” Whether or not you share that faith, the institutional map he’s drawn demands a serious response. The documents are real. The signatures are dated. The timelines check out.

Read the book. Then read the documents it cites. Nordangård includes the URLs in his footnotes. You can verify every claim that matters without leaving your desk.

Then decide for yourself what a system designed to monitor every person, predict every behaviour, and enforce compliance in real time through AI agents actually is — regardless of what its architects choose to call it.

Jacob is an independent researcher doing work that no university department and no mainstream publisher would touch. He funds this through book sales and reader support. If what you’ve read here matters to you, buy the book. Give it to someone who’s starting to ask questions. This is the kind of research that deserves to find a wider audience, and that only happens when readers carry it forward.

The Digital World Brain: Our Common Agenda and The Pact for the Future by Jacob Nordangård, PhD. First English edition, 2026. Pharos Media Productions.

Get the book: pharosmedia.se

Follow Jacob’s research: drjacobnordangard.substack.com

April 6, 2026 Posted by aletho | Book Review, Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Human rights | Comments Off on “Davos Can Really Replace the UN”

One Of America’s Leading Neo-Cons Has Turned Against The Iran War And Israel

The Dissident | April 3, 2026

There are few American Neo-conservatives more influential than Robert Kagan.

In 1997, Kagan co-founded the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), the Neo-con think tank responsible for staffing the Bush administration with hawks such as Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz, and played a large role in the Iraq War in 2003.

In 2010, Kagan founded a new think tank, the Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI) which was instrumental in pushing for a new Cold War with Russia.

Kagan’s wife, Victoria Nuland was instrumental in the proxy war in Ukraine, playing a leading role in the maidan coup of 2014 ,as Assistant Secretary of State for the Obama administration, and again played a leading role in the proxy war in Ukraine as the Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs for the Biden administration, including in blocking the peace deal in Istanbul in April of 2022 and in the bombing of the Nord Stream pipeline.

However, Kagan has begun to change his tune since Trump launched a war on Iran for Israel, sounding more like a John Mearsheimer realist than the leading champion of American regime change that he has always been.

Kagan is still an American imperialist, but the Iran war has forced him to admit that the war is actually doing more to destroy the American empire and its ability to wage a new Cold War on Russia and China, and that Israel is a strategic liability- even for the U.S. empire.

In a recent podcast with his fellow neo-con, Bill Kristol, Kagan lamented that because of the war on Iran:

-the skyrocketing oil prices … are even before Trump took the action of lifting sanctions against Russia was going to increase Russian income

-American forces are … burning through major stocks of weaponry and particularly Patriot and other forms of interceptors on which Ukraine depends heavily because those are the interceptors that defend their major cities from constant Russian attacks

-very few countries in the world are more dependent on Middle East oil, including the oil that comes directly through the Strait of Hormuz, than Japan. Japan I think, depends on something like 95% of its oil supplies come from the Middle East and 70% of that runs through the Strait of Hormuz. So once again the Japanese were not consulted

-the Japanese will notice that the United States has sent significant forces that are dedicated both to the defense of Japan and are sort of critical to any response to a Chinese attack on Taiwan. Those forces are now being sent or some of them are already there, and some are being sent to the Middle Eas

-the bottom line for the Gulf States is that the United States undertook this war and then was not able actually to protect them

-I don’t think it’s hard to persuade certain Gulf states like the UAE and others that maybe China is also a pretty good partner or at least as much of a reliable partner as the United States has turned out to be

In other words, Kagan is lamenting that because of the Iran war, the U.S. is losing allies and losing its ability to wage a new Cold War on Russia and China, as well as its ability to use the Gulf States and proxies.

This is why Kagan was forced to admit that Israel is now a strategic liability-even for the U.S. empire- saying, “I find it a little bit it’s kind of a syllogism when people talk about what a great ally Israel is. It it is a great ally in defense of Israel, at the end of the day, Iran is a much greater threat to Israel than it is to the United States.”

Kagan doubled down on this in a recent article for the Atlantic, essentially saying that the war in Iran will be the death of the American empire, writing that it is “driving deeper wedges between the United States and former friends and allies; strengthening the hands of the expansionist great powers, Russia and China; accelerating global political and economic chaos; and leaving the United States weaker and more isolated than at any time since the 1930s.”

Kagan again reiterated that:

-Even before Donald Trump lifted oil sanctions on Russia, oil prices were skyrocketing—and filling Vladimir Putin’s war chest with billions of dollars, just as Russia’s wartime deficits were starting to cause significant pain

-the Persian Gulf states are burning through U.S.-provided stocks of air-defense interceptors, drawing on the same limited supply that Ukraine depends on to defend its largest cities from Russian missile strikes.

-Japan gets 95 percent of its oil from the Middle East, and 70 percent of that passes through the now-blocked Strait of Hormuz. Yet Japanese and other Asian diplomats in the first weeks of the war complained that they were ‘not receiving any communication from the Trump administration.’

-the United States has dispatched an aircraft-carrier battle group and other warships from the Western Pacific to the Persian Gulf, including elements of the Tripoli amphibious ready group, that would be needed for an American response to Chinese aggression, including an attack on Taiwan.

-Gulf state leaders are ‘privately furious’ with the U.S. for ‘triggering a war that put them in the crosshairs.’

Because of this, Kagan is forced to make some shocking admissions, including that supporting Israel is not in America’s interests, that no Middle East state poses a threat to America, and that “terrorism” is often just a backlash to U.S. foreign policy.

Kagan wrote that supporting Israel, “never had anything to do with American national-security interests” adding:

American officials from the beginning regarded support for Israel as contrary to U.S. interests. George C. Marshall opposed recognition in 1948, and Dean Acheson said that by recognizing Israel, the United States had succeeded Britain as ‘the most disliked power in the Middle East.’ During the Cold War, even supporters of Israel acknowledged that as a simple matter of ‘power politics,’ the United States had ‘every reason for wishing that Israel had never come into existence.’ But as Harry Truman put it, the decision to support the state of Israel was made ‘not in the light of oil, but in the light of justice.’

“One would be hard-pressed to find any nation in the world that has been reassured by the Israeli and American war against Iran, other than Israel itself,” Kagan added.

As if this wasn’t shocking enough, Kagan even admitted that Iranian anger at America stems from the U.S. backing the 1953 coup against Mohammad Mosaddegh and supporting the brutal Shah dictatorship until 1979, writing:

Even the threat of terrorism from the region was a consequence of American involvement, not the reason for it. Had the United States not been deeply and consistently involved in the Muslim world since the 1940s, Islamic militants would have little interest in attacking an indifferent nation 5,000 miles and two oceans away. Contrary to much mythology, they have hated us not so much because of ‘who we are’ but because of where we are. In Iran’s case, the United States was deeply involved in its politics from the 1950s until the 1979 revolution, including as the main supporter of the brutal regime of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. The surest way of avoiding Islamist terrorist attacks would have been to get out.

Kagan added, “No state in the Middle East (including Iraq in 2003 and Iran today) ever posed a direct threat to the security of the American homeland. Iran has no missiles that can reach the United States and, according to American intelligence, would not until 2035. Access to Middle Eastern oil and gas has never been essential to the security of the American homeland. Today, the United States is less dependent on Middle Eastern energy than in the past, which Trump has pointed out numerous times since the Strait of Hormuz was closed.”

Kagan has no doubt done major damage to U.S. foreign policy, and his role in the Iraq war and proxy war in Ukraine should not be discounted, but nonetheless, it is notable that even he acknowledges that the Iran war is crippling the U.S. empire, and being forced to admit that his critics were more or less correct about U.S. policy in the Middle East.

April 4, 2026 Posted by aletho | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Timeless or most popular, Wars for Israel | Israel, Japan, Middle East, United States, Zionism | Comments Off on One Of America’s Leading Neo-Cons Has Turned Against The Iran War And Israel

The Most Important Bet You’ve Never Heard Of

Corbett | March 31, 2026

Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed

Have you heard of the bet between Paul Ehrlich and Julian Simon. You know, the bet about whether commodity prices would rise or fall in the 1980s? If you’re like most of the population, you haven’t. That’s because this wasn’t some mere wager about economics, this was a contest between the forces of good and the forces of evil. Spoiler: the forces of good won. And that’s why we’re not taught about this bet in the public indoctrination system. Let’s fix that. Today on The Corbett Report, James fills in the missing pieces about the most important bet you’ve never heard of and what it tells us about the value of human life.

Video player not working? Use these links to watch it somewhere else!

WATCH ON: / / / / / or DOWNLOAD THE MP4

TRANSCRIPT AND SOURCES

April 2, 2026 Posted by aletho | Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Timeless or most popular, Video | Human rights, United States | Comments Off on The Most Important Bet You’ve Never Heard Of

Suicide Should Not Be a Government Service

By Wendy McElroy | Brownstone Institute | March 30, 2026

On February 5, 2026, in the Canadian Parliament, Conservative MP Garnett Genuis tabled Bill C-260, which prohibits civil servants or others with authority from recommending assisted-suicide to anyone who has not asked about it.

Genuis cited “examples such as Canadian Armed Forces veteran David Baltzer…who was offered MAiD by Veterans Affairs Canada, as well as Nicholas Bergeron, a 46-year-old man from Quebec who was not interested in a medically facilitated death, but was ‘repeatedly’ pushed towards the option by a social worker.”

I can verify this government policy personally since a family member was encouraged without prompting to attend a seminar on how and why to kill himself.

Introduced in 2016, Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) is a federal program that can differ slightly from province to province. The core and constant concept: at the request of an eligible individual, the government administers death either by euthanasia through a lethal injection delivered by a clinician or by assisted suicide through self-administered medication that is facilitated by a clinician. An estimated 99% of MAiD cases involve euthanasia, not assisted suicide.

For one thing, the populous province of Quebec prohibits self-administration; in other provinces, health regions and care facilities perform only euthanasia or lean strongly in this direction. Perhaps government chose the acronym MAiD because Medical Euthanasia sounds jarring.

MAiD sets the extremely dangerous precedent of granting government the authority to kill an innocent person. The standard rebuttal to this argument is that the innocent person must request the “service” of suicide.

MAiD is not a uniquely Canadian issue. State-assisted suicide has spread quickly across the Western world. Currently (February 2026), over a dozen American states have legalized it in some form. In the UK, the Terminally Ill Adults Bill is at the Committee Stage in Parliament where it reportedly has 1,227 proposed amendments.

Some regions in Australia are also drawing up programs. The list of nations offering State-assisted suicide or euthanasia scrolls on and on, including Switzerland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Portugal, Luxembourg, Austria, New Zealand…The same concerns and debates surrounding MAiD bear directly on these other programs, especially as MAiD is often referenced as a model or as a cautionary tale.

I view MAiD as a cautionary tale.

Medical personnel may have religious or other ethical objections to administering MAiD. Perhaps they view euthanasia as a violation of the Hippocratic Oath, which states, “First, Do No Harm.” For many, these 4 words form the backbone of medical ethics. Canada does not force doctors or nurse practitioners to administer MAiD, but the Canadian Association of MAiD Assessors and Providers (CAMAP) explains that “holding a conscientious objection to MAiD does not negate these obligations.

Rather, it activates alternative duties to discuss the objection with the patient and to refer or transfer the care of the patient to a non-objecting clinician or other effective information-providing and access-facilitating resource.” This forces the practitioners to participate in the MAiD system to which they may strenuously object. Equally, some taxpayers may consider MAiD to be a form of murder that is covered by tax-funded health care. They may be as repulsed by having to pay for MAiD as much as many pro-life advocates detest having to finance abortions.

All assisted-suicide nations will confront certain practical questions; for example, all programs need to answer “what constitutes consent, and how is it documented?”

A sketch of how these general practical problems surfaced in Canada gives insight.

The original 2016 legislation (Bill C-14) provided safeguards to ensure applicants were eligible for MAiD. An amendment in 2021 (Bill C-7) established a two-track system of qualifications: Track 1 and Track 2. What is now called Track 1 is for people with an advanced condition whose natural death is deemed to be “reasonably foreseeable.” To be accepted in MAiD, the applicant requires the approval of 2 clinicians; it used to require a mandatory waiting period but this was lifted by Bill-C7 in 2021.

Increasingly, the media and public have been asking whether the safeguards are being applied or are inadequate. A recent MAiD case has drawn particular attention to the question. A woman in her eighties, identified as Mrs. B. was handled as a Track 1 patient for whom 2 assessments are required. Mrs. B. received 3 because the first assessor reported that the elderly woman preferred palliative care which had been essentially denied. Mrs. B. also expressed religious objections to suicide.

The clinician believed this disqualified her as a candidate. Nevertheless, her husband complained of having “caregiver burnout” and secured additional assessments by 2 more obliging clinicians. MAiD was approved for Mrs. B. When the first assessor asked to re-interview Mrs. B, she was refused access. Mrs. B’s death was processed.

The case raises questions. The husband seemed to be present at all 3 assessments even though no one but the applicant can make a request or should influence the process. Did his presence silence her or otherwise alter the results? Were the husband’s hardships given priority over Mrs. B.’s? Why was she denied the palliative care she preferred? Was she given a chance to revoke her initial consent? And, if MAiD prioritized safeguards, why would it deny the 1^st clinician’s request to re-interview?

An article entitled “Canadian Medical Assistance in Dying: Provider Concentration, Policy Capture, and Need for Reform” recently appeared in The American Journal of Bioethics (Volume 25, 2025 – Issue 5). The authors—Christopher Lyon of the University of York, Trudo Lemmens of the University of Toronto, and Scott Y.H. Kim M.D. of the National Institutes of Health—state, “there have been, and continue to be, a significant number of troubling cases of MAiD, including cases reported in the media where the requestor did not want to die but found MAiD far more accessible than basic, standard resources (their first choice) that would have offered treatment or made their suffering bearable.”

Canada’s allegedly ‘universal’ health care was unable or unwilling to render the standard services that Mrs. B. would have chosen life over death. The system may have been “unable” to do so because public health care tightly rations its scarce services, which means many people are turned away or left to die on a long waiting list. Private care is not always possible; if it is available, it can be very expensive, prohibitively far away and selective in the patients accepted. The system may have been “unwilling” to provide basic standard service because patients with serious chronic conditions are expensive in terms of treatment, time and money.

And, so, the medical professional decided she was not worth the trouble. Instead of easing and extending life—as the Hippocratic Oath instructs—the system offered death. Other nations with a degree of tax-funded health care—and this is most Western nations—suffer from similar problems. On January 25, 2026, Spiked Online (UK) ran an article entitled “The assisted-suicide bill is class warfare at its ugliest.” The author, Dan Hitchens inserted two unusually candid quotes:

In 2024, Matthew Parris cheerfully wrote in the Times that, ‘Our culture is changing its mind about the worth of old age.’ He rejoiced that while, ‘Your time is up,’ might ‘never be an order,’ he conceded that ‘the objectors are right,’ it ‘may one day be the kind of unspoken hint that everybody understands.’ We can’t afford to do anything else, Parris believes. Similarly, the New Statesman’s Oli Dugmore enthused last year that assisted suicide would bring down ‘the pensions bill, the NHS bill and the care bill,’ and would relieve us of the old folk who sit in care homes ‘unvisited by relatives who are preoccupied by the rhythm of their lives, or perhaps unable to summon the courage to witness the degeneration of the once totemic figures of their lives, their mum and dad. Let them die.’

Track 2 of MAiD is a further step toward freeing the Canadian health system and economy by extending MAiD to broader categories of people. Track 2 applies to individuals whose natural death is not reasonably foreseeable but who have a grievous and irremediable medical condition, including disabilities. This is a considerable expansion of governmental authority.

It may soon expand more. Today, mental illness alone does not make a person eligible for MAiD, although such eligibility is legally slated to be available in March 2027. It may come sooner, however, due largely to the successful and high-profile actress Claire Brosseau, 48, being part of a lawsuit against MAiD. The Plaintiffs accuse MAiD of discriminating against the mentally ill because they are currently excluded. As of February 2026, Brosseau’s suit is still pending.

This is an alarming ‘mission drift’ that introduces people who may be unable to make informed decisions—that is, the mentally ill—into MAiD. The aforementioned essay “Canadian Medical Assistance in Dying” states, “In more recent years… there have been well documented cases of people using MAiD as a way to end a life of poverty, a disability, social isolation, or mental illness.” These are problems that health care and social networks used to address through healing, education, drugs, therapy, or community involvement.

Inevitably, some people protest, “Trust government! Trust the health care system!” Why? Government officials are revealed repeatedly to be egregious liars, and the medical ‘science’ of Covid lockdowns revealed as dogma. Trust now seems to be clueless and self-destructive, especially when the topic at hand is literally a matter of life and death.

So far, a main obstacle to MAiD’s acquisition of credibility comes from the program itself. How can you judge if and to what extent MAiD has been abused when the data it releases is sparse and not informative? It is not as though there is a means of independent verification. In part, the non-transparency is due to the anonymity and privacy laws applying to medical records, which can prevent coming to an informed conclusion.

Consider just one small category of MAiD data to which the government has total access: federal inmates. In a December 29, 2025 article, The Post Millennial reports that at least 15 federal inmates had died by MAiD since 2018. The article comments on an Order Paper response—that is, an official, written government reply to a question submitted by a Member of Parliament or a Senator.

An Order Paper response confirmed by the Correctional Service of Canada shows the inmates died before completing their prison sentences. The records indicate two inmate deaths by MAiD in 2018, followed by one each in 2019, 2020, and 2021. The number rose to four in 2022, dropped to one in 2023, increased again to four in 2024, and one additional death has been recorded so far in 2025.

The data does not identify where the deaths occurred, the sex of the inmates, or the specific reasons for the requests. It also does not indicate whether the deaths fell under Track 1… or Track 2 cases…

It becomes impossible to know if these MAiD cases followed federal requirements or were a way to rid the prison system of expensive inmates.

The expansion of MAiD shows no signs of waning. In 2022, for example, the Quebec College of Physicians (CMQ) suggested including gravely ill or extremely deformed babies into people eligible for MAiD. This would sidestep the much-touted requirement of patient’s informed consent, of course, since newborns cannot understand or communicate. And, yet, the CMQ reaffirmed its position in 2025. Canada now permits only the withdrawal of life-support for critically ill infants, not the act of killing them. The CMQ assures the public that euthanasia of newborns would be rare, of course. But would it be? MAiD has grown so dramatically in the past decade that 1 in every 20 deaths in Canada are attributed to the aggressive program.

Quebec has also led the way in using advance requests for MAiD. This request is from a person who has an incurable illness that will lead to some form of incapacity; Alzheimer’s is often given as an example. The advance request is made when the person is still mentally competent; MAiD is administered when he becomes mentally incompetent. Again, this raises questions about consent; what if the person changes his mind? Will the clinician disregard an Alzheimer’s patient who resists at the final moment? Will a family member with medical guardianship be able to override MAiD?

Most of the concerns raised have been practical ones, which leaves open the door for reforming the system to prevent the abuses, errors, and overreach. I don’t think reform is possible. The economic incentives in a tax-funded health system are strongly in favor of MAiD; the system is already ‘overly burdened’ by the elderly and chronically ill whose absence would be welcomed.

Moreover, no one knows what the rates of abuse, error, and overreach are. Under what may be the guise of privacy, the government can indefinitely hide the evidence of such abuse, error, and overreach. Once tax-funded and rationed health care is coupled with a public acceptance of euthanasia that is conducted with next to no transparency, a bad outcome seems inevitable.

To complicate matters, MAiD is not merely a means of saving money; it may also be a significant means of making it. The Legal Insurrection website (January 13, 2026) notes that some of MAiD patient’s organs are harvested for ‘donation.’ Raising the topic of “organ tourism,” the Legal Insurrection continues,

I wasn’t the only one who noticed, either. The U.S. Health and Human Services (HHS) leadership is now sharply criticizing Canada’s MAiD program, which is now linked to organ donation, with one top official calling it a ‘strange new horror’ and a cautionary example for other countries. U.S. Deputy HHS Secretary Jim O’Neill said that Canada’s permissive assisted-suicide regime has ‘crossed ethical boundaries’ by helping drive up organ donation rates from people who die via euthanasia.

The phrase “strange new horror” comes from a January 8, 2026 interview with the Washington Examiner in which O’Neill explained how disturbed he was “to learn that Canada’s physician-assisted suicide program… has enabled it to become a world leader in organ transplant policy from deceased donors.” Some consider O’Neill’s concerns about MAiD to be wildly exaggerated and attribute part of the increase in Canadian organ transplant to other sources. For example, Nova Scotia is an automatic organ donor province. If a person doesn’t explicitly opt out of organ donation then, his viable organs will automatically be harvested and sold to other provinces or other countries.

It is not technically permitted to sell organs in Canada, but Revenue Canada notes that the expense of providing organ transplants can be written off, which is a form of remuneration. These expenses include “reasonable amounts paid to find a compatible donor, to arrange the transplant including legal fees and insurance premiums, and reasonable travel, board and lodging expenses for the patient, the donor, and their respective attendants.” Clearly, money changes hands. This opens another Pandora’s box of ethical questions.

The only path back from the medical dystopia of MAiD is to remove government involvement. I would like to say that those who choose death-by-government are within their rights. I can’t because such people are enabling oppressive laws and a medical bureaucracy that threaten the rest of society.

MAiD is a sea change in one of Canada’s most important institutions—health care. Instead of extending life, hundreds of clinicians devote their skills to facilitating death. In turn, this causes a sea change in how many people view the health system.

As a Canadian, I am now unwilling to be candid with the doctors I visit or to answer all medical questionnaires. This is not paranoia. The last health survey I received had incredibly intrusive and unprecedented questions, including about my mental state. No one will keep this information away from the government that prepared the survey in the first place. How do I know it won’t be used against me in the future?

Of one thing, I am certain; government has no place in euthanasia or assisted-suicide. MAiD is not compassionate. It is not mercy killing. It is a cruel, uncaring bureaucracy looking after its own interests, as all bureaucracies do. Consider one more MAiD case. In March 2024, the quadriplegic Normand Meunier was administered MAiD as a result of a hospital visit in Quebec. “Before being admitted to an intensive care bed for his third respiratory virus in three months this winter,” the CBC explains. “Meunier was stuck on a stretcher in the emergency room for four days.”

Due to neglect, improper care surfaces, and inadequate repositioning, he developed such severe bedsores (pressure ulcers) that bone and muscle were exposed. The excruciating sores were deemed untreatable. Meunier, who had asked for help, decided not to live with the pain.

MAiD is a type of “Therapeutic Nihilism”—the belief that there is little hope of curing or significantly improving a patient’s condition and death is more appropriate. In Orwellian fashion, it redefines “Do no harm” into “It is best to kill the patient.” This nihilism ignores the common phenomena of misdiagnosis, the creation of breakthrough treatment, or the simple fact that many patients live for years and years beyond even a correct diagnosis. MAiD is the creation of a health system that cannot or will not provide “basic, standard” service.

Covid devastated the medical profession’s reputation. The shreds that remain will not survive MAiD. Nor should they.

Wendy McElroy is a Canadian individualist feminist and voluntaryist writer. McElroy is the editor of the website ifeminists.net.

March 31, 2026 Posted by aletho | Timeless or most popular | Canada, MAiD, UK | Comments Off on Suicide Should Not Be a Government Service

Bombing Hitler’s Hometown

Tales of the American Empire | March 26, 2026

By the end of April 1945, American and Soviet armies had met in central Germany. Berlin was surrounded as Soviet troops were fighting Germans in a small pocket downtown. German units in Italy surrendered while American Generals were praised for their long, senseless campaign to slog up the mountainous boot of Italy. The war was over in Italy, but American bombers in central Italy could reach Austria, although missions would be dangerous as they were long range over mountains. If a bomber suffered any damage or minor engine problem, it would be unable to return to base and its crew would be forced to bail out. Vienna had been captured and Soviet troops were closing in on the city of Linz. Bombing Linz would be a nice news story to highlight the brilliance of some American Generals in Italy.

__________________________________________

Related Tale: “American Aerial Massacres in Germany”; • American Aerial Massacres in Germany

Related Tale: “Americans Bombed a Cathedral in 1943”; • Americans Bombed a Cathedral in 1943

Related Tale: “American Bombings of Allied Cities in World War II”; • American Bombings of Allied Cities in Worl…

Related Tale: “American Mass Bombings of Chinese Cities in World War II”; • American Mass Bombings of Chinese Cities i…

Related Tale: “American Bombings of Vietnam during World War II”; • American Bombings of Vietnam during World …

Related Tale: “Bombing Japan After the Atomic Bombings”; • Bombing Japan After the Atomic Bombings

Related Tale: “The Slaughter of the Yanks in 1918”; • The Slaughter of the Yanks in 1918

American Bomber Missions” Tales’ playlist: • American Bomber Missions

March 27, 2026 Posted by aletho | Timeless or most popular, Video, War Crimes | Austria, United States | Comments Off on Bombing Hitler’s Hometown

Alon Mizrahi: ‘Israel Must Be Dismantled’

Reason2Resist with Dimitri Lascaris | January 22, 2025

Alon Mizrahi is an Arab Jewish writer and activist who left Israel over the genocide it has perpetrated in Gaza. He now resides in the United States.

On January 21, 2025, Dimitri Lascaris spoke with Alon about his experiences as an Arab Jew in Israel, his abandonment of Zionism, and the future of the ‘Jewish state’.

According to Alon, Israel’s political elite and society have become so infused with hatred of Arabs, and have enjoyed impunity for so long, that the region cannot achieve a lasting and just peace unless Israel is dismantled.

March 25, 2026 Posted by aletho | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Timeless or most popular, Video, War Crimes | Israel, Palestine, Zionism | Comments Off on Alon Mizrahi: ‘Israel Must Be Dismantled’

Echos of Gallipoli? Hormuz and the Geography of Hubris

In a naval chokepoint, always bet on the shore over the ship

Ashes of Pompeii | March 24, 2026

“History is not a teacher, it teaches nothing. History is a warden, and it punishes for poorly learned historical lessons”
– Vladimir Putin.

The ghosts of 1915 still haunt the narrow waters of the Dardanelles. The Battle of Gallipoli remains one of history’s warnings against racist and strategic hubris. As geopolitical tensions rise and speculation grows about potential U.S. military action in the Strait of Hormuz, the shadow of the this far off battle should be casting a long, dark silhouette over modern war planning. But of course it isn’t. Technology has evolved, the fundamental truths of geography and human resilience have not, and lessons sometimes need to be repeated.

Gallipoli was born of overconfidence. The Allied powers, boasting superior naval technology and industrial might, assumed the Ottoman Empire would crumble under a naval bombardment followed by an amphibious landing. They were wrong. The geography of the Dardanelles turned the Allied advantage into a liability. The narrow strait allowed a numerically inferior force to concentrate fire, mine the waters, and utilize the high ground to devastating effect. The result was a bloody stalemate, massive casualties, and a humiliating withdrawal.

The parallels to the Strait of Hormuz are hard to miss. Like the Dardanelles, Hormuz is a maritime chokepoint, narrow, shallow, and flanked by land that can be fortified. But where the Ottomans relied on artillery and mines, Iran has, over the last 30 years at least, built a layered, modern asymmetric arsenal designed specifically to exploit this geography. Iran’s advantage isn’t in aircraft carriers or stealth fighters; it’s in the sheer density and dispersion of its missile and drone forces.

Iran possesses the largest missile inventory in the Middle East, including thousands of short- and medium-range ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and precision-guided munitions capable of striking ships at sea. Many of these systems are mobile, hidden in tunnels, or dispersed among civilian infrastructure, making them exceptionally difficult to neutralize in a first strike. Complementing the missiles is Iran’s drone fleet: the Shahed-136 and other loitering munitions that are cheap, hard to detect, and effective in swarms. In a confined space like Hormuz, a swarm of slow, low-flying drones can saturate a warship’s defenses, forcing it to expend precious interceptors or risk being overwhelmed. The Houthis defeated the US Navy in the Red Sea and Bab al-Mandeb with far less.

This is the modern iteration of the Gallipoli lesson: a force perceived to be less advanced, fighting on home terrain, can use asymmetric tools to negate a superior adversary’s edge in firepower. The Ottomans used the high ground and narrow waters to blunt Allied naval power. Iran will use coastal missile batteries, underwater mines, and drone swarms to turn the strait into a contested kill zone. The U.S. Navy is unquestionably more powerful, but power means little if it cannot be brought to bear without unacceptable cost.

Differences, of course, exist. Modern precision weaponry allows for strikes that were impossible in the era of biplanes and battleships. Yet defense has also evolved. In WWI, mines were contact-based; today, they are sophisticated, influence-activated, and difficult to clear. Furthermore, the stakes are different. Gallipoli was a theater of war; Hormuz is the throat of the global economy. A blockade or prolonged engagement there triggers immediate worldwide recession, adding a layer of pressure the Allies never faced in the Aegean.

History offers other grim comparisons. Operation Market Garden in WWII and the battle for Gostomel Airport in Ukraine both illustrate the perils of assuming an enemy will collapse under the shock of a rapid airborne assault. In both cases, planners underestimated the defender’s ability to regroup and strike back. And both failed because the armor couldn’t reach the paratroopers, underscoring the danger of betting on shock over substance. Even if the American paratroopers were to create a beachhead in Hormuz, the operation would fail without naval support and successful landing of the marines, just as in Market Garden, where Arnhem was “A Bridge Too Far”.

Then there is Iwo Jima. While an American victory, it serves as a cautionary tale regarding fortified defenses. The Japanese forces, dug into volcanic rock, inflicted massive casualties on the Marines despite overwhelming U.S. air and naval superiority. The underground tunnels of Iwo Jima find their modern equivalent in Iran’s buried missile silos, drone launch sites, and command centers. You cannot bomb what you cannot find, and it is difficult to occupy terrain that is designed to deny you footing.

The lesson for any modern planner looking at Hormuz is not to doubt American firepower, but to respect the defender’s will, the terrain’s tyranny, and the multiplying effect of asymmetric technology. Gallipoli taught us that a narrow strait favors the shore over the ship. Iran has spent decades learning that lesson and building a force to exploit it. Market Garden and Gostomel taught us that speed and surprise do not guarantee success. Iwo Jima taught us that fortifications, and the determination behind them, multiply defensive power exponentially.

The Dardanelles remains a graveyard of ships and reputations. To ignore the lessons of that campaign while eyeing the Strait of Hormuz, especially while underestimating the disruptive potential of drones, missiles, and mines, is to invite a catastrophe not of capability, but of imagination. The map has not changed, even if the weapons have. And in a naval chokepoint, always bet on the shore over the ship.

March 24, 2026 Posted by aletho | Militarism, Timeless or most popular | Iran, Turkey, United States | Comments Off on Echos of Gallipoli? Hormuz and the Geography of Hubris

US Dirty War Iran Revelations 2026: Ex-Counterterrorism Chief Joe Kent Exposes Proxy Strategy

teleSUR | March 22, 2026

US dirty war Iran has come under renewed scrutiny following explosive admissions by Joe Kent, the former Director of the US National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC). In a recent interview on The Scott Horton Show, Kent detailed how Washington employed radical Sunni extremist groups as proxies to undermine Iranian influence across the Middle East.

Kent, a decorated Special Forces veteran and former CIA officer appointed under the Trump administration, described the strategy as a deliberate “dirty war”. He asserted that the Pentagon armed and strategically supported salafist mercenary elements—including factions linked to Al Qaeda and eventually ISIS—primarily in Syria.

The goal, according to Kent, centered on weakening governments and movements aligned with Tehran. “We did it because Assad was a friend of Iran, helping Hezbollah and Hamas from Syria,” he stated. The US relied heavily on the most radical Sunni elements as proxies, even as moderate groups like the Free Syrian Army existed on paper.

This approach directly contradicted Washington’s public narrative of unwavering opposition to terrorism. By bolstering these groups, US policy contributed to instability that later justified prolonged military interventions, airstrikes, and bases across West Asia.

Kent explained that logistical and strategic support flowed to these actors in anti-Assad operations. When ISIS expanded into a self-proclaimed caliphate, the same dynamics forced US re-engagement—often alongside Shiite militias previously targeted—to dismantle it.

For the full interview transcript and context:

Scott Horton Show – Joe Kent Interview March 2026.

Trump Threatens Iran with 48‑Hour Ultimatum to Open Strait of Hormuz

US Dirty War Iran Strategy and Contradictions Exposed

The revelations highlight a pattern of using ideological extremists to advance geopolitical aims against the Iran-Hezbollah-Hamas axis. Kent emphasized that radical Sunni factions received backing precisely because they opposed Shiite-aligned forces supported by Iran.

This proxy model allowed plausible deniability while eroding adversaries. Once groups grew too powerful or uncontrollable, Washington pivoted to counter them—creating cycles of intervention that sustained military presence and defense budgets.

Kent linked these tactics to broader regional objectives. By targeting Syrian sovereignty, the US aimed to sever logistical lifelines to Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine, thereby isolating Iranian regional influence.

The former official rejected characterizations of his statements as conspiracy theories. He maintained that documented patterns—arming rebels who included jihadist elements—aligned with strategic imperatives rather than counterterrorism purity.

His comments gain added weight given his insider perspective. Kent oversaw global threat analysis at NCTC before resigning recently over opposition to the ongoing US-Israel offensive against Iran.

For background on US policy in Syria and proxy dynamics: Council on Foreign Relations – US Involvement in Syrian Conflict.

Geopolitical and Regional Implications

The US dirty war Iran revelations carry far-reaching consequences for West Asia and global security norms. By admitting strategic reliance on extremist proxies, Kent’s account challenges the moral legitimacy of US-led interventions framed as anti-terror campaigns.

In the region, it fuels distrust toward Western policies among populations long affected by proxy-fueled violence. It strengthens arguments from Iran, Syria, and allied resistance movements that foreign aggression—often cloaked in humanitarian or counterterrorism rhetoric—prioritizes Israeli security interests over regional stability.

Globally, the disclosures erode confidence in multilateral counterterrorism frameworks. They highlight risks of blowback when states weaponize ideological radicals, potentially inspiring similar tactics elsewhere and complicating genuine anti-extremist cooperation.

The timing—amid active US-Israel operations against Iran—amplifies calls for accountability and diplomatic off-ramps. It underscores how proxy strategies can prolong conflicts, drain resources, and hinder paths to negotiated settlements in a multipolar world.

Kent’s Resignation and Pressure from Israel

Kent’s public stance ties directly to his resignation from NCTC. In a letter to President Trump, he stated he could not in good conscience support the Iran war, asserting “Iran posed no imminent threat” and that the conflict stemmed from “pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby.”

He described a misinformation campaign by high-ranking Israeli officials and influential US media figures that shifted policy away from restraint. Kent praised Trump’s first term for avoiding endless wars but criticized the current trajectory as misaligned with national interests.

His departure marks the highest-level internal dissent yet over the Iran offensive. It exposes fractures within the administration and broader Republican coalition regarding foreign entanglements.

Kent’s interview reinforces that current actions against Iran continue a long-standing pattern. By prioritizing Israeli strategic goals—curtailing Iranian support for regional allies—Washington has repeatedly employed contradictory tactics that undermine its own stated principles.

As debates intensify, these admissions serve as a critical reminder of proxy warfare’s hidden costs. They prompt reflection on whether security is enhanced or eroded when states outsource violence to ideological extremists in pursuit of geopolitical advantage.

March 22, 2026 Posted by aletho | Deception, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Timeless or most popular, Wars for Israel | al-Qaeda, Iraq, ISIS, Israel, Middle East, Palestine, Syria, United States, Zionism | Comments Off on US Dirty War Iran Revelations 2026: Ex-Counterterrorism Chief Joe Kent Exposes Proxy Strategy

Zionist takeover: Trump’s war on Iran reveals who really dictates US foreign policy

By David Miller | Press TV | March 21, 2026

US President Donald Trump’s brazen military assault on Iran – launched at the behest of the Israeli regime – lays bare an unvarnished truth: Zionist interests have effectively captured American foreign policy.

Broader imperial objectives have been sidelined in favor of the settler colony’s agenda.

A group of analysts continues to cling to the notion that the Zionist entity functions as a strategic asset – a forward outpost – for the American Empire. Yet the coordinated strikes on Iranian soil tell a different story. Far from acting as a subordinate ally, Tel Aviv now dictates the terms, with Washington following suit.

This is no simple case of the tail wagging the dog. More accurately, the agents of the tail have not merely tugged at the leash; they have colonized and captured the vital organs of the dog itself, steering the body of American policy toward unnecessary wars that serve a singular, foreign interest over its own imperial interests.

Trump’s claim of imminent Iranian threat

Trump justified the unprovoked and illegal aggression against the Islamic Republic of Iran by citing advice from key advisers who convinced him that an attack from Iran was imminent.

In a candid statement captured on video, Trump declared the situation had approached a “point of no return,” based on intelligence from his inner circle. As he explained, the US found it “intolerable,” with figures like Steve Witkoff, Jared Kushner, Pete Hegseth, and Marco Rubio insisting that Iran planned to strike the US.

“In my opinion, based on what Steve and Jared and Pete and others were telling me, Marco is also involved, I thought that they were going to attack us. I thought they would. If we didn’t do this at the time we did it, I think they had in mind to attack us,” he claimed.

This narrative framed the February 28, 2026, assault, dubbed Operation Epic Fury, as a “defensive” measure. Trump reportedly ordered the operation while aboard Air Force One, with missiles and drones hitting the residences of senior Iranian leaders, including Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, in the initial barrage.

The assault soon escalated into full-scale war, with civilian casualties mounting, including a strike on an elementary school in Minab, a town in southern Iran’s Hormozgan province, that killed at least 153 people, mostly children. As even CNN noted, video footage showed a US Tomahawk missile striking the school, contradicting Trump’s claims of Iranian hand.

Trump’s rationale hinged on perceived threats, yet evidence points to manipulated intelligence. The assault aligned closely with the Zionist entity’s strategic aims, targeting Iran’s nuclear and missile programmes while bolstering its regional dominance.

Exposé on assassination plots

American journalist Max Blumenthal reported about Trump’s belief that Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guards Corps orchestrated the two assassination attempts against him in 2024.

As Blumenthal reported in The Grayzone, the FBI manipulated evidence on alleged assassination plots to convince Trump that Iran sought to kill him, while Israel and its allies exploited his fears to maintain pressure for a full-fledged war.

Trump feared for his life even before the attempts, with claims of Israeli agents planting devices in Secret Service vehicles during Netanyahu’s White House visits.

Blumenthal’s analysis details how the FBI, in coordination with Israeli intelligence, tied Tehran to the plots despite lacking evidence. Trump publicly linked the attempts to Iran, drawing from US intelligence briefings and DOJ charges against alleged IRGC members.

Such manipulation exploited Trump’s vulnerabilities, pushing the US into a direct confrontation with the Islamic Republic to serve Zionist interests. This underscores how external forces shaped the decision, far beyond genuine US imperial concerns.

Trump’s Inner Circle: Zionist Affiliations Revealed

Trump’s advisers form a network deeply embedded in Zionist advocacy, blending Jewish Zionists with fervent non-Jewish supporters of the settler colony.

Here are the four specifically named as advising the attack on Iran.

Marco Rubio: A non-Jewish Cuban-American, Rubio has long championed the Zionist cause. As AJC’s Jewish Political Guide reports, he opposed the anti-Israel boycott and divestment campaign, backed the US embassy move to occupied al-Quds, and supported anti-BDS legislation. His funding from pro-Zionist donors like Norman Braman highlights this alignment.
Pete Hegseth: A Christian Zionist, Hegseth robustly backs the Israeli regime. During his confirmation, he declared his Christian faith drives support for the Zionist regime’s “defence”. His church ties to Reconstructionist principles reinforce this theological Zionism.
Jared Kushner: An Orthodox Jew and ardent Zionist, Kushner shaped Trump’s West Asia policy. Raised in a family steeped in Holocaust survival, he authored the Abraham Accords, normalising ties between the Zionist entity and Arab states. His pro-Zionist stance is evident in unwavering advocacy.
Steve Witkoff: A staunch Jewish real estate mogul, Witkoff staunchly supports Netanyahu and the Zionist colony. As Al Jazeera profiles, he negotiated Gaza deals for Trump, ignoring Shabbat to push agendas.

These Zionist figures, central to Trump’s decision to attack Iran in the middle of indirect nuclear talks, illustrate deep Zionist penetration into US power structures.

Extended Zionist network in Trump’s orbit

Beyond the core quartet mentioned above, Trump’s circle brims with many other Zionist influencers. Here are a few of them who influence him and his policies:

Mike Waltz: Non-Jewish but pro-Zionist, Waltz discussed strikes with Netanyahu. As the Jewish Virtual Library notes, he praises Israeli operations against Hamas and Hezbollah, viewing them as fighting America’s enemies.
Elise Stefanik: Non-Jewish, Stefanik earned Zionist acclaim for grilling university presidents on antisemitism. She received the so-called “Defender of Israel Award” and nearly $1 million from the notorious pro-Israel lobby group AIPAC, affirming Israel’s biblical right to the occupied West Bank.
Mike Huckabee: A Christian Zionist, Huckabee rejects Palestinian statehood and has backed the ongoing genocide in Gaza. He told senators he supports the occupied West Bank annexation, viewing it as biblical Judea and Samaria.
Stephen Miller: Controversial Jewish supremacist whose hardline immigration policies drew some Jewish criticism. Yet his role in Trump’s pro-Zionist moves, like the embassy shift, aligns with the Zionist entity’s interests.
Howard Lutnick: A Jewish billionaire, Lutnick champions the Zionist cause. As Jewish Insider reports, he has donated over $1 million to the racist Birthright programme and has also supported the genocidal Chabad cult.
Miriam Adelson: An Israeli-American Jewish philanthropist, Adelson donated millions to Trump with caveats like embassy relocation. As reported, she pushed for recognition of the Golan Heights occupation.

Zionist footprint beyond Epstein shadows

Trump’s war of aggression against Iran transcends US imperial interests. It expresses a complete and official capture by Zionist forces. His advisers’ backgrounds reveal a cabal prioritising the settler colony’s expansion over American strategy.

Even without the Epstein leaks dangling like a sword of Damocles over his head, Trump appears as Zionism’s plaything, executing policies that entrench occupation and support Zionism’s maximalist and genocidal expansionism.

State capture of the US apparatus of power is in itself an indication that the Zionist ambitions go much further than the so-called “Greater Israel” project, as they push towards becoming an empire. I have called this Pax Judaica. Netanyahu, for his part, has described his view that the Zionist entity is becoming “in many respects a global superpower”.

How Zionists infiltrated US power system

Those who argue that the metaphorical tail (the Zionist colony) doesn’t wag the metaphorical dog (US Empire) fail to account for the process of infiltration, which the Zionists have been engineering for many decades, since before the creation of their so-called “Jewish State”.

Infiltration is, as I have documented elsewhere, a “cardinal” function of the Zionist movement. In the case of the United States, Zionist agents have become embedded in US national security institutions.

It’s not that the tail wags the dog, so much as agents of the tail have infiltrated and taken control of the vital organs of the dog. They wield influence, enabling the settler colony’s dominance in US decision-making, and they have done so for decades.

How did this happen? We examine the roots.

The architect: James Jesus Angleton’s CIA legacy

James Jesus Angleton, as CIA counterintelligence chief from 1954 to 1974, forged unbreakable ties between US intelligence and the Zionist entity.

He managed the Israel desk from 1951, liaising directly with Mossad and Shin Bet, viewing Soviet émigrés to the colony as prime intelligence assets. His actions entrenched Zionist interests within American spy networks.

Meir Amit, Mossad Director (1963-1968), who was instrumental in cementing the Mossad-CIA relationship, described Angleton as “the biggest Zionist of the lot”. He viewed Angleton as a personal friend and a foundational figure in the penetration of the US intelligence system.

Angleton’s fanaticism extended to shielding the regime’s top secrets. Former Shin Bet chief Amos Manor, who hosted Angleton on his first visit to the colony in 1952, described how he was able to persuade Angleton that the Zionists were not potential Communist agents and after that, he was firmly in their camp.

Monuments to betrayal: Honoring a US traitor in the colony

The Zionist colony uniquely memorialized Angleton with two tributes, underscoring his pivotal role in its ascent. In 1987, Mossad and Shin Bet leaders secretly planted a tree and dedicated a stone near Jerusalem, inscribed “In memory of a dear friend, James (Jim) Angleton.” A second site, “Jim Angleton Corner” in Yemin Moshe, overlooks the Old City.

These honors, as The Washington Post reported in 1987, reflect gratitude for his espionage aid. No other US intelligence officer received such recognition. This singularity highlights Angleton’s exceptional service to the settler state.

Jefferson Morley wrote in his biography of Angleton, entitled Ghost: “Angleton was a leading architect of America’s strategic relationship with Israel that endures and dominates the region to this day.”

Samuel Katz, author of Soldier Spies: Israeli Military Intelligence, claims in his 1992 book that “perhaps most importantly, [MOSSAD] forged a firm and binding relationship with the Central Intelligence Agency, especially with the legendary James Jesus Angleton”.

His monuments symbolize the deep penetration of Zionist agendas into US halls of power.

Enabling the bomb: US officials’ collusions

Angleton facilitated the Zionist regime’s nuclear arsenal through betrayals of American secrets. Both Morley and Katz, along with Seymour Hersh (in The Samson Option) and others, claimed he directed CIA assistance to the Zionist nuclear programme, diverting scrutiny from Dimona’s development in the 1960s.

The NUMEC (Nuclear Materials and Equipment Corporation) affair—also known as the Apollo affair—involved the unexplained disappearance of over 300 kilograms of highly enriched uranium (HEU, weapons-grade material sufficient for several nuclear bombs) from a US nuclear fuel-processing plant in Apollo, Pennsylvania, between the late 1950s and the 1970s.

Declassified FBI, CIA, and Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) records show strong suspicions that some or much of it was diverted to Israel’s clandestine nuclear weapons program at Dimona.

The company’s ownership and management were closely linked to Zionist networks: founder and president Dr. Zalman Mordecai Shapiro, a prominent chemist, headed the Pittsburgh chapter of the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) and maintained extensive contacts with Israeli regime officials, including science attachés at the embassy, Shin Bet and Mossad operatives, and LAKAM (Israel’s scientific intelligence unit focused on nuclear technology acquisition).

NUMEC’s key financial backer, David Lowenthal, an American Zionist, co-founded the company through Apollo Industries and partnered with figures like Ivan J. Novick (later ZOA national president); NUMEC acted as a U.S. procurement and technical agent for Israel’s defense ministry.

FBI surveillance and wiretaps documented Shapiro’s “pronounced pro-Israeli sympathies,” including a November 8, 1968, intercepted statement that “he is of more value to Israel if he continues to reside in the US, where Israel’s problems can be more readily resolved.”

A 1980 FBI affidavit from a former NUMEC employee described witnessing armed strangers loading HEU canisters onto a truck bound for Israel via Zim shipping lines in early 1965, followed by threats to remain silent.

Shapiro consistently denied any diversion, attributing losses to routine “attrition,” contamination, and plant residues. US intelligence assessments disagreed: CIA Deputy Director Carl Duckett briefed the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in February 1976 that the missing uranium “ended up in Israeli bombs,” a view echoed in CIA internal memos and briefings.

Environmental samples near Dimona reportedly matched US Portsmouth-enriched HEU supplied to NUMEC. Despite extensive investigations spanning multiple agencies and administrations, there were no prosecutions.

The affair remains unresolved, resulting in massive taxpayer-funded cleanups costing hundreds of millions in recent decades. Roger Mattson’s book, Stealing the Atom Bomb: How Denial and Deception Armed Israel, details how denial and deception armed “Israel,” with officials like Angleton turning a blind eye to Zionist covert ops.

Jonathan Pollard compounded these treacheries. The naval intelligence analyst, arrested in 1985, passed classified data to handlers, compromising US signals intelligence. Collaborators included Rafi Eitan, Pollard’s handler, and Aviem Sella, who recruited him and was indicted for espionage, but later pardoned by Trump.

The Forward noted how such acts strained alliances, yet US leniency persisted, an indication of an advanced process of state capture.

Senator Fulbright – The canary in the coal mine

Senator William Fulbright (US Senator, 1945-1974; longtime chairman of Senate Foreign Relations Committee) was one of the first major political figures to call out Zionist infiltration of the US political system.

He said, on the CBS show, Face the Nation, in early 1973, that “The Senate is subservient to Israel, in my opinion, much too much. We should be more concerned about the United States interest rather than doing the bidding of Israel. This is a most unusual development.”

He went on to say, “The great majority of the Senate of the United States–somewhere around 80 percent–are completely in support of Israel, anything Israel wants. This has been demonstrated time and again and this has made it difficult for our government.”

He expanded on his views in a major speech in 1974 in which he talked of Zionist “domination” of the power structure:

“So completely have the majority of our officeholders fallen under Israeli domination that they not only deny the legitimacy of Palestinian national feeling, but such otherwise fair-minded individuals as the two current candidates for Senator from New York engage in heated debate as to which one more passionately opposes a Palestinian state. We have nearly allowed our détente with the Soviet Union to go on the rocks to obtain an agreement on large-scale Jewish emigration — a matter of limited relevance to the basic issue of human rights in the Soviet Union, and of no relevance to the vital interests of the United States.”

Since then, many major figures from both parties (Fulbright was a Democrat) have endorsed or extended this analysis, including

1985 – Paul Findley, a Congressman from Illinois, in his 1985 book They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel’s Lobby
1990 – Pat Buchanan (White House Communications Director under President Reagan; Republican presidential candidate in 1992, 1996, and 2000) “Capitol Hill is Israeli-occupied territory.” (15 June 1990, on the television show The McLaughlin Group)
2006 – Chuck Hagel (US Senator, R-NE, 1997-2009; later Secretary of Defense under President Obama): “The political reality is that … the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here. I’m a United States senator. I’m not an Israeli senator.” (2006 interview, Aaron David Miller).
2007 – Ron Paul (US Representative, R-TX, multiple terms through 2012; Republican presidential candidate): “AIPAC is very influential in our political process … the assumption is that AIPAC is in control of things, and they control the votes, and they get everybody to vote against anything that would diminish the war.” (May 22, 2007)
2007 – Jim Moran (US Representative, D-VA, 1991-2015) “AIPAC had been pushing the [Iraq War] from the beginning … I don’t think they represent the mainstream of American Jewish thinking at all, but because they are so well organized, and their members are extraordinarily powerful—most of them are quite wealthy—they have been able to exert power.” (interview with Tikkun magazine, September 2007).
2019 – Ilhan Omar (US Representative, D-MN, 2019–present) “It’s all about the Benjamins baby” (referring to campaign money; she clarified the next day that she meant AIPAC). She also stated there is “political influence in this country that says it is okay to push for allegiance to a foreign country.”(February 2019).
2024 – Thomas Massie (US Representative, R-KY, 2012–present): “Everybody but me has an AIPAC person. It’s like your babysitter. Your AIPAC babysitter who is always talking to you about AIPAC. … They’ve got your cell number and you have conversations with them.” Date: June 7, 2024 (interview on The Tucker Carlson Show).

Angleton’s legacy – Institutionalised infiltration

Angleton’s influence lingered, shaping US policy toward West Asia in multiple ways, and becoming more institutionalised despite Mossad intelligence ops breaching a mutual no-spying agreement on many occasions.

Collaboration grew with the Kilowatt network in which 18 Western agencies (including CIA, MI6, Mossad) shared raw intel on Palestinian resistance operatives, enabling Mossad’s so-called “Wrath of God” assassinations.

Collaboration stepped up in the 1980s under Reagan when a memorandum of understanding on counterterrorism included proposed joint programs and assassination authorizations.

Unequal alliance: Intel sharing and persistent spying

Former CIA officer John Kiriakou highlighted the lopsided US-Zionist intelligence pact. The regime receives near-total access yet spies relentlessly.

“Mossad gets the best intel cooperation from the US, including 99% of secrets, but they still spy on the US for the remaining 1%,” Kiriakou asserted in his podcasts.

Evidence abounds: In the 1990s, Israelis wiretapped White House lines during Clinton’s era, according to reports in the Guardian. Under Trump, StingRay devices near the White House mimicked cell towers, linked to Mossad by FBI forensics, as Politico reported.

These operations targeted presidents and aides, not the action of an ally, but of a hostile power.

Mossad’s Pentagon infiltration post-9/11

After 9/11, Mossad agents roamed the Pentagon unchecked, as retired Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson revealed. They bypassed security, accessing high-level officials like Douglas Feith.

“I watched Mossad take over the Pentagon in 2002. They did not need any identification to get through the river entrance… They went upstairs to Douglas Feith, the Undersecretary of Defence for Policy… Occasionally, they went to… Paul Wolfowitz… Donald Rumsfeld said to my boss one time ‘Hell, I don’t run my building, Mossad does!” Wilkerson stated in interviews.

This access, circulated widely online, exposed Zionist overreach amid heightened US vulnerabilities.

Neocons’ Iraq war: A campaign for the Zionist entity

As leading commentators affirm, neoconservatives engineered the 2003 Iraq invasion primarily for the settler colony’s benefit.

John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt argued in their seminal essay that the lobby pushed regime change to reorder West Asia, surrounding the Israeli-occupied territories with compliant states. “Pressure from Israel and the Lobby was not the only factor behind the decision to attack Iraq in March 2003, but it was critical.”

They also noted: “Within the US, the main driving force behind the war was a small band of neo-conservatives, many with ties to Likud. But leaders of the Lobby’s major organisations lent their voices to the campaign.”

They added that the war was “motivated in good part by a desire to make Israel more secure,” citing Philip Zelikow’s 2002 statement that the “unstated threat” from Iraq was primarily against Israel.

“Clearly, it would be wrong to blame the war in Iraq on ‘Jewish influence’. Rather, it was due in large part to the Lobby’s influence, especially that of the neo-conservatives within it.”

They further note that the lobby was a “necessary but not sufficient” condition, citing a February 2003 Ha’aretz report: “the military and political leadership yearns for war in Iraq.”

They specifically highlighted the following statements from Zionist leaders:

Shimon Peres (September 2002): “The campaign against Saddam Hussein is a must. Inspections and inspectors are good for decent people, but dishonest people can overcome easily inspections and inspectors.”
Ehud Barak (New York Times op-ed, September 2002): “The greatest risk now lies in inaction.”
Benjamin Netanyahu (Wall Street Journal op-ed, September 2002): “Today nothing less than dismantling his regime will do… I believe I speak for the overwhelming majority of Israelis in supporting a pre-emptive strike against Saddam’s regime.”

The duo notes that Israeli intelligence acted as a “full partner,” providing alarming (often exaggerated) WMD reports and urging no delay.

Zionist leaders lobbied against UN inspections and delays but were cautious about public over-visibility to avoid perceptions of pushing the US into war.

Some (e.g., Ariel Sharon) initially saw Iran as the bigger threat and had reservations, shifting support only after American plans solidified.

Breaking the chains: Against Pax Judaica

These infiltrations reveal a parasitic dynamic, where Zionist agendas hijack and direct American might. Dismantling such entanglements demands vigilance and determined action over the course of years. However, it cannot be done in isolation.

Defeating the Zionist colony is only the beginning. After that comes the need to push back against the Zionist capture of Western states and the rest of West Asia as well.

The most effective and decisive strike against the Zionist colony and its US proxy is currently being struck by the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Axis of Resistance.

According to available and credible evidence, Iranian armed forces have decimated Israeli military infrastructure across the occupied territories as well as American military bases scattered across the Persian Gulf region in the past three weeks.

The next few weeks would be decisive for the US presence in the region and the future of the Zionist entity that is reeling under unprecedented retaliatory strikes.

March 22, 2026 Posted by aletho | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Timeless or most popular, Wars for Israel | Iran, Israel, Middle East, Palestine, United States, Zionism | Comments Off on Zionist takeover: Trump’s war on Iran reveals who really dictates US foreign policy

« Previous Entries

Seyed M. Marandi: Negotiations Collapsed – Return to War

Aletho News Videos

or go to

Aletho News Archives – Video-Images

From the Archives

The US-Iran Scenario That Most Scares Israel

By Ali Haydar | Al-Akhbar | October 9, 2013

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu issued a series of threats toward Iran and its interlocutors in the West, including the US, as serious negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program seem more plausible.

As a possible rapprochement looms between the US and Iran, Netanyahu has attempted to impose impossible Israeli conditions on the negotiators, such as the full dismantling of Iran’s nuclear program, not to mention threatening military force.

Whatever the deal that could materialize between Iran and the West, Israel is going to find itself before an open-ended path. One can foresee three possible scenarios… continue

Blog Roll

Subscribe to Aletho News

Enter your email address to receive new posts by email.

Email Address:

Join 2,459 other subscribers
Visits Since December 2009
- 7,451,181 hits
Looking for something?

Search for:
Archives
Archives
Calendar

April 2026

M T W T F S S

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 10 11 12

13 14 15 16 17 18 19

20 21 22 23 24 25 26

27 28 29 30

« Mar
Categories

Aletho News Civil Liberties Corruption Deception Economics Environmentalism Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism Fake News False Flag Terrorism Full Spectrum Dominance Illegal Occupation Mainstream Media, Warmongering Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity Militarism Progressive Hypocrite Russophobia Science and Pseudo-Science Solidarity and Activism Subjugation - Torture Supremacism, Social Darwinism Timeless or most popular Video War Crimes Wars for Israel
Tags
9/11 Afghanistan Africa al-Qaeda Australia BBC Benjamin Netanyahu Brazil Canada CDC Central Intelligence Agency China CIA CNN Covid-19 COVID-19 Vaccine Donald Trump Egypt European Union Facebook FBI FDA France Gaza Germany Google Hamas Hebron Hezbollah Hillary Clinton Human rights Hungary India Iran Iraq ISIS Israel Israeli settlement Japan Jerusalem Joe Biden Korea Latin America Lebanon Libya Middle East National Security Agency NATO New York Times North Korea NSA Obama Pakistan Palestine Poland Qatar Russia Sanctions against Iran Saudi Arabia Syria The Guardian Turkey Twitter UAE UK Ukraine United Nations United States USA Venezuela Washington Post West Bank WHO Yemen Zionism

April 2026
M	T	W	T	F	S	S
	1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30

Aletho News
If Americans Knew
No Tricks Zone
Contact:

atheonews (at) gmail.com
Disclaimer

This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.

This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.

Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.

Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.

The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.

The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.

Fair Use

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

DMCA Contact

This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.

If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.

We will respond and take necessary action immediately.

If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.

All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Featured Video

Seyed M. Marandi: Negotiations Collapsed – Return to War

From the Archives

By Ali Haydar | Al-Akhbar | October 9, 2013

Blog Roll

Subscribe to Aletho News

Visits Since December 2009

Looking for something?

Archives

Calendar

Categories

Tags

Contact:

Disclaimer

Site info