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!
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 1st 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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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 Insiderreports, 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 Postreported 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
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 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.
For more than two decades, Meyer Lansky built what he believed would be his permanent kingdom in the Caribbean. The Jewish gangster from New York’s Lower East Side had transformed Havana into the gambling capital of the Western Hemisphere, a glittering playground where American tourists could indulge every vice under the protection of a dictator on the mob’s payroll. Then came Fidel Castro, a young Catholic revolutionary from the Cuban countryside who would destroy everything Lansky had built in a matter of weeks.
Their conflict was never personal. The two men likely never met or spoke. But the collision between Lansky’s criminal empire and Castro’s revolutionary movement would reshape Cuba, spawn assassination plots that entangled the CIA, and leave a trail of consequences that echoes into the present day.
More than half a century later, as Washington once again toys with the idea of remaking Cuba’s political order, the ghost of Meyer Lansky’s Havana hangs over every discussion of regime change: the dream of turning the island back into a glittering casino colony has never fully died.
Meyer Lansky entered the world as Maier Suchowljansky on July 4, 1902, in Grodno, a city in the Russian Empire that now belongs to Belarus. His family was part of the vast population of Eastern European Jews who migrated to America in the early 20th century. In 1911, Lansky emigrated with his mother and brother Jacob through the port of Odessa, joining his father Max, who had arrived two years earlier and settled first in Brownsville, Brooklyn. The family later moved to the Lower East Side of Manhattan, where Max worked in the garment industry and young Meyer grew up among the crowded tenements where Yiddish filled the streets and opportunity meant whatever you could grab with your own hands.
Young Meyer found his opportunities in crime. By 1918 he and his friend Benjamin “Bugsy” Siegel were running floating dice games on the streets. They graduated to auto theft, then burglary, and when Prohibition arrived, they plunged into the liquor smuggling trade that would make fortunes for a generation of gangsters. Lansky also befriended Charles “Lucky” Luciano, an Italian immigrant who would become one of the most powerful mob bosses in American history.
The three young men rose together. Lansky and Siegel developed a squad of killers for hire that became the prototype for Murder, Inc. Lansky allegedly persuaded Luciano to arrange the 1931 assassination of mob boss Joe “The Boss” Masseria, a murder that consolidated power and helped establish the National Crime Syndicate between 1932 and 1934.
What set Lansky apart from the gunmen and enforcers around him was his financial chops. He became known as the “Mob’s Accountant,” the man who used Swiss bank accounts and shell companies to launder the Mafia’s wealth and hide it from federal investigators. He oversaw the syndicate’s finances as its unofficial banker and was instrumental in shifting the mob’s focus from bootlegging to gambling after Prohibition ended in 1933. His gambling operations stretched from Florida to New Orleans to Las Vegas.
But Lansky’s grandest ambition lay 90 miles off the coast of Florida.
Building the Havana Empire
Lansky’s relationship with Cuba began in 1933, the same year Prohibition ended, and a young military strongman named Fulgencio Batista seized control of the island nation. Lansky pitched Batista a proposal to open Mafia-owned casinos and nightclubs in Havana. The arrangement was straightforward. Batista and his inner circle would receive regular payments from the mob, and in return the gangsters could operate without interference from Cuban authorities.
By 1938, Lansky had been formally invited to help clean up and professionalize Havana’s gambling operations, which had been plagued by fixed races and crooked dealers. He was the fixer, the man who could make the casinos run honestly enough to keep the tourists coming back.
The landmark event came in December 1946 with what became known as the Havana Conference. More than 20 mob bosses from across the United States gathered at the Hotel Nacional de Cuba for a meeting organized by Lansky on Luciano’s orders. The expansion of mob operations in Cuba sat at the top of the agenda. Lansky then visited Batista, who was temporarily out of power and living in Florida, and urged him to return to Cuba to fulfill their grand plans.
Batista obliged. He returned to power through a military coup in 1952, and the arrangement with the mob became even more lucrative. The Batista-Lansky Alliance, included a deal where Batista agreed to match dollar for dollar any hotel investment over one million dollars, with each project automatically including a casino license. Casino hotels were exempted from Cuban taxes.
Lansky owned or held financial interests in at least three major gambling operations. The crown jewel was the Habana Riviera, which opened in December 1957 as the largest Mafia-owned hotel casino outside Las Vegas. It featured 440 rooms that were booked solid for its first winter season. Cuban development banks subsidized half of the $14 million construction cost.
But Lansky did not build this empire alone.
The Inner Circle
Jake Lansky, Meyer’s brother, served as his most trusted man on the ground in Cuba. Jake managed the casino at the Hotel Nacional, Cuba’s most prestigious hotel. By spring 1957, it was reportedly bringing in as much cash as the biggest casinos in Las Vegas.
Joseph “Doc” Stacher was a lifelong Lansky associate dating back to their youth in Newark, New Jersey. Born Gdale Oistaczer in Letychiv, in what is now Ukraine, Stacher was also Jewish and had risen through the criminal ranks alongside Lansky. He operated as the official bribe paymaster to Batista, managing the corrupt payments that kept the dictator and his inner circle cooperative.
Norman “Roughhouse” Rothman was another mobster deeply embedded in the Havana gambling scene. He was a close associate of Santo Trafficante Jr. and operated casinos in Havana, most notably the Sans Souci. Cuba’s slot machine concessions were controlled by Roberto Fernandez y Miranda, Batista’s brother-in-law and army general, who held them as a personal fief.
Ed Levinson, a longtime Lansky associate, ran illegal gambling operations from the Midwest to Kentucky. In Cuba, Levinson’s name appeared on the casino license for the Habana Riviera itself. Lansky kept his own name listed only as the hotel’s kitchen director while Levinson served as the official licensee.
Dino Cellini, though Italian-American rather than Jewish, worked hand in glove with the Lansky operation. He served as casino manager at the Habana Riviera before being replaced by Frank Erickson, and was later detained alongside Jake Lansky at the Tiscornia immigration camp after Castro took power.
The operation also included powerful Italian-American mobsters. Santo Trafficante Jr., the Tampa crime family boss, openly operated the Sans Souci nightclub and the Casino Internacional at the Hotel Nacional. He was also suspected of having behind-the-scenes interests in the Habana Riviera, the Tropicana Club, the Sevilla-Biltmore, the Capri Hotel Casino, the Commodoro, the Deauville, and the Havana Hilton.
The Revolutionary in the Mountains
While Lansky counted his profits in Havana’s glittering casinos, a revolutionary movement was gathering strength in the mountains of eastern Cuba.
Fidel Castro came from a background that could not have been more different from Lansky’s. Born on August 13, 1926, near Birán in Oriente Province, Castro was the son of a prosperous Spanish immigrant landowner. He was raised Catholic and educated at Jesuit schools in Santiago de Cuba and Havana, including the prestigious Colegio de Belén. He studied law at the University of Havana beginning in 1945, earned his degree in 1950, and briefly practiced as a lawyer before turning fully to revolutionary politics. Where Lansky had clawed his way up from immigrant poverty through criminal enterprise, Castro came from rural privilege and channeled his ambitions into armed struggle against the Batista regime.
Castro’s 26th of July Movement directly targeted the Mafia’s presence in its propaganda. In 1958, the revolutionaries denounced the mobsters in radio broadcasts from their guerrilla redoubt in the Sierra Maestra, accusing them of turning Havana into a center of commercialized vice through gambling, prostitution, and drugs. The casinos, the brothels, the drugs, the corruption that enriched Batista and his American gangster partners would all be swept away when the revolution triumphed.
The Fall
On December 31, 1958, Batista’s army was defeated at the Battle of Santa Clara. That night, Batista fled the country for the Dominican Republic, abandoning his gangster partners along with everything else. Lansky left Cuba on January 7, 1959, the day before Castro marched into Havana.
What happened next was a settling of accounts that played out in the streets of Havana. On January 1, 1959, citizens took to the streets after hearing news of Batista’s flight, ransacking casinos, smashing slot machines, and dragging gambling equipment into the streets to be burned. To many Cubans, the American-owned hotels symbolized a corrupting foreign influence. At the Riviera, Lansky’s crown jewel, campesinos (peasants) reportedly brought a truckload of pigs into the lobby. Castro vowed to “clean out all the gamblers.” The revolutionary government eventually nationalized the Riviera and all other Mafia-owned properties, though the final nationalization of hotel casinos did not come until October 1960. Some casinos briefly re-opened on February 19, 1959, after casino workers who depended on tourism jobs marched to the presidential palace demanding their livelihoods back, but tourists stopped coming. Lansky, who told many associates that Cuba had ruined him financially, looked to other outposts in the Caribbean and South America.
Not everyone fled immediately. Jake Lansky and Dino Cellini were arrested by Cuban authorities in May 1959 and detained at the Tiscornia immigration camp outside Havana, the same facility where Santo Trafficante Jr. was also being held. According to the House Select Committee on Assassinations, U.S. Commissioner of Narcotics Harry J. Anslinger had sent a list of suspected drug traffickers to Cuban authorities that included both Jake Lansky and Cellini. Jake Lansky and Cellini were detained for approximately 25 days before being released; Trafficante was held until August. All eventually left Cuba.
By October 1960, Castro formally nationalized all hotel casinos on the island and outlawed gambling entirely.
Revenge and Assassination Plots
Lansky did not merely accept his losses. He actively sought to use the U.S. government and its intelligence apparatus to reclaim his Cuban empire.
According to Doc Stacher, Lansky “indicated to the CIA that some of his people who were still on the island might assassinate Castro” and was “quite prepared to finance the operation himself.”
This was not Lansky’s first collaborative effort with American intelligence. During World War II, he had served as a key intermediary in Operation Underworld, a classified program in which the U.S. Navy’s Office of Naval Intelligence enlisted the Mafia to counter Axis sabotage on the northeastern seaboard. That wartime relationship established a precedent for cooperation between organized crime and the U.S. government.
In August 1960, according to a report by Salon, Lansky struck a deal with exiled Cuban politician Manuel Antonio Varona, offering him several million dollars to form a Cuban government-in-exile to replace Castro. Lansky also promised to arrange a public relations campaign to polish Varona’s image, with the single-minded objective of reopening the Mafia’s casinos, hotels, and nightclubs in a post-Castro Cuba.
Around the same time, the CIA formally recruited mobsters with deep ties to the Havana gambling operations into plots to eliminate Castro. In September 1960, the agency enlisted Chicago Mob operative Johnny Rosselli through former FBI agent Robert Maheu. Rosselli brought in Chicago boss Sam Giancana and Tampa boss Santo Trafficante Jr. The CIA created poison pills to be slipped into Castro’s food, but the attempts failed. The CIA-Mafia assassination partnership was scuttled in early 1963, though the CIA continued plotting against Castro through other means.
Norman Rothman’s trajectory after the revolution was particularly dramatic. Before the revolution succeeded, Rothman had actually been running guns to Castro’s rebels alongside Joe Merola and the Mannarino brothers of Pittsburgh. Sam Mannarino had reasoned that if Castro won, the mobsters who helped arm him would be in the driver’s seat for Cuba’s gambling industry. Rothman advised Mannarino to place his bets on Castro, predicting he would allow the casinos to remain under Mafia control. When that calculation proved disastrously wrong, the scheme unraveled. The weapons in question, 317 guns, had been stolen from a National Guard armory in Canton, Ohio. A plane carrying 121 of the stolen weapons was captured at Morgantown, West Virginia on November 4, 1958. Rothman was convicted on February 4, 1960, along with five co-defendants, for possession, receiving, transportation, and exportation of firearms stolen from the United States government.
Lansky also explored contingency plans in case Cuba could not be recovered. He traveled to the Dominican Republic in 1958 to meet with dictator Rafael Trujillo about potentially relocating the entire Havana operation there. None of these schemes succeeded.
The Final Years
Lansky spent his final years living quietly in Miami Beach. In 1970, facing federal tax evasion charges, he fled to Israel, hoping to claim citizenship under the Law of Return. But after two years, Israel rejected his bid for permanent residency due to his criminal record and deported him back to the United States, where he was arrested at Miami International Airport.
He was acquitted of the tax evasion charges, in part because the government’s main witness lacked credibility, and other indictments were abandoned due to his chronic ill health. He died on January 15, 1983, at age 80 from lung cancer. Despite nearly half a century of involvement in organized crime, the most serious conviction he ever received was for illegal gambling in 1953, which resulted in only a brief jail term.
Despite a lifetime running one of the world’s most profitable criminal enterprises, a granddaughter later claimed he left behind just $57,000 in cash. The FBI believed he had hidden at least $300 million in offshore bank accounts, but this money was never recovered. His heirs later filed a compensation claim against Cuba for the Riviera with the U.S. Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, valuing the property at $70 million.
The mob never returned to Cuba. The casinos that Lansky built were nationalized, and gambling was outlawed entirely. The slot machines that crowds smashed in the streets on New Year’s Day 1959 were never replaced. The Habana Riviera still stands on the Malecón waterfront, declared a National Monument in 2012 and now managed by the Spanish chain Iberostar, still maintaining its original 1950s style. Staff members still refer to it as “el hotel de Meyer Lansky.”
Fidel Castro outlived Meyer Lansky by more than three decades, dying in 2016 at age 90. The revolutionary who had vowed to clean out all the gamblers kept that promise, at least regarding the foreign mobsters who had turned Havana into their personal playground.
The confrontation between these two men, the Jewish gangster from the Lower East Side and the Catholic revolutionary from Oriente Province, ended decisively in Castro’s favor.
Castro’s revolution did what no rival gangster or corrupt strongman ever managed: it toppled the dictatorship that shielded Lansky’s operations and erased his Havana casino empire almost overnight. In the name of sovereignty, the new regime shut down the glittering hotels and gambling halls that had turned Cuba into a playground for American tourists, mafiosi, and intelligence services alike.
But the pressures now bearing down on Cuba suggest that history’s wheel is turning back toward Lansky’s original blueprint. A successful regime change engineered from abroad would not simply “liberate” the island; it would open prime waterfront real estate and tourist infrastructure to the same forces of vice, speculation, and foreign ownership that once made Havana the mob’s favorite casino.
The danger is that Cuba’s next great transformation would replace revolutionary austerity not with genuine self‑determination, but with a return to what Lansky always wanted. Namely, a Caribbean Macau where the house is global finance, the chips are Cuban sovereignty, and the people of the island are once again reduced to serving drinks on someone else’s casino floor.
The Trump White House plagiarized its justification for attacking Iran from the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, the main DC outfit promoting war with Tehran. The think tank was originally founded to “enhance Israel’s image,” and partners closely with the Israeli government.
The Trump Administration appeared to plagiarize its official justification for its war on Iran, copying almost word-for-word a document originally produced by the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD), a pro-war think tank with close ties to Israeli intelligence which was originally founded to “enhance Israel’s image.”
The FDD document was authored by Tzvi Kahn, the former assistant director for policy and government affairs at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
A March 2, 2026 statement issued by the White House accusing Tehran of 44 instances of terrorism against American citizens is “virtually identical” to the list published by FDD in June 2025, analyst Stephen McIntyre noted Thursday.
While the White House did make superficial alterations to the text, they largely consisted of appending the label “Iran-backed” to every mention of groups like Hezbollah and Hamas. In the few instances where Trump administration officials bothered to make significant changes to the original FDD list, the edits were almost always made in service of “ratcheting up the underlying allegation,” McIntyre concluded.
Among the most egregious examples was a 1996 attack on the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, which FDD originally said merely that Hezbollah al-Hejaz was “deemed responsible” for. In the White House version, however, the group’s responsibility was “asserted as factual,” explained McIntyre, noting that serious questions about the incident remain unanswered to this day. “Clinton’s Defense Secretary William Perry subsequently wondered (along with many others) whether Khobar Towers should have been attributed to Al Qaeda,” he wrote.
A 2009 investigation by journalist Gareth Porter based on interviews with over a dozen former CIA, FBI and Clinton administration officials demonstrated that the FBI’s inquiry into the Khobar Towers attack was precooked to blame Iran, when Al Qaeda was mostly like the culprit. Porter found that Shia citizens of Saudi Arabia had been tortured into confessing to the crime by Saudi secret police.
While the White House declined to join FDD in blaming Iran for the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks, it echoed the Israel-oriented organization in blaming Tehran for 603 military deaths in Iraq, which both documents attributed to “Iran-backed militias.” But there are major discrepancies with the figure, which amounts to 60% of the total US combatant deaths attributed to Iran. As McIntyre noted, such a claim is “not made in the State Department annual reports on Global Terrorism.”
At least four of the Americans the Trump administration claims were killed by Iran had served in Israel’s military. These included a US citizen who died while invading Lebanon in 2006 and two Americans in the IDF’s Golani brigade who were killed while invading Gaza in 2014. The fourth American, who was born in Israel and had also served in the Golani brigade, was killed amid violent reprisals against settlers in the West Bank in 2015.
A number of the claims are undermined by the very sources they cite, including a December 2019 incident in which the Trump administration insisted “Iran-backed Kataib Hezbollah terrorists killed an American civilian contractor and wounded several U.S. service members in a rocket attack at K1 Air Base in Kirkuk, Iraq.” But the Reuters article cited by the White House as proof that Iran was responsible made no such claim, explicitly cautioning that “no group has claimed responsibility for the attack.” In reality, Reuterssuggested the attack was the work of “Islamic State militants operating in the area [who] have turned to insurgency-style tactics.”
Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said at the time that “we don’t know” how operationally involved Iran was in the January 28 attack that killed three US troops, “but it really doesn’t matter.”
“We have FDD”: Israel’s favorite Washington cutout
In tax documents filed with the IRS upon its founding in 2001, FDD was originally named EMET, which is Hebrew for “truth.” The fledgling outfit described its mission as working to “enhance Israel’s image in North America and the public’s understanding of issues affecting Israeli-Arab relations.” It changed its name soon after, presumably to sound less overtly Israeli.
FDD has since emerged as the leading Washington-based think tank pushing the US toward war with Iran. During the first Trump administration, FDD participated in a $1.5 million dollar State Department initiative to attack critics of the policy of “maximum pressure” on Iran. At the time, FDD was openly promoting a military assault on Iran. The think tank’s staff are brought to testify before the House Foreign Affairs Committee more than those of any other think tank, invariably to advance conflict with Tehran.
During a 2017 conference of the Israeli American Council in Washington DC, then-Director General of Israel’s Ministry of Strategic Affairs Sima Vakhnin-Gil was recorded by undercover journalist James Kleinfeld during a private breakout session. The Israeli military-intelligence official named FDD as a partner in a covert campaign to spy on Americans involved in Palestine solidarity activity.
“This is something that only a country can do the best,” Vakhnin-Gil said. “We have FDD. We have others working on this.”
The Israeli American Council was sponsored by a billionaire who has also been a top donor to the FDD: the Sheldon and Miriam Adelson Foundation. Since the death of Sheldon Adelson, his Israeli widow, Miriam, has emerged as the top donor to Trump’s political campaigns. Having donated hundreds of millions to Trump and his allies, Adelson clearly expected him to wage war on Iran on behalf of Israel, according to conservative former Fox News host Megyn Kelly.
Since Trump thrilled his Israel-aligned donors by attacking Iran, FDD has provided the White House with more than talking points for justifying war on Iran. It has also proposed civilian targets in Iran for the US military to strike. These included the Tehran oil depot which Israel bombed on March 8, causing massive fires that shrouded the city of 9 million in toxic fumes.
After the strike triggered a wave of punishing retaliatory Iranian attacks on oil infrastructure in US-allied countries in the region, Trump advisors expressed regret. “We don’t think it was a good idea,” one told Axios. But by then, it was too late to avoid escalation. They had followed the FDD-authored, Israeli-designed script into a quagmire.
Not distracted by the war on Iran, on March 3, President Donald Trump, once again, warned that Cuba was in its “last moments.” The next day, he said, “It may be a friendly takeover. It may not be a friendly takeover. It wouldn’t matter because they are down to, as they say, fumes” before admitting that the United States has caused a humanitarian disaster in Cuba.
Trump’s rhetoric has continued to escalate. On March 17, Trump said,“I do believe I will be having the honor of taking Cuba. Taking Cuba. I mean, whether I free it, take it. I think I can do anything I want with it. They’re a very weakened nation right now.” The Trump administration is reportedly pursuing a policy of removingPresident Miguel Díaz-Canel from power while keeping in place his government. They have communicated to Cuba that no deal can be negotiated while he is leader.
The U.S. has cut Cuba off. The Secretary-General of the United Nations has said that he is “extremely concerned about the humanitarian situation in Cuba” and warned that it “will worsen, if not collapse,” if the U.S. does not ease its chokehold. But as the humanitarian catastrophe unfolds, while the world largely watches on, there are three enduring American myths about Cuba that need to be obliterated.
The Trump administration has cut Cuba off from its energy lifeline: “THERE WILL BE NO MORE OIL OR MONEY GOING TO CUBA – ZERO!,” Trump pronounced. “I strongly suggest they make a deal, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE.” With that threat, Trump declared a “national emergency” and signed an executive order imposing tariffs on any country that sends oil to Cuba. “Now there is going to be a real blockade. Nothing is getting in. No more oil is coming,” the U.S. Charge d’Affairs in the U.S. Embassy in Havan told his staff.
And, with the exception of a trickle of aid from Mexico and the promise of a drop of aid from Canada, nothing is getting in. “There’s no oil, there’s no money, there’s no anything,” Trump boasted. There is no longer enough oil in Cuba to guarantee your car, generator or hot water will run. There is not enough electricity to keep the lights on. Classes have been cancelled at many schools, and many hospitals have cut services. Tourism, the economic lifeblood of Cuba, is drying up. Cuba has announced that international airlines can no longer refuel there due to fuel shortages. On Monday, a “complete disconnection” caused a blackout across all of Cuba.
The American embargo has gotten so successfully out of hand that, after the leaders of Cuba’s Caribbean neighbors expressed alarm over the suffering of Cubans, the U.S. has relented a little and now says it will loosen some restrictions and let some Venezuelan oil into Cuba.
Foundational to the American embargo on Cuba are three myths that need to be undermined. The hostility to Fidel Castro and Cuba has been going on longer than expressed in the official narrative. The hostility was not originally about communism. And the intent of the embargo has always been to starve the Cuban people.
The hostility toward Cuba stretches back two years and one administration further than told in the official narrative. Though the embargo, the Bay of Pigs and Operation Mongoose’s determination to assassinate Castro are all attributed to John F. Kennedy, they all need to be deposited in President Dwight D Eisenhower’s foreign policy account.
Though it would be Kennedy who would water the seed that locked Cuba down, the seed was planted two years earlier by Eisenhower who, on January 25, 1960, suggested the U.S. Navy “quarantine” Cuba. Eight months later, hebanned all U.S. exports to Cuba except food and medicine. It would be left to Kennedy to implement the full embargo, and Lyndon Johnson to include food and medicine. In the official narrative, the embargo is associated with Kennedy, but its origins are older, going back to the very beginning of the story. Castro overthrew the Batista dictatorship on January 1, 1959. He was sworn in as prime minister on February 16, 1959. Already by January of the next year, Eisenhower had proposed the embargo.
Like the embargo, Kennedy and the Bay of Pigs are forever linked in the official narrative. But that too stretches back to the Eisenhower years. Right from the start, in the earliest days after the revolution, the CIA had nominated its operative Jake Esterline, who had helped carry out the coup against Guatemala’s Jacobo Árbenz, to plan the Bay of Pigs invasion. The CIA plan to invade Cuba is dated December 6, 1960. Kennedy would not be inaugurated until forty-five days later.
Castro’s death sentence was also signed in Washington much earlier than recorded in the official narrative. It was October 1959, according to CIA expert John Prados, that Eisenhower “approved measures” that led to the “secret war,” included grooming opposition leaders in Cuba and encouraging raids by Cuban exiles on Cuba from the United States. Eisenhower had already ordered a covert action on Castro by March 17, 1960.
But the decision to assassinate Castro goes back even earlier than that. “[K]ey officials in the Eisenhower administration reached… a clear determination to bring about Castro’s demise” by the summer of 1959, only months after Castro came to power, according to William LeoGrande and Peter Kornblum in their book, Back Channel to Cuba. Overthrowing Castro was the official secret policy of the United States by October. On November 5, according to LeoGrande and Kornblum, that plan was approved by Eisenhower. On December 11, 1959, according to CIA expert Tim Weiner, Allen Dulles, Eisenhower’s CIA director, gave the go-ahead for Castro’s “elimination.” Dulles changed “elimination” to “removal from Cuba.” Stephen Kinzer reports that on May 13, 1960, after being briefed by Dulles, Eisenhower ordered Castro “sawed off.”
All of this took place earlier than told in the official narrative and long before Kennedy authorized Operation Mongoose, which, headed by his brother, Attorney General Robert Kennedy, and run by the experienced and notorious CIA operative Edward Lansdale, made assassinating Castro “the top priority in the United States Government.” Robert Kennedy told Lansdale and the Operation Mongoose team that “all else is secondary—no time, money, effort, or manpower is to be spared.”
The second myth is that hostility toward Cuba was born out of the requirement to keep communism out of the hemisphere. But Washington was hostile to Castro before Castro was a communist. When the U.S. placed Castro in its crosshairs, he was neither aligned with the Soviet Union nor openly communist at all. At this time, Castro’s program of social reforms was neither radical nor communist. In America, América: A New History of the New World, Greg Grandin records that “[t]he CIA called Castro’s agenda ‘the common stock of Latin American reformist ideas’: land reform, housing, health care, education, control over natural resources, and national sovereignty.”
In the early years of the Cuban revolution, Castro sought friendly relations with the United States. What the U.S. opposed was not communism in its backyard, but an alternative political and economic model in its backyard that could prove attractive to other countries in the hemisphere.
To preserve its hemispheric hegemony, the U.S. has erased any attractive alternative that could encourage other countries in America’s backyard to copy what Noam Chomsky has called Cuba’s “successful defiance.” The alternative the U.S. has feared most are forms of nationalism in which the leader defiantly nationalizes land and resources so the wealth benefits, not a foreign power, but the people who live on that land. It was Castro’s nationalistic policies and agrarian reforms that put him in the United States’ sites.
Castro nationalized land, redistributing it from large farms—including American owned farms—to the Cubans. Grandin says that when the large American oil companies refused to process oil sent to Cuba by the Soviet Union, Castro nationalized their refineries too.
The problem with Castro wasn’t communism, it was a model of government that offered an attractive alternative to the American model and American hegemony. As internal State Department documents had said about Arbenz in Guatemala half a decade earlier, the concern was the contagious “example of independence of the US that Guatemala might offer to nationalists throughout Latin America,” and that that example “might spread through the example of nationalism and social reform.” That is why Eisenhower called his embargo a “quarantine.”
The U.S. had this concern about Castro from the first minutes. Observing Castro after the revolution but before he had even been sworn in as leader, Grandin records CIA operative Esterline, soon to be of the Bay of Pigs, warning that Castro was “something different, something more impressive.” He said a “chain reaction was occurring all over Latin America after Castro came to power” and described “a new and powerful force… at work in the hemisphere.”
Communist or not, the contagious alternative had to be erased. And as far back as it goes, the embargo that was meant to erase it always had as its deliberate intent the starvation of the Cuban people. That is the third truth.
When Eisenhower first proposed his quarantine of Cuba, he adopted the policy, he said, because “If they are hungry, they will throw Castro out.” Explaining how sanctions would work, Eisenhower’s assistant secretary of state for Latin America said, as Grandin reports, that the sanctions were intended to bring down “real wages, to bring about hunger, desperation and overthrow of government.” The embargo was a deliberate policy of bringing about regime change through hunger. And it still is. On February 16, Trump told reporters that Cuba “should absolutely make a deal, because it’s really a humanitarian threat.”
The official American narrative on its Cuba policy is a myth. To alter the narrative from mythology to history so policy decisions can responsibly be made, three truths need to be told. American hostility to Cuba has been going on longer than commonly believed. That hostility was not originally about communism. And the intent of the embargo has always been to bring about regime change by starving the Cuban people.
Aaron Siri, attorney and managing partner of Siri & Glimstad LLP, appeared on the Joe Rogan Experience in early March 2026. What he described over the course of that conversation is worth examining carefully.
In 2019, the United States Department of Justice signed a court order on behalf of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The order, entered in the Southern District of New York, stipulated the complete list of studies the CDC relied upon to support its public claim that vaccines administered in the first six months of life do not cause autism.
There were twenty studies on the list.
Nineteen had nothing to do with the vaccines given in the first six months of life. They were either MMR studies — and MMR is not given until at least twelve months — or studies of vaccine ingredients not present in the products in question.
The twentieth was a 2012 Institute of Medicine review that had specifically examined whether the DTaP vaccine causes autism. The IOM found exactly one study on the subject. That study showed an association between DTaP and autism. The IOM discarded it because it lacked an unvaccinated control group — and concluded there was insufficient evidence to accept or reject a causal relationship.
The DOJ signed the order. A federal judge entered it. The CDC’s evidentiary basis for one of its most repeated public health claims was now a matter of court record.
Aaron Siri, the managing partner of Siri & Glimstad LLP and author of Vaccines, Amen: The Religion of Vaccines, described this outcome in a recent appearance on the Joe Rogan Experience.¹ He had spent years demanding the studies through Freedom of Information Act requests on behalf of his client, the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN). The CDC stonewalled. He sued in federal court. Days before the hearing, the DOJ produced its list of twenty studies. Siri read them. Then he called the DOJ attorney.
“Are you sure,” he told Rogan he asked, “that your client, the CDC, wants to settle this case on the basis that these are the studies they rely upon?”
They did. The stipulation was signed. It is publicly available.
Israeli control of the Pentagon goes back to 2002.
Pentagon insider and senior enlisted leader of nearly three decades standing, Command Chief Master Sergeant, Retired, Dennis Fritz describes what he saw in the Pentagon leading up to the Iraq War: Each cabinet official had an individual who they would talk to in Israel to keep them posted on what we were doing…
Israeli control of the Pentagon🇺🇸 goes back to 2002
'During the Bush Administration in the run-up to the Iraq War, each cabinet official had an individual who they would talk to in Israel to keep them posted on what we were doing…
… As devastating as it may be, at a certain moment in time, a horrible chapter was given an exceptionally meta-historical status. Its ‘factuality’ was sealed by draconian laws and its reasoning was secured by social and political settings. The Holocaust became the new Western religion. Unfortunately, it is the most sinister religion known to man. It is a license to kill, to flatten, no nuke, to wipe, to rape, to loot and to ethnically cleanse. … Read full article
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.
/ 
/ 
/ 
/ 
/ 
or DOWNLOAD THE MP4
• American Aerial Massacres in Germany 
Aletho News
Aletho News 