US airstrikes in Yemen lay groundwork for ‘ground invasion’ by UAE-backed militias: Report
The Cradle | April 15, 2025
With US support, UAE proxy militias in Yemen are planning a ground offensive to take the port city of Hodeidah from the Ansarallah-led Yemeni government and armed forces, The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported on 15 April, in a move that would reignite the country’s devastating civil war.
“Private American security contractors provided advice to the Yemeni factions on a potential ground operation, people involved in the planning said. The United Arab Emirates, which supports these factions, raised the plan with American officials in recent weeks,” the WSJ wrote.
The ground offensive seeks to take advantage of the recent US bombing campaign targeting the Yemeni Armed Forces (YAF).
US officials speaking with the newspaper said Washington has launched more than 350 strikes during its current campaign against Yemen and claim that the YAF has been weakened as a result.
While the Ansarallah-led National Salvation Government controls Yemen’s most populous areas, including the capital, Sanaa, and the strategic port city of Hodeidah, other parts of the country have remained in control of UAE and Saudi-supported factions since the end of the civil war in 2022.
Under the plan being discussed, factions of the UAE-backed Southern Transitional Council (STC) would deploy their forces north to the western Yemeni coast and try to seize the Red Sea port of Hodeidah, pro-UAE Yemeni sources said.
If successful, the ground operation would push the YAF back from large parts of the coast from where they have launched attacks on Israeli-linked ships transiting the Red Sea.
The YAF began targeting Israeli-linked ships in November 2023 in response to Israel’s genocide of Palestinians in Gaza. The US launched a war against Yemen and the YAF on Israel’s behalf shortly thereafter.
Capturing Hodeidah would be a “major blow” to the Ansarallah-led Yemeni government, “depriving them of an economic lifeline while also cutting off their main route to receive arms from Iran,” the WSJ wrote.
“A major ground offensive risks reigniting a Yemeni civil war that has been dormant for years and that spurred a humanitarian crisis when a Saudi–Emirati coalition supported local ground forces with a bombing campaign,” the WSJ added.
Officials from Saudi Arabia, which supports another Yemeni faction, the Presidential Leadership Council (PLC), have privately said they will not join or help a ground offensive in Yemen.
During the civil war, the Saudi-led coalition, alongside the UAE, conducted a major bombing campaign in Yemen that killed nearly 15,000 people, while the Saudi navy blockaded Yemen’s major ports, causing a humanitarian crisis that killed hundreds of thousands more.
In 2018, the Saudi Kingdom launched three operations against Ansarallah in an attempt to capture Hodeidah, yet failed.
Ansarallah forces retaliated by launching ballistic missile and drone attacks on Saudi cities, including striking a Saudi Aramco oil storage facility in Jeddah, which threatened to devastate the kingdom’s oil production and exports.
The YAF also responded to the UAE’s aggression on Yemen by launching its first drone and missile attacks on Abu Dhabi in January 2022, targeting three oil trucks and an under-construction airport extension infrastructure.
Both the UAE and Saudi Arabia allegedly cooperated with and recruited fighters from the local Al-Qaeda affiliate, known as Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), to assist in their proxy war against Ansarallah.
Details of Iran’s nuclear demands revealed – media
RT | April 15, 2025
Iran is ready to provide assurances that it is not seeking to weaponize its nuclear program in exchange for US sanctions relief, the country’s top diplomat has said, as quoted by the Tehran Times. Seyed Abbas Araghchi headed the Iranian delegation during indirect talks with US envoy Steve Witkoff in the Omani capital, Muscat on Saturday.
The meeting was the first diplomatic engagement between Washington and Tehran in years, with discussions focusing on Iran’s nuclear program and the potential easing of US sanctions.
According to the news outlet, Araghchi stated that Iran wants a “win-win agreement” and “would not, under any circumstances, agree to dismantle its nuclear program.”
He said, however, that the country is “willing to take steps to provide assurances against the militarization of its nuclear activities.” This would include allowing the International Atomic Energy Agency access to the country’s nuclear sites.
In return, Tehran wants US sanctions on several sectors to be removed without the possibility of being brought back “under other pretexts,” according to the Tehran Times.
The publication said it learned that Witkoff acknowledged that the US needs to make concessions. During the talks, the envoy reportedly did not mention the potential dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear program, nor did he reference the original deal, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which US President Donald Trump withdrew from in 2018 during his first term in office.
In an interview with Fox News on Monday, Witkoff stopped short of calling for Tehran to dismantle its nuclear program, despite demands from other US officials, including White House National Security Adviser Mike Waltz.
“The conversation with the Iranians will be much about two critical points,” Witkoff said. The first is the verification of uranium enrichment, “and ultimately verification on weaponization, that includes missiles, type of missiles that they have stockpiled there, and it includes the trigger for a bomb.”
The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), however, has since insisted that Iran’s military capabilities are off limits.
“National security and defense, and military power are among the red lines of the Islamic Republic of Iran, which cannot be discussed or negotiated under any circumstances,” IRGC spokesman Ali Mohammad Naini said on Tuesday, as cited by various media outlets.
The next round of talks between Iran and the US is expected to take place on April 19.
The US and Iran: March to war – or a backroom deal?
The Cradle | April 14, 2025
The rhetoric surrounding a potential US–Israeli strike on Iran has intensified, fueled by veiled threats, media leaks, and what appeared to be an unofficial ultimatum from the Trump administration to Tehran. While no concrete consequences were outlined, the implication of direct military action looms large.
Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution – and especially after the Iran–Iraq War – Iran has lived under constant threat of US-led military intervention. These threats have fluctuated depending on regional dynamics and shifting US priorities.
In the aftermath of the illegal US invasion of Iraq in 2003, Iran and Syria appeared to be next in line for American-style regime-change. But the protracted insurgency in Iraq and the cost of occupation deterred further US military adventures – particularly against a civilization-state like Iran, whose size and geography pose significant challenges.
Republican leaders, and especially US President Donald Trump, have typically leaned toward employing open threats and economic strangulation policies against perceived US adversaries, rather than pursuing quiet diplomatic solutions. Today, they sense a unique opportunity to strike a deadly blow against Tehran given the recent weakening of Iran’s allies, particularly Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Syrian state, both of which have faced military setbacks and political isolation under western pressure and US-backed Israeli aggression.
Hezbollah, long viewed as Iran’s forward line of defense, now faces internal Lebanese constraints and sustained Israeli aggression, limiting its capacity to act preemptively should Iran be targeted. Meanwhile, Syria’s logistical value to the Axis of Resistance has diminished under sanctions, military exhaustion, and the toppling of former president Bashar al-Assad’s government by foreign-backed extremists under its self-appointed Al Qaeda-linked President Ahmad al-Sharaa.
Exploiting the regional moment
With the Axis of Resistance on the defensive, Washington and Tel Aviv see a fleeting opportunity to consolidate their gains. Yet despite their saber-rattling, Iran retains significant deterrence capabilities and appears prepared to retaliate if provoked.
Trump’s strategy, it must also be noted, extends well beyond Iran and its indigenous nuclear program. These foreign policy postures are part of a broader bid to isolate China, reset regional conflicts, distance Beijing from Moscow, and redirect global energy flows and prices, all while propping up Israel as Washington’s local enforcer.
In this context, West Asia becomes both a proving ground and a potential quagmire. Trump seeks to finalize the so-called “normalization” process between Israel and Arab states, neutralize Palestinian resistance, and pressure Iran to concede its regional role.
While he casts himself as a pragmatist open to deals, this posture serves a dual purpose: securing domestic political capital and forging a regional alliance rooted in US dependency.
Still, for such a deal to materialize, Iran would have to abandon core ideological and strategic pillars – namely, its regional alliances and missile deterrence. This is unlikely. Iran knows that surrendering these elements would strip the Islamic Republic not only of its ideological foundation but of any meaningful regional influence.
Iran’s multi-layered deterrence
Tehran’s defense strategy rests on several pillars. First is its alliance network stretching from Iraq to Yemen and Lebanon, forming a buffer against western hegemony. Second is its growing arsenal of precision missiles, drones, and domestically developed air defense systems. Third is geography: Iran’s control over key chokepoints in the Persian Gulf and its capacity to disrupt global oil supply grants it substantial leverage.
The final line of defense remains Iran’s nuclear program. While officially peaceful, there have been sporadic signals that suggest Tehran may recalibrate its doctrine in response to a major direct attack. Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, particularly at Fordow – a fortified facility deep beneath a mountain – underscores this strategic depth.
Despite recent blows, Hezbollah is unlikely to remain passive if Iran faces an existential threat. Likewise, US interests in Iraq and bases in the region, particularly Djibouti, could become targets for retaliatory strikes from Yemen’s Ansarallah movement.
Iran’s weapons development program has made extraordinary strides post-2011, with multiple lines of ballistic missiles like the Khyber Shakan and Fattah series, and more basic but highly producible systems like Imad and Radwan.
Meanwhile, Iran’s drones have proven effective in theaters from Ukraine to the Red Sea, while its layered air defenses – Khordad, Power-373, and Majid systems – make sustained air campaigns costly for adversaries. Its naval strategy hinges on asymmetric warfare and control of the Strait of Hormuz, a lifeline for global energy trade.
American options – and constraints
The US maintains around 60,000 troops across West Asia, mainly in Persian Gulf bases, and has shifted assets – including aircraft carriers and Patriot systems – from the Pacific to the region. Washington can certainly initiate a campaign to damage Iran’s infrastructure, but sustaining it would be difficult.
All regional US bases are within range of Iranian missiles, meaning any engagement could mark the first conventional war for the US with real counter-fire in decades.
Expect Washington to lean heavily on cyberwarfare and covert operations targeting civilian and military infrastructure alike to sow chaos inside Iran. Yet, a limited strike risks triggering a protracted conflict – something Iran is arguably more prepared for.
Iran’s strategy of attrition suits its asymmetric strengths and the fragility of US supply chains for munitions such as Patriots, SM-series interceptors, and cruise missiles.
The ongoing engagement in the Red Sea has already strained American resources. US aircraft carriers are operating from positions well beyond effective range, and stockpiles of precision munitions are running low – many earmarked for future conflict with China.
Manufacturing limitations, not cost, are the real bottleneck in sustaining a prolonged campaign. Despite these constraints, the US could still inflict serious initial damage. But sustaining such an operation, especially in the face of regional retaliation, would exact a high political and economic cost.
Between brinkmanship and bargaining
Both sides have much to lose – and much to bargain with. For Washington, a limited conflict could serve immediate strategic aims. For Tehran, dragging the US into a drawn-out war could shift pressure back onto American decision-makers already grappling with economic turbulence at home.
While the rhetoric of war dominates headlines, the path to direct conflict remains uncertain. Much depends on the outcome of indirect negotiations, particularly the recent round of indirect talks in Muscat, Oman.
Trump’s theatrics – threats, military build-up, and erratic messaging – are better understood as negotiating tactics than a clear march to war. Notably, Trump’s insistence that the occupation state should take the lead in any war on Iran reveals his reluctance to entangle the US in yet another West Asian quagmire.
His preference remains a deal, on his terms, allowing him to parade a foreign policy ‘win’ without bloodshed. In sum, war is neither inevitable nor necessarily decisive. The US needs a strategic pause in West Asia to refocus on other global priorities.
Iran, meanwhile, seeks time to rebuild internally and block Israel from exploiting current momentum. The coming weeks may decide whether this standoff ends in confrontation, or compromise.
Standing at the Edge of the Iran War Cliff
By Ron Paul | April 14, 2025
Millions of people around the world were at the edge of their seats over the weekend, waiting to hear whether Trump special envoy Steve Witkoff’s indirect talks with the Iranian foreign minister would ratchet down tensions or would break down and bring on a major Middle East war.
If it seems bizarre that the outcome of a meeting between a US president’s designated negotiator and a foreign government minister could determine whether we plunge into possibly our biggest war since World War II, that’s because it is bizarre. In fact, this is an excellent example of why our Founders were so determined to keep warmaking authority out of the Executive Branch of government. No one person – much less his aide – should have the power to take this country to war.
That is why the Constitution places the authority to go to war firmly and exclusively in the hands of the representatives of the people: the US Congress. After all, it is the US people who will be expected to fight the wars and to pay for the wars and to bear the burden of the outcome of the wars. When that incredible power is placed in the hands of one individual – even if that individual is elected – the temptation to use it is far too great. Our Founders recognized this weakness in the system they were rebelling against – the British monarchy – so they wisely corrected it when they drafted our Constitution.
Unless the US is under direct attack or is facing imminent direct attack, the Constitution requires Congress to deliberate, discuss, and decide whether a conflict or potential conflict is worth bringing the weight of the US military to bear. They wanted it harder, not easier, to take us to war.
When wars can be started by presidents with no authority granted by Congress, the results can be the kinds of endless military engagements with ever-shifting, unachievable objectives such as we’ve seen in Afghanistan and Iraq.
We are currently seeing another such endless conflict brewing with President Trump’s decision to start bombing Yemen last month. The stated objectives– to end Houthi interference with Israeli Red Sea shipping – are not being achieved so, as usually happens, the bombing expands and creates more death and destruction for the civilian population. In the last week or so, US bombs have struck the water supply facilities for 50,000 civilians and have apparently blown up a civilian tribal gathering.
Starting a war with Iran was the furthest thing from the minds of American voters last November, and certainly those who voted for Donald Trump were at least partly motivated by his promise to end current wars and start no new wars. However, there is a strange logic that to fulfill the promise of no new wars, the US must saber rattle around the world to intimidate others from crossing the White House. This is what the recycled phrase “peace through strength” seems to have come to mean. But the real strength that it takes to make and keep peace is the strength to just walk away. It is the strength to stop meddling in conflicts that have nothing to do with the United States.
That is where Congress comes in. Except they are not coming in. They are nowhere to be found. And that is not a good thing.
US strikes on Yemeni ceramics factory leave dozens of casualties
The Cradle | April 14, 2025
A US attack on a ceramics factory near Yemen’s capital, Sanaa, late on 13 April has killed and injured dozens of civilians, with the toll expected to rise in the coming hours.
“Six citizens were martyred and 20 others were injured, including critical injuries. Civil defense and ambulance teams are working hard to search for victims and extinguish the fires,” a spokesman for the Yemeni Health Ministry, Dr Anis al-Asbahi, told SABA news agency.
Video footage showed heavy destruction and teams attempting to extinguish large fires at the Al-Sawari factory in the Sanaa governorate’s Bani Matar district.
US warplanes also “launched two raids on the Al-Yatmah area in the Khabb wal Shaaf district, northeast of Al-Jawf governorate,” according to Al Mayadeen’s correspondent.
Washington’s latest deadly attack comes as the Yemeni Armed Forces (YAF) and Ansarallah movement continue their operations despite a US campaign of daily airstrikes which aim to stifle Sanaa’s military capabilities – but have instead only taken a heavy toll on civilians.
The YAF announced on Sunday evening that it downed a US MQ-9 Reaper drone – worth tens of millions of US dollars – in the airspace of Yemen’s Hajjah governorate. This was the fourth MQ-9 shot down within two weeks and the 19th since the start of the war in Gaza.
“The Armed Forces reiterate that their military capabilities have not been affected and that the ongoing US aggression against our country will only bring more disappointment and failure,” the YAF said in a statement.
The US has been bombing Yemen every day since 15 March, when US President Donald Trump renewed – with severe intensity – the campaign which was started by the former administration of US president Joe Biden.
Dozens of people have been killed in the attacks, including women and children.
US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth vowed last week that the campaign against Yemen is “about to get worse.”
The violent attacks come in response to Yemen’s reimposition of a ban on Israeli shipping in the Red Sea and elsewhere, as well as its renewal of drone and missile attacks on Israel after Tel Aviv restarted the war on Gaza last month.
The YAF has been responding to Washington’s attacks with operations targeting US warships in the Red Sea – including the USS Harry S. Truman aircraft carrier.
According to sources cited in US media recently, Washington has burned through massive amounts of munitions and has spent close to $1 billion, but has failed to significantly impact the YAF and Ansarallah – which are merged.
US, Iran take a leap forward in trust building
By M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | Indian Punchline | April 13, 2025
With the foreplay over and US-Iranian talks commencing in Muscat on Saturday, a constructive engagement has begun in right earnestness. The sure sign of it is that Iran’s currency rose nearly 6 percent on Sunday. The Tehran bazaar, the weathervane of Shia politics, has spoken.
Most important, the two key negotiators in Muscat Steve Witkoff and Abbas Araqchi have decided to return to the talks on April 19 in exactly a week’s time after reporting back to their principals in Washington and Tehran respectively and seeking fresh guidelines going forward.
The White House said the talks were positive and constructive and appreciated that “direct communication was a step forward in achieving a mutually beneficial outcome.” Witkoff described the talks as “very positive and constructive.”
Iran’s foreign ministry said the talks were held in “a constructive atmosphere based on mutual respect. Araqchi also described the negotiations as “promising and constructive.” Significantly, Araqchi told the Iranian national television that the talks brought the two sides closer to establishing “the basis of negotiations” for future discussions.
He added cryptically that while Oman will continue to act as mediator in the upcoming round on April 19, the venue for the next session may change.
Signalling to Witkoff and addressing the domestic audience, Araqchi gave an insightful perspective. He said the discussions aimed to create a structured agenda for the negotiations based on a timeline. The following remarks by Araqchi must be noted carefully:
- “We agreed to hold a second round next Saturday, and in the next session, we will delve into the overall framework that a deal can take to see how far this process can advance.”
- It is important to set a basis for the talks; “If we can finalise the basis in the next meeting… we can begin real discussions based on that basis.”
- The talks were conducted in a “calm and very respectful atmosphere. No inappropriate language was used. Both sides demonstrated their determination to advance the talks until an agreement is reached that is desirable for both parties and is based on an equal footing.”
- Neither Iran nor the US wants to “negotiate for the sake of negotiating” and does not favour protracted “attritional talks.” Both sides voiced their keenness to achieve an agreement “at the shortest time. This, however, will not be easy and requires full determination of the two sides.”
- “When leaving, the two delegations encountered each other, and we talked for a few minutes. This is a completely accepted issue. We have always observed diplomatic courtesy when dealing with American diplomats, and this time, too, an initial greeting was exchanged, and then we left the place. It was nothing extraordinary.”
Dr Mohammad Jafar Qaempanah, President Masoud Pezeshkian’s trusted chief of staff who holds the position of vice-president for executive affairs — and, incidentally, a medical doctor by profession with research papers and foreign citations to his credit — that the negotiations “were conducted well with dignity, prudence, expediency, and in line with the interests of the Iranian people.”
President Donald Trump reined himself in his early comments to the media from Air Force One, “Nothing matters until you get it done, so I don’t like talking about it, but it’s going OK. The Iran situation is going pretty good, I think.”
Elsewhere, Trump added, “I want Iran to be a wonderful, great, happy country, but they can’t have a nuclear weapon.” But that is Iran’s strategic choice, too.
That said, both in the US and in Iran, the hardliners are straining at the leash to throw stones. Then there are also the third parties with their own agenda. If the Iranians spurned the initial US attempt to have the UAE mediate, and instead also bypassed Qatar and opted for Oman as their preferred mediator for the talks, it tells a tale by itself of the complex regional alignments in the Gulf as well as Tehran’s need to keep Israelis miles away from messing around.
The crux of the matter is that the initial round of talks in Muscat represents a turning point in the challenging dynamics between Tehran and Washington. According to the Tehran grapevine, the talks focussed on two intertwined contentious issues — sanctions relief and the nuclear issue — as in the past negotiations.
Reaching a mutually agreeable framework for dialogue could pave the way for reducing tensions and returning to a diplomatic path. It is doable today from all indications. The game changer is that both sides have shown willingness to reduce tensions and seek a middle ground. Araqchi’s positive spin on the atmospherics at the Muscat talks signalled that the enduring mutual distrust notwithstanding, both sides acknowledge the necessity of continuing discussions, and are determined to avoid deadlock and explore new opportunities.
This is not to overlook that the path ahead remains challenging and fraught with obstacles. Sensitive issues need to be sorted out such as the the timing of sanctions relief, the scope of nuclear commitments, and verification mechanisms. Nonetheless, the bottom line is that the return to diplomacy after such high spiralling of tensions in recent months provides an opportunity to rebuild relative trust and recalibrate US-Iran relations—at least on technical and substantive levels.
Indeed, Witkoff and Araqchi are just the negotiators with the temperament not to succumb to the temptations of oneupmanship and grandstanding and instead proceed with precision, patience, and creativity in an all-out attempt to capitalise on the good start.
Witkoff already signalled an openness to compromise when he told Wall Street Journal that “our position today” starts with demanding that Iran completely dismantle its nuclear program. “That doesn’t mean, by the way, that at the margin we’re not going to find other ways to find compromise between the two countries.
“Where our red line will be, there can’t be weaponisation of your [Iran’s] nuclear capability,” Witkoff added underscoring that any deal must include extensive oversight measures to guarantee Iran is not developing an atomic weapon. Nuclear experts from the US state department are assisting Witkoff.
Iran has consistently denied seeking to acquire nuclear weapons. On Friday, foreign ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei said in Tehran that Iran is “giving diplomacy a genuine chance in good faith and full vigilance. America should appreciate this decision, which was made despite their hostile rhetoric.”
READ MORE: Steve Witkoff’s Iran mission holds seamless possibilities, Indian Punchline, April 11, 2025
Steve Witkoff’s Iran mission holds seamless possibilities
By M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | Indian Punchline | April 11, 2025
The rubric of the US-Iranian talks slated for Saturday in Muscat turned into a vanity fair of sorts — whether the talks should be called ‘indirect’ or ‘direct’. The US President Donald Trump sought direct talks and claimed that Iranians conveyed through back channel that they had no objection to it. Furthermore, Trump disclosed that indirect talks already started. While maintaining publicly that the talks will be ‘indirect’, Iranians didn’t call out Trump.
Accordingly, Trump nominated his trusted aide and longstanding friend Steve Witkoff to represent him at the talks. Tehran reciprocated with Abbas Araqchi, a veteran nuclear negotiator and brilliant diplomat, and currently the foreign minister.
Trump noted with satisfaction that Tehran has fielded a negotiator at the highest possible level. Interestingly, Trump made the announcement on the talks from the Oval Office in the presence of Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Such hyper activism on the optics may create a surreal impression. After all, there is also a military build-up going on in the US base in Diego Garcia, including B-52 heavy bombers with a range of 10000 kms. But the Russian assessment is that the US’ mobilisation of military assets falls way short of the level of force strength required to start a war with Iran.
The presence of Araqchi and Witkoff at the talks in Muscat underscores that both sides are approaching the talks in all seriousness conscious of the real risk of a dangerous escalation of the present precarious situation around the Iran nuclear issue if concrete progress is not achieved in the negotiations by mid-2025.
The clock starts ticking for the E3 (France, Germany, and Britain) to move to restore the UN Security Council sanctions on Iran by invoking the JCPOA’s veto-proof ‘snapback’ mechanism for which the cutoff date is the month of October. Snapback also restores Security Council ban on uranium enrichment, further reactor development, and ballistic missile activities.
Tehran has warned that if the UN sanctions are restored, it may withdraw from the NPT in response and if that happens, it is no longer obligated to retain IAEA safeguards. But there is a gestation period of 3 months before Iran’s exit from NPT gets formalised.
Enter Russia. According to the 1992 nuclear cooperation agreement between Moscow and Tehran, “nuclear material, equipment, special non-nuclear-material, and related technology” as well as nuclear materials produced by the result of transferred technology “shall be under the International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards” during their “entire period” of stay in Iran.
The agreement further stipulates that these materials “shall be used only for declared purposes that are not connected with activities of manufacturing nuclear explosive devices” and “shall not be used to carry out activities in the field of nuclear fuel cycle” that are not under IAEA safeguards.
Suffice to say, at the very least, Iran’s nuclear cooperation agreement with Russia may obligate Tehran to retain some IAEA presence. Russia’s economic interests in nuclear cooperation with Iran will also play a part. Besides, the recent Russian-Iranian treaty on strategic cooperation explicitly affirms Tehran’s commitment to nuclear non-proliferation. Russia also tends to prioritise a constructive engagement of the US in its foreign policies and its moderating influence on Iran lest it goes the North Korean way will be a significant factor in the US-Iranian negotiations. The situation around Iran has already figured more than once in the recent US-Russia exchanges since February including at the highest level between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin.
During this week, against the backdrop of the talks in Muscat, President Masoud Pezeshkian made certain significant remarks. It is entirely conceivable that he was speaking for Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
First, Pezeshkian said Khamenei is “not opposed to US entities investing capital” in the Iranian economy. Succinctly put, this is a radical departure from Iran’s traditional stance.
Second, Pezeshkian said, “We are open to dialogue, but with dignity and pride, we will not compromise on our achievements and we will not make deals (on them).” In effect, Pezeshkian has notified that any suggestions that the only acceptable deal with Iran must include complete dismantlement of the country’s nuclear program will be a non-starter.
Third, Pezeshkian not only reiterated Iran’s rejection of nuclear weapons but stated its willingness to be subject to robust safeguards. As he put it, “We are not looking for an atomic bomb. Who is setting policy above the Leader of the Islamic Revolution who has officially announced that we are not looking for a nuclear bomb? Check it a thousand times. You can verify a thousand times that we don’t have atomic bombs, but we need nuclear science and nuclear energy.”
Fourth, Pezeshkian also had a message of sorts for Israel. He said, “We are not looking for war, but we will stand strong against any aggression with the knowledge and power that our scientists have created. The more they harm us, the more powerful we will become, and the stronger we will stand against any threat they pose to us.”
Taken together, these remarks by Pezeshkian would give a fair idea of what the contours of a possible settlement of the nuclear issue could be as the talks proceed.
Most importantly, Iran seeks an economic partnership with the US and implicit in it is the unspoken readiness for political and diplomatic ties. Iran’s approach bears an uncanny resemblance to what Russia has adopted in its nascent dialogue with the Trump administration. Trump’s choice of Witkoff as the negotiator for Iran can be seen as a signal that the US is open to explore opportunities of economic cooperation with Iran as an underpinning to the normalisation process. (By the way, the Washington Post has reported that Witkoff is willing to travel to Tehran, if invited.) Certainly, Tehran pins hopes on Witkoff bringing new thinking into the paradigm. Do not be surprised if he travels to Tehran in the near future.
That said, the Trump administration must appreciate that Iran lives in a tough security environment and is attempting to use its nuclear threshold status as a deterrent. Therefore, what is possible is a combination of limits and monitoring that can adequately reduce proliferation risks.
The onus is on Witkoff to articulate behind closed doors realistic US objectives for a nuclear deal, bearing in mind that politics is the art of the possible. This involves refraining from calls for the complete dismantlement of the Iranian nuclear program, and, equally, the projection of ideas as to how Tehran will benefit from an agreement with the United States.
When I visited Tehran last June to observe the presidential election, a topic that came up in almost all conversations and TV interviews was: What to expect from a Trump administration? What I could sense was that contrary to what Israeli media management strives to project to muddy waters, Tehran has no revenge mentality and instead senses that Trump’s priorities in a second term are not about projection of power but the regeneration of America. As a civilisational state that was never colonised through millennia, Iranian culture is highly pragmatic but it will never surrender its legitimate interests or compromise under pressure. In this respect, it is a unique country in the region. (See an outstanding policy brief by Washington-based Arms Control Association titled The Art of a New Iranian Nuclear Deal in 2025.)
Iran’s relevance to the regeneration of the American economy (MAGA) is self-evident. Apart from vast mineral resources, Iran’s human resources can give a solid underpinning to economic and technological partnership with American business and industry. An enduring nuclear deal with Iran is best achieved through an overarching relationship to reengage with Iran as a partner after over four decades.
Prof. John Mearsheimer: Trump, Netanyahu, and Iran.
Judge Napolitano – Judging Freedom | April 10, 2025
AIPAC leader boasts of special ‘access’ to top Trump natsec officials in leaked audio
By Max Blumenthal | The Grayzone | April 9, 2025
During an off-the-record panel, AIPAC’s CEO detailed his organization’s grooming of Trump’s top national security officials, and how his group’s “access” ensures they continue to follow Israel’s agenda.
The Grayzone has obtained audio of an off-the-record session from the 2025 Congressional Summit of AIPAC, the main US lobbying arm of the state of Israel. Recorded by an attendee of the panel discussion, the audio features AIPAC’s new CEO, Elliott Brandt, describing how his organization has cultivated influence with three top national security officials in the Trump administration – Secretary of State Marco Rubio, National Security Director Mike Waltz, and CIA Director John Ratcliffe – and how it believes it can gain “access” to their internal discussions.
Joining Brandt on the panel was Dana Stroul, formerly the highest ranking civilian overseeing Middle East issues in the Biden administration’s Department of Defense. Stroul made it clear that defending Israel’s strategic imperatives from within the US government was a top priority, arguing that Washington should deepen its “mutually beneficial” special relationship with its “strong partner” in Tel Aviv.
Stroul dismissed the bloodbath in Gaza as the result of supposed Hamas tactics which supposedly aim to maximize the amount of children killed by Israel. At the same time, she and her fellow Israel lobbyists fretted about the impact of the post-October 7 war on public support for the self-proclaimed Jewish state. She was particularly troubled by Sen. Bernie Sanders’ attempts to force votes on military aid packages to Israel which, in her view, should never be debated in the open. Another unidentified AIPAC panelist worried that pro-Palestinian academics could eventually influence AI knowledge systems, leading to a dangerous shift in national security policy unless they were decisively suppressed.
The Congressional Summit was permeated with anxiety, as AIPAC leaders told rank-and-file members to hide their badges when they left the Marriott Hotel for fear they would be confronted by anti-genocide protesters. Other than a handful of sessions, such as a keynote address by Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu, the conference was strictly off-the-record.
With the cameras off, AIPAC leadership provided unusually candid details of their activities. In one revealing admission, Brandt explained how he and his lobbying organization groomed the future CIA director and other top Trump officials as pro-Israel assets.
AIPAC’s “lifelines” on the Trump national security team
Elliot Brandt was promoted to Executive Director of AIPAC in 2024, making him one of the most powerful lobbyists in Washington. Though he is largely unknown to the American public, Brandt has spent around three decades building relationships on Capitol Hill. This was the key, he suggested, to cultivating the future leaders of America’s national security state as loyal servants of Israel.
Referring to Trump’s Secretary of State Marco Rubio, his National Security Director Mike Waltz, and Elise Stefanik, whose nomination to serve as the US ambassador to the United Nations was suddenly withdrawn to preserve the GOP’s majority in the House of Representatives, Brandt explained to AIPAC members, “Those three people have something in common: they all served in Congress.”
After relying heavily on pro-Israel donors to fuel their campaigns for office, “they all have relationships with key AIPAC leaders from their communities,” said the AIPAC CEO. “So the lines of communication are good should there be something questionable or curious, and we need access on the conversation.”
Brandt’s comments corroborate Representative Thomas Massie’s claim that each member of Congress is expected to answer to an “AIPAC person.”
The AIPAC director’s reference to his organization’s “access” to presumably internal national security discussions contains ominous echoes of past espionage scandals in which AIPAC employees were accused of forking classified information over to Israeli intelligence. In 2004, for example, the FBI arrested a Pentagon researcher named Larry Franklin, who had provided classified documents related to Iran to two AIPAC staffers, Keith Weissman and Steve Rosen, who then delivered the information to Israeli intelligence. That December, the FBI raided AIPAC’s offices and seized a computer belonging to Brandt’s predecessor, Howard Kohr. (In the end, Franklin received a slap on the wrist from the government while Weissman and Rosen were fired by AIPAC.)
In his remarks to the AIPAC Congressional Summit, Brandt also pointed to CIA Director John Ratcliffe as an important point of contact. “You know that one of the first candidates I ever met with as an AIPAC professional in my job when he was a candidate for Congress was a guy named John Ratcliffe,” he recalled. “He was challenging a long time member of Congress in Dallas. I said, this guy looks like he could win the race, and, we go talk to him. He had a good understanding of issues, and a couple of weeks ago, he took the oath as the CIA director, for crying out loud. This is a guy that we had a chance to speak to, so there are, there are a lot – I wouldn’t call them lifelines, but there are lifelines in there.”
Top Pentagon veteran comes out as Israel lobbyist
Dana Stroul works as director of research at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a neoconservative think tank that was originally founded as the research arm of AIPAC. Stroul previously served as deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East in the Biden administration’s Pentagon, presiding over policy toward Iran, Syria and virtually every other issue of importance to Israel.
In a closed session at the Marriott hotel, seated before an audience of AIPAC members, Stroul sounded more like a veteran Israel lobbyist than a US national security expert, arguing at length that any and all US military aid packages to Israel provided a net benefit to American empire, while dismissing well-documented Israeli atrocities in the besieged Gaza Strip as the result of “clever” Hamas human shield tactics.
According to an attendee of the AIPAC Congressional Summit, Stroul began her remarks by recalling the frantic hours after she received word of the October 7, 2023 attacks. Personally summoned to work by then-Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, Stroul described how she rushed her child to the Pentagon’s in-house daycare center so she could get to the work of surging munitions to the Israeli military. She said she worked continuously for the next 48 hours, helping the Pentagon transfer weapons from its own stockpiles to Israeli bases. (The AIPAC attendee was unable to capture audio of these comments by Stroul).
Even as she worked to ensure that Israel had all it needed to transform Gaza into a moonscape, Stroul privately acknowledged that the Israeli military might be committing war crimes, according to a series of emails leaked to Reuters. On October 13, 2023, Stroul fired off an email to top White House, State Department, and Pentagon officials about a phone call she had just held with the International Red Cross Committee’s (ICRC) Middle East director, Fabrizio Carboni. “ICRC is not ready to say this in public, but is raising private alarm that Israel is close to committing war crimes,” Stroul wrote. “Their main line is that it is impossible for one million civilians to move this fast.”
Since recognizing the likelihood of Israeli atrocities, Stroul has apparently kept her conscience clear by blaming Hamas for the over 50,000 civilians Israel has killed in Gaza. “I think if you’re in Iran, or you are the Houthis or any of these other proxy terrorist groups, and frankly, probably the Russians and the Chinese,” she told AIPAC members at the 2025 congressional summit, “you’re looking at the ways in which the international community so quickly moved on from October 7 and what happened to Israel and why Israel is at war, and you’re probably taking away that a great tactic in wars to put as many civilians on the front lines as possible so that they can just get killed. And so, the Hamas tactic had strategic effects, because Israel finds itself isolated on the international stage. And it’s a tactic by Hamas to both terrorize on the global stage, and number two, [for] propaganda and disinformation.“
Stroul went on to suggest that the Israeli military was superior in ways to the US military. “This is a mutually beneficial relationship. This is not just about what the United States gives Israel,” the former Pentagon official declared. “This is a partner that has flipped the script on what can be accomplished with military force in a way the United States military never conceived of doing against Iran and Iran’s proxies across the Middle East. We get as much intelligence from Israel, as we give to Israel. They are using our F-35 more than we are using it…”
In her view, Israel also served as an important proxy of the US by applying violence and taking casualties against its supposed enemies: “One thing that you hear that I think is common on the far right and the far left is that they don’t want young men, American men and women, service members going to war in the Middle East, or anywhere. So the way to not have young Americans on the line anywhere is to actually invest in strong partners who can defend themselves. That’s Israel.”
One month after Stroul delivered her comments to AIPAC, President Donald Trump restarted the US military assault on Yemen’s Ansarullah movement in order to protect Israeli shipping from its blockade of the Red Sea. The war has by now cost US taxpayers at least one billion dollars, but has failed to achieve freedom of navigation.
Like the other AIPAC panelists, Stroul was consumed with anxiety about Israel’s image among the American public. She singled out Sen. Bernie Sanders’ efforts to suspend military aid to Israel as a particular source of concern, though not necessarily because she believed they would be successful.
“What do I worry about? I think everyone who’s a supporter of this relationship needs to be wary of the manner in which sometimes it’s not going to be about – Israel is going to be about congressional versus legislative tussling, but Israel is going to be caught in the crosshairs. And I’m worried about that with these executive holds,” Stroul proclaimed.
I’m worried about it with things like the [Bernie] Sanders joint resolutions of disapproval, even if he doesn’t force a vote this time, we’re not getting through four years without him forcing a vote. And it is not good for Israel and for this relationship to make members constantly have to vote on it, even if they pass. That’s not the point. The point is to not have to debate every time.”
Fear of a pro-Palestine AI system
Asked about his greatest concern, an AIPAC panelist whom The Grayzone has not been able to identify pointed to academia and social media. According to the clearly seasoned Israel lobbyist, Israel was losing “the war of ideas” to a collection of professors and influencers with outsized influence among the future generation of America’s intelligentsia.
“Imagine five years from now, a staff, a congressional staffer, types into AI Claude, GBT, at that one. GBT, 14, whatever says, ‘Is supporting Israel bad for American national security?’ The answer that they get back is going to be informed by the information that’s on the internet today, which is why punching back in the information sphere becomes so important,” the Israel lobbyist urged.
“When you disengage, you leave an open playing field for precisely that sort of information that’s going to inform national security decisions five years from now. And by the way, Congress is not immune, because if a member of Congress, if his or her elector, is increasingly being read that type of information, it will skew how they pressure him or her to vote, or even to throw him or her out of office and pick somebody else. Right?… I mean, it starts in academia, but it doesn’t end there, right?”
AIPAC did not respond to The Grayzone’s request for comment about statements made during the off-the-record panel.
Israel beats drums of war in run-up to Iran-US talks
Press TV – April 9, 2025
Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has revisited threats of deployment of military force against Iran’s nuclear facilities, demanding physical destruction of the nuclear sites, a few days before the Islamic Republic and the United States are slated to engage in indirect talks.
The Israeli official made the call in a video address on Tuesday, alleging that the prospect of using military force was the only means of ensuring, what he called, Tehran’s non-pursuance of “nuclear weapons.”
He asserted that any agreement between the United States and Iran could only succeed if Iran’s nuclear facilities were “blown up” and “dismantled” under American supervision.
“We agree that Iran will not have nuclear weapons,” Netanyahu said, referring to his discussions with US President Donald Trump. However, he dismissed the prospect of a purely diplomatic path, saying things would only work if the United States took direct military action to eliminate Iran’s nuclear capabilities.
“If we go in, blow up the [nuclear] facilities, dismantle all the equipment, under American supervision and American execution — that is good,” he claimed.
“If that doesn’t happen,” he added, Iran could “drag out talks.” “Then the option is military,” Netanyahu alleged.
The Israeli premier also said he and Trump had discussed that scenario “at length.”
The remarks flew directly in the face of the Islamic Republic’s repeated assertions that it would neither pursue nor possess any such unconventional weapons as per clear moral and religious imperatives.
Netanyahu’s comments followed a tense meeting at the White House, where he appeared publicly out of step with Trump on several major issues, including Iran, regional diplomacy, and trade.
During the meeting, he found out from Trump firsthand that Iran and the US were to engage in indirect talks.
Several major Israeli media outlets later said the Israeli delegation had “shock written all over their faces” after the announcement, saying Netanyahu had returned from the meeting “empty-handed” and “humiliated.” One outlet even described the meeting as the “most failed” one to ever take place between an Israeli premier and a US president.
Nonetheless, Netanyahu tried to frame the visit positively, describing it as “very warm” and suggesting further announcements would be made in due time.
‘Signalgate’ Highlights the Trump Administration’s Disregard for Civilian Life
By James Rushmore | The Libertarian Institute | April 8, 2025
Much of the media discourse surrounding Signalgate has focused on its national security implications. Nevertheless, the most important—and most overlooked—dimension of The Atlantic leak is the unvarnished look it provides at the Trump administration’s disregard for civilian life. At no point before or after the U.S. airstrikes against Yemen do any members of the Houthi principals committee acknowledge the human cost of such military operations. This brazen approach to warfare contravenes the America First ethos that President Donald Trump and his allies purport to embody.
Many have cited Vice President J.D. Vance’s contributions to the group chat as evidence of some non-interventionist undercurrent running within the administration. On Friday, March 14, Vance questioned the prudence of bombing Yemen. Vance’s instincts lead him to the right conclusion (“I think we are making a mistake”), but his slavish commitment to certain political imperatives (“The strongest reason to do this is, as POTUS said, to send a message”) lead him to preemptively kneecap his own argument (“I am willing to support the consensus of the team and keep these concerns to myself”), effectively nullifying any critiques he might have offered.
Furthermore, Vance fails to mention the fact that the Houthis had refrained from attacking U.S. military and commercial vessels since a temporary ceasefire between Israel and Hamas was announced back in January, nor did he mention that the Houthis were only reimposing the blockade on Israeli shipping in the Red Sea after Israel reneged on the terms of the ceasefire. His failure to acknowledge the elephant in the room—the fact that the attack on Yemen is being carried out exclusively for the benefit of Israel—is glaring.
Joe Kent, Trump’s nominee to serve as director of the National Counterterrorism Center, responds to Vance by agreeing that there was no need to expedite the strikes. He is also the first person in the chat to reference the Israel factor. However, he inexplicably describes the likelihood that Israel “will take strikes” and “ask [the U.S.] for more support to replenish whatever they use against the Houthis” as “a minor factor.” Like Vance, Kent offers a very feeble critique of the proposed airstrikes, and the threadbare nature of his contribution becomes all the more indefensible when one considers the vehemence with which he previously opposed military action in the Middle East.
To no one’s surprise, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and National Security Advisor Michael Waltz manage to easily neutralize Vance’s irresolute objections. Later in the chat, Vance says, “I just hate bailing Europe out again,” which prompts Hegseth to respond with, “I fully share your loathing of European free-loading. It’s PATHETIC.” Note that neither official objects to Israeli freeloading.
On Saturday, March 15, about two hours before the first strikes, Hegseth shares the tentative schedule for the forthcoming operation. He follows up that post by wishing, “Godspeed to our Warriors.” Vance writes, “I will say a prayer for victory,” prompting two participants to respond with prayer emoji reactions.
At 2:00 p.m., Waltz tells Vance, “The first target—their top missile guy—we had positive ID of him walking into his girlfriend’s building and it’s now collapsed.” Vance offers a one-word response: “Excellent.” What follows is a series of congratulatory, emoji-heavy responses from the other officials in the chat. Among them is Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, who writes, “Great work and effects!” Gabbard previously opposed U.S. support for “Saudi Arabia’s genocidal war in Yemen.” In September 2018, she charged that the war had “killed thousands and thousands of innocent Yemeni people and caused mass starvation and suffering, a cholera epidemic, [and] the worst humanitarian crisis in the world.” In November 2018, she famously tweeted:
U.S. Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff, who received much of the credit for the now defunct ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas, also joins in the festivities. He shares two prayer emojis, a flexed muscle emoji, and two American flag emojis.
Nobody in the conversation displays any interest in the humanitarian implications of destroying an apartment building, nor does anybody ask about collateral damage. At least 53 people, including five children and two women, were killed in that day’s strikes. But even if the numbers provided by the Houthi-run Health Ministry were entirely fraudulent, the fact that none of the participants raise any objections to U.S. attacks on civilian infrastructure is, while unsurprising, still disturbing. It also undermines the notion that the second Trump administration is an America First one. It is not difficult to envision a scenario in which the U.S. assault on Yemen fuels Islamist recruitment efforts, leading to deadly consequences for American civilians and military personnel down the line.
Netanyahu’s D.C. trip: All optics, no outcomes – Israeli media
Al Mayadeen | April 8, 2025
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met with US President Donald Trump at the White House on Monday, becoming the first foreign leader to personally appeal for relief from newly imposed US tariffs that have caused global concern.
Trump welcomed Netanyahu outside the West Wing with a fist pump before both entered the Oval Office for their meeting. In an unusual move, a planned joint press conference was canceled at the last minute without any explanation. During Netanyahu’s previous visit, the two had addressed the media in the Oval Office and held a formal press event.
In the wake of the visit, Israeli media burst with speculation and criticism over how Netanyahu’s White House trip ended in humiliation, as he left with no gains and was publicly sidelined by President Trump—highlighting his waning influence and deepening reliance on Washington.
Trump’s curveballs leave Netanyahu swinging
Israeli media likened Netanyahu’s White House visit to a political strikeout. Borrowing a baseball metaphor, commentators said Trump pitched a series of curveballs on issues vital to “Israel”—from security and trade to regional geopolitics—and Netanyahu missed every single one.
Furthermore, observers in “Israel” were quick to highlight the stark contrast in Netanyahu’s behavior during this meeting compared to past interactions with US presidents.
While he had often been confrontational and assertive, this time, seated beside Trump under the cameras’ scrutiny, Netanyahu merely smiled and absorbed the blows in silence.
The optics were hard to ignore: A figure once known for his strong stance was now reduced to a passive observer, underscoring his political vulnerability, diminishing influence over Trump, and growing dependence on the US president’s whims, as per the Israeli press.
Netanyahu cast as a prop, not a partner
Israeli commentators noted that while the private tone between the two leaders may have differed behind closed doors, the public optics told a harsher story. In coverage across Israeli outlets, Netanyahu was described as more of a stage prop than a strategic partner—ironically echoing his own past jab about being treated like “a flowerpot.” For over 30 minutes, Trump answered questions solo, with Netanyahu largely sidelined and silent.
Israeli media also pointed to the bitter irony of Netanyahu boasting about being the first foreign figure invited to Washington after the announcement of sweeping US tariffs on over 60 countries, including “Israel”. The prime minister had hoped to secure ‘a diplomatic victory’—perhaps a tariff exemption—but left with nothing to show.
In a moment of performative diplomacy, Netanyahu promised Trump he would “eliminate the trade deficit with the US,” a vow many doubt he can fulfill. Trump, unfazed, deflected the gesture by reminding everyone of America’s $4 billion annual military aid to “Israel”: “We give Israel four billion dollars a year. That’s a lot. By the way—congratulations. That’s not bad,” he quipped.
A diplomatic misfire
Israeli media were quick to contrast Netanyahu’s incompatible moods during his recent meetings with US President Donald Trump. Just two months ago, he stood ‘triumphantly’ beside Trump when the US president unveiled his “Riviera in Gaza” plan. But this time, Israeli outlets noted, the atmosphere was decidedly different.
Trump’s surprise announcement of direct talks with Iran visibly rattled Netanyahu, who had expected tougher rhetoric or a potential military commitment. Instead, he offered a subdued response, calling for a deal to dismantle Iran’s nuclear program “completely, as in the case of Libya.”
The Israeli press also highlighted Netanyahu’s concerns over Turkiye’s growing influence in Syria, yet Trump’s response was less than reassuring. Trump downplayed Netanyahu’s concerns with a lighthearted monologue about his close relationship with Erdogan, even suggesting that he could resolve Turkiye-related issues as long as Netanyahu “acted logically.”
Israeli commentators were left questioning the purpose of Netanyahu’s visit, with many concluding that it was a diplomatic failure. They argued that Netanyahu returned from Washington empty-handed—his influence diminished and his political position further weakened.
Featured Video
HE SAVED LIVES. NOW HE FACES PRISON.
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
The Geopolitics behind the War in Yemen (I)
By Mahdi Darius NAZEMROAYA | Strategic Culture Foundation | 30.03.2015
The United States and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia became very uneasy when the Yemenese or Yemenite movement of the Houthi or Ansarallah (meaning the supporters of God in Arabic) gained control of Yemen’s capital, Sanaa/Sana, in September 2014. The US-supported Yemenite President Abd-Rabbuh Manṣour Al-Hadi was humiliatingly forced to share power with the Houthis and the coalition of northern Yemenese tribes that had helped them enter Sana. Al-Hadi declared that negotiations for a Yemeni national unity government would take place and his allies the US and Saudi Arabia tried to use a new national dialogue and mediated talks to co-opt and pacify the Houthis.
The truth has been turned on its head about the war in Yemen. The war and ousting of President Abd-Rabbuh Manṣour Al-Hadi in Yemen are not the results of «Houthi coup» in Yemen. It is the opposite. Al-Hadi was ousted, because with Saudi and US support he tried to backtrack on the power sharing agreements he had made and return Yemen to authoritarian rule. The ousting of President Al-Hadi by the Houthis and their political allies was an unexpected reaction to the takeover Al-Hadi was planning with Washington and the House of Saudi. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Finland’s Stubb tells European leaders to calm down
- Defeating Russia on battlefield impossible – Fico
- Finland’s Gender Clinic Reversal
- Massachusetts Wants Mental Health Visits, Why Does Government Use ‘Health’ to Enter Our Homes & Families?
- US lawmaker admits American people footing bill for Trump’s failed aggression against Iran
- Pfizer Gave $500,000 to Groups That Lobbied to End Religious Exemption in Massachusetts
- HE SAVED LIVES. NOW HE FACES PRISON.
- Israeli lobby seeks to bind US fate to ‘Israel’: Araghchi
- Pakistan-Iran talks secure LNG shipment to Islamabad through Hormuz
- Black Sea grain crisis puts global wheat supplies under pressure
- If Americans Knew
- Israel Is Expanding and Upgrading Compounds for Palestinian Militias in Gaza
- The Palestinian-American Residents of This West Bank Town Are Wondering: Where Is Trump?
- Gaza desperately needs tents, wheelchairs, fuel… and everything else (Israel blocks it all) – Daily Update
- Israeli Attacks in Gaza Kill at Least Seven Palestinians Over Three Days, including Woman and Child
- Trump’s militarization of Washington DC as he pursues Israel’s war against Iran
- Why Israel Fears This Searing New Documentary
- Huckabee aide solicited cash gifts from Israelis
- This isn’t sci-fi, AI is already killing people
- ‘The Most Brutal Thing’: Investigation Reveals Execution of Elderly Woman in Rafah
- Inside Israel’s ‘soft’ ethnic cleansing plan for Gaza through the eyes of its victims
- No Tricks Zone
- 2025 Nature Paper Claiming Worsening Global Drought Gets RETRACTED …Heavily Flawed
- New Study: ‘Global Drought Shows No Detectable Recent Acceleration Under Climate Warming’
- Economic Masterminds: German Socialists Suggest Taxing Productivity Gains Stemming From Using AI
- The South China Sea Has Not Been Cooperating With The Climate Change Narrative
- Energy Crisis: Germany Enters Heating Season With Historically Low Gas Reserve Fill Levels
- New Study: The Antarctic Ice Sheet Gained Mass From 2020-2024 Due To Staggering Snow And Ice Accumulation
- Study: Ocean Heating Rates From Thousands Of Years Ago ‘Dwarf’ Modern Ocean Heating Rates
- Climate Extremists Target, Attack Large-Scale Power Grid Infrastructure In Germany!
- New Study: Antarctic Ice Melt Has Contributed Less Than 1 Centimeter To Sea Level Rise In The Last 30 Years
- Fear Of Debate: Alarmist German Climate Scientist Calls On Mainstream Media To Discredit Skeptic Voices
Aletho News 