Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Israel’s Obliteration Ecocide from Gaza to Lebanon and Beyond

By Dan Steinbock | Palestine Chronicle | May 3, 2026

Lebanon accuses Israel of committing ecocide in country since 2023. It is an extension of Israel’s destruction of Gaza – and its obliteration doctrine.

Israeli military aggression has “reshaped both the physical and ecological landscape” of southern Lebanon, according to the Lebanese report (which does not consider the impacts of Israel’s latest barrage of attacks this spring).

In her foreword, Lebanon’s minister for the environment, Tamara el Zein, notes: “The scale and intentionality of the damage to forests, agricultural lands, marine ecosystems, water resources, and atmospheric quality constitute what must be recognized as an act of ecocide, with consequences that extend far beyond immediate destruction.”

Obliteration ecocide in Lebanon

Released by the country’s National Council for Scientific Research and presented by the environment ministry, the report accuses Israel of “ecocide” during the 2023–2024 war and subsequent escalations. It frames environmental destruction not as incidental “collateral damage” but as a systematic transformation of ecosystems.

Key findings are damning. They include:

  • 5,000 hectares of forest destroyed
  • Massive agricultural losses ($118m direct infrastructure damage; much larger indirect losses)
  • Soil contamination (including high phosphorus levels)
  • Air pollution from repeated strike cycles
  • Destruction of orchards and irrigation systems

Minister el Zein characterizes this as “intentional ecological destruction” affecting food systems, public health, and the long-term viability of southern Lebanon’s rural economy.

International reporting on the same dossier highlights an estimated total damage burden of over $25 billion when recovery costs and economic losses are included. The figure is a combined total from the assessments by the Lebanese report and the World Bank Rapid Damage and Needs Assessment (RDNA) 2025.

This framing aligns with a growing legal discourse around “ecocide” as a potential international crime, particularly where environmental damage is widespread, long-term, and strategically embedded in military operations.

It is also aligned with UN reporting on the broader Israel–Lebanon escalation, confirming extensive infrastructure destruction, civilian displacement, and strikes affecting residential areas.

As the ecocide of Gaza has gone effectively unpunished by the international community, the Netanyahu government is extending the environmental devastation into Lebanon and the proximate region.

Obliteration Doctrine in Gaza

In The Obliteration Doctrine (2025), related commentaries and excerpts, I define this doctrine as the lethal mix of scorched earth policy, collective punishment, and civilian victimization, coupled with massive indiscriminate bombardment and systematic use of artificial intelligence (AI).

The concept is vital because it connects the dots between military strategies, aerial bombardment, lethal deployment of artificial intelligence (AI) and international law, particularly the Geneva Conventions and the Genocide Convention. As Professor William Schabas, a leading scholar of genocide, notes, “the Obliteration Doctrine” “adds a new term to the lexicon on genocide, notably in the application of international law and its judicial mechanisms.”

Modern warfare in Gaza is no longer just counterinsurgency but systems-level destruction of the environmental and infrastructural substrate of life—water, soil, agriculture, energy, and urban continuity.

This interpretation overlaps with empirical reporting on Gaza’s environmental collapse:

  • Satellite analysis shows 38–48% of tree cover and farmland destroyed
  • Severe contamination of soil and groundwater
  • Large-scale destruction of greenhouses and irrigation systems
  • Air pollution from sustained bombardment and debris burning

These patterns are described in independent investigations as producing conditions of near-uninhabitability in many parts of Gaza.

Warfare is no longer bound by battlefield geography. It becomes the restructuring—or “obliteration”—of ecological systems that sustain civilian life.

Ecocide here is not merely the destruction of nature, but the destruction of life-support systems as a purposeful strategy. It is another word for cultural genocide.

Lebanon and the Gaza template

The Lebanese report and international commentary suggest strong structural parallels between Gaza and southern Lebanon operations:

  • Destruction of orchards, especially olive groves (long-lived economic ecosystems)
  • Targeting of water infrastructure and rural supply systems
  • Repeated airstrikes generating soil and atmospheric contamination
  • Displacement of civilian populations from ecologically productive zones, which can be seen as a form of ethnic cleansing

International media reports that Israel is applying a “Gaza playbook” in Lebanon: expulsion orders, infrastructure targeting, and village-level destruction patterns.

Lebanon is now an adjacent theatre where similar operational logics are extended across a different ecological terrain:

  • Gaza: dense urban-agricultural mosaic under blockade conditions
  • Southern Lebanon: dispersed agro-ecological rural system with forested and orchard economies

In both cases, ecological assets are not collateral but structurally embedded in livelihood and resistance capacity – and that makes them strategic targets under the high-intensity obliteration doctrine.

Consequences beyond Lebanon (and for Israel)

The environmental consequences of such conflict patterns are not geographically contained. Three spillover trajectories are particularly important.

First of all, regional ecological degradation. Soil contamination, wildfire damage, and agricultural collapse are not confined to strike zones. Windborne particulates, water contamination, and long-term soil chemistry changes affect broader cross-border ecosystems.

Second, economic fragility and food-system insecurity. Both Lebanon and Israel depend on regional agricultural stability and water systems. Repeated infrastructure destruction increases food import dependence, rural depopulation and long-term land degradation in border zones.

Third, internal Israeli environmental vulnerability. A less discussed but critical dimension is the simple reality that prolonged warfare conditions can feed back into Israel’s own ecological systems vis-à-vis air quality deterioration from sustained military operations, water system strain under security infrastructure expansion, fire ecology disruption in northern regions. long-term land-use militarization effects.

In this sense, “obliteration” generates mutual ecological degradation across interconnected landscapes. It is an ecological version of MAD – mutually assured destruction.

Diffusion of Doctrine

The key concern is not just localized destruction but doctrinal diffusion. Methods of high-intensity ecological disruption normalize across theaters. And let’s keep in mind that the first test of the obliteration doctrine occurred in Dahiya, the predominantly Shia enclave of Beirut.

US military legacy in Iraq and Syria already includes extensive infrastructure and ecosystem disruption under counterinsurgency and airpower doctrines. These features include water system destruction in Iraq, oil field fires, atmospheric contamination, and urban siege warfare effects in Raqqa and Mosul via coalition partners.

Such precedents create a shared operational vocabulary where environmental damage is treated as secondary to strategic objectives.

In a potential Israel–Iran escalation scenario, ecological infrastructure becomes strategically central through water scarcity systems in Iran’s arid regions, oil and petrochemical infrastructure vulnerability, and agricultural basins dependent on irrigation networks.

Under the obliteration logic, these become dual-use environments—civilian life-support systems that also acquire military significance.

Finally, there is the regional systemic risk. This implies a shift from territorial warfare to ecosystem-targeted coercion, where water, soil, energy, and agriculture become primary pressure points. Meanwhile, environmental degradation is exploited as a form of strategic leverage and recovery cycles extend beyond political timelines into generational horizons.

From Battlefield to Biosphere as a Target

The Lebanese charges, Gaza environmental destruction data, and the doctrine of obliteration converge on a structural transformation in modern conflict.

The object of war is increasingly not just territory or armed forces, but the ecological infrastructure that makes civilian life possible. In this way, destruction of that infrastructure is a prelude to ethnic cleansing and displacement.

For military doctrines, this may be framed as an incidental or operational necessity. But for Lebanon and environmental analysts, this constitutes potential ecocide under international law. In view of the obliteration doctrine, it represents a systemic shift in the practice of warfare itself, from the battlefield to the biosphere as a target.

What happens in Gaza won’t stay in Gaza. What happens in Lebanon won’t stay in Lebanon. The stage is being set for obliteration ecocides wherever they are seen as effective necessities.

Ecological systems are now central to both the conduct and consequences of war.

– The author of The Fall of Israel (2024) and The Obliteration Doctrine (2025), Dr Dan Steinbock is the founder of Difference Group and has served at the India, China and America Institute (US), Shanghai Institute for International Studies (China) and the EU Center (Singapore). For more, see https://www.differencegroup.net/

May 5, 2026 Posted by | Environmentalism, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes, Wars for Israel | , , , | Comments Off on Israel’s Obliteration Ecocide from Gaza to Lebanon and Beyond

UAE deports tens of thousands of Pakistanis, seizes their savings amid war on Iran: Report

Press TV – May 5, 2026

Authorities in the UAE are conducting a sweeping deportation campaign targeting tens of thousands of Pakistani workers, freezing their bank accounts and stripping them of their life savings amid growing regional fallout from the US-Israeli aggression on Iran.

While initial reports from New Lines Magazine placed the number of expelled individuals at 15,000, Pakistani sources recently confirmed to Press TV that the deportations are continuing at a rapid pace and now affect tens of thousands of workers.

The expulsions target Shia Muslims or individuals who have publicly expressed solidarity with Tehran following the recent US-Israeli aggression against Iran.

Those targeted are being expelled without formal charges or legal recourse. The systematic removals involve sudden arrests, phone confiscations, and transfers between various detention facilities before the workers are forced onto flights back to Pakistan.

Crucially, deportees are being sent back “without being given the opportunity to withdraw their funds” from Emirati banks, according to a Shia cleric cited by New Lines Magazine.

This sudden seizure of assets has left many families in financial ruin, stripping workers—some of whom spent decades contributing to the Emirati economy—of their entire life savings.

Mohammad Amin Shaheedi, chief of Ummat-e-Wahida Pakistan, told the magazine that following the outbreak of the war, the UAE government launched “what appears to be an organized campaign to deport Shia individuals from the country.”

The US-Israeli aggression began on February 28 with airstrikes that assassinated senior Iranian officials and commanders, including Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei. In response, Iranian armed forces launched daily missile and drone operations targeting locations in the Israeli-occupied territories and US military bases and assets, including those in the UAE.

The ensuing war sparked immense public solidarity with Iran across the region, particularly in Pakistan.

Sources indicate the UAE’s mass expulsions are deeply tied to Islamabad’s clear stance against the Israeli regime’s aggression on Iran and Lebanon, as well as Pakistan’s prominent role as a mediator.

On April 8, forty days into the war, a Pakistan-brokered temporary ceasefire between Iran and the US finally took effect. However, subsequent peace negotiations in Islamabad ultimately stalled amid Washington’s maximalist demands and insistence on unreasonable positions.

May 5, 2026 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Comments Off on UAE deports tens of thousands of Pakistanis, seizes their savings amid war on Iran: Report

Wheels Down in Tbilisi: Was a Routine U.S. Military Stopover a Deliberate Signal to Iran?

By Seth Ferris – New Eastern Outlook – May 5, 2026

A brief and poorly explained landing of a U.S. military transport aircraft in Tbilisi at the end of March 2026 has become a subject of discussion and speculation about its real significance, fueling suspicions that more complex geopolitical signals may lie behind the official explanation of a “routine flight.”

Let’s pull apart the “routine flight” narrative and read between the lines, asking whether a fleeting stopover was less about logistics and more about sending a message — one that Georgia may end up paying for. If you think geopolitics is all press releases and polite diplomacy, think again. I would suggest that what is going on in the shadows, outside of mainstream coverage, is closer to theater — with Georgia cast in a role it never auditioned for.

Start with the headlines: last month, a US Air Force cargo aircraft made a brief stop in Tbilisi, purpose unknown – and just start reverse engineering, taking it apart, and you come up with what is between the lines as to the possible motivations for the US, a strategic ally of Georgia, to be willing to put Iran, its regional partner, in harm’s way. Moreover, it is interesting to know the news sites where this news first appeared, such as Georgian Today, and its history of paid hired gun articles supporting US policy in the region.

It is not as if Georgia and the US do not know that now is not the most opportune time to be perceived as supporting the illegal American-Israeli war against Iran. And let’s not forget C-130 Turkish Cargo Planes falling out of blue Georgian skies. Providing logistic support in a preempted war of aggression is still a recognized crime under the Nuremberg Codex. That puts the provider of such support in the crosshairs of the party being attacked, as has already been demonstrated by Iranian countermeasures, not to mention ‘protective reaction’ strikes in the Gulf States and Jordan.

What do we know?

A United States Air Force military transport aircraft made a short, unexplained landing in Tbilisi the last week of March, prompting questions and speculations but little official detail about its actual mission. However, multiple reports published on April 1, 2026, said a Boeing C-17 Globemaster III landed at Tbilisi International Airport in the afternoon after departing from the U.S. military hub at Ramstein Air Base in Germany.

It is interesting that the US Embassy provided a ‘most vague’ news release after the incident, telling of a phone call between Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Georgia Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze the very next day.

Also vague is the lack of coverage of planes without tail numbers landing at regional airports, such as the one named in honour of the Soviet-Georgian movie “Mimino” in Telavi, East Georgia, supposedly owned by the Aviation University of Georgia. It has operated since 2012 and serves as a training ground for students in the Faculty of Aviation and Engineering.

But it can serve other purposes, as the airport hosts an aircraft technical service enterprise, a navigation tower, a terminal building for passengers, and dormitories for pilot-instructors and engineering-technical staff.

Recent sightings, including of European-looking visitors to the facility, appear a bit too dodgy in terms of standard news release material about a local use and training facility after the landing of the military transport and drones spotted over Georgia – too short and sweet not to be subterfuge.

The U.S. Embassy characterized some flight movement as routine, stating that such flights are “regularly carried out in coordination with partners,” without providing details about cargo, passengers, or final destination.

Flight tracking platforms such as Flightradar24 confirm that C-17 aircraft frequently operate across Europe and the Middle East, typically transporting personnel, equipment, or humanitarian supplies, though specific mission details are not publicly disclosed.

But I am more interested in what was on board, delivering or taking out human cargo! This brings back memories of a Turkish military transport, a C-130. Dropping from the clear blue sky a few months ago, including its crew, all died, and the debris was scattered over a wide area of Georgian territory. The forensic findings of that crash investigation have never been publicly shared to the best of my knowledge.

Wheels Down!

Would the Georgian government, especially now, be so naive as to agree to this touchdown, an unexpected one at that—and of a US military transport plane out of the blue in the middle of a shooting war in the Middle East?

Already there is political blowback. Georgia political analyst Gia Khukhashvili reportedly said that Rubio’s phone call was a “threatening warning”.

Perhaps Rubio was checking how ready Georgia was, and in what form [to what degree] it was ready to help solve America’s logistical problems… I don’t think there have already been any concrete proposals at this stage. But this was logically followed by a threatening warning (for Georgia) from the Iranian ambassador: “Don’t do anything wrong, otherwise you will also become a target,” the Georgian News portal quotes the political scientist.

Gia Khukhashvili believes that there will be no Georgian-American agreements, because “Washington will understand who it is dealing with … and how the Georgian PM Kobakhidze will later say that Rubio threatened him on the phone and demanded to open a second front,” confirmed the Georgian political pundit.

Posting News to Provoke Iran!

Who knows the real motivations and how the news was reported? As one close, trusted Georgian source shared, … just that they post this news to make Iran angry! The UNM, United National Movement, former Saakashvili regime, wants it so VERY much!

Why didn’t they use Turkish or Armenian bases?

That is a good question, and I think you already know the answer. The US wanted to show Iran that Georgia and the US are cooperating, so it provoked Iran to send a drone or make some attack, as Israel has ordered the US to do.

It should be noted that Armenia has a Russian base, and the plane is claimed to have flown over some Armenian and Turkish territory, perhaps touching down in the Kurdish-controlled region of Northern Iraq. It would have been too dangerous to land in Armenia, as secrets could be revealed, and as for Turkey, it shares a similar position as Georgia, it does not want to get involved, or give the impression of being involved, especially since the Americans are openly arming regional Kurds. It can be expected that a substantial part of this ratline is flowing into and through Turkish territory.

I still can’t find any serious discussion on the plane and its real purpose for making a short stopover in Georgia. It appears that the US and Israel would love to put Georgia in the crosshairs of Iran just for the hell of it. It is also interesting that strikes have been carried out by Israel on joint Russian-Iranian port facilities on the Caspian, in the part on the Iranian side.

Possible Motivations for Wheels Down and Vague News Coverage

My first thought was delivering something to put in place for Iran. But if it went to Turkish airspace, it could also be headed to eastern Turkey or Iraq. Or one of the NATO bases in Turkey, although I’m pretty sure those are in the west, and we would not be in the flight path. In any case, if it is at all related to the war, then more EU countries are banning the use of the bases in their countries, so if a plane needs to stop somewhere or refuel, it could be done here. Georgia still wants to stay on good terms with the US, so if it is a brief stop, they would probably allow it. Not much will happen. If the use looks more like staging, it could be dangerous. Moreover, they could use Vaziani. I think NATO supported development of an air base there (which the government now wants to use for a new commercial mega-airport). But there isn’t much of an air force here, so maybe Vaziani lacks fuel in any quantity and other amenities. The motivation was perhaps to deliver some radar equipment, greenbacks, spyware equipment, or perhaps human resources, thinking that Iran will not attack Georgia since it needs it too much as its window to the world.

We’ll have to see; just a thought on it!

In the end, a half-hour touchdown, a vague press release statement, and a conveniently timed diplomatic call say more than any official briefing ever will. Whether it was cargo, coordination, or quiet signaling, the message landed louder than the aircraft itself: Georgia is being watched, tested, and potentially positioned in a conflict it has no desire to join.

And if this was meant as a signal to Iran, then it’s a risky one—because in today’s climate, even a brief stop can turn a bystander into a target. A fleeting military stopover can transform neutral ground into perceived staging areas, risking Iranian retaliation against a nation determined to remain on the sidelines. Sparse public facts and local sources reveal the shadowy interplay of great-power signaling, where a half-hour touchdown may speak louder than any formal briefing—placing Georgia uncomfortably in the crosshairs of a war it wants no part of.

Seth Ferris is an investigative journalist and political scientist, expert on Middle Eastern affairs.

Follow new articles on our Telegram channel

May 5, 2026 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Comments Off on Wheels Down in Tbilisi: Was a Routine U.S. Military Stopover a Deliberate Signal to Iran?

Trump’s second strike on Iran would be suicidal. But that’s not the reason why he won’t go ahead with it

By Martin Jay | Strategic Culture Foundation | May 4, 2026

Trump has been presented with a report sketching out a second-strike plan against Iran’s infrastructure, which he is reported to be mulling over. The media has latched onto terms like “short, powerful” strikes aimed at Iran’s infrastructure – which the author predicted in two previous articles and which, if it were to happen, would occur over the summer period when temperatures reach unbearable levels in the region. But is Trump really serious about it, and does he even understand the extent of Iran’s retaliation? The very fact that Trump has military advisors who are even presenting him with such plans shows, if nothing else, the level of their disconnect from reality and his exaggerated sense of self-importance.

The US already did this the first time round and went through its stocks of ordnance, breaking all records for the volume of missiles used in such a short space of time. It did very little to bring Iran to its knees, rather making it stronger than ever, with greater support. But what it did succeed in doing was giving Iran a dry run with such an attack and allowing it to learn a great deal about how to cope with one. Militarily, Iran has never been stronger, more focused and more technologically advanced. For Trump to believe he has a shot at a second go is not only unrealistic but sheer madness in terms of what the US – and to a lesser extent Israel – is going to have to deal with as a response. Iran will almost certainly reduce Saudi Arabia’s oil infrastructure to dust, which experts estimate would take ten years to rebuild.

If the US opts to go for a second strike, the retaliation against Saudi oil infrastructure and the US military ships themselves being used in the blockade will be unprecedented. Not only could oil easily reach 200 USD a barrel, but the striking of the US armada could be the end of America as we know it.

While the Iranian government presents Trump with their fourteen-point plan, its key officials understand how difficult it is for Trump to walk away. Both sides talk as though they’ve won the war, but in reality Trump is shackled to Netanyahu, who is insisting that the ridiculous blockade continues. What the US media are not reporting about it, though, is that it is only really working for the cameras and not choking Iran of revenues as reported. Many tankers from countries friendly with Iran travel towards the straits while keeping very close to the Iranian coastline – too far for the Americans to strike them, as US battleships would have to come closer.

Meanwhile Iran takes further steps to formalise its legal ownership, which would suggest there is an even stronger case for Tehran to strike the US battleships at some point. Iran is patient and prefers to keep a dialogue going, hoping for Trump to back down at some point while the markets increase pressure on him each day and EU countries drift farther away from Washington’s influence as their own economies face collapse if the situation isn’t resolved soon. Trump has his own way of dealing with the crisis, which, hilariously, is always to place himself first. His recent tantrum about NATO not supporting him, resulting in him pulling US troops out of Germany, is simply a distraction.

Yet the chances of this second strike happening are unlikely. But not for the reasons that seem obvious. In reality, China and Russia are playing an increasingly central role in supporting Iran, and Trump is beginning to understand what this means in practical terms. The low levels of missiles will restrict his options about what kind of strike this second one could be, which is why there’s so much talk about the US using its own hypersonic missiles. It’s not only that the US can’t replenish its stocks – THAAD and Patriot are very low – but the essential raw minerals needed to make them come from China, and Beijing has indicated that this supply is on pause. The other point is that Israel has almost nothing left to even throw into the air, let alone to present so-called journalists with video pictures of a country defending itself. Israel has nothing left. For Trump to go ahead with a second strike would really give Iran the excuse it needs to destroy Trump as a global leader, as hitting Saudi Arabia’s oil would be a wake-up call that Trump would have to take seriously. Iran sees such a strike just as the Americans considered the atomic bombs dropped on Japan at the end of the Second World War: a moment of clarity.

Trump is still confused. But such a strike would put such enormous pressure on him from around the world, from America’s allies, that the sheer noise would be deafening for him. He would have to listen to it and concede defeat. But for the moment, there is still time for distracting the media with utterly stupid statements that portray America as a winner in the war, and we should expect more of them – but some kind of defeat is coming. Creating a massive distraction will be inevitable, and that might come in the form of a new crisis around the world or from the US pulling out of NATO. Iran, right at the last moment, adding that it is now able to include the nuclear issue as part of the talks – that is now on the table. But will Trump seize the moment?

May 5, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , | Comments Off on Trump’s second strike on Iran would be suicidal. But that’s not the reason why he won’t go ahead with it

No commercial ship or oil tanker transited Strait of Hormuz in past hours: IRGC

Press TV – May 4, 2026

No commercial vessels or oil tankers have transited the Strait of Hormuz in the past several hours, the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) said Monday, dismissing recent US claims as “baseless and outright false.”

In a statement issued by the IRGC’s Public Relations Office, the elite force stressed that maritime movements in breach of its declared naval regulations will face serious risks, and that any violating vessel will be stopped forcefully.

“No commercial or tanker vessels have transited the Strait of Hormuz in the past several hours,” the statement read. “US officials’ claims are baseless and outright false.”

The US military said earlier that two US Navy guided-missile destroyers had entered the Persian Gulf and that two American ships had transited the Strait of Hormuz, after the Iranian Navy said it repelled a US warship approaching the strategic waterway, which has remained under Iranian control since the early days of the war.

On Sunday, US President Donald Trump announced the so-called “Project Freedom” to escort ships out of the Strait of Hormuz.

The unified command of Iran’s armed forces responded by warning American forces to stay out of the Strait, lying between the Persian Gulf and the Sea of Oman.

Iran has restricted transit through the vital waterway responsible for a fifth of global oil demand since the early days of the illegal US-Israeli aggression on the country that began on February 28 and halted in a Pakistan-brokered ceasefire on April 8.

Authorities say, however, that coordinated passage through the Strait is allowed for all ships except for those linked to the US and the Israeli regime and associated entities.

May 4, 2026 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , | Comments Off on No commercial ship or oil tanker transited Strait of Hormuz in past hours: IRGC

How ‘Israel’s’ Iran regime change plot failed – again

By Kit Klarenberg | Al Mayadeen | May 4, 2026

An investigative report by Israeli outlet Ynet has laid bare the embarrassing cataclysm not only of the US-Israeli war on Iran, but the Zionist entity’s effort throughout to end the Islamic Republic via covert and overt military and intelligence operations. Violent Mossad-orchestrated protests, the murder of Leader Sayyed Ali Khamenei, and a Kurdish invasion were intended to produce regime change and “total victory” over Tehran. Yet, as Ynet concludes: “what started as a far-reaching Israeli move, rich in imagination, final in its solution, ends in heartache.”

In granular detail, the investigation tracks how the Zionist entity’s deranged scheme germinated in the minds of Israeli intelligence, military, and political chiefs, before the Trump administration was comprehensively sold on the plot. Along the way, Ynet exposes extraordinary and dangerous levels of delusion and imperial hubris at the highest levels of Tel Aviv and Washington. For example, Benjamin Netanyahu sincerely – and entirely falsely – believed “Israel’s” criminal September 2024 assault of Lebanon, and the June 2025 12-Day War, had decimated Hezbollah and Iran.

This perspective was shared by Mossad, which had been building a vast, dedicated anti-government army in Tehran since 2022. The Zionist entity was delusionally convinced it had the power to collapse the entire Islamic Republic. “Fostering mass protest” and encouraging “armed resistance of minorities” – specifically, Kurds within and without Iran – in “parallel” with assassinating Leader Sayyed Ali Khamenei was part of a three-pronged coup d’etat strategy. Netanyahu believed “total victory” over the Resistance was in grasp in every theatre. Ynet reports:

“Overthrowing the regime was the heart of Israel’s overall war plan.”

The operation was intended to be put into action this June. Yet, in January, with “tens of thousands” of Mossad-directed insurrectionists in the streets of Tehran and other Iranian cities, the Zionist entity believed conditions had sufficiently “ripened” to make a decisive move. Mossad’s “influence organization” was birthed in 2022, reaching “operational maturity two and a half years ago.” Ynet bleakly boasts of the “effort and sophistication” of the Zionist entity’s armed clandestine army of anti-government rioters in Tehran:

“Israel has established its own poison machine. This is a serious weapon system that, if fully operational, can be fatal.”

Mossad pitched its braindead regime change plan directly to the CIA, Pentagon Central Command was informed of it by visiting Zionist Occupation Forces chief of staff Eyal Zamir, while Trump got personally lobbied by Netanyahu. The President – “convinced there were no limits to the capabilities of the military system at his command” after Nicolas Maduro’s January 3rd kidnap – and his administration were a highly receptive audience. Trump indicated his endorsement of the conspiracy on January 13th, publicly informing Iranians “help is on its way.”

A vast US military buildup in West Asia immediately began, while supposed peace talks with Tehran were ongoing. The negotiations were of course a con, intended to lull the Resistance into a false sense of security before the next phase of “Israel’s” intended palace coup commenced. On February 28th, Zionist-American airstrikes rained down on Tehran. “Israel” and the US firmly believed Iran’s leadership had been eliminated or scattered, and the Islamic Republic’s command and control system was “severely beaten.” But then, catastrophe started to erupt.

‘Popular Uprising’

While Sayyed Khamenei was killed – in an assassination demonically celebrated by Western media as “the assassination of the century” – sending Iran’s leadership temporarily underground, “an orderly change of government, in accordance with Khamenei’s will,” was successfully executed. Iran’s command and control system wasn’t significantly disrupted, returning to full capacity within hours. No defections were forthcoming. Still, “euphoria” abounded in Washington and Tel Aviv. Trump – who privately “welcomed the Israeli hit” – issued a video statement urging the Iranian people to take power by violence, warning:

“To the members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard, the armed forces and all of the police. I say tonight that you must lay down your weapons and have complete immunity, or in the alternative, face certain death.”

Netanyahu joined the insurrectionary call. Problematically though, “the crowd chose to stay home,” in no small part because of genocidal US-Israeli bombardment from the skies. A deliberate strike on a primary school killed 165 young girls, sparking fiery international condemnation, vengeful mourning throughout West Asia, and UN investigations. Iranians instead took to the streets in sizeable numbers to grieve Khamenei, while celebrating his son Mojtaba’s ascension to Leader. Immediately, the IRGC moved to blockade the Strait of Hormuz.

Despite the closure being an absolutely inevitable upshot of criminal Zionist-American aggression against Iran, which Western intelligence assessments universally long-forecast, Ynet reports the US was “not ready for this move and its devastating economic consequences.” Trump’s threats not to blockade the Strait were ignored. The riddle of why Washington was so caught off guard is perhaps best answered by Netanyahu’s assurances to Trump that the Islamic Republic would collapse in mere days. Astonishingly, there was no contingency plan beyond that.

In the meantime, another cog of the Zionist-American regime change operation in Tehran was also fatally faltering. “After 100 hours of air activity… a ground invasion from Kurdish militias based in Iraq” was supposed to commence. An invasion force had been training there over prior weeks, preparing “to reach the Kurdish region of Iran” and link up with fighters locally before a “mass march” to Tehran. For inspiration, Tel Aviv looked to Damascus being overwhelmed by MI6-supported HTS forces in mere days in December 2024.

However, Ynet reports Iranian intelligence quickly learned “in advance about the planned invasion,” and supposedly informed Turkey, prompting Recep Erdoğan to personally demand Trump call it off. The entire proposal was, in any event, manifest insanity. After reports emerged in early March of the CIA working with Kurdish militants “with the aim of fomenting a popular uprising in Iran,” even Zionist think tank pundits and diaspora activists warned such action was a recipe for disaster, which would unite Iranians of every extraction in opposition.

Still, Kurdish invasion remained a fundamental component of “Israel’s” regime change strategy in Tehran during the war. When a tentative ceasefire was struck on April 7th, after 40 days of devastating Iranian strikes, Ynet reports Israeli officials wondered why the invasion never came to pass. Did the US not believe in the operation in the first place? Perhaps Trump changed his mind after Erdoğan picked up the phone? Or was “the whole idea a fantasy, with no chance of being realised?”

‘Inadvertent Effects’

That the Zionist entity was so convinced its self-evidently misguided mission could possibly succeed is all the more damning, given the contents of a July 2025 report from the highly influential, Tel Aviv-based Institute for National Security Studies. A withering appraisal of the 12-Day War, the think tank acknowledged Iranian regime change had been an avowed Zionist objective from the conflict’s inception, which failed spectacularly. Nonetheless, the report still advocated for the Zionist entity to pursue the Islamic Republic’s destruction, via a palace coup.

However, INSS explicitly warned against employing precisely the regime change tactics depended upon by the ZOF and Mossad during the latest Zionist-American war on Iran to achieve that end. For one, the think tank correctly predicted any Israeli military effort – including civilian bombing – intended to ignite mass anti-government protests had no chance of success. Such actions during the 12-Day War had in fact produced an intense “anti-Israel wave” among Iranians, who “exhibited a notable degree” of “rallying around the flag” in response.

Iranians’ determination “to defend their homeland at a critical moment against an external enemy” endured after the 12-Day War ended, to the extent all traces of public dissent in the Islamic Republic “almost completely disappeared” in the conflict’s wake. INSS likewise vehemently cautioned against encouraging “separatist tendencies” in Iran – such as Kurdish militancy. Due to “heightened public sensitivity to any perceived foreign attempts to promote ethnic fragmentation,” separatist insurrection, let alone invasion, would unite “large segments” of the Iranian public “against Israel.”

Moreover, an eerily prophetic portion of INSS’ report explicitly warned against assassinating Leader Sayyed Ali Khamenei, as doing so “would not necessarily result in regime change,” and inevitably backfire. The think tank precisely foretold Tehran “would likely have little difficulty selecting a successor, who could prove to be more extreme or more capable.” INSS likewise predicted the Iranian government instead being strengthened, and anti-Zionist sentiment skyrocketing in Iran and beyond, leaving any subsequent “efforts to destabilize the regime through popular protest” dead on arrival.

All these humiliating outcomes came to pass. As yet, INSS’ forecast that military-driven Israeli regime change efforts in Iran would compel the Islamic Republic to seek nuclear weapons capability “as an existential insurance policy” hasn’t materialised, although Western officials now widely fear it may. Meanwhile, ever since the ceasefire was implemented, talks between Washington and Tehran have been stuck in a seemingly implacable stalemate. While US officials remain committed to imposing sharp limits on Iran’s nuclear research, the Islamic Republic refuses to even negotiate the issue.

Furthermore, Tehran has made clear its chokehold over the Strait of Hormuz will only be loosened when the Empire stops blockading the country, and ends the conflict. While Netanyahu still harbours reveries of shattering the Islamic Republic, the Empire lacks the requisite economic and military muscle. Meanwhile, overextended Tel Aviv has blundered into a colossal trap in Lebanon, and the Resistance is waiting and watching intently. In recklessly seeking self-evidently unattainable regime change in Iran, the Zionist entity has only hastened its own permanent destruction.

May 4, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on How ‘Israel’s’ Iran regime change plot failed – again

China issues first prohibition order to safeguard international trade order under rule of law

People’s Daily | May 3, 2026

China’s Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) on Saturday issued a prohibition order in accordance with Rules on Counteracting Unjustified Extraterritorial Application of Foreign Legislation and Other Measures (the 2021 Blocking Rules), which explicitly stated that China shall not recognize, enforce, or give effect to the unilateral sanctions imposed by the US, which listed five Chinese petrochemical enterprises on the Specially Designated Nationals List and imposed asset freezes and transaction bans on grounds of alleged oil transactions with Iran.

This move marks a crucial step for China’s foreign-related legal tools to move from institutional framework to practical enforcement. Leveraging the power of the rule of law, China has delivered a targeted response to US long-arm jurisdiction. The move defends the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese enterprises while heeding the international community’s widespread call to oppose hegemony, injecting justice into efforts to safeguard the international economic order.

China values its relations with the US and emphasizes that the essence of China-US economic and trade relations is mutual benefit and win-win outcomes. China advocates resolving concerns through dialogue on an equal-footing. However, since 2025, the US has imposed sanctions on Chinese refining, shipping and port enterprises under the pretext of “involvement in Iranian oil transactions,” freezing assets and prohibiting transactions. Under such circumstances, China’s issuance of the prohibition order in accordance with the Blocking Rules is a necessary measure to safeguard its national and corporate interests. Meanwhile, the Blocking Rules provide various institutional arrangements to steadily protect the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese citizens, legal persons and other organizations.

The US’ arbitrary imposition of unilateral sanctions and reckless pursuit of “long-arm jurisdiction” constituted hegemonic practices that breach sovereign boundaries and coerce the global market. By placing its domestic law above international law and wantonly interfering in the normal economic and trade activities of enterprises in other countries, such actions completely violate the basic principle of sovereign equality in international relations and have long faced resolute opposition from the international community.

As early as 1996, the European Union adopted the Council Regulation protecting against the effects of the extra-territorial application of legislation adopted by a third country, blocking the extra-territorial application of the US Helms-Burton Act and D’Amato Act, which restricted trade with Cuba, Iran, and other countries. Today, the US has escalated its abuse of secondary sanctions, wielding the sanctions stick against law-abiding Chinese enterprises. This seriously infringes upon the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese business entities and disrupted the stability of the global energy supply chain. In the face of hegemonic pressure, China’s issuance of a prohibition order in accordance with the law conforms to international practice and does not affect China’s assumption and fulfillment of its international obligations.

In recent years, in response to the evolving international economic and trade landscape, China has strengthened the development of its foreign-related legal system. It has established a series of legal tools, including the Anti-Foreign Sanctions Law, the Rules on Countering Foreign States’ Unlawful Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Measures, and the 2021 Blocking Rules. Laws such as the Foreign Trade Law, Export Control Law, and Foreign Investment Law have also been strengthened with provisions to safeguard the international economic and trade order, protect national sovereignty, security, and development interests, and defend the legitimate rights and interests of foreign trade operators. These legal instruments complement one another, each with its own emphasis, working together synergistically.

By issuing the prohibition order, China upholds the approach of countering hegemony with rules and defending fairness with the rule of law. It neither escalated confrontation nor made compromises, but instead negates the extraterritorial effect of the illegal US sanctions through lawful and compliant means, restoring international law to its original principle of sovereign equality. This measure not only provides relief to the affected enterprises and ensures the security of domestic industrial and supply chains, but also offers a practical example for the international community to resist unilateral bullying and oppose “long-arm jurisdiction.” It demonstrates China’s responsibility as a major country in upholding justice and defending order.

China has always advocated resolving international differences through equal dialogue, firmly upholding the multilateral trading system, and promoting inclusive economic globalization that benefits all. In the face of the countercurrent of unilateralism, China will continue to make full use of its foreign-related legal toolkit, remain resolute and be adept at defending its interests. While resolutely safeguarding its own sovereignty, security, and development interests, China will join hands with all peace-loving and rule‑of‑law-abiding countries to resist hegemonic acts and jointly promote the building of a more just, equitable, inclusive, and mutually beneficial global economic governance system.

This was compiled based on an article published in the “Chisu Jinsheng” economic commentary column of the People’s Daily on May 3, 2026. This is the translation of the Global Times English edition.

May 3, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Wars for Israel | , , | Comments Off on China issues first prohibition order to safeguard international trade order under rule of law

Iran rejects Trump’s ‘Project Freedom,’ warns US over Hormuz role

Al Mayadeen | May 4, 2026

Iran has strongly rejected United States President Donald Trump’s announcement of a naval initiative dubbed “Project Freedom,” warning that any American involvement in the management of the Strait of Hormuz would be considered a violation of the existing ceasefire framework.

Iran warns US against interference in Hormuz

Head of the National Security and Foreign Policy Committee in the Iranian Parliament, Ebrahim Azizi, issued a sharp warning to Washington,  saying that any US interference in the emerging maritime arrangements in the Strait of Hormuz would breach ceasefire understandings.

Azizi stressed that Iran would not accept external control over one of the world’s most strategic waterways, amid ongoing tensions following months of confrontation in the region.

Azizi directly dismissed Trump’s “Project Freedom” initiative, stating that the management of the Strait of Hormuz and the wider Gulf region “would not be dictated by Trump’s delusional posts.”

His remarks reflect Tehran’s firm rejection of US attempts to position itself as an arbiter of maritime movement in the area.

Iran pushes back on US narrative

The Iranian official also criticized “anticipated US narratives” surrounding maritime security, referring to them as “blame game” scenarios.

He said such rhetoric reflects Washington’s attempt to shape the political framing of developments in the Strait of Hormuz, while Iran asserts its own sovereignty over its territorial waters and strategic routes.

Trump earlier announced that Washington will begin a naval operation to escort foreign vessels stranded in the Strait of Hormuz, framing the move as a humanitarian initiative amid ongoing regional tensions.

In a statement posted on Truth Social, Trump alleged that multiple countries had asked the United States for assistance in “freeing” ships that remain unable to transit the strategic waterway.

He said the initiative, dubbed “Project Freedom,” would begin Monday morning West Asia time with US representatives tasked with guiding vessels and their crews safely out of the restricted area.

Trump emphasized that many of the affected ships belong to countries not involved in the ongoing war, describing them as “neutral and innocent bystanders” caught in the crisis.

May 3, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , | Comments Off on Iran rejects Trump’s ‘Project Freedom,’ warns US over Hormuz role

TRUMP ANNOUNCES OPERATION TO ESCORT SHIPS – Fmr. CIA Analyst Larry Johnson

Mario Nawfal | May 4, 2026

May 3, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Video, Wars for Israel | , , | Comments Off on TRUMP ANNOUNCES OPERATION TO ESCORT SHIPS – Fmr. CIA Analyst Larry Johnson

A few observations on Iran’s latest proposal to Trump

By Trita Parsi | May 3, 2026

A few observations on what has been reported as Iran’s three-phase proposal to the United States. I have been able to confirm some elements, though not all.

⏺️Overall, the Iranians appear to be pursuing a grand bargain—without labeling it as such. This is not merely a proposal aimed at securing a ceasefire, or even a formal end to the current conflict, but rather an attempt to resolve the broader U.S.-Iran antagonism that has persisted for the past 47 years. Implicit in this approach is an expectation that both sides would also restrain their respective regional partners and proxies (Israel, Hezbollah, etc.). In many respects, framing the proposal in this way may align more effectively with Trump’s instincts and psychology.

⏺️It is somewhat surprising that the proposal appears to frontload an end to the war before addressing the nuclear issue. If the conflict is fully de-escalated at the outset, Iran risks losing a significant source of leverage over Trump. Iran’s nuclear program alone has not been sufficient to extract meaningful concessions from Washington, as was evident during the recent ceasefire period. This sequencing may reflect a concession to China and other Asian countries, which have grown increasingly frustrated with bearing the economic costs of a conflict initiated by Trump and Israel.

⏺️The call for an international mechanism to guarantee a non-return to war suggests that any final agreement would, at a minimum, need to be codified in a UN Security Council resolution, with Russia and China serving as guarantors. From Tehran’s perspective, Trump’s personal assurances carry no credibility.

⏺️There is also mention of a revised compensation clause within a new framework, indicating that the fees Tehran might seek in the Straits could be modified or reframed. One potentially more acceptable approach for a broad range of states would be to characterize such charges not as tolls, but as maintenance fees shared with Iran and Oman. This could include oversight of environmental and navigational management, particularly given the high volume of maritime traffic that typically transits the Straits.

⏺️The reported proposal for a 15-year enrichment freeze is somewhat surprising. This would make more sense if it remains tied to a needs-based enrichment framework, as outlined in the earlier Geneva proposal. Under that approach, Iran would only enrich uranium sufficient to fuel two reactors: the Tehran Research Reactor (TRR) and another reactor not expected to come online for approximately seven years. Given that the TRR already possesses enough fuel for the next 5–7 years, Iran would not require additional enrichment during that period. This timeline could be extended—potentially to 15 years—either by downblending existing 60% enriched uranium and turning it into fuel pads now, or by securing external fuel supplies (from France or Russia, for example) to cover future needs. In that sense, the arrangement would technically not constitute a moratorium.

⏺️Iran’s proposal to negotiate a comprehensive regional security framework in phase three is not new. It dates back to UN Security Council Resolution 598, which ended the Iran-Iraq War. Tehran has pursued such an arrangement for decades. The United States should view this constructively: any framework that enables a reduction of U.S. military presence while encouraging regional actors to assume greater responsibility for their own security aligns with the stated objectives of the Trump administration.

⏺️What remains unclear in the reporting is the scope of sanctions relief Iran would seek in return. If Tehran is indeed aiming for a grand bargain, it will likely expect the lifting of all sanctions—primary and secondary U.S. sanctions, as well as UN-imposed measures.

Let’s see what happens.

May 3, 2026 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , | Comments Off on A few observations on Iran’s latest proposal to Trump

‘I urged that our objective be regime change… so did Netanyahu’ – ex-Trump adviser on Iran

RT | May 3, 2026

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has encouraged President Donald Trump to carry out a regime change operation in Iran for many years, former US National Security Adviser John Bolton has told Afshin Rattansi, host of ‘New World’.

West Jerusalem wanted Trump to launch an attack on Tehran already during his first presidential term and continued lobbying for it during his second one, Bolton said, who served between 2018 and 2019.

“I urged that our objective be regime change, so did Netanyahu,” he told Rattansi, explaining that “There is no change in what Trump has been hearing from” the Israeli prime minister over the years. He nevertheless denied that Trump’s decision to launch the attack in late February was influenced by Israel.

Bolton criticized the president for what he called the lack of a clear goal in his campaign against the Islamic Republic and said Trump had failed to “make the case to the American people” about “why the regime change in Iran is necessary” – despite it supposedly being a “very compelling one.”

Known for his hawkish foreign policy views, Bolton maintained that the US should continue to pursue regime change in Iran and claimed that the government in Tehran is “crumbling” from within. However, the former White House official came up short on any specific strategy the US could use to unblock the Strait of Hormuz, where shipping remains severely disrupted by the Iran conflict.

Watch the full interview here.

May 3, 2026 Posted by | Timeless or most popular, Video, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on ‘I urged that our objective be regime change… so did Netanyahu’ – ex-Trump adviser on Iran

“STAGED”: Conspiracy Theories Are Everywhere!

We can’t imagine why…

By Kevin Barrett | May 3, 2026

On April 23, the 410th death anniversary of William “All the World’s a Stage” Shakespeare (and his trusty Hispanic sidekick Cervantes) CNN published a thought piece entitled “How Would an Assassination Attempt Be Staged?” Two days later, on April 25, somebody staged yet another Trump assassination attempt, this time at the White House Correspondents Dinner at the Washington, DC Hilton.

According to the official narrative, the Hilton shooting was staged by a lone producer, director, casting director, lead actor, and stuntman (it was a dangerous scene) named Cole Tomas Allen. We are told, and video seems to confirm, that Allen descended a back stairway from his hotel room, sprinted past a security checkpoint, fired a shot which struck a Secret Service officer’s bulletproof vest, evaded return fire, tripped on a magnetometer box and fell to the ground, and was jumped on by cops, never having gained access to the actual ballroom where the event was taking place. Allen left a brief manifesto calling himself a “friendly federal assassin” who was “no longer willing to permit a pedophile, rapist, and traitor to coat my hands with his crimes.”

Surrounding the event were some odd coincidences. As I wrote the morning after the shooting:

Trump’s press secretary, Karoline “Machine Gun Lips” Leavitt, predicted last night’s shooting two hours before it happened: “There will be some shots fired tonight!”… Fox News reporter Aishah Hasine was in the midst of describing Leavitt’s husband Nicholas Riccio half-bragging half-warning her of what was about to go down, when suddenly and for no apparent reason (beyond the obvious one) Fox cut off the feed…

Weird Israeli connections also surfaced, as is par for the course with these kinds of events, including:

The patsy’s social media profile featuring a picture of him wearing an IDF sweatshirt; the patsy’s name being allegedly researched in Israel less than 24 hours before the attack; and the shooting erupting at the exact moment that an Israeli magician was terrifying Melania by exposing private information she had thought was secret.

If powerful insiders staged the event, perhaps using Allen as a mind-controlled patsy, what might have been their motive or motives? Social media users argued that the shooting greased the skids for Trump’s secure White House ballroom, which had been facing legal and political challenges. The Guardian noted: “Trump’s quick pivot to claiming that the shooting incident confirms the need for a more secure ballroom at the White House, and rightwing pundits’ near-uniformity in messaging along the same lines in the immediate response, heightened the conspiracy framing.”

The Israeli connections suggested another possible motive: reminding Trump just who were the “magicians” who could stage assassination events, and who held terrifying secrets that could ruin his and Melania’s lives. The Guardian reported what many believe: “Israel is blackmailing him for untold reasons, perhaps related to the Jeffrey Epstein files, and dragging the US into war in Iran.”

The Guardian’s phrasing subtly injects confusion where none is necessary. Blackmailing Trump for untold reasons? Back when it was Russia being accused of blackmailing and controlling Trump, everyone knew the reasons why a foreign state would want to blackmail and control a US president. Is the Guardian pretending that it can’t even imagine why Israel would want to blackmail Trump? Unless, of course, they were using untold in the sense of “a quantity so huge that it cannot be measured, counted, or fully described.” Could the author, Rachel Leingang, be hinting at the obvious fact that Israel would have countless reasons to want to control the US president? Did she sneak that one past her editors?

Perhaps those “untold’ reasons, Leingang tells us, might be “related to the Jeffrey Epstein files, and dragging the US into war in Iran.” Is Leingang pretending to be too stupid to understand what she is saying, in a clumsy effort to avoid responsibility for unambiguously and explicitly conveying what everyone knows or strongly suspects to be true? The moral: If you write for mainstream media, never offer a clear, straightforward summary of what “conspiracy theorists” believe, because it might sound reasonable and convincing. Instead, muck it up a bit, add some confusion, and give the reader the impression that it’s the “conspiracy theorists” who are confused.

CNN’s “How Would an Assassination Attempt Be Staged?”, published 48 hours before the latest shooting, exhibits a similar technique of seemingly deliberate obfuscation. Noting that the hashtag #staged has been picking up momentum, reflecting ever-growing skepticism about the July 13, 2024 “Trump shooting” in Butler, Pennsylvania, the author, Harmeet Kaur, offers an overly complicated mishmash of reasons why staging a political PR event would be…overly complicated. And that, of course, is why nobody would ever do such a thing.

Kaur begins by pretending that she doesn’t understand what the term staged could possibly mean in the context of a political PR stunt. After a detour through the etymology and philology of the term staged (“from the Old French ‘estage,’ meaning ‘dwelling,’ and its verb form ‘estager,’ meaning ‘to stay somewhere.’ ‘Estage’ is also related to the Latin ‘stagium’”) Kaur notes that by the 1930s staged was being used to describe faked crime scenes. Such doings, she suggests, are rare and exotic. The plain, obvious fact that almost any serious crime, committed by criminals with above-room-temperature IQs, will involve “staged” presentations of evidence and/or the lack thereof, including such simple “staging” as wiping away fingerprints or wearing ski masks, apparently doesn’t register with her.

Nor does Kaur note that a certain ethnoreligious group, whose genocidal crime headquarters, I mean “state,” is the number one suspect in the Butler and Charlie Kirk shootings as well as countless other state crimes against democracy, has a well-documented history of staging crimes for political gain. As you watch the following half-hour video compilation of mainstream media reports of Jews hoaxing “antisemitic” attacks on themselves, keep two things in mind: 1) This is just the tip of an enormous iceberg; and 2) That iceberg of thousands of similar cases represents just the dumb and/or unlucky ones who got caught.

Rumble link

The US clearance rate for ordinary crimes, mostly committed by impulsive, none-too-bright criminals, is less than 45% for violent crimes and less than 15% for property crimes. Miscreants who plot their crimes carefully—as high-level political criminals do—are obviously going to get away with the vast majority of their misdeeds, even before we factor in the likelihood that they have corrupted law enforcement and the media. What is surprising about the Butler, Pennsylvania “Trump shooting” is not that they managed to pull off such a complex and difficult operation, but that they did it so casually and clumsily, not even bothering to create even the slightest wound on Trump’s ear.

Roughly two and a half hours after he was taken off the rally stage, Trump says in a Truth Social statement, “I was shot with a bullet that pierced the upper part of my right ear. I knew immediately that something was wrong in that I heard a whizzing sound, shots, and immediately felt the bullet ripping through the skin. Much bleeding took place…” Yet not one shred of convincing evidence, not least of all the extensive medical evidence that would exist had Trump actually taken a bullet to the ear, supports the claim that Trump’s ear was wounded in any way. Nor does he appear to have suffered the hearing damage that might have been expected.

Whoever was in charge of the Secret Service detail must have known that Trump was in no danger. Less than a minute after the volley of shots, Trump was allowed to stand up and shake his fist in front of the flag in an obviously pre-planned photo op. Apologists for the Secret Service conspirators claim that the determination “shooter is down” reassured them that it was perfectly okay to allow Trump to stand up and expose himself to more potential bullets. But had the event been authentic, how could they have possibly known that there was only one shooter?

Kaur’s CNN article avoids even entertaining such questions. Like Leingang’s Guardian article on the Hilton shooting, it offers an ad hominem argument against the “conspiracy theorist” by representing him as a deliberately discombobulated straw man, whose supposed incoherent, confusing arguments are actually CNN’s own deliberately distorted rendering.

Kaur hauls out Spencer Parsons, “an associate professor of media production at Northwestern University and an independent filmmaker who has staged shooting scenes,” to claim that staging the Butler “Trump shooting” scene would be so difficult as to be essentially impossible. Parsons claims that a “staged shooting scene” requires vast numbers of people: “the director, camera operators, camera technicians, lighting technicians, sound engineers, special effects coordinators, safety coordinators and so on.”

Talk about misdirection! Why would ANY such people be necessary for a high-level criminal operation involving a deceptive shooting?! Were camera, lighting, sound, special effects, and safety technicians necessary when hypnotized patsy Sirhan Sirhan fired a volley of random shots, distracting onlookers while the professional killer pressed a revolver to the back of Robert F. Kennedy’s head and pulled the trigger, leaving powder burns on his skull?

Kaur tells us that setting up a patsy to take the blame for a shooting is impossibly complicated:

Then there’s the issue of the fake assassin himself. The task would require an extraordinarily skilled marksman, someone who could aim close enough to the candidate’s head to make it look like he’d intended to hit him without actually hitting him. (Acquaintances of the gunman who tried to shoot Trump told reporters that he was rejected from his high school’s rifle club because he was such a bad shot.)

And to make the situation seem believable, the Secret Service would have to kill the designated shooter after he opened fire, an outcome the person in the gun-wielding role either wouldn’t anticipate or would have to be willing to accept.

Kaur again sets up a preposterous straw man: A conspiracy theorist stupid enough to think Thomas Crooks fired shots that came anywhere near Trump’s head, and that Crooks was a conscious, witting, fully-informed participant. But nobody thinks that! What skeptics actually think is that Crooks, like most other patsies going back to Sirhan, was probably mind-controlled. (For an introductory discussion including a demonstration of MK-Ultra style hypnotic mind-control, check out Jesse Ventura’s “Mind-Controlled Assassins and Programmed Killers.”) Crooks, like Oswald, was “just a patsy” who didn’t shoot anyone. The actual shooting, which did not and could not have caused a bullet to come anywhere near Trump’s head, but which likely did strike three onlookers, killing one of them, was fired from the building behind and to the left of the one that hypnotized patsy Crooks had climbed onto. For details, check out my interview with filmmaker John Hankey, and watch his film below.

Kaur then implies that it would have been too difficult or impossible for Trump to use a squib to create the fake blood he smeared on his face like warpaint for the photo op:

The blood would be another consideration, Parsons says. Film crews simulate gunshot wounds via squibs, small explosive devices that spout fake blood when detonated — some conspiracy theories surrounding Trump’s assassination attempt claimed that he used a squib because the blood on his face was supposedly only seen after he raised his hand to his cheek, though researcher Katherine FitzGerald noted at the time that the first appearance of blood was not clear from the videos.

Another technique for staging bloodshed might involve the candidate superficially wounding himself with a small razor blade, like professional wrestlers do, but that also presents challenges…

Wait a minute! What does Kaur mean, also presents challenges?! The first paragraph quoted above fails to present the slightest argument or evidence that Trump or a Secret Service confederate would have faced the slightest “challenge” in using a squib to produce the fake blood. The word also is a lie. Kaur hopes the careless reader will gloss over it.

Having refuted nothing while flailing about with straw men, Kaur concludes:

Given all of this, Parsons finds the idea that an assassination attempt of this scale could be “staged” to be “tremendously unlikely.” “This is just astronomically difficult to stage,” he adds. “The whole thing, from a filmmaking perspective, seems to be just immensely, immensely difficult and really based on a lot of chance.”

What would be so hard about putting an MK-Ultraed patsy on a rooftop, a professional sniper in a difficult-to-spot location where he could shoot a couple of bystanders, and giving Trump a blood squib after rehearsing “hit the deck, smear the blood, count to fifty, get up, shake your fist in front of the flag”? Sure, you and I couldn’t do it, but we don’t control the top of the federal command chain.

Setting up that scenario wouldn’t require precisely the same skill set that Parsons, the film-and-TV guy, enjoys. But if you think that people with “deceptive shooting” skill sets don’t exist, you must not know much about special forces, intelligence agencies, organized crime, and the rather large area where they overlap. That’s why someone like Joe Kent, the former Counterrorism chief who knows people with such skill sets, can easily see that incidents like the Butler and Charlie Kirk shootings are extremely suspicious, and point directly at the overlapping territory inhabited by Israel, Israeli-linked organized crime, and their assets in US military, intelligence, and police agencies… and, perhaps most importantly, the mainstream media that insists on obfuscating such matters.

May 3, 2026 Posted by | Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Video, Wars for Israel | , , | Comments Off on “STAGED”: Conspiracy Theories Are Everywhere!

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »