Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Graham’s Middle East vs. reality on the ground: Hezbollah, the undefeatable Resistance

By Sondoss Al Asaad | Al Mayadeen | October 8, 2025

When US Senator Lindsey Graham declared that “there can be no normal Middle East as long as Hezbollah exists,” he was not merely a Republican congressman making a passing statement.

Rather, Graham was expressing, with complete candor, the profound understanding within the US-Israeli strategy of a reality on the ground and in politics: that Hezbollah is the greatest obstacle to the project of “comprehensive normalization” and the reshaping of the region to suit Tel Aviv and Washington.

Graham’s statement, despite its simplicity, carries connotations that go beyond traditional political rhetoric and deconstruct the “defeat” narrative that Western and Israeli media have been promoting for years.

If Hezbollah had truly been defeated, as they claim, Graham would not have been compelled to make its disarmament a condition for any “normal Middle East.”

This condition reveals that the party remains at the heart of the equation and that no regional project can outweigh its power.

Thus, the rhetoric of “defeat” becomes nothing more than a tool for producing counter-awareness, while American statements themselves acknowledge that the Resistance remains the most formidable force.

Field facts reinforce this conclusion: Between December 2023 and September 2025, American MQ-9 Reaper drones carried out dozens of sorties over Lebanon, some lasting for long hours, reaching up to 18 consecutive hours, with up to three drones participating simultaneously over the South, the Bekaa, and Greater Beirut.

According to the Union Center for Research and Development, these drones don’t just photograph; they also intercept communications, decrypt encryption, and have the capability to strike with Hellfire 3 missiles.

More seriously, these missions are carried out without any coordination with civil aviation authorities, which has led to several incidents that nearly turned into air disasters.

However, Washington sees no harm in this blatant violation of Lebanese sovereignty, instead framing it as a “security necessity” to protect Israel since the “Al-Aqsa Intifada” of 2023.

Fundamentally, this American behavior does not express “normalcy” as Graham desires, but rather the continuation of the abnormality imposed by Washington on Lebanon and the region by violating airspace and sovereignty and employing all intelligence tools to “Israel’s” advantage.

Thus, the paradox becomes clear: Graham is demanding the disarmament of Hezbollah under the pretext of restoring “normalcy”, while his country is practicing the most extreme forms of abnormality on the ground.

Nevertheless, what Washington does not realize is that the Lebanese street is moving in a different direction. The mass scenes that accompanied the funeral of Hezbollah Secretary-Generals, in February 2025, were a revealing moment.

Hundreds of thousands filled the streets in the south, the suburbs, and Beirut, in an unprecedented scene that expressed the depth of popular connection to the Resistance.

These crowds were not merely an emotional response; they were an eloquent political message: the Resistance is not merely an armed organization, but a socio-popular movement rooted in the people’s conscience.

This popular entrenchment was also reflected at the ballot box. The results of the recent municipal elections showed significant progress for the Resistance lists and their allies in the South and the Bekaa, reflecting that the public mood still favors this option and that attempts to promote a narrative of defeat have not affected the broad social base.

Faced with these realities, the Resistance’s domestic opponents, particularly forces linked to the US embassy in Beirut, have resorted to attempting to circumvent the situation through the political-legal process.

Amendments to the electoral law have been proposed, aiming to redistribute representation or introduce new mechanisms, particularly with regard to expatriate seats, in order to reduce the parliamentary weight of the Resistance forces and weaken them within the institutions.

These attempts fall within a single strategic context: if Hezbollah cannot be defeated militarily or popularly, then let us attempt to contain it through the law and the constitution.

However, these maneuvers also reveal the extent of the impasse facing the American camp in Lebanon. The more popular support for the resistance increases and transforms into a tangible electoral presence, the more the external insistence on engineering laws that satisfy the demand for normalization with “Israel” increases.

Indeed, Graham’s statement becomes clearer: He’s not just talking about weapons, but about eliminating the Resistance option from the equation as a whole, by dismantling its battlefield, political, and popular power.

But even this ambition clashes with reality. The popular scene in Lebanon—from the funerals of leaders to the results of the municipal elections—clearly indicates that the Resistance is not in a collapsed defensive position, but rather in a position of strength protected by the balance of deterrence with “Israel” and a renewed popular support.

More importantly, Graham’s rhetoric, which was supposed to be threatening, has turned into an implicit admission: “The Middle East will not be normal without the defeat of Hezbollah,” meaning that the party’s survival is what prevents US-Israeli normalization from becoming an inevitable fate.

The bottom line is that between the rhetoric of a “normal Middle East” and US violations, and between attempts to amend laws and the escalating popular scene, one equation becomes clear: Hezbollah has not been defeated and will not be defeated!

Hezbollah may face challenges, and military, political, or media wars may be waged against it, but its deep-rooted presence among the people and on the ground makes it a constant force in the equation.

Any rhetoric about a “normal Middle East without it” is nothing more than an admission that its power is what deprives the American-Israeli project of its alleged “normality”.

October 8, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Leave a comment

Iran to respond as US moves to target commercial shipping: Source

Al Mayadeen | October 7, 2025

Indicators point to escalating tensions between the United States and Iran, sources told Al Mayadeen, as Washington reportedly prepares to obstruct Iranian commercial shipping under the pretext of renewed sanctions on Iran.

According to the sources, any such move by the US would provoke a swift and decisive response from Tehran, citing the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps Navy and the Iranian Army’s possession of capabilities that can neutralize any threat posed to Gulf maritime security and the Sea of Oman.

They emphasized that Iran’s naval fleet and missile bases, deployed along the country’s southern coastline, are ready to respond immediately to any hostile action targeting its commercial or civilian vessels.

The sources added that any attempt to target Iranian ships would trigger a direct response, underscoring Iran’s readiness to defend its maritime interests, further confirming that regional countries have been explicitly warned: any cooperation with the US in actions that obstruct Iranian commercial shipping will not go unanswered by Tehran.

In event of mishap, Navy to respond with all might: IRGC chief

On October 5, IRGC Commander Major General Mohammad Pakpour inspected naval units situated at Gulf bases, assessing their combat preparedness as high during his visit to the operational units stationed on the islands.

Addressing the naval units, the IRGC commander stated, “Just as the armed forces brought the Zionist regime and the United States to their knees in the 12-day imposed war, if any movement is made by the enemies in the sea and islands, the IRGC Navy will respond with all might.”

He also credited the forces’ high morale and profound faith as a key strength that intimidates “Israel” and the US. General Pakpour additionally oversaw the sailing of a United States ship in the Gulf during his tour.

This comes amid rising tensions in the region, as the United States ups its military build-up in countries neighboring Iran.

October 7, 2025 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , | Leave a comment

US sent $21.7 billion to Israel to back Gaza genocide: Study

Press TV – October 7, 2025

An academic study has revealed that the United States has funneled $21.7 billion in financial and military assistance to Israel since the onset of the Gaza genocide on October 7, 2023.

The report released on Tuesday by the Costs of War Project at Brown University’s Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs details how the US State Department and the newly renamed Department of War, under both Joe Biden and Donald Trump administrations, have collectively transferred at least $21.7 billion to support Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

According to the study, the United States supplied $17.9 billion to Israel in the first year of the genocide, during former US president Joe Biden’s tenure, and $3.8 billion in the second year.

A large portion of the assistance has already been delivered, while the remainder will be distributed in the coming years, the report added.

The study notes that Washington is expected to allocate tens of billions of dollars in future funding to Israel through various bilateral deals.

Another analysis, also published by the Costs of War Project, states that the United States has spent approximately $9.65 – $12.07 billion on military operations in West Asia over the past two years.

US spending in the region, such as strikes on Yemen in March and May 2025 and attacks on Iranian nuclear sites on June 22, estimates total costs between $9.65 billion and $12 billion since October 7, 2023, including $2 billion to $2.25 billion for operations against Iran.

Although both reports rely on open-source data, they present detailed assessments of US military support for Israel and estimates of the cost of direct American involvement in the region.

Meanwhile, the State Department has not commented on the amount of military assistance given to Israel since October 2023. The White House referred inquiries to the Pentagon, which oversees only a part of the aid that is given to the Zionist entity.

The studies argue that without US backing, the regime would have been unable to maintain its genocidal campaign in Gaza for two years.

The principal study was produced in collaboration with the Washington-based Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.

Pro-Israel groups have accused the institute of isolationism and anti-Israel bias, allegations the organization firmly denies.

Meanwhile, Israel’s war machine continues its campaign of destruction, claiming countless civilian lives across Gaza and the wider region.

Since October 7, 2023, when Israel launched its genocidal war on the besieged Gaza Strip, more than 76,000 Palestinians, including over 20,000 children and 12,500 women, have been killed or gone missing, while in its 12-day war with Iran last June, the regime killed at least 1,604 people.

October 7, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Tony Blair’s Gaza “Peace” Board: When War Architects Become Reconstruction Consultants

By Tamer Mansour – New Eastern Outlook – October 7, 2025

Here’s the conundrum facing Gaza’s Palestinians. Having endured devastating military operations, they now face “reconstruction” overseen by someone whose interventions have consistently produced what results, exactly?

Tony Blair’s Gaza “Peace” Board

When Tony Blair was announced as co-chair of Donald Trump’s “Board of Peace” for Gaza reconstruction, you might wonder whether this represents a genuine peace initiative or simply another iteration of a pattern that’s been refined over two decades across multiple Middle Eastern theaters.

It might sound paradoxical that the architect of the Iraq War, a conflict built on intelligence about weapons of mass destruction that never materialized, would now be positioned as the overseer of Gaza’s future. But in reality, that’s how these appointments work in the Western establishment.

Previous failures seem to qualify rather than disqualify candidates for new ventures.

The Iraq Blueprint

If you want to understand what awaits Gaza under Blair’s stewardship, the Iraq experience offers an instructive template. The Chilcot Inquiry found that Blair “misrepresented intelligence” and “failed to exhaust all peaceful options” before launching the 2003 invasion.

What’s particularly revealing is that British intelligence agencies knew evidence used to justify the war came from individuals who had been tortured, yet the decision to proceed was made regardless.

Blair and his administration spent a decade denying British complicity in the CIA’s torture programs, only to eventually face uncovered evidence that proves the UK’s deep involvement in the rendition programs. Not to forget the major role the UK played in creating a war that killed over a million Iraqis, further destabilized an already inflammable region, emboldened the mutation of what they called “Al Qaeda” into multiple versions, most famously ISIS, and caused a refugee crisis that Europe complains about the most.

Yet Blair has never faced legal accountability. Instead, he has been rewarded with lucrative consultancy contracts and, incredibly, now oversees yet another Middle Eastern territory devastated by military operations.

No wonder some observers view this appointment with skepticism, is there?

A Consultant’s Portfolio

Since leaving office in 2007, Blair has built what might be called an “advisory empire,” serving various governments. His client list makes for interesting reading, doesn’t it?

In Kazakhstan, Blair advised former President Nursultan Nazarbayev following the December 2011 massacre of at least 17 protesting workers. Leaked emails revealed Nazarbayev paid an estimated £20 million for Blair’s counsel on how to “present a better face to the West.

Blair chose to provide no response on two different occasions to Human Rights Watch when they requested a detailed account of his “consultancy” work and the results it has achieved.

Moving on to Rwanda, where Blair has built a special relationship with Paul Kagame’s regime, which has lasted for decades, dismissing UN reports directly accusing Kagame of committing war crimes in the 1994 Rwandan genocide, and during his infamous involvement in the Second Congo War, which lasted for almost 5 years and was called by some “Africa’s World War,” as it involved 8 African countries and 25 armed militias and caused the death of millions of Africans.

Blair’s response to such accusations directed at him and Kagame would put Niccolo Machiavelli to shame, as he said literally, “Our consultancy is not to tell the people of Rwanda what to do, but to help get done what the president wants.”

The Tony Blair Institute’s accounts show income reaching $121 million in a single year, with much of it from advising what reports described as “repressive”.

The pattern seems consistent: Blair provides Western legitimacy to governments willing to pay for it, while actual democratic reforms remain notably absent from the list of deliverables.

The same Western establishment that positioned itself as guardian of international law regarding various conflicts now promotes Blair for Gaza oversight. Yet Blair’s record demonstrates repeated bypassing of the UN Security Council when it suited Western objectives.

In Kosovo in 1999, Blair established his template: bypassing UN authorization, working with militias whose leaders now face war crimes charges, and claiming humanitarian motives afterward. The NATO bombing campaign never received Security Council approval and killed at least 488 Yugoslav civilians.

That intervention transformed NATO from a defensive alliance into an organization “prepared to initiate war beyond the UN.” Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov continues to reference NATO’s “illegal use of force” in Kosovo when responding to Western criticism.

The rendition operations tell their own story. Blair’s government was involved in the 2004 kidnapping of Abdul-Hakim Belhaj from Malaysia, delivering him to Gaddafi’s torture facilities. The UK government eventually paid £2.3 million in compensation to Sami al-Saadi, though characteristically, it never formally admitted wrongdoing or apologized.

The Gaza Plan: “Investment” or Control?

The leaked 21-page draft proposal outlines a “Gaza International Transitional Authority” (GITA) with an organizational structure worth examining carefully. At the top sits “an international board of billionaires and businesspeople,” while “highly vetted ‘neutral’ Palestinian administrators” occupy the lower administrative positions.

The plan describes Gaza reconstruction as a “commercially driven authority, led by business professionals and tasked with generating investable projects with real financial returns”. Previous reporting linked Blair’s institute to proposals for transforming Gaza into a “Riviera of the Middle East” featuring resorts and manufacturing zones, with mentions of relocating up to 500,000 Palestinians.

Various analysts, both Arab and non-Arab, have expressed concern that the plan is designed to sideline any form of Palestinian governance, in favor of international bodies brought in to carry the load.

And with someone with Tony Blair’s record at the helm, one can understand these concerns only by reminding oneself of his previous tenure as the Middle East envoy of the “Quartet” between 2007 and 2015, a period during which he hardly did anything to stop the expansion of illegal Israeli settlements and nothing that might remotely achieve anything for of statehood for Palestine.

The structure Blair proposes: wealthy foreign decision-makers controlling Palestinian land and resources while Palestinians serve in subordinate administrative roles. This bears a resemblance to governance models from a century ago.

Whether this represents “investment” or simply foreign control with better branding is a question worth considering.

Here’s the conundrum facing Gaza’s Palestinians. Having endured devastating military operations, they now face “reconstruction” overseen by someone whose interventions have consistently produced what results, exactly?

If they accept the Blair plan, they get foreign control disguised as investment, with Palestinians in subordinate roles while “billionaires and businesspeople” make strategic decisions. If they reject it, they risk being portrayed as obstacles to peace and reconstruction, potentially losing access to funding and international support.

The Accountability Gap

Despite the Chilcot Inquiry findings about Britain’s role in the Iraq War, despite compensation paid to rendition victims, and despite documented intelligence manipulation, Blair has never faced legal consequences. Instead, he’s built a consulting empire worth hundreds of millions and has now been appointed to oversee Gaza’s future.

The British government has paid millions in compensation to torture victims without formally admitting responsibility. Blair himself has declined to comment on specifics regarding what he knew about torture programs and when.

This pattern raises questions about international accountability mechanisms. If the architect of the Iraq War faces no consequences, what message does that send about international law?

If involvement in rendition operations results in consultancy opportunities rather than prosecution, what does that suggest about deterrence?

The Accountability Question: The double standard regarding UN authority is worth examining.

The Destruction/Reconstruction Façade

But the pattern seems difficult to ignore. Now I think it’s logical to pose these questions, regardless of political affiliations or personal opinions about the various conflicts discussed here:

  • What exactly is Blair bringing to Gaza that couldn’t be provided by someone without his particular history?
  • Who benefits from his appointment to this role?
  • Does the international community have mechanisms for accountability, or do Western leaders operate under different rules?

Gaza’s Palestinians deserve better than to have their future determined by someone whose previous interventions left trails of destruction across multiple continents. Whether they’ll get better is another question entirely. The pattern has been consistent: promise reform, deliver foreign control, profit from reconstruction contracts, and move on before accountability arrives, or do not respond to it at all.

There’s no particular reason to expect Gaza will be different, unless something fundamental changes about how the international system operates instead of it trying to convince anybody with such a destruction/reconstruction façade, or what one might comfortably call “investment imperialism,” that is being imposed by genocidal force on Gaza.

But for this change to happen, “We the People” worldwide need to wake up and realize who should be in control.

Tamer Mansour is an Egyptian Independent Writer & Researcher.

October 7, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, War Crimes, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Iran declares Cairo deal with IAEA ‘defunct’

The Cradle | October 5, 2025

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi confirmed on 5 October that the Cairo deal signed with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) last month is no longer active or valid due to European ‘snapback’ sanctions on Tehran.

“Experience has shown that there is no solution to Iran’s nuclear issue other than a diplomatic and negotiated one,” Araghchi said.

“The three European countries thought they could achieve results through the snapback mechanism, but that tool was ineffective and only made diplomacy more complicated. Diplomacy will always continue, but the form and the parties involved in negotiations have now changed. Undoubtedly, the role of the European countries in the upcoming talks has diminished, and their diplomatic justification for participating has weakened,” he added.

“In recent months, our discussions have been focused solely on the nuclear issue, conducted either directly or indirectly with the American side. In these exchanges, our proposals were completely transparent. Had they been taken seriously … reaching a negotiated and diplomatic solution would not have been out of reach. Even now, if the [opposing] parties act in good faith and consider mutual interests, the continuation of negotiations is possible.”

“Nevertheless, the situation following the military attack and the activation of the snapback mechanism has changed, and the upcoming negotiations will certainly be different from before,” he went on to say, adding that both the US-Israeli attacks on Iran in June and the activation of the ‘snapback’ mechanism have complicated matters.

“After several rounds of talks, this agreement was reached in Cairo. However, the Cairo Agreement no longer suffices under the new circumstances, including the activation of the snapback mechanism, and new decisions will be made.”

“To prove the peaceful nature of its nuclear program and its goodwill, the Islamic Republic of Iran has exhausted all diplomatic avenues, pursued consultations and cooperation, and presented constructive and balanced proposals. There is now no excuse left for Western countries to prevent Iran from cooperation or dialogue. Iran’s positions are fully legitimate and reasonable, and it is ready to pursue any solution that leads to confidence-building.”

The snapback sanctions took effect on 28 September. Washington welcomed the European decision.

Iran had previously warned that activating the sanctions would jeopardize the Cairo deal, reached on 9 September after Tehran resumed cooperation with the IAEA following a brief suspension as a result of the war.

Negotiations to prevent the return of the sanctions failed after the UN Security Council (UNSC) rejected a draft resolution to permanently lift sanctions against Iran. Russia, China, Pakistan, and Algeria voted to prevent the reintroduction of sanctions, while nine Security Council members voted against sanctions relief. Two countries abstained.

Tehran has recalled its envoys from Germany, France, and Italy.

The EU has continued to hold Iran to the terms of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), despite Washington’s unilateral withdrawal from the deal in 2018 and its policy of maximum pressure against Iran.

Tehran is insisting on its right to maintain peaceful uranium enrichment.

Nuclear talks between Tehran and Washington have been halted since the US-backed Israeli war against Iran started on 13 June.

The US was aware that Israel was set to attack while continuing to pretend it was negotiating with Iran. In late June, Washington joined the war with a bunker-buster attack on Iranian nuclear sites.

Israel has publicly threatened to restart the war against Iran. Tehran has vowed to respond more harshly to any new attack.

October 5, 2025 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Election without voters: Most Syrians ‘unaware’ about Sunday’s parliamentary election

The Cradle | October 4, 2025

Many Syrians are unaware that the first parliamentary elections since the fall of the government of Bashar al-Assad are about to take place, AP reported on 4 October, in part because the Syrian public will not be allowed to cast votes.

“There were no candidate posters on the main streets and squares, no rallies, or public debates. In the days leading up to the polling, some residents of the Syrian capital had no idea a vote was hours away,” AP reported on Saturday.

“I didn’t know — now by chance I found out that there are elections of the People’s Assembly,” said Elias al-Qudsi, a shopkeeper in the famed markets of old Damascus.

“But I don’t know if we are supposed to vote or who is voting,” he added.

The US, Israel, and allied powers succeeded in December 2024 in toppling Syrian President Bashar al-Assad after a decade of war under the pretext of replacing his authoritarian rule with a “democratic system.”

The multi-billion-dollar regime change operation, known as Timber Sycamore, installed former Al-Qaeda and Islamic State commander Ahmad al-Sharaa in power in Damascus as Assad fled to Moscow.

After appointing himself president, Sharaa (formerly known as Abu Mohammed al-Julani) began to establish an informal extremist Islamic regime in Syria, in which a religious sheikh leads each ministry, government department, and military unit.

Rather than allow the Syrian public to vote in Sunday’s election to form a new parliament, Sharaa himself will appoint 70 of the 210 parliament members.

The remaining 140 will be elected by subcommittees of Syria’s Supreme Committee for People’s Assembly Elections, which Sharaa also appointed in June.

A subcommittee was established for each governorate. However, Syrian authorities say that no vote for parliament will take place in Suwayda Governorate, which is under Druze control, and Raqqa and Hasakah Governorates, which are under Kurdish control, citing “security reasons.”

The lack of a popular vote has been overshadowed in the western media by the candidacy of Henry Hamra, a Jewish former resident of the neighborhood who emigrated to the US as a teenager and only returned after Assad’s fall.

Nawar Nejmeh, spokesperson for the committee overseeing the elections, claimed a popular vote was “impossible” because large numbers of Syrians were displaced or lost their personal documentation during the NATO-backed war.

But Syrian activists who opposed Assad have criticized Sharaa for organizing the parliamentary vote in this way, forbidding the formation of political parties, and consolidating his own authoritarian and extremist religious rule indefinitely into the future.

“Are we going through a credible transition, an inclusive transition that represents all of Syria?” asked Mutasem Syoufi, executive director of US-funded The Day After project.

“I think we’re not there, and I think we have to take serious and brave steps to correct all the mistakes that we’ve committed over the last nine months,” since Assad’s fall, he stated.

October 4, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Wars for Israel | | Leave a comment

The Israel Lobby Wants Thomas Massie Gone. Will Voters Obey?

By Jose Alberto Nino | The Occidental Observer | September 29, 2025

The knives are out for Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), and his political survival could prove whether Congress still answers to American voters or to a foreign lobby with limitless cash.

Pro-Israel Republican megadonors recently set up the MAGA Kentucky super PAC with $2 million specifically to oust Massie. Paul Singer contributed $1 million, John Paulson added $250,000, and Miriam Adelson’s Preserve America PAC provided $750,000. The Republican Jewish Coalition has promised “unlimited” campaign spending if Massie runs for Senate, with CEO Matt Brooks declaring that “if Tom Massie chooses to enter the race for US Senate in Kentucky, the RJC campaign budget to ensure he is defeated will be unlimited.”

President Donald Trump has also jumped into the fray, branding Massie a “pathetic loser” who should be dropped “like the plague.” Overall, a constellation of pro-Zionist forces is mobilizing at full force to unseat Congress’s most principled non-interventionist politician since Ron Paul retired in 2013. In many respects, Massie has taken up Paul’s mantle of foreign policy restraint — a political agenda that has never sat well with organized Jewry. Massie’s legislative track record on foreign policy speaks for itself.

Massie’s Long Track Record of Voting Against Foreign Policy Interventionism

Throughout his congressional career, Massie has established himself as Congress’s most consistent opponent of the neoconservative/neoliberal foreign policy consensus. His principled opposition to endless wars and foreign entanglements has earned him the nickname “Mr. No” — similar to his predecessor Ron Paul — for frequently casting lone dissenting votes against military interventions.

In 2013, Massie introduced the War Powers Protection Act to “block unauthorized U.S. military aid to Syrian rebels.” He argued that “since our national security interests in Syria are unclear, we risk giving money and military assistance to our enemies.” When Obama sought to arm Syrian rebels in 2014, Massie voted against the plan, declaring it “immoral to use the threat of a government shutdown to pressure Members to vote for involvement in war, much less a civil war on the other side of the globe.”

Massie consistently opposed U.S. involvement in Yemen’s civil war, co-sponsoring multiple bipartisan resolutions to invoke the War Powers Resolution and “remove United States Armed Forces from unauthorized hostilities in the Republic of Yemen.” He stated that “Congress never authorized military action in Yemen as our Constitution requires, yet we continue to fund and assist Saudi Arabia in this tragic conflict.”

His opposition to NATO expansion proved equally consistent. In 2017, Massie was one of only four House members to vote against a pro-NATO resolution, explaining that “the move to expand NATO in Eastern Europe is unwise and unaffordable,” and such expansion contradicted Trump’s campaign assertion that “NATO is obsolete.”

Regarding the Russo-Ukrainian war, Massie maintained his non-interventionist stance, receiving an “F” grade from Republicans for Ukraine. He opposed the Ukraine Democracy Defense Lend-Lease Act, multiple aid packages, and efforts to strip Ukraine funding. Massie argued that supporting Ukraine aid was “economically illiterate and morally deficient,” declaring that “the American taxpayers have been conscripted into making welfare payments to this foreign government.”

Most recently, in June 2025, Massie introduced a bipartisan War Powers Resolution with Rep. Ro Khanna to “prohibit United States Armed Forces from unauthorized involvement” in the Israel-Iran conflict. After Trump’s strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, Massie criticized the action as “not Constitutional,” remaining the only Republican co-sponsor of the war powers resolution.

Massie’s Anti-Zionist Streak

Massie’s most politically dangerous positions involve his consistent opposition to pro-Israel legislation, earning him the distinction of being the lone Republican opposing numerous Israel-related measures.

In July 2019, Massie cast the sole Republican vote against a resolution opposing the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement. The resolution passed 398-17, but Massie defended his position by stating he does not support “federal efforts to condemn any type of private boycott, regardless of whether or not a boycott is based upon bad motives” and that “these are matters that Congress should properly leave to the States and to the people to decide.”

In September 2021, Massie was the only Republican to vote against $1 billion in funding for Israel’s Iron Dome defense system. He explained that “my position of ‘no foreign aid’ might sound extreme to some, but I think it’s extreme to bankrupt our country and put future generations of Americans in hock to our debtors.” This vote prompted AIPAC to run Facebook ads stating “When Israel faced rocket attacks, Thomas Massie voted against Iron Dome.”

Perhaps most controversially, on May 18, 2022, Massie cast the lone vote against a resolution condemning antisemitism, which passed 420-1. The American Jewish Committee criticized him, stating that “while Democrats and Republicans united, Rep. Massie, who has also opposed bills on Holocaust education and Iron Dome funding, decided that combating rising hatred is not important.” Massie defended his vote by tweeting that “legitimate government exists, in part, to punish those who commit unprovoked violence against others, but government can’t legislate thought.”

In October 2023, Massie opposed a $14 billion aid package for Israel, proclaiming that “if Congress sends $14.5 billion to Israel, on average we’ll be taking about $100 from every working person in the United States. This will be extracted through inflation and taxes. I’m against it.” When AIPAC criticized him, Massie responded that “AIPAC always gets mad when I put America first. I won’t be voting for their $14+ billion shakedown of American taxpayers either.”

On October 25, 2023, Massie was the sole Republican to vote against a resolution affirming Israel’s right to defend itself following the October 7 Hamas attacks. A month later, on November 28, 2023, he became the only member of Congress to oppose a resolution affirming Israel’s right to exist and equating anti-Zionism with antisemitism, which passed 412-1.

The most explosive moment came in December 2023 when Massie posted a meme of the rapper Drake contrasting “American patriotism” with “Zionism,” implying Congress prioritized the latter. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer called the post “antisemitic, disgusting, dangerous” and demanded he remove it. The White House labeled it “virulent antisemitism.” Republican Jewish Coalition CEO Matt Brooks condemned it, stating “Shame on you @RepThomasMassie. You’re a disgrace to the US Congress and to the Republican Party.”

Massie vs. Trump

Trump’s escalating attacks on Massie reveal the extent to which the sitting president serves pro-Israel interests rather than pursuing genuine ideological differences. The timing and intensity of Trump’s criticism align suspiciously with Massie’s most vocal challenges to Israeli influence in Congress.

In June 2025, after Massie criticized Trump’s Iran strikes as “not Constitutional,” Trump unleashed a scathing Truth Social response calling Massie “not MAGA” and declaring that “MAGA doesn’t want him, doesn’t know him, and doesn’t respect him.” Trump branded Massie a “simple-minded ‘grandstander’ who thinks it’s good politics for Iran to have the highest level Nuclear weapon” and concluded that “MAGA should drop this pathetic LOSER, Tom Massie, like the plague!”

This vitriol represents a dramatic shift from Trump’s 2022 endorsement, when he called Massie a “Conservative Warrior” and “first-rate Defender of the Constitution.” The transformation occurred precisely as Massie intensified his criticism of Israeli influence and foreign aid. Trump’s attacks escalated further after Massie’s explosive June 2024 Tucker Carlson interview where he revealed that “everybody but me has an AIPAC person. … It’s like your babysitter, your AIPAC babysitter who is always talking to you for AIPAC.”

Massie elaborated that “I have Republicans who come to me and say that’s wrong what AIPAC is doing to you, let me talk to my AIPAC person… I’ve had four members of Congress say I’ll talk to my AIPAC person and like it’s casually what we call them my AIPAC guy.” This revelation exposed the systematic nature of Israeli influence over Congress, prompting immediate backlash from pro-Israel organizations and likely contributing to increased donor funding against his re-election campaign.

The pattern makes clear that Trump’s hostility toward Massie stems less from policy disagreements than from his deference to powerful Jewish donors. Although he often claims to oppose “endless wars,” Trump’s attacks on Massie — the most consistent non-interventionist in Congress — expose where his true loyalties lie in advancing the agenda of Jewish supremacist interests rather than pursuing an independent foreign policy. House Speaker Mike Johnson has signaled that GOP leadership will abandon Massie, stating that “he is actively working against his team almost daily now and seems to enjoy that role. So he is, you know, deciding his own fate.”

AIPAC is on the Hunt

AIPAC’s 2024 electoral victories demonstrate the lobby’s willingness to spend unprecedented sums to eliminate critics of Israeli policy. The organization’s success in defeating progressive Democrats and protecting establishment Republicans reveals a coordinated strategy to purge Congress of independent voices. AIPAC will look to replicate its successes against the likes of Israel critics such as Massie.

Against Rep. Jamaal Bowman in New York’s 16th District, AIPAC’s United Democracy Project (UDP) spent $14.5 million opposing Bowman while also propping up challenger George Latimer. Independent media outlet Sludge reported that “the $14.5 million AIPAC’s super PAC has spent in the NY-16 Democratic primary is more than any outside group has ever spent on a single House of Representatives election race.”

The spending was fueled by Republican megadonors channeled through AIPAC, with WhatsApp founder Jan Koum donating $5 million to UDP. Responsible Statecraft noted that “AIPAC effectively acted to launder campaign funds for Republican megadonors into the Democratic primary, where the spending was generally identified in media as ‘pro-Israel,’ not ‘Republican.’” By election day, Latimer-aligned groups had outspent Bowman’s backers by over seven-to-one.

Against Rep. Cori Bush in Missouri’s 1st District, UDP spent over $8.5 million to attack her record on Israel and support her pro-Zionist  challenger Wesley Bell. The Bush-Bell primary became one of the most expensive House primaries ever with over $18 million in total ad spending. Bush called it “the second most expensive congressional race in our nation’s history, $19 million and counting” funded by “mostly far-right-funded super PACs, against the interests of the people of St. Louis.”

Even in Republican primaries, AIPAC intervened to protect establishment allies. To defend moderate Rep. Tony Gonzales against challenger Brandon Herrera in Texas’s 23rd District, UDP spent $1 million opposing Herrera in a “two-week ad buy.” The Republican Jewish Coalition added $400,000 in attack ads against Herrera. Combined AIPAC and RJC spending totaled approximately $1.4-1.5 million, helping Gonzales narrowly defeat Herrera by just 354 votes with 50.6% to 49.4%.

These victories came as part of AIPAC’s broader $100+ million spending cycle, with Common Dreams noting that “AIPAC money has already made a significant impact, helping a pair of pro-Israel Democrats defeat progressive Reps. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) and Cori Bush (D-Mo.)—two of Congress’ most vocal critics of Israel’s assault on Gaza—in recent primary contests.”

How Massie’s Race Could Determine the Israel Lobby’s Actual Power

Massie’s 2026 primary represents the ultimate test of whether any politician can survive the full force of pro-Israel opposition. The Kentucky race will determine if AIPAC’s previous victories represent sustainable power or pyrrhic victories that expose the lobby’s long-term vulnerabilities.

Massie’s unique position may prove more defensible than Bowman’s or Bush’s urban districts. His rural Kentucky constituency shows less susceptibility to urban media campaigns and maintains stronger skepticism of foreign entanglements. Moreover, his local roots provide credibility that transcends typical political attacks. The Kentucky representative’s ability to frame opposition as foreign interference rather than domestic policy disagreements could resonate with voters increasingly suspicious of the pro-Israel establishment that dominates Washington’s political scene.

The financial strain of AIPAC’s previous victories may also constrain future spending. The organization’s $100+ million commitment across multiple races represents an unsustainable pace that could face donor fatigue. Each expensive victory exposes the lobby’s methods to greater scrutiny and potential backlash. Progressive groups increasingly highlight AIPAC’s role in primary defeats, potentially mobilizing opposition that limits future effectiveness.

Massie’s survival would demonstrate that principled politicians can withstand pro-Israel pressure through constituent loyalty and grassroots support. His defeat would confirm that no elected official can challenge Israeli interests regardless of their domestic support. The Kentucky race thus represents a pivotal moment in determining whether American foreign policy serves American interests or remains subordinate to foreign influence.

If Massie withstands the assault, it will mark the first crack in the façade of Zionist invulnerability; if he falls, it will prove that American politicians can be bought and buried by World Jewry’s limitless stockpiles of cash.

October 2, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Leave a comment

Israeli officers commandeered Pentagon meetings during June’s Israel-Iran war: Tucker Carlson

Press TV – October 2, 2025

Israeli officers stormed meetings at the Pentagon during June’s Israel-Iran war, issuing orders unchecked while Trump administration officials stood by doing nothing, says a former Fox News host, raising fresh questions about foreign influence on US military decisions.

Prominent American commentator Tucker Carlson said that Israeli military officers stormed into closed-door meetings at the Pentagon during Israel’s 12-day aggression against Iran in June, stressing that they issued direct orders to US officials, a controversial move that raises serious concerns over foreign interference in the decision-making process at the US Department of War.

During a video titled “Speeding Toward World War Three” published on his X account on Thursday, Carlson further said that officials in the Trump administration failed to respond to or prevent these intrusions, allowing the Israeli officers to continue their actions unchecked.

The ex-Fox News host also touched on the ongoing tensions over US-Israel relations and questioned the extent of influence wielded by foreign powers within American military institutions.

“During the 12-day war with Iran, the US and Israel versus Iran, bombing on all sides, during that short conflict, a bunch of Israeli officers in the Pentagon during that week enraged American Pentagon staff by barging into the meetings, giving orders and making demands and nobody did anything about it. How can a foreign military officer barge into military headquarters? The more you allow that kind of deeply unhealthy behavior the more you are going to get,” Carlson said.

He stressed that because of the weakness of “our leaders”, Israel takes advantage of the US.

On June 13, Israel launched a blatant and unprovoked act of aggression against Iran, triggering a 12-day war that killed at least 1,064 people in the country, including military commanders, nuclear scientists, and ordinary civilians.

The United States also entered the war by bombing three Iranian nuclear sites in a grave violation of international law.

In response, the Iranian Armed Forces targeted strategic sites across the occupied territories as well as the Al-Udeid air base in Qatar, the largest American military base in West Asia.

A recent New York Times–Siena survey shows that a majority of Americans are turning against Israel’s war on Gaza, with 51 percent opposing further economic and military aid.

About 35 percent strongly reject such support, compared to 19 percent in favor, and roughly 40 percent believe Israel is deliberately targeting civilians amid the genocidal war in the besieged Palestinian territory.

October 2, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , | Leave a comment

Max Blumenthal: Charlie Kirk BOMBSHELL Revelation | Middle East Faces Total COLLAPSE

Dialogue Works | October 1, 2025

October 2, 2025 Posted by | Video, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Leaked Israeli Transcripts Reveal Trump Lied About Attack on Iran

Mainstream media won’t cover this story

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ChatGPT replied:

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

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

Long term: Typically 10–30 years…”

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Republican–Israel love affair hits a generational rift

By José Niño | The Cradle | September 29, 2025

The sniper’s bullet that silenced Charlie Kirk on 10 September at Utah Valley University did more than end the life of America’s most prominent conservative youth activist. It ignited a firestorm of theories that illuminated the deepest fractures within the Republican Party since the Cold War. Within hours, social media exploded with speculation that Israel’s Mossad had orchestrated the assassination to neutralize what some saw as a rising threat to Israel’s influence in Washington.

While speculative, the speed and ferocity with which such conspiracy theories spread reveal something profound. Kirk’s assassination has become a symbol of the impossible balancing act facing Republican leaders as younger conservatives shun pro-Zionist sentiments, abandoning Israel in numbers that would have been unthinkable a decade ago.

The unraveling Republican–Israel consensus

Kirk’s assassination was a flashpoint, but the deeper story is in the data. A University of Maryland Critical Issues Poll (29 July–7 August) exposed a dramatic generational schism: While 52 percent of Republicans aged 35 and over sympathize more with Israel, only 24 percent of Republicans aged 18–34 say the same.

The gulf widens when it comes to Gaza. Among older Republicans, 52 percent say Israeli actions in Gaza are justified. Among younger Republicans, only 22 percent agree. “The change taking place among young Republicans is breathtaking,” said Shibley Telhami, the poll’s principal investigator. “While 52 percent of older Republicans (35+) sympathize more with Israel, only 24 percent of younger Republicans (18–34) say the same – fewer than half.”

The shift accelerated dramatically after Operation Al-Aqsa Flood on 7 October 2023. Pew Research Center data shows that unfavorable views of Israel among Republicans under 50 jumped from 35 percent in 2022 to 50 percent in 2025, a remarkable 15-point increase. In contrast, Republicans aged 50 and older moved only marginally, from 19 percent to 23 percent unfavorable.

The University of Maryland poll found that 41 percent of Americans believe Israeli military actions in Gaza constitute either “genocide” or are “akin to genocide,” including 14 percent of Republicans. Notably, the survey discovered that 21 percent of Republicans consider US President Donald Trump’s administration’s policy toward Israel–Palestine “too pro-Israel,” while 57 percent of Republicans said Washington’s support has enabled Israeli war crimes.

Even evangelical Republicans – long Israel’s most fervent base – are shifting. Among older evangelicals, 69 percent express more sympathy with Israel. But that number drops to 32 percent among their younger counterparts. Only 36 percent of younger evangelical Republicans believe Israeli actions in Gaza are justified.

In a sharp rebuke to the bipartisan tradition of unconditional aid, a September 2025 AtlasIntel poll found that just 30 percent of Americans support financial assistance to Israel, showing that Israel’s “blank check” in Washington is increasingly out of step with public opinion. A growing number of Republicans now argue that US policy prioritizes Israeli interests over American ones.

In a similar vein, the University of Maryland poll found that the rise of social media has significantly accelerated this attitudinal shift on Israel while fueling broader support for a more restrained foreign policy approach.

While 32 percent of Republicans aged 35 and older say Fox News is their primary news source, only 12 percent of younger Republicans rely primarily on the news channel. By contrast, nearly half (46 percent) of Republicans aged 18–34 get their primary news from the internet and social media, where resistance narratives and Palestinian voices are far more accessible, despite efforts to censor them. This is compared to 29 percent of older Republicans. This shift matters. Seventy-two percent of Republicans who rely on Fox News support Israel. Among those whose main source is social media, support drops to 35 percent. Conservative youth are consuming a radically different discourse, one that challenges the old dogmas.

Congressional outliers and rising dissent

The conservative grassroots revolt has found limited but vocal expression among Republican elected officials. Three figures stand out as exceptions to the party’s overwhelming pro-Israel consensus: Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), Thomas Massie (R-KY), and former Florida Congressman Matt Gaetz.

Greene’s evolution has been the most dramatic. In November 2023, she proudly defended her “history of voting to fund Israel’s Iron Dome and other defense systems.” By July 2025, she was describing Israel’s Gaza war as “genocide.” On 28 July, she wrote on X, “It’s the most truthful and easiest thing to say that Oct 7th in Israel was horrific and all hostages must be returned, but so is the genocide, humanitarian crisis, and starvation happening in Gaza.” Greene’s most pointed critique came days later, when she questioned American priorities with respect to West Asia foreign policy:

“Are innocent Israeli lives more valuable than innocent Palestinian and Christian lives? And why should America continue funding this?”

“The secular government of nuclear-armed Israel has proven that they are beyond capable of dealing with their enemies and are capable of and are in the process of systematically cleansing them from the land.”

Her criticism intensified through August, when she told One America News Network that “Israel is not hurting, and they’ve already proven that they are more than capable of not only defending themselves, but annihilating their enemies to the point of genocide. And that’s what’s happening in Gaza.”

Massie, the Kentucky libertarian, has been consistent in opposing Israel’s wars. In June 2024, he told a House Rules Committee hearing:

“I don’t want to condone what Israel’s doing. I don’t want to condone the way Netanyahu is waging the campaign against Hamas because I think there are too many civilian casualties. One percent of the civilian population of Gaza is no longer breathing air, no longer on this planet, and we’ve just somehow accepted that that level of civilian casualties – whether it’s two civilians for every enemy combatant is okay, which I do not accept.”

On 30 May 2025, Massie posted on X, “Nothing can justify the number of casualties (tens of thousands of women and children) inflicted by Israel in Gaza. We should end all US military aid to Israel immediately.”

Gaetz’s transformation has been more recent but equally sharp. In October 2017, while he served as representative for Florida’s first congressional district, Gaetz delivered a House floor speech declaring his support for “our friend and ally, Israel,” condemning the UN’s “antisemitism” and “attempts to punish and delegitimize Israel.” In 2025, now hosting The Matt Gaetz Show, he asked, “If Israel is a democracy, when do all the Arabs who live there get to vote?” He has raised concerns about “Jewish supremacy” and the state’s treatment of Palestinian Christians.

At the height of the 12-day war in June between Iran and Israel, Gaetz was highly critical of any belligerent action toward Iran and had choice words about Israel’s nuclear program:

“There’s a secret nuclear program in the Middle East – and it’s Israel’s. They won’t allow inspectors, they operate in full secrecy, and everyone in Washington knows it … To drag us into a regime change war over secret nuclear weapons when your ally also has secret nuclear weapons – that’s hypocritical.”

His shift began earlier. In 2020, following the US assassination of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani, Gaetz called for restraint. By 2025, his rhetoric had clearly broken with pro-Zionist orthodoxy.

The money firewall

Despite the changing winds, institutional Republican support for Israel remains ironclad, enforced by immense donor pressure. Greene, Massie, and Gaetz represent isolated voices in a caucus that continues to pass pro-Israel legislation by overwhelming margins.

The pro-Israeli lobby group, American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), responded furiously to Greene’s genocide comments, telling The Hill, “Anti-Israel extremists – of the right or the left – will not deter us in our participation in the democratic process to stand with Israel. It is an outrageous betrayal of American values and interests to abandon an ally fighting terrorist aggression.”

AIPAC’s influence remains formidable throughout the Republican caucus. As Massie revealed in a 2024 interview with Tucker Carlson, every Republican member of Congress has a dedicated “AIPAC babysitter” – a lobbyist who is “always talking to you” on behalf of the organization, pushing for pro-Israel votes.

The current skepticism toward Israel among young Republicans represents the culmination of long-standing anti-war sentiments within the American Right. From Pat Buchanan’s opposition to the Persian Gulf War to Ron Paul’s consistent non-interventionism, a minority strain of conservative thought has always questioned foreign entanglements.

This “America First” current experienced a notable resurgence during the Trump era, with figures like Carlson warning against involvement in West Asian conflicts. The Gaza war has provided a focal point for these concerns, particularly among younger conservatives who came of age during the post-9/11 Iraq and Afghanistan wars and became disillusioned by the cost and aimlessness of these conflicts.

Despite a marked shift in sentiment among younger conservatives, many of whom are increasingly skeptical of unconditional support for Israel, pro-Israel money continues to dominate Republican politics. In the 2024 election cycle alone, analysis by Track AIPAC found that pro-Israel groups spent over $230 million to re-elect Donald Trump.

The Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) raised more than $18 million, a 50 percent increase from 2020, and spent over $15 million to strengthen Trump’s campaign and support other Republican candidates. The Israeli-American super-donor Miriam Adelson‘s (widow of the late US businessman Sheldon Adelson) Preserve America PAC by itself provided more than $215 million to advance Trump’s presidential bid.

In short, while the conservative base moves one way, the money moves another. For now, the latter still calls the shots.

A conservative youth uprising 

The pro-Zionist torrent of funding highlights a harsh reality. Even as the Republican base grows increasingly critical of Israel, the financial influence of pro-Israel donors continues to ensure that party leaders remain firmly aligned with Zionist priorities, often in direct conflict with the wishes of grassroots conservatives. The real test will come as this generation ages into political power. Greene, Massie, and Gaetz may be lone voices today, but they are amplifying a groundswell of dissent that could soon reach critical mass.

Whether this revolt reshapes the Republican party’s stance on Israel or remains smothered by donor-class discipline will determine the next era of Republican politics – and the fate of Tel Aviv’s blank check in Washington.

September 30, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , | Leave a comment

Kabul hails regional powers’ rejection of foreign military bases in Afghanistan

MEMO | September 28, 2025

Afghanistan on Saturday welcomed a joint stance by China, Russia, Iran and Pakistan opposing any reestablishment of foreign military bases in the country, the Taliban administration said, Anadolu reports.

Hamdullah Fitrat, deputy spokesman of the interim government, issued the statement after foreign ministers of the four nations met on the sidelines of the 80th UN General Assembly in New York.

The four countries form a quadrilateral consultation mechanism created in 2017 to promote regional stability and coordinate efforts to counter terrorism, narcotics and extremism emanating from Afghan territory.

In a joint communique, they voiced support for Afghanistan’s sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity and said they “firmly” oppose any move by outside powers to set up military bases in Afghanistan or the wider region.

Fitrat said that Afghanistan’s territory would not be allowed to be used against any country and that no armed groups are permitted to operate inside the country.

“Afghanistan is taking serious steps against corruption, drugs and all kinds of undesirable issues and considers this process its responsibility,” he said, adding that Kabul seeks positive relations with all countries based on “mutual respect.”

It comes days after US President Donald Trump warned “bad things” would happen if the interim Taliban administration did not cede control of Bagram Air Base to the Pentagon.

The Taliban returned to power in August 2021 after the withdrawal of US-led forces ended a two-decade war.

Kabul has said it would not negotiate its territorial integrity and urged Trump to honor the 2020 Doha agreement.

September 28, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »