‘This isn’t war. It’s genocide’: Why the world is silent about massacres in Syria
Survivors of the violence against the Alawite, Christian, and Druze communities share their stories
RT | March 15, 2025
Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), the dominant militant group in northwestern Syria, once presented itself as a local opposition force. Just over a month ago, the group was formally disbanded and became part of the Syrian Defense Ministry, yet its origins tell a far more sinister story. Born out of the ashes of Jabhat al-Nusra, Al-Qaeda’s official branch in Syria, HTS carries the same ideological DNA as the world’s most notorious terrorist network. While it has sought to rebrand itself for international legitimacy, its methods remain unchanged: Massacres, ethnic cleansing, and the systematic extermination of those who do not conform to its radical ideology.
Nowhere has this been more evident than in Syria’s coastal cities, where HTS and its foreign recruits have unleashed an unspeakable wave of violence against Alawite, Christian, and Druze communities. Entire villages have been erased, their inhabitants slaughtered in the dead of night. Yet, as these horrors unfold, the world remains indifferent, and the silence of international powers only emboldens the perpetrators.
The massacre in Latakia: A night of unimaginable horror
In one of the darkest nights in Syria’s recent history, coordinated attacks on rural Latakia resulted in mass executions. Survivors tell of masked men storming their villages, dragging families from their homes, and carrying out public executions. Those who resisted were burned inside their homes, leaving behind entire neighborhoods reduced to smoldering ruins.
Testimonies from survivors suggest that many of the perpetrators were foreign fighters, brought in from regions far from the Middle East.
“They didn’t even speak our language,” an elderly survivor told RT. “They had no idea who we were, no reason to hate us – except that they were told to.”
Entire villages have been abandoned, their populations either massacred or displaced. Satellite imagery confirms what survivors describe – rows of torched homes, mass graves hastily covered, and ghost towns where life once thrived.
The bloodbath in Tartus: A slaughter without mercy
Tartus, once a thriving coastal city, has become another graveyard. HTS fighters stormed residential areas, conducting door-to-door massacres. Families were accused of supporting the government or practicing the ‘wrong’ faith before being lined up and shot. Those who were not executed on the spot were locked inside buildings which were then torched.
A local journalist, speaking anonymously for fear of reprisal, described the scale of the killings:
“There were so many bodies that people stopped counting. They weren’t buried properly – just dumped into ditches.”
Foreign fighters played a leading role in these atrocities. A humanitarian worker recalled speaking with a man who had barely escaped:
“He told me he heard Chechen, Uzbek, and North African Arabic among the attackers. These weren’t local militants – these were imported killers, trained elsewhere and sent here to finish us off.”
Despite the horror, survivors insist they were never fighting for political power – only for survival. “We weren’t taking up arms to reclaim land or rule over anyone,” a displaced father from Tartus told RT. “We were just trying to stop them from killing our children in their beds.”
Jableh: The systematic erasure of a community
The violence in Jableh was particularly gruesome. Hundreds of men were rounded up, executed, and dumped into mass graves. Women and children were kidnapped, their fates unknown. Witnesses reported hearing gunfire for hours as the slaughter continued unchecked.
“They lined up all the men and took them away,” a survivor said with a voice shaking. “Later, we found their bodies piled on top of one another, shot execution-style.”
One woman who managed to escape described her captors:
“They were foreigners. Some were Arab, others were not. They had dead eyes, no emotion.
To them, we weren’t people – we were just bodies to be destroyed.”
Another survivor, now living in a refugee camp, said, “People say we were fighting for power, but we were just trying to keep our families from being butchered. No one wanted war. We just wanted to survive.”
Executioners without borders
What makes these massacres even more horrifying is the sheer number of foreign fighters involved. Witnesses and survivors consistently report hearing different languages among the attackers, sometimes even Western languages.
“These aren’t local fighters,” a displaced resident now sheltering in Damascus said.
They were trained somewhere else, then sent here to do what they do best – kill.”
The involvement of foreign jihadists suggests a well-coordinated, externally supported operation, designed not just to fight a war, but to systematically erase communities. Intelligence sources indicate that these fighters were funneled into Syria through neighboring countries, trained in camps before being deployed to slaughter civilians.
The global silence
Despite overwhelming evidence of genocide, Western and regional media continue to present the massacres as “clashes” between HTS and government forces, deliberately sidestepping the mass extermination of Syria’s Alawite community.
A Syrian human rights activist, speaking under anonymity, condemned this distortion:
“This isn’t war. It’s genocide. Yet, the world’s media avoids using that word because it doesn’t fit their political narrative.”
Western governments that once backed opposition forces are now reluctant to acknowledge the nightmare they helped unleash. By turning a blind eye, they enable the continuation of these crimes, and their silence serves as complicity in the atrocities.
The United Nations has remained largely passive, offering vague statements of concern but taking no meaningful action. Meanwhile, the perpetrators roam free, emboldened by the knowledge that no one will hold them accountable.
For the people of Latakia, Tartus, and Jableh, the message is clear: No help is coming. The world will not intervene. But history will remember. And the silence of the international community will forever be its most damning indictment.
Iran, Russia, China reject ‘unlawful’ US sanctions after tripartite meeting
The Cradle | March 14, 2025
China, Russia, and Iran released a joint statement on 14 March demanding an end to “unlawful” US sanctions against the Islamic Republic after meetings in Beijing between the three countries, which were aimed at jumpstarting stalled nuclear talks between Tehran and Washington.
The three countries “emphasized the necessity of terminating all unlawful unilateral sanctions” after talks hosted by Beijing on Friday morning, according to the joint statement read out by Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Ma Zhaxou.
“The three countries reiterated that political and diplomatic engagement and dialogue based on the principle of mutual respect remains the only viable and practical option in this regard,” read the joint statement.
Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Ryabkov Sergey Alexeevich and Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibadi were also present.
The Chinese Foreign Ministry revealed on 12 March that Beijing would host the high-level talks regarding the nuclear issue with Russia and Iran this week, coinciding with growing tension between Washington and Tehran over the Iranian atomic energy program.
Russia also signaled earlier this month that it was willing to help facilitate negotiations between Iran and the US.
US President Donald Trump has been pushing for nuclear negotiations with the Islamic Republic while simultaneously issuing threats and imposing harsh economic sanctions against the country.
Iranian officials, including President Masoud Pezeshkian and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, have announced their refusal to engage in negotiations under pressure, in line with the position taken by Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.
A letter written by Trump addressing the supreme leader, which has yet to be published, has reportedly been handed over to Araghchi by Anwar Gargash, the diplomatic advisor to UAE President Mohammed Bin Zayed (MbZ).
On 7 March, Trump said: “I’ve written them a letter, saying I hope you’re going to negotiate because if we have to go in militarily, it’s going to be a terrible thing for them. There are two ways in which Iran can be handled – militarily, or you make a deal.”
Khamenei said in response that “bully governments … insist on negotiations” which are “not aimed at solving problems; they aim at domination.”
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported last month that Iran significantly increased its stockpile of near-weapons-grade uranium by 92.5 kilograms (203.9 pounds) since its previous report in November.
A closed-door UN Security Council (UNSC) meeting attended by representatives of the US, UK, France, and other countries was held on Wednesday. After the meeting, the UK deputy ambassador to the UN, James Kariuki, accused Iran of “dramatically” enriching uranium towards weapons-grade level and said western countries will “take any diplomatic measures to prevent Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon,” including the reimposition of sanctions.
Tehran insists that its nuclear program is entirely peaceful, in line with a religious fatwa against weapons of mass destruction, as well as the fact that it is a signatory in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
Yet it faces constant threats of attack from Israel. Reports from last month cited US intelligence estimates as saying that Israel is strongly considering strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, which could potentially come this year.
Trump administration pulls intelligence pick after his views on Israeli genocide in Gaza surfaced
Press TV – March 13, 2025
The Trump administration has withdrawn Daniel Davis for the post of deputy director of national intelligence for mission integration after his views against the Israeli genocide in Gaza came to light.
The withdrawal came after multiple pro-Zionist organizations and political commentators attacked Davis for his statements on Israel’s actions in Palestine as well as his supportive comments towards Iran.
In a statement posted Wednesday on X, the pro-Zionist Anti Defamation League (ADL) claimed that the appointment of Davis would be “extremely dangerous.”
“He has diminished Hamas’s 10/7 attack, undermined US support for Israel’s right to defend itself, and blatantly denies the grave threat the Iranian regime poses to global stability and American interests,” the official ADL account wrote on X.
Davis is a retired US Army lieutenant colonel who participated in the US invasion of Afghanistan.
After returning from Afghanistan, Davis became a vocal critic of America’s wars in West Asia, later joining the Defense Priorities think tank, which advocates for reducing America’s military involvement.
Davis has criticized Israel’s atrocities in Gaza, stating that the Israeli regime “continues to kill kids and civilians without remorse or military necessity.”
He has also criticized Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s involvement in US politics, claiming that he is “playing the US like a cheap fiddle” while calling US support for Israel’s genocide a “stain on our character as a nation.”
Davis has also stated that Iran’s operation “True promise I” (the retaliation against an Israeli attack on Iran’s embassy) was justified.
Had Davis been appointed, he would have served under the new director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard.
Gabbard herself has also come under attack by war hawks in the US political establishment for her positions on the various conflicts in West Asia.
The national intelligence director has repeatedly criticized Western support for militants in the Syrian conflict, stating that over five hundred million dollars in American taxpayer money was funneled to Syria, which ended up arming al-Qaeda.
Because of these statements, Gabbard was accused of “repeating” Russian, Syrian and Iranian information during her Senate confirmation hearing.
Mr. Trump, you would’ve been lucky to have Dan Davis on your team
By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos | Responsible Statecraft | March 12, 2025
Earlier today the Jewish Insider magazine ran a story saying that the White House tapped retired Lt. Col. Danny Davis for Deputy Director of National Intelligence, working under the newly confirmed DNI Tulsi Gabbard. It was a hit piece by a pro-Israel platform that primarily focused on Davis’s critical views — published only in articles and on his popular podcast — on Gaza and Iran.
Within hours, he was informed there would be no job, Responsible Statecraft has confirmed. “Investigative journalist” Laura Loomer celebrated. We are sure neoconservative radio jock Mark Levin, who helped spread the Insider story to his 4.9 million followers on Wednesday, celebrated. We should not. President Trump should not.
Danny is a friend whose astute, informed military analysis has graced these pages over the last four years. I’ve had the pleasure of interviewing him countless times since 2009 when on active duty he sent a report to Congress and published an article excoriating the Afghanistan War generals— including the much vaunted Stanley McChrystal — for essentially lying to the American people.
In 2009 he had just returned from an inspection tour of the country and was pretty much shocked when what he saw there didn’t line up with what the military was telling Congress and the media here. “I did not need to witness dramatic improvements to be reassured, but merely hoped to see evidence of positive trends, to see companies or battalions produce even minimal but sustainable progress.”
“Instead, I witnessed the absence of success on virtually every level.”
From his explosive Armed Forces Journal article, which is well worth reading today:
When it comes to deciding what matters are worth plunging our nation into war and which are not, our senior leaders owe it to the nation and to the uniformed members to be candid — graphically, if necessary — in telling them what’s at stake and how expensive potential success is likely to be. U.S. citizens and their elected representatives can decide if the risk to blood and treasure is worth it.
That is the very essence of civilian control of the military. The American people deserve better than what they’ve gotten from their senior uniformed leaders over the last number of years. Simply telling the truth would be a good start.
Today, more than 20 years later, everything he said about the war has been born out. The truth was out there and our military and civilian leadership tried to keep it from us — until they couldn’t.
It may be obvious but that is exactly what Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and DNI Gabbard said they wanted to bring to the table — a refreshing, dramatic shift from the status quo, which had become sclerotic, secretive, and punishing of dissent. Gabbard herself is an Iraq War-era veteran who risked her career to tell uncomfortable truths about American foreign policy and war. Her very public statements about bad Washington policies and the special interests leading us unto unnecessary wars aligned well with Danny’s important work over the last several years.
So it is not surprising that the most strident voices in the War Party, particularly pro-Israel hawks trying desperately to manage the remembered history of the 9/11 wars, had it in for him. He is an anathema to everything they have stood for over the last two decades: he is against the U.S. trying to impose its interests and values on the world via foreign regime change, he believes the military is overextended and needlessly placed in harm’s way overseas, and he has criticized the military industrial complex for risking troop readiness and basic conventional warfighting capabilities by deferring to the war profiteers in the industry. He has also echoed George Washington’s warning about entangling alliances in his own warnings about unconditional aid to Israel and Ukraine.
Just recently he told me that the entire current generation of generals and admirals need to be replaced so that the military can reform itself, which begins with promoting officers based on merit, not politics and risk aversion.
To me this is the kind of America First guy that the administration needed. He is a Christian conservative with a stern moral compass and had been hopeful for the new administration and its early foreign policy moves. He risked his reputation in 2009, losing out on a typical post-military career in some cushy sinecure mucking it up with other establishmentarians planning the next war, or worse, a board seat at Lockheed or Northrop Grumman. Instead, he has been toiling away at the truth. And this is how the system rewards him. Shame.
Trump’s ingenuity vis-à-vis Russia, Iran
By M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | Indian Punchline | March 10, 2025
Through the past three year period, Moscow claimed that it faced an existential threat from the US-led proxy war in Ukraine. But in the past six weeks, this threat perception has largely dissipated. The US President Donald Trump has made a heroic attempt to change his country’s image to a portmanteau of ‘friend’ and ‘enemy’ with whom Moscow can be friendly despite the backlog of a fundamental dislike or suspicion.
Last week, Trump turned to the Iran question for what could be a potentially similar leap of faith. There are similarities in the two situations. Both Russian President Vladimir Putin and Iranian president Masoud Pezeshkian are quintessential nationalists and modernisers who are open to westernism. Both Russia and Iran face US sanctions. Both seek a rollback of sanctions that may open up opportunities to integrate their economies with the world market.
The Russian and Iranian elites alike can be described as ‘westernists’. Through their history, both Russia and Iran have experienced the West as a source of modernity to ‘upgrade’ their civilisation states. In such a paradigm, Trump is holding a stick in one hand and a carrot on the other, offering reconciliation or retribution depending on their choice. Is that a wise approach? Isn’t a reset without coercion possible at all?
In the Russian perception, the threat from the US has significantly eased lately, as the Trump administration unambiguously signalled a strategy to engage with Russia and normalise the relationship — even holding out the prospects for a mutually beneficial economic cooperation.
So far, Russia has had a roller coaster ride with Trump (who even threatened Russia with more sanctions) whose prescriptions of a ceasefire to bring the conflict in Ukraine to an end creates unease in the Russian mind. However, Trump also slammed the door shut on Ukraine’s NATO membership; rejected altogether any US military deployment in Ukraine; absolved Russia of responsibility for triggering the Ukraine conflict and instead placed the blame squarely on the Biden administration; openly acknowledged Russia’s desire for an end to the conflict; and took note of Moscow’s willingness to enter into negotiations — even conceded that the conflict itself is indeed a proxy war.
At a practical level, Trump signalled readiness to restore the normal functioning of the Russian embassy. If reports are to be believed, the two countries have frozen their offensive intelligence activities in cyber space.
Again, during the recent voting on a UN Security Council resolution on Ukraine, the US and Russia found themselves arrayed against Washington’s European allies who joined hands with Kiev. Presumably, Russian and American diplomats in New York made coordinated moves.
It comes as no surprise that there is panic in the European capitals and Kiev that Washington and Moscow are directly in contact and they are not in the loop. Even as the comfort level in Moscow has perceptively risen, the gloom in the European mind is only thickening, embodying the confusion and foreboding that permeated significant moments of their struggle.
All in all, Trump has conceded the legitimacy of the Russian position even before negotiations have commenced. Is an out-of-the-box thinking conceivable with regard to Iran as well?
In substantive terms, from the Russian perspective, the remaining ‘loose ends’ are: first, a regime change in Kiev that ensures the emergence of a neutral friendly neighbour; second, removal of US sanctions; and, third, talks on arms control and disarmament attuned to present-day conditions for ensuring European and global balance and stability.
As regards Iran, these are early days but a far less demanding situation prevails. True, the two countries have been locked in an adversarial relationship for decades. But it can be attributed entirely to the American interference in Iran’s politics, economy, society and culture; an unremitting mutual hostility was never the lodestar, historically.
A constituency of ‘westernists’ exists within Iran who root for normalisation with the US as the pathway leading to the country’s economic recovery. Of course, like in Russia, super hawks and dogmatists in Iran also have vested interests in the status quo. The military-industrial complex in both countries are an influential voice.
The big difference today is that the external environment in Eurasia thrives on US-Russia tensions whereas, the intra-regional alignments in the Gulf region are conducive to US-Iran detente. The Saudi-Iranian rapprochement, a steady and largely mellowing of Iran’s politics of resistance, Saudi Arabia’s abandonment of of jihadi groups as geopolitical tool and its refocus on development and reform as national strategies — all these mould the zeitgeist, which abhors US-Iran confrontation.
This historic transformation renders the old US strategy to isolate and ‘contain’ Iran rather obsolete. Meanwhile, there is a growing realisation within the US itself that American interests in West Asia no longer overlap Israel’s. Trump cannot but be conscious of it.
Equally, Iran’s deterrence capability today is a compelling reality. By attacking Iran, the US can at best score a pyrrhic victory at the cost of Israel’s destruction. Trump will find it impossible to extricate the US from the ensuing quagmire during his presidency, which, in fact, may define his legacy.
The US-Russia negotiations are likely to be protracted. Having come this far, Russia is in no mood to freeze the conflict till it takes full control of Donbass region — and, possibly, the eastern side of Dniepr river (including Odessa, Kharkhov, etc.) But in Iran’s case, time is running out. Something has to give way in another six months when the hourglass empties and the October deadline arrives for the snapback mechanism of the 2015 JCPOA to reimpose UN resolutions to “suspend all reprocessing, heavy water-related, and enrichment-related activities” by Tehran.
Trump will be called upon to take a momentous decision on Iran. Make no mistake, if push comes to shove, Tehran may quit the NPT altogether. Trump said Wednesday that he sent a letter to Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, calling for an agreement to replace the JCPOA. He suggested, without specifics, that the issue could quickly lead to conflict with Iran, but also signalled that a nuclear deal with Iran could emerge in the near future.
Later on Friday, Trump told reporters in the Oval Office that the US is “down to the final moments” negotiating with Iran, and he hoped military intervention would prove unnecessary. As he put it, “It’s an interesting time in the history of the world. But we have a situation with Iran that something is going to happen very soon, very, very soon.
“You’ll be talking about that pretty soon, I guess. Hopefully, we can have a peace deal. I’m not speaking out of strength or weakness, I’m just saying I’d rather see a peace deal than the other. But the other will solve the problem. We’re at final moments. We can’t let them have a nuclear weapon.”
Trump aims at generating peace dividends out of any normalisation with Russia and Iran, two energy superpowers, that could give momentum to his MAGA project. But cobwebs must be swept away first. Myths and misconceptions have shaped contemporary Western thinking on Russia and Iran. Trump should not fall for the phobia of Russia’s ‘imperialistic’ ambitions or Iran’s ‘clandestine’ nuclear programme.
If the first one was the narrative of the liberal-globalist neocon camp, the second one is a fabrication by the Israeli lobby. Both are self-serving narratives. In the process, the difference between westernisation and modernisation got lost. Westernisation is the adoption of western culture and society, whereas, modernisation is the development of one’s own culture and society. Westernisation can at best be only a subprocess of modernisation in countries such as Russia and Iran.
Trump’s ingenuity, therefore, lies in ending the US’ proxy wars with Russia and Iran by creating synergy out of the Russian-Iranian strategic partnership. If the US’ proxy wars only has drawn Russia and Iran closer than ever in their turbulent history as quasi-allies lately, their common interest today also lies in Trump’s ingenuity to take help from Putin to normalise the US-Iran ties. If anyone can pull off such an audacious, magical rope trick, it is only Trump who can,
Yemen gives Israel four-day ultimatum to stop blocking Gaza aid
The Cradle | March 8, 2025
The leader of Yemen’s Ansarallah resistance movement, Abdul Malik al-Houthi, announced on 7 March a four-day grace period for Israel to resume ceasefire talks and lift its blockade on humanitarian aid for Gaza, threatening to resume Sanaa’s naval operations against Israeli-linked ships.
“We meet the siege with a siege,” Houthi emphasized, adding that Yemen “cannot stand by and watch the Israeli enemy’s aggressive approach in starving the Palestinian people in Gaza.”
“We do not just issue statements, but we can support the Palestinians in several areas,” the Ansarallah leader said, pointing out that “in the course of implementing the ceasefire in Gaza, it was clear that the Israeli enemy was procrastinating in fulfilling its obligations, especially those related to the humanitarian file.
The Ansarallah-led Yemeni Armed Forces (YAF) ceased military operations in support of Palestine following the start of a US-sponsored ceasefire in Gaza earlier this year. Since November 2023, the YAF repeatedly targeted US, UK, and Israeli-linked commercial ships and western warships in the Red Sea, the Indian Ocean, and the Mediterranean Sea.
Sanaa’s efforts to stop the US-Israeli genocide in Gaza prompted an illegal war initiated by Washington and London, resulting in hundreds of airstrikes in the Arab world’s poorest nation.
Despite the western onslaught, the YAF were undeterred in their military campaign and forced several US aircraft carriers and European warships out of the Red Sea. The country has also downed 15 US MQ-9 Reaper drones and recently fired its air defenses on a US F-16 jet.
A year ago, the former US Special Envoy for Yemen, Timothy Lenderking, admitted that “there is no military solution” for Yemen.
“I don’t think people really understand just kind of how deadly serious it is what we’re doing and how under threat the ships continue to be,” Commander Eric Blomberg with the USS Laboon told US media last year.
Houthi’s warning comes almost a week after Israel reimposed a total blockade on humanitarian aid shipments for Gaza after obstructing the ceasefire agreement from moving forward by demanding an extension of the first phase.
Hamas has rejected any extension of phase one and is demanding strict adherence to the agreement and international pressure on Israel.
“The resumption of war on Gaza will be met with the entire [Israeli] enemy entity coming under fire … If the war returns to Gaza, we will intervene with support through various military means,” Houthi warned on Sunday.
Israel’s Lobby Launches Preemptive War on Thomas Massie

By James Rushmore | The Libertarian Institute | March 4, 2025
Two weeks ago, Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell announced that he would not seek re-election in 2026. McConnell’s announcement prompted Congressman Thomas Massie to share a poll asking his Twitter followers if he should run for McConnell’s open Senate seat, seek the governorship in 2027, or remain in the House.
Naturally, Massie’s followers were very enthusiastic about the former idea. But the prospect of a Senator Thomas Massie already has the Israel lobby on high alert.
Republican Jewish Coalition CEO Matt Brooks told Jewish Insider, “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.” Back in May 2023, Massie accused the RJC of taking “[the] neocon position that US taxpayers should fund the war in Ukraine.” The RJC responded by attacking Massie for, among other things, opposing U.S. funding for the Iron Dome and voting against a resolution condemning the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement. Meanwhile, Rabbi Shlomo Litvin of the Kentucky Jewish Council accused Massie of “[going] out of his way to troll Jews,” and Melanie Maron Pell of the American Jewish Committee suggested that Massie demonstrates “outright hostility with the Jewish community.”
It should come as no surprise that the Israel lobby is doing everything in its power to torpedo any talk of a Thomas Massie Senate campaign. Massie is the only member of Congress who consistently opposes the ongoing wars in both Gaza and Ukraine. Shortly after the October 7 terrorist attack, Massie was the sole Republican congressman to vote against House Resolution 771, which “[reaffirmed] the United States’ commitment to Israel’s security,” “[urged] full enforcement of United States sanctions against Iran,” and declared that the U.S. “stands ready to assist Israel with emergency resupply and other security, diplomatic, and intelligence support.”
In November 2023, he voted against House Resolution 6126, which provided Israel with $14.5 billion in military aid. In April 2024, he opposed House Resolutions 8034 and 8035, which allocated $95 billion in foreign aid to Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan, and other Indo-Pacific allies. (Donald Trump declined to oppose that package, all but assuring its passage.) In January 2025, Massie voted present on the Illegitimate Court Counteraction Act, which would impose sanctions against any person who aids the International Criminal Court in its efforts to “investigate, arrest, detail, or prosecute” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Minister of Defense Yoav Gallant.
Massie is keenly aware of the enormous power that the Israel lobby wields on Capitol Hill, and unlike other congressional Republicans, he is willing to publicly acknowledge the extent of its influence. During an interview with Tucker Carlson in June 2024, he noted that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee assigns handlers to every House Republican, dispatching them to influence how lawmakers vote. The previous month, the United Democracy Project, a super PAC affiliated with AIPAC, spent at least $300,000 on TV ads tying Massie to Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah. Their efforts were in vain, as Massie won his primary with three-quarters of the vote.
Whether or not Massie can win a Senate primary remains to be seen. The only Republican candidate to have formally entered the race at this point is former Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron, a McConnell protégé who lost the 2023 gubernatorial election. Cameron is already trying to distance himself from McConnell; he recently criticized the former leader of the Senate Republican Conference for opposing the confirmations of Pete Hegseth, Tulsi Gabbard, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and he even signaled his opposition to further aid to Ukraine. But in November 2023, shortly after losing his bid for governor, Cameron joined twenty-five other Republicans attorneys general in signing a letter urging Joe Biden and congressional leaders to provide “military resources, intelligence, and humanitarian assistance to Israel as she defends herself against those seeking her destruction.”
Congressman Andy Barr may also launch a bid for McConnell’s Senate seat. Barr believes that “enemies of Israel are enemies of the United States.” Just last month, he declared that he “[stands] fully with Israel in its mission to wipe every last Hamas terrorist off the face of the earth.” Given that AIPAC was the top contributor to his campaign committee in 2024, Barr’s commitment to the Israeli cause is perfectly understandable.
If he runs, Massie would be sure to receive an endorsement from Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, who has unfortunately proven incredibly disappointing on the Gaza front. In November, Paul voted against three resolutions intended to block $20 billion in weapons sales to Israel. In January, he backed the ICC sanctions bill.
But a Donald Trump endorsement will no doubt prove to be the most important variable in shaping the outcome of the race. While Massie’s decision to endorse Ron DeSantis during the 2024 Republican presidential primaries may have hurt his standing with Trump, it is worth remembering that Trump offered former critic and one-time Evan McMullin supporter J.D. Vance his endorsement during the 2022 Ohio Senate primary. And the rest is history.
In December 2023, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer accused Massie of anti-Semitism after he shared a meme correctly noting that Congress is more interested in Zionism than American patriotism. Expect more attacks like those, this time from pro-Israel Republicans, should the seven-term congressman enter the race to succeed McConnell. Despite those challenges, there is no doubt that a Thomas Massie Senate campaign has the potential to steer U.S. foreign policy in a less insane direction.
Russia ready to facilitate US-Iran negotiations – Kremlin
RT | March 4, 2025
Russia is ready to broker talks between the US and Iran, including on Tehran’s nuclear program and its regional proxy network, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told Bloomberg on Tuesday.
Trump expressed interest in talking to Iran about those issues, both in his phone call to Putin in February and via representatives at the high-level US-Russian meeting in Riyadh just days later, the news agency wrote, citing anonymous officials.
“Russia believes that the United States and Iran should resolve all problems through negotiations,” Peskov told Bloomberg when asked about such contact.
Moscow “is ready to do everything in its power to achieve this,” he added.
US President Donald Trump returned to his “maximum pressure” campaign on Iran last month, just weeks after Moscow and Tehran signed a landmark strategic partnership agreement. Trump’s executive order said that Washington would ramp up sanctions on Iran, aiming to disrupt its nuclear program, conventional missile deployment, and network of regional proxy groups.
The Iranian Foreign Ministry has said the country is building up its defenses, citing regular threats from US ally Israel.
“The Israeli regime’s FM and other officials keep threatening Iran with military action while the West continues to blame Iran for its defense capability. This is outrageous & irrational,” Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei said last week. Given that Israel is “addicted to aggression and lawless behavior,” it is “responsible and essential to maximize our defense capabilities,” he stressed.
The day before, Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar warned that a “military option” should be on the table to stop the potential weaponization of Tehran’s nuclear program.
Israel and the West have long seen Iran’s uranium enrichment activities as a secret attempt to develop nuclear weapons – allegations that Tehran has repeatedly denied.
While Trump has touted harsher sanctions, he has also signaled that he is interested in signing a “verified nuclear peace agreement” with Tehran.
Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has stressed that talks with the US are unlikely to bear fruit, citing the prior nuclear deal Trump unilaterally left during his first presidency.
Pro-Israel Think Tank WINEP Outed as ‘Dark Money’ Operation Driving US Wars
By Robert Inlakesh | MintPress News | February 26, 2025
The AIPAC-aligned Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), which often refers to itself simply as The Washington Institute, was recently outed as a “dark money” think tank for its lack of transparency on donors and is continuing to push the United States to engage in conflicts overseas to Israel’s benefit. Its case raises questions about how the Israel Lobby functions through think tanks across the board, shaping U.S. foreign policy behind closed doors.
WINEP has a long history of shaping U.S. foreign policy. It was deeply involved in the neoconservative push for regime change in Iraq, joining calls for the Clinton administration to topple Saddam Hussein as early as 1998. They also pushed for U.S. military intervention and helped justify the eventual invasion in 2003.
At the beginning of the year, the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft unveiled the “Think Tank Funding Tracker,” a one-of-a-kind project that examined the funding sources of the top 50 U.S. think tanks since 2019 and rated their transparency from 0 to 5. WINEP and 16 others—including the neoconservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD)—received a zero transparency rating, exposing its reliance on “dark money” contributions.
While WINEP claims “to be funded exclusively by U.S. citizens” on its website, it does not publicly disclose its donor list. Its AIPAC roots were first exposed in 2006 by Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer in The London Review of Books, where they described WINEP as an AIPAC cutout advancing Israel’s agenda under the guise of independent research. The pair wrote at the time that “The Lobby created its own think tank in 1985, when Martin Indyk helped found WINEP. Although WINEP plays down its links to Israel and claims instead that it provides a “balanced and realistic” perspective on Middle East issues, this is not the case. In fact, WINEP is funded and run by individuals who are deeply committed to advancing Israel’s agenda.”
This claim that AIPAC created WINEP was later corroborated by former AIPAC official MJ Rosenberg, who wrote in HuffPost : “How do I know? I was in the room when AIPAC decided to establish WINEP.” The now-deceased WINEP co-founder, Martin Indyk, was also the head of the Saban Center for Middle East Studies, funded by Israeli-American billionaire Haim Saban.
Recent U.S. foreign policy developments have only strengthened WINEP’s influence. The Biden administration’s unwavering support for Israel’s war on Gaza, including a $14 billion emergency military aid package, aligns with WINEP’s long-standing push to ensure that U.S. military assistance to Israel remains untouchable. WINEP actively shaped public discourse as the war progressed, with Executive Director Robert Satloff praising Biden’s refusal to support an early ceasefire, calling it “correct and courageous.”
When House lawmakers convened hearings in late 2023 to attack the administration’s Iran policy, their rhetoric mirrored WINEP’s narratives, particularly opposition to any sanctions relief. Witnesses from WINEP-adjacent institutions like FDD and JINSA were brought in to reinforce the case for a more aggressive posture toward Iran. Meanwhile, WINEP continues to push for U.S. military leverage in post-Assad Syria, another key policy area where the Biden administration has quietly followed its recommendations by maintaining a military foothold and targeting Iranian assets with airstrikes.
WINEP’s revolving-door relationship with the U.S. government does little to shed its reputation for shaping policy. In May 2023, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan delivered a keynote address at WINEP’s annual Soref Symposium, praising Satloff’s “extraordinary work.” Sullivan’s participation wasn’t just symbolic—it reinforced WINEP’s position as an informal but essential policy hub. This is evident from the administration’s embrace of the Abraham Accords, another WINEP priority.
Former WINEP fellow Dan Shapiro was appointed the State Department’s senior advisor for regional integration, carrying out the think tank’s long-standing vision for Arab normalization with Israel. WINEP is currently led by Michael Singh, Robert Satloff, Dennis Ross, and Dana Stroul. Stroul, who serves as WINEP’s Research Director, returned to the position after serving as the Biden administration’s deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East from 2021 to 2024. During her tenure, she played a central role in Washington’s anti-Iran initiatives, the response to the Gaza war, and shaping U.S. Syria policy.
Beyond WINEP, the broader issue of think tank influence is now facing increasing scrutiny. In 2023, lawmakers introduced the Think Tank Transparency Act, which requires policy organizations to disclose foreign government funding and contractual agreements. While WINEP does not receive direct funding from Israel, watchdogs have highlighted that its pro-Israel agenda is sustained through wealthy American donors closely linked to AIPAC. Using domestic contributions to advance a foreign policy agenda has enabled WINEP to operate without falling under the scrutiny of foreign lobbying laws, even as its “scholars” shape U.S. positions on Iran, Syria, and the Israel-Palestine conflict.
Currently, the two primary issues on WINEP’s agenda are how to best leverage American influence to shape outcomes in post-Assad Syria and how to assure regime change in Iran. Indicative of the think tank’s influence is that not only was its hardline Syria strategy the exact model used by the U.S. to aid regime change in Damascus, but its chief researcher was taken on as a senior official by the previous administration.
As demonstrated by the Quincy Institute’s new report, the lack of transparency over who exactly finances the AIPAC lobby’s “cutout” think tank presents serious questions about who is actually shaping U.S. foreign policy and to whose benefit.
Iran rules out nuclear talks with US amid ‘maximum pressure’ campaign
Press TV – February 25, 2025
Iran will not engage in negotiations with the United States on its nuclear program unless the White House steps back from a recently reinstated “maximum pressure” campaign, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi says.
Araghchi was addressing a press conference on Tuesday alongside his visiting Russian counterpart, Sergey Lavrov.
The foreign minister said Iran will address the nuclear issue in coordination with its allies – Russia and China.
“On nuclear negotiations, Iran’s stance is very clear: we will not negotiate under pressure, threat, and sanctions.”
“Therefore,” the Iranian foreign minister stated, “there is no possibility of direct negotiations between us and the United States on the nuclear issue as long as maximum pressure continues to be applied in its current form.”
Araghchi highlighted his “detailed and constructive” discussions with Lavrov on a broad range of topics, particularly concerning the Caucasus, Asia, and Eurasia.
The Iranian foreign minister praised the rapid progress in economic cooperation between Tehran and Moscow, citing collaborations in energy, railways, and agriculture.
On Palestine, Araghchi said they discussed Trump’s “unacceptable” forced displacement plan targeting Gaza residents.
Regarding Syria, he underlined the alignment of Iranian and Russian positions.
“Stability, peace, territorial integrity, and progress in Syria based on the will of its people are priorities for Iran. We support establishing peace and stability in this country.”
Room for diplomacy on nuclear issue
Lavrov also elaborated on his “detailed and constructive” discussions with Araghchi during the press conference.
The Russian foreign minister said both sides agreed to enhance cooperation within the framework of BRICS.
Lavrov drew attention to a notable increase in trade between Iran and Russia despite Western sanctions.
“Trade exchanges between Iran and Russia have increased by more than 13%, and we hope this trend will continue.”
The Russian minister also expressed satisfaction with the progress on the Rasht-Astara railway project.
“Construction has begun, supported by a Russian government loan, which is an important step toward establishing the North-South Corridor,” he stated, referring to a trade route connecting India to northern Europe.
Lavrov pointed to Tehran’s successful hosting of the Caspian Economic Forum and expressed optimism about convening a joint economic cooperation commission later this year.
Addressing Iran’s nuclear program, Lavrov put a premium on diplomacy.
“We believe there is still diplomatic capacity to resolve Iran’s nuclear issue, and we hope a solution can be found. This crisis was not created by Iran.”
Iran has long been subjected to Western sanctions over its nuclear activities, human rights issues, and other pretexts.
The administration of US President Donald Trump has escalated these measures since taking office, reinstating the so-called maximum pressure policy, a campaign of hybrid warfare targeting Iran.
Similarly facing sanctions over its military operations in Ukraine, Russia has deepened its cooperation with Iran in recent years.
In January, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian visited Moscow and signed a strategic partnership agreement with President Vladimir Putin to bolster economic and military collaboration.
With US Or Against US? America’s ultimatum to Arab leaders
By Robert Inlakesh – Al Mayadeen – February 18, 2025
For 15 months, the majority of the Arab and Muslim World’s leaders sat back as the first live-streamed genocide took place inside the land of Palestine. Praying for a return to the status quo that once supported their rules, they have now been faced with an ultimatum. Now, it’s time to pick a side.
While US President Donald Trump presented his idea of clearing out Gaza’s civilian population, taking control of the territory, and reconstructing it, he did so using the tone of someone believing such actions would be humanitarian in nature. In reality, what was being proposed was an invasion, mass murder, and ethnic cleansing.
To be clear, the likelihood of such an invasion occurring is slim, not least because it involves an enormous amount of planning to implement correctly and there is simply no evidence that any moves are being made in this direction. However, the threat of such a monstrosity alone has proven enough to instantly mobilise the Arab and Muslim nation’s leaderships in a way we have not witnessed in decades.
Suddenly, they woke up, after behaving as if the people of the Gaza Strip were not being mass murdered on an industrial scale, on the land of the Prophets, on the land of Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Holy Sepulchre. Not even the invasion of Lebanon, the murder of some 3,000 people, nor the occupation of more Syrian lands, nor the threats of annexation in the West Bank, had mobilised these leaders. The screams of Gaza’s youths, the tears of Gaza’s mothers, the honor stripped from the tortured and raped, nothing registered.
But now, for the first time, we feel a pulse. Why? Because everyone’s head is on the chopping block. A glimpse was caught of what Donald Trump’s proposed future could cause and the likes of Jordanian King Abdullah II realised they are just another Arab in the eyes of the Israeli-US alliance, nothing more and nothing less. The only reason they remain is because they capitulate. This was Trump’s true message; it was not so much as a threat but a reminder.
Without delving too deep into the issue of an American invasion of Gaza, it would prove disastrous in so many ways that it seems unrealistic on the face of things. This is not least due to the enormous costs involved in a US occupation that could travel north of hundreds of billions in US taxpayer dollars, while the US soldier casualties would be high and place enormous domestic pressure on Trump. This would likely be America’s new Vietnam, as the star-spangled coffins would trigger outrage across the States.
A US invasion would also fail to achieve the objectives set out by Trump, because Palestinians will not leave willingly and this could easily turn into a situation where the US army picks up from where the Israelis left off; inflicting Genocide. If the ethnic cleansing would work partially, the destabilizing effects would be horrific.
As mentioned above, the majority of the leaders of Arab and Muslim nations may have stood aside and allowed the Gaza Genocide to unfold, yet their populations are now more motivated to defeat the Zionist occupiers than ever before.
Opening the ‘gates of hell’
When Hamas announced that it would postpone the weekly prisoner exchange arrangement until the Israelis allowed sufficient humanitarian aid to enter Gaza, in accordance with the ceasefire agreement, Donald Trump’s reaction was to threaten opening the “gates of hell”. Despite the threats that came from Trump and Netanyahu, the Israelis caved under pressure and were quickly set to allow the prisoner exchange to go ahead as planned.
Whether the US President is truly the mastermind behind his own rhetoric or not, which is quite frankly unlikely, reading between the lines has actually helped achieve four objectives:
- The outrageous and illegal proposals that Trump has put forth have helped save the image of Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu in front of his extremist coalition.
- The rhetoric has therefore given the Zionist regime more wiggle room to reach the second phase of the agreement, as the more extreme elements in the regime now feel as if they will get to complete their ethnic cleansing, settlement, and occupation endeavors.
- Upon the initial conclusion of the ceasefire agreement, the momentum in terms of popular understanding of power dynamics – manufactured as a result of the ongoing media war – had Hamas painted as the victor and the Zionist regime a loser. Trump managed to suddenly shift the conversation and manipulate popular understandings of who is in control and “winning” the war.
- It has brought together the Arab and Muslim leaders who were previously inactive or distant from the post-war Gaza plan.
Donald Trump is actively speaking as if he is a more extreme Zionist fanatic than Netanyahu, but is yet to follow through on any of his threats. If he continues to speak in such a way, it is possible that the US will have to start following through on some of the President’s rhetoric, however, in order for Washington to maintain credibility.
The reality in the region is that the leaderships of West Asia are still trying to revert back to the status quo that existed pre-October 7, 2023. Now they are having to come to terms with the fact that this is no longer an option.
Although this may seem hyperbolic, the “Israel” that everyone knew from before is no more, it no longer exists. To those who have studied the issue closely, this was somewhat inevitable. Right now, we are living through a scenario that occurred prior to 1948, where the Zionist regime had to try and define itself. For some time, they managed through their military superiority to pacify those around them or overcome armed confrontations with brute force, all while developing their economy and pretending as if they were operating a European State in the Eastern Mediterranean.
This was never going to last, not least because the Palestinian to Jewish population inside the borders of historic Palestine had become roughly 50/50. On top of this, the fastest growing Jewish group has been the Haredim (Ultra-Orthodox), who do not serve in the army and don’t even believe in the worth of modern Nation States. Yet, all Israelis wanted the West Bank and to rule over occupied Jerusalem. With land concessions to the Palestinian Authority off the table, there were only ever going to be two options that the Zionists were going to have to choose from: Commit a genocide or mass ethnic cleansing; or both.
With the rise of right-wing nationalist religious fundamentalism, the secular-leaning right-wing system that modelled itself off of “Western Liberal Democracies” suddenly found itself under threat. Prior to October 7, 2023, this was a dominant theme in Israeli politics, where the religious ultra-nationalists were challenging the somewhat contradictory vision that was held onto by around half of the Israeli Jewish population.
What happened here is that the secular-leaning Israelis were trying to cling onto their delusion that they could simply live in a liberal Jewish supremacist Apartheid colony forever and expect a level of stability that they had long enjoyed due to the overwhelming power of their military. On the other hand, the extremist right-wing coalition of Benjamin Netanyahu that won power in late 2022 began to present an alternative vision in a way that hadn’t been done before.
Then came the wakeup call, Hamas launched Operation al-Aqsa Flood, and the Zionists were forced to wrestle with the fact that you cannot continue oppressing the Palestinian people and expect them to simply go away or give up on their struggle for national liberation. Because of the racist collective narcissism trained into the minds of the Zionist settlers, they reacted in the most emotional way possible. This is why Zionists in the West have also been working overtime to suppress any criticism; their racism is being challenged.
The knee-jerk reaction of the Zionists was to think “how dare these people challenge our supremacy”. For the first time in its history, the Zionist Entity had been militarily torn to pieces and proven incapable of overcoming an indigenous resistance force armed primarily with light weapons and self-produced armaments. US-Israeli supremacy in West Asia appeared to be crumbling, so the occupying entity and its imperialist backer responded in the only way they know how, mass murder.
What happened in Gaza was a frenzy of racist violence that was supposed to “teach a lesson” to the Arab and Muslim peoples that they will remain forever inferior. The genocide was calculated to send a message: resist our supremacy and you will die.
Two things are now happening:
- The “Israel” of the past died, now it is scrambling to redefine and recreate itself.
- The US is attempting to revive its efforts to transform the region through normalisation and the construction of new trade routes, but is going to do so using maximum force in order to put down any semblance of dissent.
So where does this all fit into Donald Trump’s crazy threats? It’s simple. The United States is projecting its intention to remodel the entire region. This message is clear, yet it won’t likely come through a US invasion of Gaza, rather from putting tremendous pressure on the nations of the region to capitulate and work as slaves of the US-Israeli alliance.
If Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia do not capitulate, their leaderships will be replaced by ones that do. In the event that either a US invasion of Gaza or mass ethnic cleansing occurred, Egypt would be destabilised and likely face a limited Israeli incursion into the Sinai, while the Jordanian government could be toppled, or at the very least the nation will be totally destabilised, then, in the backdrop, Saudi Arabia could also be in the cross-hairs.
Hundreds of thousands of Gazans being ethnically cleansed into the Kingdom of Jordan would inevitably birth a new Palestinian Resistance front also, which could happen regardless at this point.
The ethnic cleansing of Palestine between 1947-49 left a major scar on the Arab World as a whole, one that has never healed. What just occurred in Gaza is a much deeper wound that will inspire Resistance until the end of the Zionist regime. Although it is often not factored into the equation, the Israelis also murdered 3,000 people in Lebanon too, including the late Secretary General of Hezbollah, Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah.
A mistake often made by the imperialists and settler colonialists is assuming that because a population appears pacified today, it will also be tomorrow. In reality, revolutions and resistance movements take time, with mass mobilisation sometimes occurring due to what could be perceived as mere chance when it emerges.
Meanwhile, the US is now offering the same option to the Arab and Muslim World that was presented by George W. Bush Jr. upon his announcement of the so-called “War on Terror”: “You are either with us or with the terrorists!”
It may be presented in a different way, but the truth is that there is no way to play the role of holding a middle-ground position. Now is the time, submit to being a slave, even losing your territory, pride and stability; or you decide to resist. The problem for a nation like Jordan is that if you resist, you may also be overthrown.
Donald Trump’s comments for now were designed to force the Arab and Muslim leaders to come to a joint consensus and present an alternative plan to his insane proposal, which appears to be working. Interestingly enough, it appears as if this is actually helping to allow for the Gaza ceasefire to reach phase 2.
Unfortunately for these leaders, the Palestinian issue they now face is not over with Gaza. In the event of the Israelis annexing the West Bank, this could eventually trigger the downfall of the Palestinian Authority and/or initiate a major uprising. In such a scenario, the Israeli military could then seek to ethnically cleanse large swathes of the West Bank too. The destination of these displaced refugees could also end up being Jordan.
Even former US Secretary of State Antony Blinken warned, in his second last address about foreign policy, of the collapse of the normalization agreements between the Zionist regime and its neighbours in Amman and Cairo. Speaking at a conference organised by the Atlantic Council, Blinken used the first part of his speech to espouse pure Israeli propaganda, before speaking candidly on a few issues towards the latter half of his address. He stressed that without a so-called “Two-State solution”, the normalisation deals with Egypt and Jordan could collapse.
If a resistance front opens inside Jordan, it could be the beginning of the end for the Zionist regime. Jordan shares the largest, mostly undefended, land border with occupied Palestine. Once a major resistance movement is rooted there, the war would expand in such a way that no one is capable of predicting. It is also clear that the Zionists seek to continue their aggression against Iran, Yemen, and to degrade Hezbollah at all costs in Lebanon.
All of what is mentioned above will not likely just unfold overnight, everything takes time. Yet there is no question that the war is far from over.
