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.
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.
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.
Pezeshkian slams US proposal to trade uranium for sanctions relief
Al Mayadeen | September 27, 2025
Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian on Saturday dismissed what he described as an unacceptable proposal from Washington that would have required Tehran to surrender all its enriched uranium to the United States in exchange for a short-term easing of sanctions.
“Naturally, we did not reach an agreement on the snapback mechanism because the US demands are unacceptable. They want us to transfer all our enriched uranium to them in exchange for three months, and this is by no means acceptable,” Pezeshkian told Iran’s state broadcaster, IRIB.
The Iranian president said the plan would have left Tehran vulnerable to renewed US pressure. “Had Tehran agreed, the US would have presented Iran with new demands or threatened to bring the sanctions back,” he added.
Snapback, Sovereignty, Defiance
Pezeshkian’s comments came as the United Nations prepares to reinstate sanctions on Iran under the so-called “snapback mechanism,” after Western powers blocked Russian and Chinese efforts to delay the move. The reimposition would restore arms embargoes, asset freezes, and restrictions on enrichment, signaling a further breakdown in nuclear diplomacy.
The Iranian leader stressed that his government will continue to withstand Western sanctions by deepening economic and strategic cooperation with BRICS partners and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, noting that Iran will rely on “the pride of the Iranian people and their yearning for independence.”
The stance aligns with the position of Sayyed Ali Khamenei, who this week ruled out any direct negotiations with the United States, calling them “a sheer dead end.” Analysts say this reflects a unified leadership intent on avoiding concessions that could weaken Iran’s deterrence or domestic legitimacy.
Resistance, Retaliation, Resolve
Pezeshkian’s defiance comes amid US concerns over Iran’s reported expansion of underground nuclear facilities near Natanz, where construction has accelerated since the June aggression on Iran, when “Israel” carried out coordinated strikes on Iranian military and nuclear sites under the pretext of halting a clandestine weapons program, a charge Iran categorically denied.
The nearly two-week confrontation drew in the United States after its forces struck Iranian nuclear facilities on June 22, prompting Tehran to retaliate by targeting the Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar. The escalation raised fears of a regional war before June 23, when US President Donald Trump announced that “Israel” and Iran had reached a ceasefire, ending what he described as “the 12-day war.”
Observers say Pezeshkian’s remarks reflect Iran’s determination not to trade its sovereignty or nuclear achievements for fleeting concessions, as Tehran shifts toward non-Western alliances and hardens its position against US-Israeli pressure. His message serves both as a rejection of coercive diplomacy and as a signal of Iran’s intent to pursue strategic autonomy in the face of revived sanctions and renewed isolation attempts.
Iran’s FM addresses UN Security Council on failed Russia-China draft resolution
Global Times | September 27, 2025
The UN Security Council has voted down an effort by China and Russia to extend sanctions relief to Iran for six months under the nuclear deal – formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on Friday, local time. The draft failed to be passed as the number of votes in favor did not reach nine.
In his speech, Iran’s Foreign Minister, Seyed Abbas Araghchi, began by thanking China, Russia, Pakistan, and Algeria for supporting the resolution, which he described as a genuine effort to “keep the door of diplomacy open and avoid confrontation.” He also welcomed the decision of Guyana and South Korea not to oppose the draft, calling it a stand “on the right side of history,” according to WANA News, an Iranian news agency.
The Iranian foreign minister argued, “Today’s situation is the direct consequence of the US withdrawal from the JCPOA and the E3 (France, United Kingdom and Germany) failure to take any effective action to uphold the commitments.”
“The US has betrayed diplomacy, but it is the E3 which have buried it,” he stressed. Araghchi also said, “The E3 and the US acted in bad faith, claiming to support diplomacy while in effect blocking it.”
“Regrettably, E3 chose to follow Washington’s whims rather than exercising their independent sovereign discretion,” he said, adding “the US persistent negation of all initiatives to keep the window for diplomacy open proved once again that negotiations with the United States lead to nowhere other than dead end,” the foreign minister added.
Geng Shuang, China’s deputy permanent representative to the United Nations spoke after the vote. He reminded the Council that “history has shown that resorting to force or applying maximum pressure is not the correct approach to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue,” according to the UN report.
Geng continued, “Against the backdrop of ongoing conflict in Gaza and the instability in the Middle East, a breakdown in the Iranian nuclear issue could trigger new regional security crisis, which runs counter to common interest of the international community.”
The Chinese diplomat urged the US to “demonstrate political will by responding positively to Iran’s proposal to resume talks and committing unequivocally to refrain from further military strikes against Iran.”
US, allies veto draft resolution on delaying ‘snapback’ of Iran sanctions
Press TV – September 26, 2025
The United States and its allies veto a draft resolution aimed at delaying “snapback” of the UN Security Council’s sanctions against Iran that were lifted in 2015 in line with a nuclear deal between the Islamic Republic and world countries.
On Friday, the US, the UK, France, Denmark, Greece, Panama, Sierra Leone, Slovenia, and Somalia vetoed the draft measure seeking to delay imposition of the coercive economic measures for six months.
China, Russia, Algeria, and Pakistan voted in favor of the measure that had been submitted by Beijing and Moscow. South Korea and Guyana abstained.
According to the UN, “The so-called ‘snapback’ mechanism [now] remains in force, which will see sanctions rei-imposed on Tehran this weekend, following the termination of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).”
JCPOA refers to the official name of the nuclear deal that upon conclusion was endorsed by the Security Council in the form of its Resolution 2231.
The agreement lifted the sanctions, which had been imposed on Iran by the Security Council and the US, the UK, France, and Germany over unfounded allegations concerning Tehran’s peaceful nuclear energy program.
The bans had been enforced against the nation, despite the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)’s having historically failed to find any proof of “diversion” of the nuclear program.
The US left the JCPOA in an illegal and unilateral move in 2018 and then re-imposed those of its sanctions that the deal had removed.
In 2020, Washington went further by trying unilaterally to trigger the “snapback.”
After the American withdrawal, the UK, France, and Germany too resorted to non-commitment vis-à-vis the Islamic Republic by stopping their trade with Tehran.
The Friday vote came after the trio launched their own bid to activate the “snapback” on August 28.
The allies have been rehashing their accusations concerning Iran’s nuclear energy activities in order to try to justify their bid to reenact the sanctions, ignoring absence of any proof provided by the IAEA that has subjected the Islamic Republic to the agency’s most intrusive inspections in history.
They have also constantly refused to accept their numerous instances of non-commitment to the JCPOA.
Iran, however, began observing an entire year of “strategic patience” following the US’s withdrawal – the first serious violation of the nuclear agreement – before retaliating incrementally in line with its legal right that has been enshrined in the deal itself.
In the meantime, the Islamic Republic has both voiced its preparedness to partake in dialog besides actually engaging in negotiation aimed at resolving the situation brought about by the Western allies’ intransigence.
Tehran refused to categorically rule out talks with the European troika even after illegal and unprovoked attacks by the Israeli regime and the United States against key Iranian nuclear facilities in June, which made it impossible for the IAEA to continue its inspections as before.
The Islamic Republic’s latest goodwill gesture came on September 9, when it signed a framework agreement with the IAEA aimed at resuming cooperation with the agency, which had been suspended following the attacks.
The Friday vote came, although, Iranian officials, including President Masoud Pezeshkian, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, and security chief Ali Larijani, had strongly warned the US and its allies against triggering the “snapback.”
Araghchi had cautioned that such vote would lead to termination of the agreement with the IAEA, while Pezeshkian had noted that talks would be “meaningless” if the mechanism were to be enacted.
Meeting with anti-war activists in New York on Thursday, the president had called the prospect of re-imposition of the sanctions unwelcome, but added that the coercive measures did not signal “the end of the road.”
“Iran will never submit to them,” he had said, referring to the bans, and added that the Islamic Republic “will find the means of exiting any [unwelcome] situation.”
China voices ‘deep regret,’ discourages renewed aggression
Reacting to the vote, China’s Deputy UN Ambassador Geng Shuang similarly expressed “deep regret” for the failure to adopt the draft resolution, identifying dialogue and negotiation as two of “the only viable options” out of the situation caused by the Western measures.
He urged the US “to demonstrate political will” and “commit unequivocally to refraining from further military strikes against Iran.”
Geng further called on the European trio to engage in good faith in diplomatic efforts and abandon their approach of pushing for sanctions and coercive pressure against Iran.
Russia slams US, allies for lack of ‘courage, wisdom’
The remarks were echoed by Geng’s Russian counterpart Dmitry Polyanskiy, who said, “We regret the fact that a number of Security Council colleagues were unable to summon the courage or the wisdom to support our draft.”
“We had hoped that European colleagues and the US would think twice, and they would opt for the path of diplomacy and dialogue instead of their clumsy blackmail,” he said.
Such approach, the diplomat added, “merely results in escalation of the situation in the region.”
Speaking before the vote, Polyanskiy had also told the chamber that Iran had done all it could to accommodate Europeans, but that Western powers had refused to compromise.
How pro-Israel money captured Starmer’s Labour
By Nasim Ahmed | MEMO | September 26, 2025
The UK Labour Party has been rocked by yet another scandal and is facing scrutiny over revelations that its leadership has been captured by a network of unelected funders and lobbyists with deep ties to Israel and Zionist organisations.
At the centre of the controversy is Morgan McSweeney, Keir Starmer’s powerful chief of staff, and his long-time association with billionaire businessman Trevor Chinn. Documents and leaks show that between 2017 and 2020, McSweeney oversaw Labour Together, a factional project that secretly accepted more than £730,000 (around $930,000) in undeclared donations, allegedly in breach of electoral law.
Much of this money is said to have come from Chinn, a figure whose involvement in Labour politics has for decades been bound up with the defence of Israel and the advancement of Zionist networks inside the party.
Chinn is no ordinary donor. A director of Labour Together until 2024, he has bankrolled both Conservative and Labour Friends of Israel (LFI) throughout his career. In early 2025, he was awarded the Israeli Presidential Medal of Honour by President Isaac Herzog for his services to the apartheid state. Chinn’s commitment to Israel has been described as one of his “animating concerns” over three decades of political donations.
An investigation by Jody McIntyre, who stood as a candidate for the Workers Party in the last general election, shows how deeply enmeshed Chinn became with McSweeney’s project. McSweeney reportedly concealed donations “to protect Trevor” from scrutiny, according to McIntyre’s investigation. Labour Together, however, later dismissed the failure to declare the funds as an “administrative error,” a line advised by solicitor Gerald Shamash, another Labour figure with a record of blocking debates on sanctions against Israel.
Chinn’s influence was not limited to donations. According to minutes of a 2020 meeting revealed by Electronic Intifada, Chinn and five other lobbyists set up a “regular channel of communication” with Labour MP Steve Reed, a close ally of McSweeney and vocal supporter of LFI. The leaked record illustrates the extent to which pro-Israel lobbyists were embedded in Labour’s factional leadership project.
McSweeney’s own ties to Zionism go back further than his dealings with Chinn. In his youth, he spent time living on Sarid, a Zionist settlement built on the ruins of the Palestinian village of Ikhneifis. There, he is said to have become closely acquainted with Hashomer Hatza’ir, a Zionist movement that played a central role in Israel’s settler-colonial project.
McIntyre’s research and internal documents allege that McSweeney campaigned for Steve Reed—who is known to have received funding from LFI for travel to occupied Palestine—and later worked closely with Margaret Hodge, a self-declared Zionist. Some sources also suggest McSweeney oversaw Liz Kendall’s 2015 leadership run, during which she made public statements against boycotts and sanctions of Israel—though the precise nature and funding of these campaigns remain under investigation.
By 2017, McSweeney was director of Labour Together, where Chinn sat on the board. Internal documents revealed that the group’s work included secret projects to undermine Jeremy Corbyn by inflaming the anti-Semitism crisis, planting hostile media stories, and fracturing the party’s left wing.
McSweeney, according to Double Down News, even devised a covert strategy dubbed Operation Red Shield, aimed at “burning down” Corbyn’s Labour in order to capture the party for a pro-business, pro-Israel faction.
The secret funding allowed McSweeney to commission hundreds of thousands of pounds’ worth of polling into the Labour membership. This research shaped Starmer’s leadership campaign, presenting him as a “unity” candidate who pledged to uphold policies such as public ownership and a Green New Deal.
However, once elected, Starmer rapidly U-turned on those commitments, dropping all ten of his leadership pledges. The sequence of events suggests that Starmer’s campaign positions were adopted to secure victory rather than to be implemented in government.
Starmer’s subsequent record confirmed that pattern of deception. Within months of becoming leader, he ditched all ten of his leadership pledges and moved Labour sharply to the right. On Palestine, Starmer has repeatedly echoed Israeli government narratives, refusing to condemn the genocide while expelling Labour members who criticised Israel.
While Trevor Chinn is central to this latest scandal, he is not the only pro-Israel donor bankrolling Labour. Since Starmer’s election, the party has increasingly relied on wealthy businessmen with strong ties to Zionist organisations.
One of these is Gary Lubner, the South African-born former CEO of Autoglass, who has donated more than £5 million ($6.3 million) to Labour. Lubner’s family fortune was built during apartheid South Africa, when his father and uncle were accused of helping to bust international sanctions.
Today, Lubner is a major supporter of the United Jewish Israel Appeal, a fundraising arm for Israeli causes. His son Jack is active in the Jewish Labour Movement and other pro-Israel networks.
Lubner’s uncle Bertie was a major donor to Ben-Gurion University, an institution identified by human rights groups as complicit in Israel’s apartheid system. Under Starmer’s leadership, Labour has drawn heavily on donations from pro-Israel businessmen such as Lubner, underlining the party’s financial dependence on figures with strong political and financial ties to Israel.
The cumulative effect of these revelations is stark: Labour under Starmer has been captured by a narrow, unrepresentative network of pro-Israel donors and lobbyists. Their influence was decisive in undermining Corbyn’s leadership, installing Starmer, and silencing members who demanded a just policy on Palestine.
As Israel’s genocide in Gaza has killed more than 68,000 Palestinians, mostly women and children, the Labour government has aligned itself with Israeli war crimes—refusing to halt arms sales, authorising surveillance flights over Gaza and granting Israel political cover on the international stage.
Labour’s latest scandal is not simply about undeclared donations. It speaks to the hollowing out of democracy inside Labour and its subordination to interests directly tied to the Israeli state. Decisions in Labour today are shaped less by members or voters than by figures like McSweeney, Chinn and Lubner—unelected operators whose record and affiliations show a consistent commitment to defending Israel, often over the views of party members.
Tucker Carlson Reveals What Shocked Him While Making 9/11 Docuseries
Glenn Greenwald | September 24, 2025
This is a clip from our show SYSTEM UPDATE, now airing every weeknight at 7pm ET on Rumble. You can watch the full episode for FREE here: https://rumble.com/v6zdjaw-system-upd…
Now available as a podcast! Find full episodes here: https://linktr.ee/systemupdate_
Join us LIVE on Rumble, weeknights at 7pm ET: https://rumble.com/c/GGreenwald
Become part of our Locals community: https://greenwald.locals.com/
Washington escalates pressure on Iraq to ‘detach from Iran’: Report
The Cradle | September 24, 2025
The US has escalated its pressure on Iraq to “disengage from Iran” in recent weeks, senior Iraqi officials were cited as saying by Al-Araby al-Jadeed on 24 September.
“These measures go beyond the issue of armed factions and their advanced weaponry, and include reforms to the judiciary and financial sectors to ensure greater independence from the influence of groups allied with Iran,” the sources said.
One official said Washington has also demanded legal action against leaders of Iraqi resistance groups.
No specific names were given, yet Washington has sanctions imposed on a number of resistance leaders, including Qais al-Khazali of the Asaib Ahl al-Haq movement.
The pressure includes “the banking sector, where public and private banks have been subjected to a US oversight mechanism aimed at preventing Iran from exploiting the Iraqi financial system.”
“The Iraqi financial sector, both public and private, is now under near-total oversight by the US Treasury to ensure that Iran or its affiliates do not benefit from the Iraqi financial system. All financial transfers from Iraq abroad pass through intermediary banks in Jordan and the UAE, as part of current US oversight measures,” an Iraqi diplomat told the outlet.
“Dissolving armed groups” or integrating them into the state’s army is also on the list of US demands.
The Coordination Framework (CF), a political coalition of Shia parties aligned with and including several Iran-backed resistance factions, views the pressure as a potential green light for Israel to strike targets inside Iraq, according to the report.
Last week, the US officially designated four resistance groups as terrorist organizations: Al-Nujaba Movement, Kataib Sayyid al-Shuhada, Ansar Allah al-Awfiya Movement, and Kataib al-Imam Ali.
The US State Department said it was part of Washington’s “maximum pressure on Iran.”
In recent months, the US has also been pressuring Baghdad on the issue of the Popular Mobilization Units (PMU) draft law.
The law was signed into legislation in 2016 and institutionalized the PMU, a coalition of armed factions, some of which previously fought ISIS and resisted the 2003 US invasion of the country. The law integrated the organization, formed in 2014, into Iraq’s military structure.
A new draft law was introduced earlier this year, aiming to replace the 2016 law and further institutionalize the PMU into the Iraqi state with comprehensive regulation, including a mandatory retirement age and clearer administrative structure.
The law would also transform the PMU into a fully independent security institution directly under the country’s prime minister.
Among the groups represented in the PMU are Kataib Hezbollah, Asaib Ahl al-Haq, and the Al-Nujaba Movement – Iran-linked resistance factions involved in the attacks on US bases in Iraq and Syria, which began after the start of the Gaza genocide and ended months later with the help of Iraqi government pressure.
The US has slammed the draft law, calling it the “institutionalization of Iranian influence” in Iraq.
Last year, the US launched heavy strikes on Kataib Hezbollah sites in Iraq in response to the killing of three soldiers in a drone strike on a US military base on the Syria–Jordan border.
Washington has reportedly threatened renewed attacks against Iraq if resistance factions linked to Iran are not disarmed.
Ex-CIA chief Petraeus hails former Al-Qaeda leader for ‘clear vision’ in Syria
The Cradle | September 23, 2025
Self-appointed Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa engaged in a wide-ranging dialogue on 22 September with former CIA director David Petraeus as part of his visit to New York.
Sharaa, a former Al-Qaeda commander, met Petraeus, who commanded troops in Iraq after the 2003 invasion, at the Concordia Summit on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly. They discussed issues facing Syria, including reconstruction, governance, economic sanctions, and regional relations.
“We faced massive destruction over the past years, but we are focusing on economic development and building capabilities,” Sharaa stated.
“Syrians by nature are people of work and trade. So please lift the sanctions and see what we can do,” he added, referring to the 2019 US Caesar Act, which imposed crushing economic sanctions on Syria, impoverishing millions.
US President Donald Trump removed some sanctions earlier this year, but Congress must authorize their permanent removal.
Petraeus said that the conversation with the former Al-Qaeda in Iraq commander “has filled me with enormous hope.”
“Your vision is powerful and clear. Your demeanor is very impressive as well … We obviously hope for your success, Inshallah, because at the end of the day, your success is our success,” Petraeus added.
Though Sharaa was deemed a terrorist by the US State Department in 2012, the CIA covertly provided arms and funding to the Al-Qaeda affiliate he founded in Syria, then known as the Nusra Front.
According to journalist Seymour Hersh, Petraeus established a “rat line” between Libya and Syria to send weapons to the Nusra Front and other extremist groups seeking to topple the government of former Syrian president Bashar al-Assad.
The CIA operation, known as Timber Sycamore, enjoyed a budget of over $1 billion per year. The operation finally allowed Sharaa to oust Assad and establish an extremist Islamic state over Syria in December.
According to former French intelligence officer and political analyst Thierry Meyssan, Petraeus continued to help fund Al-Qaeda groups, including ISIS, after he was forced to resign from the CIA in 2012 after a sex scandal.
Meyssan says that Petraeus joined the private equity firm Kohlberg Kravis Roberts (KKR), headed by Jewish billionaire Henry Kravis, which funded the Nusra Front and ISIS on behalf of the CIA in an off-the-books manner.
Addressing Israel’s war on Gaza, Sharaa dismissed speculation about Syria joining the Abraham Accords to normalize relations with Israel.
He claimed the destruction of Gaza has made any broad normalization with Israel impossible, but said limited security arrangements could be considered.
Before Sharaa’s trip to New York, Syrian and Israeli officials were carrying out security talks that would allow Israel to maintain control of the strategic Mount Hermon, establish a no-fly zone over the south of the country, and prevent Syrian forces from entering a demilitarized zone in the south.
In a personal question, Petraeus asked how Sharaa manages the pressure of leading a country after years of conflict.
“I spent 25 of my 43 years in conflict and crisis, so I am used to hardship. Decisions that carry the destiny of a nation must be taken with calm and an open mind.”
Sharaa first traveled to Iraq to join Al-Qaeda after the 2003 invasion and was known for dispatching suicide bombers to kill civilians. He was allegedly arrested by US forces in 2005 and sent to the US prison at Camp Bucca.
After his release in 2009, he became the Emir of the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) in Mosul, before traveling to Syria to establish the Nusra Front in 2011 on the instructions of Islamic State (later ISIS) leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
Ayatollah Khamenei rejects talks with US, warns of ‘serious, irreparable harms’
Press TV – September 23, 2025
Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei has rejected Washington’s demands over nuclear negotiations, saying that accepting talks under threat is something “no honorable nation would ever do, and no wise statesman would ever endorse.”
Speaking in a televised address to the nation on Tuesday, Ayatollah Khamenei said negotiations with Washington under the current circumstances would bring “no benefit” to Iran and instead carry “serious and possibly irreparable harms.”
“Accepting negotiations under such threats would mean that the Islamic Republic of Iran is susceptible to intimidation.”
“If we were to negotiate under such threats, it would mean that we tremble and surrender whenever threatened,” the Leader said.
“If such susceptibility to threats were established, it would never end. Today, they say: if you enrich, we will do this. Tomorrow they will say: if you have missiles, we will do that … There would be endless threats, forcing us to retreat step by step.”
Ayatollah Khamenei said the United States is predetermining the outcome of any dialogue, and that Washington’s demands amount to dictation rather than negotiation.
“They have announced that the only acceptable result of negotiations is the shutdown of Iran’s nuclear activities and enrichment. So, we would sit at the table, and the outcome of the talks would be exactly what they had dictated in advance.”
“That is not negotiation,” the Leader stated, “that is dictation, that is imposition.”
“To negotiate with a party where the result must necessarily be what they want, and what they say; is that negotiation?”
The Leader pointed to recent American calls for Iran to abandon not only long-range but even short-range missiles.
The aim of such demands, Ayatollah Khamenei said, was to render Iran so weak and defenseless that it could not respond in any form if attacked.

