Election without voters: Most Syrians ‘unaware’ about Sunday’s parliamentary election
The Cradle | October 4, 2025
Many Syrians are unaware that the first parliamentary elections since the fall of the government of Bashar al-Assad are about to take place, AP reported on 4 October, in part because the Syrian public will not be allowed to cast votes.
“There were no candidate posters on the main streets and squares, no rallies, or public debates. In the days leading up to the polling, some residents of the Syrian capital had no idea a vote was hours away,” AP reported on Saturday.
“I didn’t know — now by chance I found out that there are elections of the People’s Assembly,” said Elias al-Qudsi, a shopkeeper in the famed markets of old Damascus.
“But I don’t know if we are supposed to vote or who is voting,” he added.
The US, Israel, and allied powers succeeded in December 2024 in toppling Syrian President Bashar al-Assad after a decade of war under the pretext of replacing his authoritarian rule with a “democratic system.”
The multi-billion-dollar regime change operation, known as Timber Sycamore, installed former Al-Qaeda and Islamic State commander Ahmad al-Sharaa in power in Damascus as Assad fled to Moscow.
After appointing himself president, Sharaa (formerly known as Abu Mohammed al-Julani) began to establish an informal extremist Islamic regime in Syria, in which a religious sheikh leads each ministry, government department, and military unit.
Rather than allow the Syrian public to vote in Sunday’s election to form a new parliament, Sharaa himself will appoint 70 of the 210 parliament members.
The remaining 140 will be elected by subcommittees of Syria’s Supreme Committee for People’s Assembly Elections, which Sharaa also appointed in June.
A subcommittee was established for each governorate. However, Syrian authorities say that no vote for parliament will take place in Suwayda Governorate, which is under Druze control, and Raqqa and Hasakah Governorates, which are under Kurdish control, citing “security reasons.”
The lack of a popular vote has been overshadowed in the western media by the candidacy of Henry Hamra, a Jewish former resident of the neighborhood who emigrated to the US as a teenager and only returned after Assad’s fall.
Nawar Nejmeh, spokesperson for the committee overseeing the elections, claimed a popular vote was “impossible” because large numbers of Syrians were displaced or lost their personal documentation during the NATO-backed war.
But Syrian activists who opposed Assad have criticized Sharaa for organizing the parliamentary vote in this way, forbidding the formation of political parties, and consolidating his own authoritarian and extremist religious rule indefinitely into the future.
“Are we going through a credible transition, an inclusive transition that represents all of Syria?” asked Mutasem Syoufi, executive director of US-funded The Day After project.
“I think we’re not there, and I think we have to take serious and brave steps to correct all the mistakes that we’ve committed over the last nine months,” since Assad’s fall, he stated.
The Israel Lobby Wants Thomas Massie Gone. Will Voters Obey?
By Jose Alberto Nino | The Occidental Observer | September 29, 2025
The knives are out for Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), and his political survival could prove whether Congress still answers to American voters or to a foreign lobby with limitless cash.
Pro-Israel Republican megadonors recently set up the MAGA Kentucky super PAC with $2 million specifically to oust Massie. Paul Singer contributed $1 million, John Paulson added $250,000, and Miriam Adelson’s Preserve America PAC provided $750,000. The Republican Jewish Coalition has promised “unlimited” campaign spending if Massie runs for Senate, with CEO Matt Brooks declaring that “if Tom Massie chooses to enter the race for US Senate in Kentucky, the RJC campaign budget to ensure he is defeated will be unlimited.”
President Donald Trump has also jumped into the fray, branding Massie a “pathetic loser” who should be dropped “like the plague.” Overall, a constellation of pro-Zionist forces is mobilizing at full force to unseat Congress’s most principled non-interventionist politician since Ron Paul retired in 2013. In many respects, Massie has taken up Paul’s mantle of foreign policy restraint — a political agenda that has never sat well with organized Jewry. Massie’s legislative track record on foreign policy speaks for itself.
Massie’s Long Track Record of Voting Against Foreign Policy Interventionism
Throughout his congressional career, Massie has established himself as Congress’s most consistent opponent of the neoconservative/neoliberal foreign policy consensus. His principled opposition to endless wars and foreign entanglements has earned him the nickname “Mr. No” — similar to his predecessor Ron Paul — for frequently casting lone dissenting votes against military interventions.
In 2013, Massie introduced the War Powers Protection Act to “block unauthorized U.S. military aid to Syrian rebels.” He argued that “since our national security interests in Syria are unclear, we risk giving money and military assistance to our enemies.” When Obama sought to arm Syrian rebels in 2014, Massie voted against the plan, declaring it “immoral to use the threat of a government shutdown to pressure Members to vote for involvement in war, much less a civil war on the other side of the globe.”
Massie consistently opposed U.S. involvement in Yemen’s civil war, co-sponsoring multiple bipartisan resolutions to invoke the War Powers Resolution and “remove United States Armed Forces from unauthorized hostilities in the Republic of Yemen.” He stated that “Congress never authorized military action in Yemen as our Constitution requires, yet we continue to fund and assist Saudi Arabia in this tragic conflict.”
His opposition to NATO expansion proved equally consistent. In 2017, Massie was one of only four House members to vote against a pro-NATO resolution, explaining that “the move to expand NATO in Eastern Europe is unwise and unaffordable,” and such expansion contradicted Trump’s campaign assertion that “NATO is obsolete.”
Regarding the Russo-Ukrainian war, Massie maintained his non-interventionist stance, receiving an “F” grade from Republicans for Ukraine. He opposed the Ukraine Democracy Defense Lend-Lease Act, multiple aid packages, and efforts to strip Ukraine funding. Massie argued that supporting Ukraine aid was “economically illiterate and morally deficient,” declaring that “the American taxpayers have been conscripted into making welfare payments to this foreign government.”
Most recently, in June 2025, Massie introduced a bipartisan War Powers Resolution with Rep. Ro Khanna to “prohibit United States Armed Forces from unauthorized involvement” in the Israel-Iran conflict. After Trump’s strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, Massie criticized the action as “not Constitutional,” remaining the only Republican co-sponsor of the war powers resolution.
Massie’s Anti-Zionist Streak
Massie’s most politically dangerous positions involve his consistent opposition to pro-Israel legislation, earning him the distinction of being the lone Republican opposing numerous Israel-related measures.
In July 2019, Massie cast the sole Republican vote against a resolution opposing the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement. The resolution passed 398-17, but Massie defended his position by stating he does not support “federal efforts to condemn any type of private boycott, regardless of whether or not a boycott is based upon bad motives” and that “these are matters that Congress should properly leave to the States and to the people to decide.”
In September 2021, Massie was the only Republican to vote against $1 billion in funding for Israel’s Iron Dome defense system. He explained that “my position of ‘no foreign aid’ might sound extreme to some, but I think it’s extreme to bankrupt our country and put future generations of Americans in hock to our debtors.” This vote prompted AIPAC to run Facebook ads stating “When Israel faced rocket attacks, Thomas Massie voted against Iron Dome.”
Perhaps most controversially, on May 18, 2022, Massie cast the lone vote against a resolution condemning antisemitism, which passed 420-1. The American Jewish Committee criticized him, stating that “while Democrats and Republicans united, Rep. Massie, who has also opposed bills on Holocaust education and Iron Dome funding, decided that combating rising hatred is not important.” Massie defended his vote by tweeting that “legitimate government exists, in part, to punish those who commit unprovoked violence against others, but government can’t legislate thought.”
In October 2023, Massie opposed a $14 billion aid package for Israel, proclaiming that “if Congress sends $14.5 billion to Israel, on average we’ll be taking about $100 from every working person in the United States. This will be extracted through inflation and taxes. I’m against it.” When AIPAC criticized him, Massie responded that “AIPAC always gets mad when I put America first. I won’t be voting for their $14+ billion shakedown of American taxpayers either.”
On October 25, 2023, Massie was the sole Republican to vote against a resolution affirming Israel’s right to defend itself following the October 7 Hamas attacks. A month later, on November 28, 2023, he became the only member of Congress to oppose a resolution affirming Israel’s right to exist and equating anti-Zionism with antisemitism, which passed 412-1.
The most explosive moment came in December 2023 when Massie posted a meme of the rapper Drake contrasting “American patriotism” with “Zionism,” implying Congress prioritized the latter. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer called the post “antisemitic, disgusting, dangerous” and demanded he remove it. The White House labeled it “virulent antisemitism.” Republican Jewish Coalition CEO Matt Brooks condemned it, stating “Shame on you @RepThomasMassie. You’re a disgrace to the US Congress and to the Republican Party.”
Massie vs. Trump
Trump’s escalating attacks on Massie reveal the extent to which the sitting president serves pro-Israel interests rather than pursuing genuine ideological differences. The timing and intensity of Trump’s criticism align suspiciously with Massie’s most vocal challenges to Israeli influence in Congress.
In June 2025, after Massie criticized Trump’s Iran strikes as “not Constitutional,” Trump unleashed a scathing Truth Social response calling Massie “not MAGA” and declaring that “MAGA doesn’t want him, doesn’t know him, and doesn’t respect him.” Trump branded Massie a “simple-minded ‘grandstander’ who thinks it’s good politics for Iran to have the highest level Nuclear weapon” and concluded that “MAGA should drop this pathetic LOSER, Tom Massie, like the plague!”
This vitriol represents a dramatic shift from Trump’s 2022 endorsement, when he called Massie a “Conservative Warrior” and “first-rate Defender of the Constitution.” The transformation occurred precisely as Massie intensified his criticism of Israeli influence and foreign aid. Trump’s attacks escalated further after Massie’s explosive June 2024 Tucker Carlson interview where he revealed that “everybody but me has an AIPAC person. … It’s like your babysitter, your AIPAC babysitter who is always talking to you for AIPAC.”
Massie elaborated that “I have Republicans who come to me and say that’s wrong what AIPAC is doing to you, let me talk to my AIPAC person… I’ve had four members of Congress say I’ll talk to my AIPAC person and like it’s casually what we call them my AIPAC guy.” This revelation exposed the systematic nature of Israeli influence over Congress, prompting immediate backlash from pro-Israel organizations and likely contributing to increased donor funding against his re-election campaign.
The pattern makes clear that Trump’s hostility toward Massie stems less from policy disagreements than from his deference to powerful Jewish donors. Although he often claims to oppose “endless wars,” Trump’s attacks on Massie — the most consistent non-interventionist in Congress — expose where his true loyalties lie in advancing the agenda of Jewish supremacist interests rather than pursuing an independent foreign policy. House Speaker Mike Johnson has signaled that GOP leadership will abandon Massie, stating that “he is actively working against his team almost daily now and seems to enjoy that role. So he is, you know, deciding his own fate.”
AIPAC is on the Hunt
AIPAC’s 2024 electoral victories demonstrate the lobby’s willingness to spend unprecedented sums to eliminate critics of Israeli policy. The organization’s success in defeating progressive Democrats and protecting establishment Republicans reveals a coordinated strategy to purge Congress of independent voices. AIPAC will look to replicate its successes against the likes of Israel critics such as Massie.
Against Rep. Jamaal Bowman in New York’s 16th District, AIPAC’s United Democracy Project (UDP) spent $14.5 million opposing Bowman while also propping up challenger George Latimer. Independent media outlet Sludge reported that “the $14.5 million AIPAC’s super PAC has spent in the NY-16 Democratic primary is more than any outside group has ever spent on a single House of Representatives election race.”
The spending was fueled by Republican megadonors channeled through AIPAC, with WhatsApp founder Jan Koum donating $5 million to UDP. Responsible Statecraft noted that “AIPAC effectively acted to launder campaign funds for Republican megadonors into the Democratic primary, where the spending was generally identified in media as ‘pro-Israel,’ not ‘Republican.’” By election day, Latimer-aligned groups had outspent Bowman’s backers by over seven-to-one.
Against Rep. Cori Bush in Missouri’s 1st District, UDP spent over $8.5 million to attack her record on Israel and support her pro-Zionist challenger Wesley Bell. The Bush-Bell primary became one of the most expensive House primaries ever with over $18 million in total ad spending. Bush called it “the second most expensive congressional race in our nation’s history, $19 million and counting” funded by “mostly far-right-funded super PACs, against the interests of the people of St. Louis.”
Even in Republican primaries, AIPAC intervened to protect establishment allies. To defend moderate Rep. Tony Gonzales against challenger Brandon Herrera in Texas’s 23rd District, UDP spent $1 million opposing Herrera in a “two-week ad buy.” The Republican Jewish Coalition added $400,000 in attack ads against Herrera. Combined AIPAC and RJC spending totaled approximately $1.4-1.5 million, helping Gonzales narrowly defeat Herrera by just 354 votes with 50.6% to 49.4%.
These victories came as part of AIPAC’s broader $100+ million spending cycle, with Common Dreams noting that “AIPAC money has already made a significant impact, helping a pair of pro-Israel Democrats defeat progressive Reps. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) and Cori Bush (D-Mo.)—two of Congress’ most vocal critics of Israel’s assault on Gaza—in recent primary contests.”
How Massie’s Race Could Determine the Israel Lobby’s Actual Power
Massie’s 2026 primary represents the ultimate test of whether any politician can survive the full force of pro-Israel opposition. The Kentucky race will determine if AIPAC’s previous victories represent sustainable power or pyrrhic victories that expose the lobby’s long-term vulnerabilities.
Massie’s unique position may prove more defensible than Bowman’s or Bush’s urban districts. His rural Kentucky constituency shows less susceptibility to urban media campaigns and maintains stronger skepticism of foreign entanglements. Moreover, his local roots provide credibility that transcends typical political attacks. The Kentucky representative’s ability to frame opposition as foreign interference rather than domestic policy disagreements could resonate with voters increasingly suspicious of the pro-Israel establishment that dominates Washington’s political scene.
The financial strain of AIPAC’s previous victories may also constrain future spending. The organization’s $100+ million commitment across multiple races represents an unsustainable pace that could face donor fatigue. Each expensive victory exposes the lobby’s methods to greater scrutiny and potential backlash. Progressive groups increasingly highlight AIPAC’s role in primary defeats, potentially mobilizing opposition that limits future effectiveness.
Massie’s survival would demonstrate that principled politicians can withstand pro-Israel pressure through constituent loyalty and grassroots support. His defeat would confirm that no elected official can challenge Israeli interests regardless of their domestic support. The Kentucky race thus represents a pivotal moment in determining whether American foreign policy serves American interests or remains subordinate to foreign influence.
If Massie withstands the assault, it will mark the first crack in the façade of Zionist invulnerability; if he falls, it will prove that American politicians can be bought and buried by World Jewry’s limitless stockpiles of cash.
Israeli officers commandeered Pentagon meetings during June’s Israel-Iran war: Tucker Carlson
Press TV – October 2, 2025
Israeli officers stormed meetings at the Pentagon during June’s Israel-Iran war, issuing orders unchecked while Trump administration officials stood by doing nothing, says a former Fox News host, raising fresh questions about foreign influence on US military decisions.
Prominent American commentator Tucker Carlson said that Israeli military officers stormed into closed-door meetings at the Pentagon during Israel’s 12-day aggression against Iran in June, stressing that they issued direct orders to US officials, a controversial move that raises serious concerns over foreign interference in the decision-making process at the US Department of War.
During a video titled “Speeding Toward World War Three” published on his X account on Thursday, Carlson further said that officials in the Trump administration failed to respond to or prevent these intrusions, allowing the Israeli officers to continue their actions unchecked.
The ex-Fox News host also touched on the ongoing tensions over US-Israel relations and questioned the extent of influence wielded by foreign powers within American military institutions.
“During the 12-day war with Iran, the US and Israel versus Iran, bombing on all sides, during that short conflict, a bunch of Israeli officers in the Pentagon during that week enraged American Pentagon staff by barging into the meetings, giving orders and making demands and nobody did anything about it. How can a foreign military officer barge into military headquarters? The more you allow that kind of deeply unhealthy behavior the more you are going to get,” Carlson said.
He stressed that because of the weakness of “our leaders”, Israel takes advantage of the US.
On June 13, Israel launched a blatant and unprovoked act of aggression against Iran, triggering a 12-day war that killed at least 1,064 people in the country, including military commanders, nuclear scientists, and ordinary civilians.
The United States also entered the war by bombing three Iranian nuclear sites in a grave violation of international law.
In response, the Iranian Armed Forces targeted strategic sites across the occupied territories as well as the Al-Udeid air base in Qatar, the largest American military base in West Asia.
A recent New York Times–Siena survey shows that a majority of Americans are turning against Israel’s war on Gaza, with 51 percent opposing further economic and military aid.
About 35 percent strongly reject such support, compared to 19 percent in favor, and roughly 40 percent believe Israel is deliberately targeting civilians amid the genocidal war in the besieged Palestinian territory.
Max Blumenthal: Charlie Kirk BOMBSHELL Revelation | Middle East Faces Total COLLAPSE
Dialogue Works | October 1, 2025
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/
