West’s grip slips with Saudi–Pakistan security deal
Riyadh’s pact with Islamabad redraws alliances, weakens Indian leverage, and hints at a new Muslim deterrence framework beyond western control.
By F.M. Shakil | The Cradle | September 23, 2025
On 17 September, Riyadh rolled out the rare royal purple carpet for Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif – an honor previously reserved for global power players like US President Donald Trump.
Accompanying him on the trip was Pakistan’s Army Chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir. His presence highlighted that Riyadh values its defense pact with a nuclear power that, despite economic challenges, remains militarily strong.
Nuclear umbrella over Riyadh
The centerpiece of their visit was the signing of a “Strategic Mutual Defense Agreement” (SMDA), which declares that an attack on either country will be considered an attack on both.
Described by a senior Saudi official to Reuters as covering “all military means,” the pact has triggered speculation that it includes a nuclear umbrella, which would be a game-changing development in the military balance of West Asia.
With 81 percent of Pakistan’s weapon imports coming from China, the agreement implicitly aligns Saudi Arabia with the Chinese military-industrial orbit, whether by design or default. The kingdom has long been reliant on US arms, training, and security guarantees.
The pact was signed just two days after an extraordinary joint session between the Arab League and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) was called, following the 9 September Israeli airstrikes on Qatar – a major non-NATO ally and Gulf neighbor – with no substantial response from Washington, reinforcing perceptions that western security commitments are both selective and expendable.
Mushahid Hussain Syed, a former information minister and chairman of Pakistan’s Senate Defense Committee, tells The Cradle that the US has pivoted away from Arab allies toward Tel Aviv, leaving the region disillusioned and increasingly leaning toward alternatives.
“The strategy of ‘Greater Israel,’ spearheaded by Netanyahu, has involved military actions against five more Muslim nations. Pakistan’s recent triumph against India has demonstrated its capacity to contest Israel’s significant ally, India, and establish itself as a strategic alternative for Gulf nations.”
Toward an Islamic NATO?
Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani recently called for an Islamic military alliance, akin to NATO, in response to Israel’s airstrike on Doha. His proposal echoed Egypt’s earlier attempt to revive a joint Arab defense force under the 1950 treaty – an initiative blocked by Qatar and the UAE, reportedly under US pressure.
A similar proposal has also come from Islamabad when Pakistan’s Defense Minister, Khawaja Asif, urged Muslim countries to band together in a NATO-like military alliance in light of the Israeli aggression in Doha.
During an appearance on Geo TV last week, Asif drove home the point that a united Muslim military front is essential to tackle common security issues and fend off outside dangers. Asif invoked the wider role of the west in instigating instability in West Asia, emphasizing the intricate network of US support for Al-Qaeda and the CIA’s covert actions that led to Osama bin Laden’s relocation to Sudan or the regime change war in Syria.
Is nuclear deterrence a part of the Pact?
The nuclear dimension of the Riyadh–Islamabad pact remains opaque, but highly significant. While no official statement from either side confirms the presence of a nuclear component, Asif hinted that Pakistan’s nuclear capabilities could be shared with Saudi Arabia as part of the agreement.
Syed, however, clarifies to The Cradle that Pakistan’s nuclear doctrine is India-centric and that its deterrence posture is South Asia-specific and does not extend to the Persian Gulf.
“A novel security framework for the region appears to be taking shape, focusing on Global South nations such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, whereas the Indo-Israeli Axis, previously supported by the US, now finds itself significantly diminished.”
The defense agreement between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, he says, represents a notable achievement for Pakistan, establishing it as a pivotal entity within the geopolitical framework of West Asia, particularly among Muslim countries.
“The agreement is shaped by three significant elements: the perceived neglect of Arab allies by the United States, Israel’s proactive maneuvers in areas such as Iran, Qatar, Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen, and Pakistan’s recent triumph over India in May.”
New Delhi, Tel Aviv on alert
Foreign media and analysts are already warning that the pact may have unintended consequences for India and Israel, despite claims that it targets neither. Others predict that this pact is really about Riyadh’s ambitions to counter Iran and Yemen’s Ansarallah-led government in the region.
Dr Abdul Rauf Iqbal, a senior research scholar at the Institute for Strategic Studies, Research and Analysis (ISSRA) at Islamabad’s National Defence University (NDU), tells The Cradle that New Delhi views the pact with unease as it formalizes Saudi–Pakistani security ties that could entangle Riyadh in South Asian rivalries, especially the India–Pakistan border tensions over Jammu and Kashmir:
“It represents a setback for Prime Minister Modi’s foreign policy, potentially leading to Saudi involvement in a prospective Indo–Pak conflict. Furthermore, future Saudi investments in Pakistan’s Gwadar port and economic corridors would challenge India’s regional influence and initiatives such as the India-Middle East-Europe Corridor (IMEC).”
He adds that Saudi Arabia’s pivot toward Pakistan reflects a broader alignment of Muslim powers and could push Tel Aviv to recalibrate its war on Gaza. It also pressures Tel Aviv by placing Pakistan – a vocal opponent of Israeli expansionism – into West Asian affairs.
“This agreement is not meant to counterbalance Iran’s regional influence, but rather to promote the Saudi Iranian reconciliation, as Pakistan maintains friendly relations with both nations. By formalizing ties with nuclear-armed Pakistan, Riyadh secures a credible deterrent as US security guarantees weaken. While western think tanks view it as an effort to contain Iran, the Arab world emphasizes it as strengthening Gulf deterrence independently of Washington.”
Indian concerns also stem from fears that the pact’s NATO-style clause could complicate ongoing operations like Sindoor, which remains active in a limited capacity following the skirmish between the two nuclear powers in May, especially given that the Gulf states’ swift mediation to resolve the crisis reflects their own interests with India and makes any military action against it unlikely.
Secondly, India is strategically analyzing Pakistan’s nuclear capability, which could see a boost if Saudi Arabia, having no such capacity, begins channeling funds to share Pakistan’s nuclear assets.
A post-western Gulf order?
While Tel Aviv and New Delhi remain publicly silent, both capitals are undoubtedly scrutinizing the fallout. Israel’s failed assassination attempt on Hamas leaders in Qatar, and India’s pressure campaign along the Line of Control, suggest that the axis is nervous about the consequences of a Saudi–Pakistani alliance. Israeli media downplayed the Saudi–Pakistan defense deal, seeing it as a show of force after Riyadh failed to influence Trump or West Asian policy.
As Syed notes, “The traditional ‘Oil for Security’ framework, which once defined US relations with the Middle East [West Asia], now serves as a remnant of a bygone era. As Saudi economic power increasingly reinforces China’s backing of Pakistan, India may feel vulnerable and isolated.”
Mark Kinra, an Indian geopolitical analyst with a focus on Pakistan and Balochistan, tells The Cradle that this development holds particular significance for India. New Delhi, he argues, has sustained robust economic and diplomatic ties with Saudi Arabia for many years, and the influx of Saudi investments in India continues to expand:
“India will be meticulously observing the progression of this agreement, particularly given that its specific terms are not publicly available. Any alteration in the regional security equilibrium may influence India’s strategic assessments, energy security, and diplomatic relations.”
As Washington’s selective security guarantees falter and Israel escalates unchecked, Persian Gulf states like Saudi Arabia are looking eastward for credible deterrents and strategic autonomy.
By aligning with nuclear-armed Pakistan, Riyadh is asserting greater independence from the western military order. It also signals the emergence of a multipolar Persian Gulf security architecture –one increasingly shaped by Global South coordination, not western diktats.
The CIA, Mossad, and Epstein: Unraveling the Intelligence Ties of the Maxwell Family
By Alan Macleod | MintPress News | August 22, 2025
With speculation mounting that Trump could pardon her, MintPress profiles the family of convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell. From her media baron father, who acted as a high-level spy for Israel, her sister, working to push Tel Aviv’s interests in Silicon Valley, her brothers, who founded a dubious but highly influential anti-Islamic extremism think tank, and nephews in influential roles at the State Department and White House, the Maxwell clan have wide-ranging ties to U.S. and Israeli state power. This is their story.
Releasing Ghislaine, Burying the Epstein Files
Speculation is growing that Ghislaine Maxwell could soon be freed. Despite campaigning on the promise to release the Epstein Files, there are increasing signs that the Trump administration is considering pardoning the world’s most notorious convicted sex trafficker.
Last month, Trump (who contemplated the idea in his first term in office) repeatedly refused to rule out a pardon, stating to journalists that “I’m allowed to do it.” Just days later, Maxwell was transferred across states to a minimum-security facility in Bryan, Texas—a highly unusual practice. Neither women convicted of sex crimes nor those with more than 10 years remaining on their sentences are generally permitted to be transferred to such facilities. The move sparked equal measures of speculation and outrage.
The decision to relocate Maxwell came after somebody—potentially a source within her team itself—began leaking incriminating and embarrassing evidence linking Trump to Epstein. This included a birthday card Trump sent Epstein, featuring a hand-drawn nude woman, accompanied by the text: “Happy Birthday—and may every day be another wonderful secret.”
For years, Maxwell aided her partner Jeffrey Epstein in trafficking and raping girls and young women, creating a giant sex crime ring in the process. Epstein’s associates included billionaires, scientists, celebrities, and politicians, including President Trump, whom he considered his “closest friend.”
In 2021, two years after Epstein’s mysterious death in a Manhattan prison, Maxwell was found guilty of child sex trafficking offenses and was subsequently sentenced to 20 years in prison.
The news that Trump may soon free such an infamous criminal sent shockwaves through his base and drew charges of blatant corruption from the media. “Is there any reason to pardon Ghislaine Maxwell except to buy her silence?” ran the headline of one article in The Hill. Meanwhile, Tim Hogan, senior Democratic National Committee adviser, denounced what he claimed was a “government cover-up in real time.” “Donald Trump’s FBI, run by loyalist Kash Patel, redacted Trump’s name from the Epstein files—which have still not been released,” he said.
Robert Maxwell: Media Tycoon and Israeli Operative
While many of Ghislaine Maxwell’s crimes have come to light, less well-known are her family’s myriad connections to both the U.S. and Israeli national security states. Chief among these are those of her father, disgraced media baron and early tech entrepreneur, Robert Maxwell.
A Jewish refugee fleeing Hitler’s occupation of his native Czechoslovakia, Maxwell fought for Britain against Germany. After World War II, he used his Czech connections to help funnel arms to the nascent State of Israel, weapons that helped them win the 1948 war and carry out the Nakba, the ethnic cleansing of nearly 800,000 Palestinians.
Maxwell’s biographers, Gordon Thomas and Martin Dillon, write that he was first recruited by Israeli intelligence in the 1960s and began buying up Israeli tech corporations. Israel used these companies and their software to carry out spying and other clandestine operations around the globe.
Maxwell amassed a vast business empire of 350 companies, employing 16,000 people. He owned an array of newspapers, including The New York Daily News, Britain’s Daily Mirror, and Maariv of Israel, in addition to some of the world’s most influential book and scientific publishing houses.
With business power came political power. He was elected to the U.K. parliament in 1964 and counted U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev among his closest friends.
He used this influence to advance Israeli interests, selling Israeli intelligence-gathering software to Russia, the U.S., the U.K., and many other countries. This software included a secret Israeli backdoor that allowed the Israeli intelligence agency, Mossad, to tap into classified information gathered by governments and intelligence agencies around the world.
At the same time, it was expanding its espionage capabilities, Israel was developing a secret nuclear weapons program. This project was exposed by Israeli peace activist Mordechai Vanunu, who, in 1986, leaked evidence to the British press. Maxwell—one of Britain’s most powerful press barons—spied on Vanunu, passing photographs and other information to the Israeli Embassy—intelligence that led to Vanunu’s international abduction by Mossad, and his subsequent imprisonment.
His death was also surrounded by controversy, similar to Epstein’s. In 1991, his lifeless body was found in the ocean, in what authorities ruled a bizarre accident whereby the tycoon had fallen from his luxury yacht. To this day, his children are split on whether they think he was murdered.
The rumors that Maxwell had, for decades, been acting as an Israeli “superspy” were all but confirmed by the lavish state funeral he received in Jerusalem. His body was interred at the Mount of Olives, one of the holiest sites in Judaism, the spot from which Jesus is said to have ascended to heaven.
Virtually the entirety of elite Israeli society–both government and opposition–attended the event, including no fewer than six living heads of Israeli intelligence organizations. President Chaim Herzog himself performed the eulogy. Also speaking at the event was Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, who stated that “Robert Maxwell has done more for Israel than can today be said.”
In the United Kingdom, however, he is remembered less fondly. A man with a fearsome reputation, Maxwell ruled his media business with an iron fist, in a similar vein to Rupert Murdoch (another individual with extremely close links to Israel). After his death, it transpired that he had stolen more than $500 million from his employees’ pension fund to bail out other failing companies in his empire, leaving many of his workforce’s retirement plans in tatters. As the newspaper, The Scotsman, remarked ten years later in 2001:
If [Maxwell] was despised in life, he was hated in death when it emerged he had stolen 440 million [pounds] from the pension fund of Mirror Group Newspapers. He was, officially, the biggest thief in British criminal history.”
Isabel Maxwell: Israel’s Woman in Silicon Valley
Even before it had been published, Isabel Maxwell– Robert’s daughter and Ghislaine’s older sister– managed to obtain a copy of Thomas and Dillon’s biography. She immediately flew to Israel, The Times of London reported, where she showed it to a “family friend” and deputy director of Mossad, David Kimche. These actions did little to beat the book’s central allegation that her father was indeed a high-level Israeli “superspy.”
Isabel has enjoyed a long and successful career in the tech industry. In 1992, along with her twin sister, Christine, she founded a company that developed one of the internet’s first search engines.
After the pension scandal, however, she and her siblings shifted their focus to rebuilding every facet of their father’s collapsed business empire. The sisters sold the search engine, netting enormous profits.
As Israeli outlet Haaretz noted, in 2001, Isabel decided to dedicate her life to advancing the Jewish State’s interests, vowing to “work only on things involving Israel” as she “believes in Israel.” Described by former MintPress journalist and investigative reporter Whitney Webb as “Israel’s back door into Silicon Valley,” she has transformed herself into a key ambassador for the country in the tech world.
“Maxwell created a unique niche for herself in [tech] as a liaison between Israeli companies in the initial development stages and private angel investors in the U.S. At the same time, she helps U.S. companies interested in opening development centers in Israel,” wrote local business newspaper, Globes. “She lives intensively, including innumerable flights back and forth between Tel Aviv and San Francisco,” it added.
Israel is known to be the source of much of the world’s most controversial spyware and hacking tools, used by repressive governments the world over to surveil, harass, and even kill political opponents. This includes the notorious Pegasus software, used by the government of Saudi Arabia to track Washington Post journalist, Jamal Khashoggi, before assassinating him in Türkiye.
Isabel built on her father’s political connections. “My father was most influential in my life. He was a very accomplished man and achieved many of his goals during his life. I learned very much from him and have made many of his ways my own,” she said. This included developing intimate ties to a myriad of Israeli leaders, including Ehud Olmert and Ehud Barak, one of Jeffrey Epstein’s closest associates.
During the 2000s, she was a regular participant at the Herzliya Conference, an annual, closed-door gathering of the West’s most senior political, security and intelligence officials, in addition to being a “technology pioneer” at the World Economic Forum.
She was also placed on the board of the Israeli government-funded Shimon Peres Center for Peace and Innovation and the American Friends of the Yitzhak Rabin Center for Israel Studies, two organizations closely associated with those former Israeli prime ministers.
In 2001, she became the CEO of iCognito, taking the job, in her words, “because it [the company] is in Israel, and because of its technology.” The technology in question was aimed at keeping children safe online—highly ironic, given that her sister was actively trafficking and abusing minors throughout that period.
Isabel was a much more serious and accomplished individual than Ghislaine. As Haaretz noted:
While her younger sister, Ghislaine, makes the gossip columns after breakfasting with Bill Clinton or because of her ties with another close friend, Britain’s Prince Andrew, Isabel wants to show photos taken of herself with the grand mufti of Egypt, or with Bedouin in a tent, or of visits to a Gaza refugee camp.”
In 1997, Isabel was appointed president of the Israeli tech security firm, Commtouch. Thanks to her connections, Commtouch was able to secure investment from many of the most prominent players in Silicon Valley, including Bill Gates, a close associate of both the Maxwell family and Jeffrey Epstein himself.
Christine Maxwell: Funded by Israel?
Isabel’s twin sister, Christine, is no less accomplished. A veteran of the publishing and tech industries, she co-founded data analytics firm Chiliad. As CEO, she helped oversee the production of a massive “counterterrorism” database that the company sold to the FBI during the height of the War on Terror. The software helped the Bush administration crack down on Muslim Americans and tear down domestic civil liberties in the wake of 9/11 and the PATRIOT Act. Today, she is the leader and co-founder of another big data corporation, Techtonic Insight.
Like her sister and father, Christine has a close relationship with the State of Israel. She is currently a fellow at the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy (ISGAP), where, her biography states,
She works to promote innovative academic research that leverages enabling technologies to empower proactive understanding and combatting the great dangers of contemporary antisemitism, and enhancing the ongoing relevance of the Holocaust for the 21st century and beyond.”
ISGAP’s board is a who’s who of Israeli national security state officials. This includes Natan Sharansky, former Minister of Internal Affairs and Deputy Prime Minister of Israel, and Brigadier General Sima Vaknin-Gil, the former Chief Censor for the IDF and Director General of the Ministry of Strategic Affairs and Diplomacy. Also on the board is Jeffrey Epstein’s lawyer, Alan Dershowitz.
The think tank was a key player in the U.S. government’s decision to repress the 2024 Gaza protests on university campuses nationwide. The group produced reports linking student leaders with foreign terrorist organizations and promoted dubious claims about a wave of anti-Semitism washing over American colleges. It met frequently with both Democratic and Republican leaders, and urged them to “investigate” (i.e., repress) the leaders of the demonstrations.
ISGAP has continually warned of foreign influence on American campuses, producing reports and holding seminars detailing Qatar’s supposed stranglehold over the U.S. higher education system, and linking that with growing anti-Israel sentiment among America’s youth.
Yet if ISGAP wished to investigate other foreign government influence operations, it would not have to look far, as its own funds overwhelmingly come from a single source: the Israeli state. In 2018, an investigation found that Israel’s Ministry of Strategic Affairs (then headed by Brigadier General Vaknin-Gil herself) channeled $445,000 to ISGAP, a sum representing nearly 80% of its entire revenues for that year. ISGAP failed to disclose that information to either the public or the federal government.
At the height of the concern over foreign interference in American politics, the news barely registered. Since then, the Israeli government has continued to bankroll the group to the tune of millions. In 2019, for example, it approved a grant of over $1.3 million to ISGAP. Thus, in her role as a fellow at the organization, Christine Maxwell is the direct beneficiary of Israeli government cash.
Third Generation Maxwells: Working In the US Government
While Robert Maxwell’s daughters were close to state power, some of the family’s third generation have taken up positions within the U.S. government itself. Shortly after graduating from college, Alex Djerassi (Isabel Maxwell’s only son) was employed by Hillary Clinton on her 2007-2008 presidential campaign. Djerassi drafted memos, briefings, and policy papers for the Clinton team and helped prepare her for more than 20 debates.
The Clinton and Maxwell families are closely intertwined. Ghislaine vacationed with Hillary’s daughter, Chelsea, and appeared prominently at her wedding. Both she and Jeffrey Epstein were invited multiple times to the Clinton White House. Long after Epstein was jailed, President Bill Clinton invited Ghislaine to an intimate dinner with him at an exclusive Los Angeles restaurant.
Although she failed in her bid for the White House, President Obama named Hillary Clinton as his Secretary of State, and one of her first actions was to appoint Djerassi to her team. He quickly rose in the ranks, becoming Chief of Staff at the Office of the Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs. In this role, he specialized in developing the United States’ policy towards Israel and Iran, although he also worked on the U.S. occupation of Iraq, and accompanied Clinton on visits to Israel and the Arab world.
While at the State Department, he served as the U.S. government representative to the Friends of Libya and the Friends of the Syrian People Conferences. These were two organizations of hardline, hawkish groups working towards the overthrow of those two governments, and their replacement with U.S.-friendly regimes. Washington got what it wanted. In 2011, Libyan leader Colonel Gaddafi was overthrown, killed and replaced by Islamist warlords. And last December, longtime Syrian President, Bashar al-Assad, fled to Russia and was replaced by the founder of al-Qaeda in Syria, Abu Mohammad al-Jolani.
Djerassi was later appointed an associate at the U.S.-government-funded think tank, the Carnegie Endowment for Peace. While there, he again specialized in Middle East policy, his bio noting that he “worked on matters relating to democratization and civil society in the Arab world, the Arab uprisings, and Israeli-Palestinian peace.” Today, he works in Silicon Valley.
While Djerassi’s fortunes were tied to the Clinton faction of the Democratic Party, his cousin Xavier Malina (Christine Maxwell’s eldest son) backed the right horse, working on the Obama-Biden 2008 presidential run.
He was rewarded for his good work with a position in the White House itself, where he became a Staff Assistant at the Executive Office of the President. Like his cousin, once his time in office was over, Malina also secured a position at the Carnegie Endowment for Peace before pursuing a career in the tech world, working for many years at Google in the Bay Area. He currently works for Disney.
While the actions of parents and grandparents should not determine the careers of later generations, the fact that two individuals who come from a multi-generational family of unrepentant spies and operatives of a foreign power secured positions at the center of the U.S. State is at least worthy of note.
The Maxwell Brothers: From Bankruptcy to Counterterrorism
Much of the Maxwell clan is most influential in American and Israeli politics. However, brothers Ian and Kevin also hold considerable sway over affairs in their native Great Britain. Although being acquitted of charges over widespread allegations that they helped their father, Robert, plunder over $160 million from his employees’ pension fund, the brothers kept a low profile for many years. Kevin, in particular, was known for little more than being Britain’s largest-ever bankrupt, with debts exceeding half a billion dollars.
However, in 2018, they launched Combating Jihadist Terrorism and Extremism (CoJiT), a controversial think tank pushing for a far more invasive and heavy-handed government approach to the question of radical Islam.
In his organization’s book, “Jihadist Terror: New Threats, New Responses,” Ian writes that CoJiT was set up to play a “catalyzing role in the national conversation,” and to answer “difficult questions” arising from the issue. Judging by the content of the rest of the book, this means pushing for even more extensive surveillance of Muslim communities.
Within Britain, CoJiT was a highly influential organization. Its editorial board and contributors are a who’s who of high state officials. Individuals participating in its inaugural conference in London in 2018 included Sara Khan, the government’s Lead Commissioner for Countering Extremism, and Jonathan Evans, the former Director General of MI5, Britain’s domestic intelligence agency.
Like so many Maxwell projects, CoJiT appears to have wrapped up its affairs. The organization has not updated its website or posted anything on its social media channels since 2022.
In fairness, in the past few years, the brothers have had other priorities, leading the campaign to free their sister Ghislaine from prison, insisting that she is entirely innocent. In a manner reminiscent of Robert Maxwell, however, it appears that Kevin may have failed to pay the defense team; in 2022, Maxwell’s lawyers sued him, seeking unpaid fees of nearly $900,000.
The Infamous Mr. Epstein
For years, Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein ran a sex trafficking ring that exploited hundreds of girls and young women. They were also connected to vast networks of the global elite, including billionaire business owners, royalty, star academics, and foreign leaders, among their closest acquaintances, leading to intense speculation about the extent of their involvement in their many crimes.
It is still unclear when Epstein first met with the Maxwells, with some alleging that he was recruited into Israeli intelligence by Robert Maxwell. Others state the relationship only began after Robert’s death, when he saved the family from penury following its financial problems.
Only one month after his 2019 arrest, Epstein was found dead in his New York City prison cell. His death was officially ruled a suicide, although his family has rejected this interpretation.
Perhaps the two most powerful individuals in Epstein’s circle of confidants were Presidents Bill Clinton and Donald Trump. Clinton, already infamous for the numerous accusations of sexual misconduct against him, is known to have flown at least 17 times on Epstein’s private jet, nicknamed the “Lolita Express,” and was accused by Epstein victim, Virginia Giuffre, of visiting Little St. James Island, the multimillionaire’s private Caribbean residence, where many of his worst crimes took place.
Trump, arguably, was even closer to the disgraced financier. “I’ve known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy,” he said in 2002, “He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it.” Like Clinton, Trump flew on the Lolita Express. Epstein attended his wedding to Marla Maples in 1993, and claimed to have introduced him to his third wife, Melania.
Unfortunately, while Epstein’s ties incriminate the entire political spectrum, coverage has often been framed as a partisan issue. A MintPress study of over one year of Epstein coverage on MSNBC and Fox News found that each network downplayed his connections to their preferred president, while emphasizing and highlighting the links to the leader of the other major party. As a result, many in the United States see the affair as an indictment of their political rivals, rather than of the political system as a whole.
There also remains the question of Epstein’s links to intelligence, something that has been openly speculated about in the media for decades, even years before any allegations against him were made public. Throughout the 1990s, Epstein’s biographer Julie K. Brown noted, he openly boasted about working for both the CIA and Mossad, although the veracity of his claims remains in doubt. As Britain’s Sunday Times wrote in 2000, “He’s Mr. Enigmatic. Nobody knows whether he’s a concert pianist, property developer, a CIA agent, a math teacher or a member of Mossad.” It is possible that there is at least a grain of truth to all of these identities.
Epstein met with U.S. Deputy Secretary of State William Burns three times in 2014. Burns would later be named director of the CIA. Burns’ proximity to Epstein, however, pales in comparison to that of former Israeli Prime Minister, Foreign Minister, and Defense Minister Ehud Barak. Between 2013 and 2017 alone, Barak is known to have traveled to New York City and met with the convicted criminal at least 30 times, sometimes arriving at his Manhattan mansion incognito or wearing a mask to hide his identity.
Numerous sources have commented on Epstein’s connections to Israeli intelligence. A previous girlfriend and victim of his, referred in court documents as Jane Doe 200 to hide her identity, testified that Epstein boasted about being a Mossad operative and that, after he raped her, she could not go to the police because his position as a spy made her fear for her life.
“Doe genuinely believed that any reporting of the rape by what she believed to be a Mossad agent with some of the most unique connections in the world would result in significant bodily harm or death to her,” reads the court filing.
Ari Ben-Menashe, a former senior official in Israel’s Military Intelligence Directorate, claimed that Epstein was a spy and that he and Ghislaine Maxwell were running a honeytrap operation on behalf of Israel. Four (anonymous) sources told Rolling Stone that Epstein had directly worked with the Israeli government.
Unlike much of the Maxwell family, however, his Israel and intelligence connections are based largely on testimony and unverified accounts. His only known trip to the country was in April 2008, just before his sentencing, a move that sparked fears he would seek refuge there.
Nevertheless, there has been intense public speculation that he could have been working for Tel Aviv. At the Turning Points USA Student Action Summit 2025, former Fox News host Tucker Carlson stated that there is nothing wrong, hateful or anti-Semitic about asking questions about Epstein’s foreign connections. “No one’s allowed to say that the foreign government is Israel, because we’ve been somehow cowed into thinking that that’s naughty,” he said, before expressing his exasperation about the media’s silence on the issue.
What the hell is this? You have the former Israeli prime minister living in your house, you have had all this contact with a foreign government, were you working on behalf of the Mossad? Were you running a blackmail operation on behalf of a foreign government?”
Carlson’s comments drew harsh condemnation from former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett. “The accusation that Jeffrey Epstein somehow worked for Israel or the Mossad running a blackmail ring is categorically and totally false. Epstein’s conduct, both the criminal and the merely despicable, had nothing whatsoever to do with the Mossad or the State of Israel,” he wrote.
“This accusation is a lie being peddled by prominent online personalities such as Tucker Carlson pretending they know things they don’t,” he added, concluding that Israel was under attack from a “vicious wave of slander and lies.”
Whatever the truth about Epstein, it is indisputable that the powerful Maxwell family holds wide-ranging connections to U.S., British and Israeli state power. It is also beyond doubt that if the full story of their activities were ever to reach the public, it would incriminate a significant number of the world’s most powerful people and organizations. Perhaps that is why Trump has, in short order, gone from promising to release the Epstein Files to potentially releasing his accomplice.
Syrian prisoners: A ticking bomb between Beirut and Damascus?
By Mohamad Shamse Eddine | The Cradle | July 23, 2025
A political storm is gathering over a long-festering crisis in Lebanon’s prisons: more than 2,000 Syrians, many detained without charge or trial, remain locked away in overcrowded and crumbling facilities.
The worsening humanitarian conditions are no longer just a domestic issue. It has morphed into a potent diplomatic flashpoint between Beirut and the new interim government in Damascus, with the latter signaling it will not tolerate further delay in resolving the status of its citizens.
The spark came from a Syria TV report quoting an official from the administration of interim President Ahmad al-Sharaa (Abu Muhammad al-Julani), who stated that Damascus is “mulling gradual escalation choices against Lebanon,” starting with the freezing of some security and economic channels if the detainee issue remains unresolved.
Official denials followed, but the message had already landed in Beirut. The prisoner file, dormant for years, is now wide open—and loaded with political implications that stretch far beyond the bars of Lebanon’s Roumieh Prison.
This comes as the Lebanese judiciary teeters on the verge of collapse and its prisons edge into crisis. At the same time, a transformed Syrian state under Sharaa’s Al-Qaeda-rooted administration is recalibrating its regional footing following years of civil war, western isolation, and struggles to assert sovereignty.
Damascus frames the detainee issue as a humanitarian one. However, political observers in Beirut view it as a strategic lever, part of a broader power play unfolding at a time when Lebanon faces internal divisions and competition between Turkiye and Saudi Arabia over influence within its Sunni community.
The detainees also represent more than individual cases—they are a legacy of the previous Syrian order, and a test for Lebanon’s ability to deal with the political costs of its judicial dysfunction.
Who are the detainees?
The Syrian prisoners in Lebanon fall into three categories. First, the political detainees: Syrians imprisoned over the past decade for joining militant factions like the Free Syrian Army (FSA) or the UN-designated terrorist Nusra Front – or for speaking out against the former Syrian government.
Most were never formally charged. Now, with former Syrian President Bashar al-Assad gone and a new government in Damascus, these individuals are being recast not as enemies but as participants in a national cause. Their return is being framed by Damascus as part of Syria’s internal reconciliation process.
Second are the jihadist-linked detainees. These prisoners are accused of ties to terror groups such as ISIS or Al-Qaeda. Some have faced trial, but many continue to be held without verdicts. Legal definitions of terrorism vary significantly between Beirut and Damascus, complicating any coordinated legal handling.
The lack of evidence in many cases has raised questions about the fairness of prolonged detentions, especially in the absence of transparent legal standards or international oversight.
Third are the criminal offenders: Syrians charged with routine crimes like theft or smuggling. In theory, they fall under Lebanon’s legal system like any foreign national. In practice, a broken judiciary and Kafkaesque bureaucracy have left many in legal limbo, detained for years without resolution.
What unites all three groups is Lebanon’s failure to classify or process their cases adequately. Without access to lawyers, interpreters, or diplomatic support, most Syrian detainees are effectively voiceless and invisible. According to legal advocates, some have waited up to seven years for a single court appearance.
Damascus’ extrajudicial demands
The names requested by Damascus include figures deeply linked to past violence on Lebanese soil. Salafi preacher Sheikh Ahmad al-Assir, sentenced in connection with the 2013 Abra clashes that left several Lebanese army soldiers dead, is among them. His case is closed under Lebanese law, so his inclusion signals political calculation, not legal necessity.
Also on the list are Sheikh Omar al-Atrash and Naeem Abbas, both tied to Al-Qaeda’s operations in Lebanon and implicated in the 2013 bombings in Beirut’s southern suburb of Dahieh. Their convictions are firm. Their extradition, if attempted, would ignite a political firestorm.
Damascus is not seeking the return of petty criminals. It aims to influence what it considers political actors tied to the Syrian conflict—individuals it now views as part of its national narrative. Beirut, however, sees potential manipulation.
Syrian sources inform The Cradle that any returnees would undergo formal security and judicial oversight. But victims’ families fear the deals may serve regional interests, not justice. The Lebanese judiciary, lacking independence and burdened by years of foreign and sectarian interference, offers little public confidence.
Roumieh: A prison on the brink
Roumieh Prison was built to house 1,500 inmates. It currently holds over 4,000, including hundreds of Syrians. Many have been held without charges. Conditions in the Islamist wing, “Block B,” are dire—overcrowded, unsanitary, and deprived of basic medical and psychological care.
In February, more than 100 Syrian detainees began a two-week hunger strike. The protest followed months of inaction on promised reforms, including improved legal access and prison conditions. Security officials acknowledge the risk that unrest could escalate into a full-blown revolt, especially as external actors view the prison crisis as an opportunity to stir instability. Lebanese security sources warn that militant groups could exploit grievances inside Roumieh, turning a detention center into a flashpoint for wider conflict.
No legal architecture
Despite the gravity of the issue, there is no formal prisoner exchange treaty between Lebanon and Syria. An older extradition agreement remains on paper, but it does not cover sentenced prisoners. Lebanese law bars deportation unless a detainee has received a final verdict—and even then, not for crimes committed on Lebanese soil with Lebanese victims.
This legal grey zone explains why detainees like Abbas and Atrash remain in Lebanon, at least for now. However, a new judicial agreement is reportedly being negotiated between the justice ministries in Beirut and Damascus that may allow the repatriation of 370 convicted Syrians.
Lebanese judicial sources tell The Cradle that the draft agreement includes provisions for sentence continuation and post-transfer monitoring, but faces political opposition from factions aligned with western interests.
While Damascus demands its citizens back, Lebanon is silent on its nationals imprisoned in the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF)-run detention camps in northeast Syria. Hundreds of Lebanese citizens—many detained alongside their families—languish there without trial, without consular access, and without official advocacy. Some have been held since 2019, captured during the final battles against ISIS.
This silence exposes Lebanon’s deeper dysfunction. Its institutions are too eroded to defend their own citizens, let alone negotiate a reciprocal deal with a fragile state like Syria, which now speaks from a position of renewed regional assertiveness. The contradiction is glaring: Beirut is expected to process Syrian cases with care, while ignoring its nationals trapped in US-backed detention zones under the SDF.
Is a deal possible?
Senior political sources tell The Cradle that Beirut may begin by releasing detainees with no political baggage, setting the stage for a broader settlement. This would allow both states to test the waters while avoiding immediate controversy. Some Lebanese officials argue this phased approach could also reduce overcrowding in prisons like Roumieh, while fulfilling Syria’s minimal expectations.
But any lasting resolution requires more than tactical moves. It demands a sweeping overhaul of Lebanon’s judicial architecture, the depoliticization of its detention policies, and a binding bilateral framework. Damascus, for its part, will have to offer clear guarantees that repatriated detainees are not used to settle old scores but reintegrated into a legal system that reflects its new political reality.
Until then, Lebanon’s prisons will remain overstuffed, its judiciary paralyzed, and the Syrian detainee file unresolved—exposing the unfinished reckoning between two states still mired in the legacies of occupation, war, and political dependency.
Turkiye backs extremists in Lebanon as ‘blackmail’ over Cyprus ties
The Cradle | July 14, 2025
Turkiye has expressed “deep concern” over Lebanese President Joseph Aoun’s recent visit to Cyprus and has plans to “blackmail” Beirut if it chooses to counter Ankara’s influence in the Mediterranean, a senior Lebanese source told The Cradle on 14 July.
“Ankara expressed deep concern over Aoun’s visit to the Cypriot capital, Nicosia, and viewed it as a worrying sign of Beirut’s potential openness to Mediterranean and European partnerships that are inconsistent with its agenda in the Eastern Mediterranean,” the source said.
“Northern Lebanon is witnessing a worrying increase in the number of displaced Syrians with complex security backgrounds,” the source added, noting an increase in cross-border [weapons] smuggling operations which are taking place “under the direct sponsorship and cover of Syrian and Turkish security agencies.”
According to the Lebanese source, Aoun’s visit to Cyprus “revealed files of political and security blackmail prepared by Turkiye for use later if Beirut decides to pursue strategic options that conflict with Ankara’s interests in Lebanon and the region.”
The source went on to say that Ankara “considers northern Lebanon as its traditional area of influence and will not tolerate any new official positioning by Beirut that threatens its geopolitical position in the Mediterranean.”
Turkiye invaded Cyprus in 1974 and controls the northern part of the island. Ankara views Greek Cyprus as a main regional and geopolitical rival.
The Cradle’s Malik Khoury wrote that Ankara is unlikely to take kindly to an improvement of Lebanese–Cypriot ties, and has strong ambitions for northern Lebanon.
“Turkiye has long-standing historical ties to northern Lebanon,” he said. Citing Lebanese sources, he noted Ankara’s “interest in the port of Tripoli.” Geographically and maritime-wise, this is the largest port in the Mediterranean in terms of potential. “If rehabilitated, it could rival the Israeli port of Haifa. Ankara also has its eye on the Qlayaat Airport, near the Syrian border, as well as large areas of the Akkar Plain, rich in minerals and natural resources,” he added.
Thousands of extremist Islamist prisoners, including Syrians linked to the groups now affiliated with authorities in Damascus, are held in Lebanon’s Roumieh prison.
Reports from after the fall of former Syrian president Bashar al-Assad’s government said that Syria was planning to request their repatriation.
A day after Aoun’s visit to Cyprus last week, a source quoted by Syria TV threatened to revive the issue of Syrian prisoners in Lebanon, while hinting at the potential closure of the Syrian–Lebanese border. The report said Damascus is unhappy with Beirut’s “handling” of the situation and is planning a political and diplomatic escalation if the issue is not resolved.
“If you want to breathe air via Cyprus, you will suffocate by land from Damascus,” the source said.
The information provided by the Lebanese source to The Cradle comes as there has been growing concern about potential ambitions by Syria’s extremist-dominated military to take over swathes of northern Lebanon.
There have been reports recently that extremist fighters from Syria have been infiltrating Lebanon.
The Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) denied these reports on Sunday and said they are working to ensure the security of the border.
Ten people, including two foreign nationals, were detained during an LAF operation in the town of Btebyat in Metn in the Mount Lebanon governorate, according to an army statement Sunday evening. The suspects’ nationalities were not specified.
Initial findings indicated that the individuals were not linked to any extremist organizations. The army’s statement did not acknowledge circulating reports of attempts to stockpile weapons across the country in preparation for attacks.
A report by Israel’s i24 in early July claimed Syria is demanding control over the northern Lebanese city of Tripoli during ongoing talks between Damascus and Tel Aviv.
The concern caused by this report and others like it was compounded on Friday, when US envoy Tom Barrack warned that Lebanon is “going to be Bilad al-Sham (historical name for Greater Syria) again” if Hezbollah does not surrender its arms.
“Syrians say Lebanon is our beach resort,” Barrack added.
The threat of extremist factions, which now make up the bulk of the Syrian state, is not new to Lebanon.
The Syrian army is predominantly made up of what used to be known as Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), an extremist Al-Qaeda-linked organization which was headed by Syria’s new President Ahmad al-Sharaa (known back then as Abu Mohammad al-Julani).
HTS was formerly known as the Nusra Front – Al-Qaeda’s official branch in Syria. The organization, responsible for deadly suicide attacks inside Lebanon, took over large swathes of the Syrian–Lebanese border in the first few years of the war in Syria, including the barrens of Arsal and Ras Baalbek.
The organization was eventually fully repelled by Hezbollah and the Lebanese army in 2017 in what is referred to as “The Second Liberation.”
HTS and the other groups, which have been incorporated into the Syrian Defense Ministry, have long operated under the direct tutelage of Turkish intelligence.
Latakia’s burning coast: Sectarian purge masked as ‘wildfire’ under Syria’s new government
Syria’s new rulers exploit wildfire and war to reshape the coastal region
By Abdullah Suleiman Ali | The Cradle | July 12, 2025
Less than four months into its rule, Syria’s interim government is under mounting pressure, as each crisis—natural or security-related—casts doubt on its ability to govern and maintain control.
The recent wildfires that tore through northern Latakia were no seasonal accident. They broke out as sectarian killings escalated and suspicions of state complicity grew.
The blaze behind the purge
Never before in Syria had an armed group claimed responsibility for a natural disaster. That changed when Saraya Ansar al-Sunna announced it was behind fires that spread through the Qastal Ma’af region, explicitly stating that the arson attack “led to the fires spreading to other areas, forcing the Nusayris [Alawites] to flee their homes, and causing a number of them to suffocate.”
The statement came just three days into the blazes and only weeks after the same group had claimed responsibility for the 22 June bombing of Mar Elias Church in Damascus’ Douweila neighborhood.
That attack had sparked a rare public dispute between the Interior Ministry and Saraya Ansar al-Sunna. While the ministry blamed ISIS and paraded an arrested cell, the group named a different perpetrator, Muhammad Zain al-Abidin Abu Uthman.
Despite vowing to release confessions to back its version, the ministry has remained silent.
Anas Khattab—former Al-Qaeda commander and Nusra Front co-founder, now serving as interior minister—only deepened the contradictions during his visit to the fire zone. He insisted there was “no evidence” of arson, even as his own ministry investigated suspects.
Khattab’s refusal to acknowledge Saraya Ansar al-Sunna suggests that Damascus still considers it a phantom—a position reinforced when ministry spokesman Noureddine al-Baba publicly dismissed it as “imaginary” during a press conference after the church bombing.
At the same time, some Alawites believe that Interior Minister Khattab is using Saraya Ansar al-Sunna to carry out attacks against Alawites, Christians, and other minorities, while maintaining plausible deniability.
Coordinated chaos and forced displacement
In Latakia’s coastal hinterlands, fear was already running high. Many villages had yet to recover from the violence of March, when security raids and sectarian killings devastated entire communities, leaving behind charred homes and mass graves that remain under-reported by official channels.
Only months ago, bloody confrontations claimed 2,000 lives across the region. Locals, mainly from the Alawite community, saw these events as the culmination of a systematic purge under the new regime. A wave of targeted killings, kidnappings, and violence had left communities deeply scarred.
Just days before the fires erupted, the murder of two brothers working as grape leaf pickers, along with the kidnapping of a girl, sparked widespread protests in the Al-Burjan and Beit Yashout areas in the Jableh countryside.
These demonstrations, amplified by diaspora voices, coincided almost to the hour with the first outbreaks of fire, feeding widespread suspicion that the flames were a diversion or smokescreen. On the same day this call was issued, the spread of fires in the Latakia countryside forests began to attract media attention.
The Qastal Ma’af fire—the most intense and destructive—was explicitly claimed by Saraya Ansar al-Sunna. Although the group declared it aimed to displace Alawites, some affected villages housed significant Sunni Turkmen populations. Later, the group issued a cryptic clarification: “The burning of Sunni villages is attributed to Nusayri groups, and this is in the context of the ongoing, raging conflict.”
Local sources tell The Cradle that the fire consumed large swaths of forest and farmland, displacing entire communities. Despite the government’s dismissals, few believe this was a coincidence.
Denial and deception by Damascus
Rather than confront the threat, the Interior Ministry downplayed the human hand in the fires. Observers suggest this was a deliberate choice to avoid validating Saraya Ansar al-Sunna’s claim—and to prevent inflaming sectarian tensions.
But some in the Alawite community accuse Ahmad al-Sharaa’s government of weaponizing fire as a tool of demographic engineering. They point to circulating videos of security forces, Sunni Bedouin groups, and even Turkish-plate vehicles setting fires to Alawite lands.
One Alawite source explains to The Cradle:
“The Alawites rely on their land and employment, while Sharaa seeks to bring about a demographic shift in the coastal region. His aim is to strangle the Alawites and kill them, forcing them either to flee the country or remain amid ongoing cases of murder, abduction, and arson. The objective is clear: displacement and the destruction of every source of livelihood.”
The source adds that on 9 July, in the town of Al-Haffa in Latakia, a small fire broke out.
Thirty young men rushed to extinguish it—all around 21 years old—including nine Alawites. After the fire was put out, the nine Alawite young men were arrested and mysteriously disappeared.
When their families asked the local authorities regarding their whereabouts, the only response they received was: “We transferred them to Latakia.”
Demographic warfare under the cover of fire
Many Alawites believe Turkiye seeks to effectively annex parts of the Syrian coast to seize maritime gas reserves, and that attacks by Turkmen and Uighur militants loyal to Damascus are designed to provoke pleas for Turkish protection.
Historically, arson has not been random in Syria. In 2020, the former government arrested 39 individuals for setting coordinated fires across Latakia, Tartous, Homs, and Hama—allegedly financed by a “foreign party.”
Last year, vast fires scorched Wadi al-Nasara in Homs and later spread to Kasab near the Turkish border. Then-Governor Khaled Abaza admitted, “The multiplicity of fire outbreaks strongly suggests that they were intentional, as between 30 and 40 fires broke out in a single day in various areas of the governorate, especially those rugged areas that are inaccessible to vehicles.”
He continued, “A search was launched for two vehicles believed to belong to the arsonists.”
The pattern of politically timed arson is now impossible to ignore. Every major fire in the past five years has coincided with key political milestones such as regime transitions and outbreaks of sectarian unrest, pointing to a deliberate strategy masked as environmental catastrophe.
While poverty and illegal logging are the usual explanations for Syria’s seasonal fires, deeper motives have taken shape. Intelligence services are reportedly scouring Latakia’s forests for buried weapons stockpiles.
Foreign militaries are surveying the terrain for future base sites. Coastal land developers are eyeing scorched villages for luxury tourism projects. And behind it all, Israel remains a constant agitator, stoking sectarian flames for its own expansionist agenda and to further undermine the Resistance Axis.
If anything, the ministry’s insistence on ruling out human involvement in this year’s fires has further eroded public trust. In a country exposed to endless covert operations, the official version of events cannot withstand scrutiny.
In Latakia, what’s burning isn’t just land—it’s the last hope that post-Assad Syria might survive this transition intact.
More signs of Britain grooming Syria’s Al-Qaeda-rooted government
The Cradle | June 4, 2025
When Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa (previously known as Abu Mohammad al-Julani), the former Al-Qaeda emir who led the Nusra Front, was affiliated with ISIS, and later headed Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), visited Saudi Arabia to meet Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MbS) in February, he was accompanied by a surprising figure: Razan Saffour, a 32-year-old British-Syrian activist who had never set foot in Syria before the fall of former president Bashar al-Assad’s government in December.
Saffour also joined Syrian Foreign Minister Asaad al-Shaibani on his trip to the Munich Security Conference that same month. Her presence in Syria’s new ruling circle highlights Britain’s outsized role in shaping the conflict – bringing Al-Qaeda to power, whitewashing its leadership, and embedding UK operatives within its political infrastructure.
Her presence alongside Julani on official state visits signals not just personal ascension, but the triumph of Britain’s long war to launder extremist power through western-groomed proxies.
Razan Saffour was born and raised in London, studied at SOAS, and emerged as a high-profile Syrian opposition voice during the early years of the war, when she was only in her early 20s. Platformed by major western and Arab media outlets from the Persian Gulf, she was a familiar figure on the regime-change circuit. Her father, Walid Saffour, a leading Muslim Brotherhood (MB) dissident, had fled Syria in 1981 during the MB’s armed uprising against the state.
Walid Saffour would later become the Syrian opposition’s ambassador to the UK, representing the Syrian National Council. Academic Dr Dara Conduit notes that this gave “the Brotherhood an important formal diplomatic link to the UK through an undeclared member.”
Engineering regime change
By the mid-2000s, the British government had aligned with US neoconservatives and MB-linked activists to prepare a full-blown insurgency in Syria.
In October 2006, several members of an MB front group, the National Salvation Front (NSF), traveled to Washington to meet with Michael Doran, a member of the US National Security Council, to discuss plans for regime change in Syria. Doran was a close associate of prominent Jewish neoconservative and former US president George W. Bush’s administration official Elliott Abrams.
In 2009, former French foreign minister Roland Dumas was told by top British officials that “they were preparing something in Syria … Britain was organizing an invasion of rebels into Syria.” When asked why, Dumas responded, “Very simple!” because “the Syrian regime makes anti-Israeli talk.”
The covert US-UK effort to topple Assad involved training young, media-savvy Syrian activists to organize anti-government protests, as well as flooding Syria with Al-Qaeda militants from Iraq, Libya, Lebanon, and dozens of other countries to carry out false flag attacks against Syrian police and security forces.
Many were UK nationals and members of the Al-Qaeda-linked Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG). They had been allowed by British authorities to travel to Libya to topple late Libyan president Muammar al-Gaddafi, before being funneled into Syria via Turkiye.
US Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford served as the operation’s field coordinator. As former US Naval officer Wayne Madsen reported in 2011, Ford was recruiting death squads from Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, and Chechnya. His previous role as political officer in Iraq involved implementing the El Salvador Option: organizing Shia death squads to crush Sunni insurgents under Ambassador John Negroponte.
Among those released from the US-run Bucca prison in Iraq and dispatched to Syria was none other than Abu Mohammad al-Julani. He would go on to found the Nusra Front, the Syrian branch of Al-Qaeda, after orchestrating a series of suicide bombings in Damascus.
The Powell connection
While Al-Qaeda’s Syrian franchise grew, British intelligence cultivated parallel assets to manage the political front. In 2011, former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair’s chief of staff, Jonathan Powell, founded the NGO Inter Mediate, a Foreign Office-funded project designed to open secret channels with insurgent groups.
In March 2012, Powell wrote to Hillary Clinton’s advisor Sidney Blumenthal seeking US support: “We are setting up secret channels between insurgents and governments.” He boasted that his group worked “closely with the FCO (the Foreign and Commonwealth Office), NSC (National Security Council) and SIS (Special Intelligence Service, or MI-6) in London.”
“We are starting work in Syria,” Powell added, suggesting that he was communicating with the Nusra Front and other Al-Qaeda linked groups.
By this time, Walid Saffour had assumed his UK ambassadorial post for the Syrian opposition. He lobbied hard for the arming of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) – a cover or “weapons farm” for transferring NATO-grade weapons to Nusra.
His appointment gave “the Brotherhood an important formal diplomatic link to the UK through an undeclared member,” academic Dara Conduit wrote in her book detailing the history of the MB in Syria.
Armed with CIA-supplied TOW missiles and led by Julani’s suicide battalions, Nusra captured Idlib in 2015. A year later, it declared an Islamic emirate in the province, modeled on ISIS’s Raqqa. Brett McGurk, the US envoy to the anti-ISIS coalition, would later call Idlib “the largest Al-Qaeda safe haven since 9/11.”
While McGurk claimed “Idlib now is a huge problem,” the US and UK were quietly working with the Nusra, which was soon rebranded as HTS.
Arab media outlet Jusoor wrote that the “attempts of [Hayat] Tahrir Al-Sham for polishing itself began in the summer of 2017, with a campaign of contacts with the west.”
Jusoor added that HTS media official Zeid Attar had a meeting with the former UK diplomat Powell, “who manages many back channels for negotiating with designated terrorist groups either internationally or nationally.”
From terrorist to statesman
In 2019, US envoy James Jeffrey openly described HTS as an “asset” to Washington’s Syria strategy. The goal: preserve an Al-Qaeda-controlled buffer in Idlib to pressure Damascus.
Russian media later revealed that Powell had met Julani near the Bab al-Hawa crossing with Turkiye, coaching him on how to rehabilitate his image. Julani was advised to grant a western media interview to soften his profile.
PBS journalist Martin Smith soon arrived in Idlib. His April 2021 interview with Julani aired in the US, casting the Salafist extremist leader as a reformed figure who posed no threat to western interests.
In May 2024, Robert Ford revealed at a conference that he, too, had met Julani in Idlib. “In 2023, a British non-governmental organization specializing in conflict resolution invited me to help with their efforts to get this man out of the terrorist world and into regular politics,” Ford told attendees.
That NGO, according to Independent Arabia, was Powell’s Inter Mediate. In a revealing twist, Powell was appointed UK National Security Advisor on 8 November 2024 – just weeks before Julani’s HTS launched its final offensive on Damascus. By 8 December, Julani, who now goes by his government name Ahmad al-Sharaa, had assumed power.
London’s ‘post-Assad’ playbook
As Sharaa settled into the presidential palace, western and Arab media launched a PR blitz to sell him as a modern, diversity-friendly ruler. This was difficult given his previous pledges to carry out a genocide against any of Syria’s minority Alawites who refused to convert to Sunni Islam, and his role in dispatching car and suicide bombers, killing tens of thousands in Syria and Iraq over more than a decade.
An image facelift ensued nonetheless: Military fatigues gave way to tailored suits; his nom de guerre was dropped in favor of his alleged birth name. Time magazine listed Sharaa as one of the year’s 100 most influential people – at Ford’s behest, no less. And the US lifted its $10 million bounty on his head for terrorism.
Sharaa pledged to protect minorities, including the Alawites – even as Syria’s new HTS-led security forces began targeting them under the guise of counterinsurgency. HTS-led Syrian government forces were carrying out brutal massacres against Alawite civilians on the Syrian coast, during an operation to quell an armed uprising against the authorities. During a four-day period of massacres, at least 1,700 Alawite civilians, including scores of women and children, were killed.
The following February, after Razan Saffour accompanied Julani to meet MbS, The National reported that Powell had recently held a “low-key meeting” with Syria’s new government in his new role as National Security Advisor, “boosting suggestions he will play a leading role in relations.”
Syrian analyst Malek Hafez told the Syrian Observer that Powell’s team even runs a media office inside the presidential palace, “reportedly run by two women – one British, the other of Lebanese-British heritage.”
As Hafez concludes, “The rise of Ahmad al-Sharaa was not spontaneous – it was carefully engineered through a long-term, western-backed strategy, in which Britain played a disproportionately influential role among western powers.”
While London has not yet officially expressed its support for Sharaa and Syria’s new government, the UK’s “fingerprints” are increasingly visible, the Observer added.
When weighed against the hundreds of thousands of Syrians killed, the millions displaced, and the wreckage of a nation, the UK’s central role in bringing Julani to power should not be forgotten.
Hell freezeth over as Sharaa gets invited to Baghdad
By Rasool Majeed | The Cradle | April 30, 2025
Syrian interim President Ahmad Sharaa’s return to Iraq – once unimaginable following his departure in 2011 – now seems possible with Iraq set to host the Arab summit on 17 May. But the question of whether Sharaa will attend has become a flashpoint, highlighting deep divisions within Iraq.
At the time of his departure, Sharaa, also known as Hayat Tahrir al Sham (HTS) leader Abu Mohammad al-Julani, was affiliated with the Al-Qaeda-linked group the Nusra Front, an early incarnation of HTS – both UN-designated terrorist organizations – and left Iraq to join the foreign-backed war against Syria.
Having been exiled from Iraq, the very idea that he could return, not as a visiting foreign dignitary but as Syria’s head of state, has stirred opposition across political, sectarian, and tribal lines. The invitation, coming from the Arab League, has stirred serious concerns about Iraq’s sovereignty and its ability to manage West Asia’s evolving challenges.
Imposed by the Arab League
Amir al-Fayez, a member of Iraq’s Foreign Relations Committee, makes it clear to The Cradle that Iraq’s role in inviting Sharaa is not voluntary. The invitation, he explains, is mandated by the Arab League, and Iraq is expected to fulfill its duties as the host nation by sending invitations to all Arab heads of state. However, Iraq itself has little to no influence on the decision to invite Sharaa.
The Arab League’s decision to reinstate Syria in 2023 after a long suspension in 2011 has only complicated Baghdad’s position. While Sharaa’s return to the Arab fold is seen as a diplomatic victory for post-Assad Syria, Iraq has faced significant backlash domestically, with many questioning the wisdom of hosting a leader who has twice been incarcerated on terror charges in Iraq and is deeply linked to the country’s violent past.
The Arab League’s push to reintegrate Syria has brought these tensions to the surface, and Iraq’s internal factions are grappling with the political fallout.
Interestingly, the Foreign Relations Committee in the Iraqi Parliament supports Sharaa’s invitation to the summit in Baghdad. Fayez notes: “As a Foreign Relations Committee, we appreciate this position on the government’s part as it is tasked with sending invitations to all Arab heads of state without exception.”
Resistance factions’ rejection
But political parties and resistance factions in Iraq, including influential groups such as Asaeb Ahl al-Haq and Kataib Hezbollah, have voiced strong opposition to Sharaa’s visit. Qais al-Khazali, the leader of Asaeb Ahl al-Haq and an early backer of Iraq’s current Prime Minister, Mohammed Shia al-Sudani, made his stance clear on social media, warning of the potential consequences if Sharaa enters Iraq.
Khazali pointed to an arrest warrant against Sharaa, emphasizing that his presence would be illegal under Iraqi law. For these factions, Sharaa is not just a foreign leader, but a figure associated with violence, instability, terror, and murder in Iraq, making his visit untenable.
On 16 April, Sudani officially invited Sharaa to participate in the upcoming Arab summit in Baghdad. Three days later, Khazali posted on X, warning against Sharaa’s entry into Iraq, saying:
“The presence of the current Syrian regime president in Iraq is premature, as it could lead to repercussions if the law is applied and he is arrested by the security forces, due to an existing arrest warrant against him. Accordingly, and in accordance with the principle of the separation of powers, the decisions of the Iraqi judiciary must be adhered to and respected by all.”
A day before Khazali’s post, Abu Ali al-Askari, the security official for Kataib Hezbollah, also posted a statement clearly rejecting Sharaa’s visit to Iraq, pointing out:
“Arab summits were held without the presence of President Assad and without Iraq or Libya. These summits will not stop just because the convicted (Abu Mohammad Al-Julani), leader of the criminal Nusra Front, does not attend.”
Shia lawmaker Yousef al-Kalabi, described Sharaa’s entry into Iraq as “a betrayal of the memory of Iraqis who suffered under terrorism.”
Regarding Sudani’s meeting with Sharaa in Doha through Qatari mediation, Firas al-Yassir, a member of the political bureau of Al-Nujaba Movement, tells The Cradle :
“There is certainly Iraqi consensus rejecting any meeting with Sharaa by any person holding an official position in the Iraqi state. According to Iraqi law, the man is wanted by the Iraqi judiciary and is accused of killing Iraqis during the days of terrorist operations.”
Yassir adds: “No individual or entity has the right to violate Iraqi law or undermine the blood of Iraqis. If it is true that Sudani’s meeting with Sharaa in Doha occurred under American and [Persian] Gulf pressure, it would be considered a setback in Iraq’s foreign policy.”
He continues: “I expect that there is a political and popular consensus rejecting Julani’s attendance at the summit, and he is not welcomed. The issues raised about him should be addressed.”
Conditional rejection
While many have outright rejected Sharaa’s visit, some figures within the Iraqi political system, like Thair Mukhayef, have called for a more nuanced approach. Mukhayef, a tribal leader and member of parliament, has stated that while he opposes Sharaa’s visit, the matter should be decided based on Iraq’s judicial system.
According to Mukhayef, if Sharaa is proven guilty of crimes committed during the Iraq War, his visit should be barred. This position underscores the tension between legal considerations and diplomatic pragmatism. Mukhayef tells The Cradle :
“Sharaa took his position in what is called a coup against his government. There has been much talk and rumors about his involvement in violent acts in Iraq, and arrest warrants have been issued against him. Therefore, we are with the law and what the judiciary issues concerning this person.”
He adds, “If this man (Sharaa) indeed committed crimes and has an arrest warrant, we do not respect anyone who sheds the blood of our sons, and then he comes to have a red carpet rolled out for him to attend conferences and lecture on Arab nation policy within Iraq. I will reject the arrival of this figure if it is proven that he is the one who exploded, killed, and planned those crimes.”
He confirms that “Sharaa’s invitation to the summit is not from Iraq. Yes, I am with the absolute rejection, and I am not justifying it. But the invitation came from the Arab League, and Iraq is hosting this conference. I repeat the confirmation, we are with the judiciary and what it says. If it is proven that Sharaa has committed violent acts, killings, and destruction in our country, we absolutely and completely reject his entry into Iraq.”
The tribal divide
Tribal leaders in Iraq, a powerful political force in the country, have also been divided over Sharaa’s invitation. They have had a significant impact on political and security events in Iraq, from the 1920 Revolution to the post-independence period, through to the US invasion of 2003 and their uprising against ISIS in 2014 and beyond. This makes their stance on Sharaa’s invitation to Iraq significant.
Shia tribes have almost unanimously rejected Sharaa’s visit, with the Unified Tribes Council of Iraq issuing a statement calling for opposition to Sharaa, citing his role in past violence against Iraqis. These tribes view his presence as a betrayal of the bloodshed suffered during the Iraq War.
However, Sunni tribes have been more divided. Some, like former politician Mishaan al-Jubouri, have expressed support for Sharaa, downplaying his past and framing his visit as a diplomatic necessity. Jubouri and others have argued that Iraq should prioritize its regional interests, including relations with Syria, and not allow historical grievances to overshadow current political realities.
On the other hand, leaders like Sheikh Mazahim al-Huwait, a Sunni tribal leader from Ninawa, have firmly rejected Sharaa’s visit. Huwait, while supportive of trade and security cooperation with Syria, has condemned Sharaa as a figure linked to Iraq’s violent past.
Huwait’s opposition is based on both Sharaa’s personal history and the broader implications of hosting a leader implicated in the bloodshed of Iraq’s sectarian conflict. He tells The Cradle :
“We reject Julani’s visit to Iraq because his hands are stained with the blood of Iraqis, and he himself has openly admitted that after his release, he participated in operations in Iraq, having been a prisoner in US jails in 2005, where he was with me in detention … Sharaa has an arrest warrant under Article 4 Terrorism issued by the Iraqi judiciary and the Counter-Terrorism Agency. Therefore, we reject his visit.”
Regarding exchanges such as Syrian Foreign Minister Asaad al-Shaibani’s visit to Iraq or Iraqi delegations traveling to Damascus, Huwait supports them, stating: “Such visits are necessary, as cutting off trade visits and those related to security coordination is not correct. Syria is a neighboring country, and its security means Iraq’s security.”
On the Sunnis who welcome Sharaa to Iraq, Huwait opines:
“Those who welcome him, whether leaders or tribal sheikhs, are followers of the arenas of humiliation and disgrace and do not represent the Sunni community but only themselves.”
A tactical move?
While many factions and figures within Iraq oppose Sharaa’s visit on legal and moral grounds, some analysts view it as a strategic move within the larger context of Iraq’s foreign policy. Prime Minister Sudani’s meeting with Sharaa in Doha, mediated by Qatar, is believed to be part of a broader effort to enhance Iraq’s position in the region, particularly in relation to Iran.
By engaging with Sharaa, Iraq seeks to balance its ties with both Syria and Iran, which are critical to its security and political stability. Huwait, though opposed to Sharaa’s visit, acknowledges Iraq’s diplomatic role in the region and its need to engage with neighboring countries, including Syria:
“Iraq now has a significant role on the political scene, especially in the Middle East (West Asia), and it has succeeded in distancing many risks in the region, including with the Islamic Republic. There were risks concerning it with the US, and Iraq played a major role in this.”
He adds:
“It’s a heavy matter for Sudani to meet with a person who has killed his people, but Sharaa is now the president of Syria, and some countries have recognized him, and the Syrian flag is raised everywhere, including in Iraq. Sharaa asked Sudani to open dialogue with Iran, as he is in a difficult situation. He knows that opening channels with the Islamic Republic and ending conflicts with it will bring several countries, including Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen, and others, to his side.”
Sudani’s second term under fire
Those opposing Sharaa’s visit to Iraq base their objection on “his criminal record in the country” and his participation with extremist factions from 2005 to 2011, but some observers see this as “just an excuse.” The real aim of the rejection, they claim, is to embarrass Iraqi premier Sudani on the global stage and seize any opportunity to prevent him from securing a second term.
Speaking to The Cradle, Iraqi writer and political observer Jabar al-Mashadani argues:
“The Shia factions fighting within the Coordination Framework will seize any opportunity to prevent Prime Minister Sudani from securing a second term. Different parties within the framework want the position of prime minister after the upcoming elections. These factions exploit any political step in their favor, whether internal and highly local, like investment, reconstruction, and services issues, or external and strategic, especially regarding Iraq’s relationship with its anxious neighbor Syria, which affects Iraq’s internal security and politics.”
As the Arab summit approaches, the question of whether Sharaa will attend remains unresolved. While legal, political, and moral objections to his visit are strong, Iraq’s role as the summit host and its broader diplomatic interests may ultimately shape the outcome.
Regardless of whether Sharaa sets foot in Baghdad, his invitation has already sparked a major political divide within Iraq. The decision on Sharaa’s attendance may not only influence Iraq’s relationship with Syria, but may also shape the country’s future diplomatic course in a region marked by tension and shifting allegiances.
Aggressive Rhetoric of NATO, EU Hinders Russia, US’s Risk Mitigation Efforts – Shoigu
Sputnik – 30.04.2025
Militarization of Europe and aggressive rhetoric on the part of NATO and the EU hinder the success of Russia and the United States’ efforts to reduce strategic risks, Russian Security Council Secretary Sergei Shoigu said on Wednesday.
“Today we continue to consistently convey to the Americans the need to work together on comprehensive reduction of strategic risks, which should have positive impact on the international security. However, militarization of Europe and aggressive rhetoric of NATO and the EU hinder achievement of positive results in this area,” Shoigu said at the meeting of high representatives of BRICS countries in charge of security issues, which is taking place in Brasilia.
Using Terrorist Proxies for Geostrategy
Some European countries are increasingly using terrorist groups for their geostrategic purposes, and the most prominent example is Ukraine, Russian Security Council Secretary Sergei Shoigu said on Wednesday.
“Some European states are increasingly using terrorist groups for their geostrategic purposes, primarily in confrontation with countries that do not recognize dominance,” Shoigu said at a meeting of the BRICS countries’ high representatives in charge of security issues, adding that the most striking example is Ukraine because Kiev uses NATO weapons to shell residential neighborhoods, commits sabotage and political assassinations.
The most serious challenges to global security come from ISIS and Al-Qaeda, because they are quickly adapting to changing geopolitical conditions, Shoigu added.
US airstrikes in Yemen lay groundwork for ‘ground invasion’ by UAE-backed militias: Report
The Cradle | April 15, 2025
With US support, UAE proxy militias in Yemen are planning a ground offensive to take the port city of Hodeidah from the Ansarallah-led Yemeni government and armed forces, The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported on 15 April, in a move that would reignite the country’s devastating civil war.
“Private American security contractors provided advice to the Yemeni factions on a potential ground operation, people involved in the planning said. The United Arab Emirates, which supports these factions, raised the plan with American officials in recent weeks,” the WSJ wrote.
The ground offensive seeks to take advantage of the recent US bombing campaign targeting the Yemeni Armed Forces (YAF).
US officials speaking with the newspaper said Washington has launched more than 350 strikes during its current campaign against Yemen and claim that the YAF has been weakened as a result.
While the Ansarallah-led National Salvation Government controls Yemen’s most populous areas, including the capital, Sanaa, and the strategic port city of Hodeidah, other parts of the country have remained in control of UAE and Saudi-supported factions since the end of the civil war in 2022.
Under the plan being discussed, factions of the UAE-backed Southern Transitional Council (STC) would deploy their forces north to the western Yemeni coast and try to seize the Red Sea port of Hodeidah, pro-UAE Yemeni sources said.
If successful, the ground operation would push the YAF back from large parts of the coast from where they have launched attacks on Israeli-linked ships transiting the Red Sea.
The YAF began targeting Israeli-linked ships in November 2023 in response to Israel’s genocide of Palestinians in Gaza. The US launched a war against Yemen and the YAF on Israel’s behalf shortly thereafter.
Capturing Hodeidah would be a “major blow” to the Ansarallah-led Yemeni government, “depriving them of an economic lifeline while also cutting off their main route to receive arms from Iran,” the WSJ wrote.
“A major ground offensive risks reigniting a Yemeni civil war that has been dormant for years and that spurred a humanitarian crisis when a Saudi–Emirati coalition supported local ground forces with a bombing campaign,” the WSJ added.
Officials from Saudi Arabia, which supports another Yemeni faction, the Presidential Leadership Council (PLC), have privately said they will not join or help a ground offensive in Yemen.
During the civil war, the Saudi-led coalition, alongside the UAE, conducted a major bombing campaign in Yemen that killed nearly 15,000 people, while the Saudi navy blockaded Yemen’s major ports, causing a humanitarian crisis that killed hundreds of thousands more.
In 2018, the Saudi Kingdom launched three operations against Ansarallah in an attempt to capture Hodeidah, yet failed.
Ansarallah forces retaliated by launching ballistic missile and drone attacks on Saudi cities, including striking a Saudi Aramco oil storage facility in Jeddah, which threatened to devastate the kingdom’s oil production and exports.
The YAF also responded to the UAE’s aggression on Yemen by launching its first drone and missile attacks on Abu Dhabi in January 2022, targeting three oil trucks and an under-construction airport extension infrastructure.
Both the UAE and Saudi Arabia allegedly cooperated with and recruited fighters from the local Al-Qaeda affiliate, known as Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), to assist in their proxy war against Ansarallah.
Tensions escalate on Syria-Lebanon border as EU/NATO-backed massacres of minorities continue
By Drago Bosnic | March 18, 2025
Ever since the destruction of sovereign Syria, the situation on the ground keeps deteriorating. The EU/NATO-backed terrorist “government” is resorting to extreme violence in an attempt to establish control over areas primarily populated by minorities, particularly Alawites and Christians. Thousands have been brutally murdered as a result of this terrorist takeover, with the new “government” sending its forces (composed of Al Qaeda-affiliated armed personnel) to crush any opposition. This issue is now slowly becoming transnational as armed clashes are reported on the Syria-Lebanon border. Namely, the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) terrorists (now posing as the “new Syrian military”) are shelling and launching rockets at Lebanese border towns.
Beirut sent military forces to respond to these attacks. Over the weekend, local sources reported that “the Beqaa Valley has been under continuous shelling for three hours with rockets and artillery coming from Syrian territory”. The new terrorist “government” occupying Syria since early December also regularly launches armed drones into Lebanese territory, while several rockets launched from the Qusayr countryside (administratively part of the Homs Governorate) hit the Lebanese border town of Qasr. Local sources report that “heavy shelling is ongoing”, resulting in “civilian casualties on the Lebanese side, including at least one child”. Citing military data, the traditionally pro-terrorist Al Jazeera reports that “eight members of the Syrian Ministry of Defense were killed in the clashes”.
It should be noted that the “Syrian Ministry of Defense” in this case refers to one controlled by the unelected EU/NATO-backed terrorist “government”. The fighting supposedly “began several hours after three HTS fighters were found dead inside Lebanese territory” and “were handed over to the new ‘government’ by Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) and the Red Cross”. The HTS-run “Defense Ministry’s” media office told former Syrian state media outlet SANA that “the Hezbollah militia kidnapped the three fighters on the border, took them to Lebanese territory and executed them on the spot”. Other sources report that the three HTS terrorists “were already in Lebanese territory when they were killed”. These clashes seem to have been in retribution to the new terrorist “government’s” actions.
Namely, local sources report that the HTS killed several citizens of Lebanon. According to Annahar, “on Monday, two Lebanese youths were found dead in the Matraba area near the border”. They were reportedly kidnapped from their homes inside Lebanon by the new terrorist “government’s” security forces and subsequently killed.
The EU/NATO-backed puppets in Damascus claim they’re “fighting Hezbollah on the border”, although the Lebanese Shia organization regularly denies involvement in recent events in occupied Syria. There are claims that “a Syrian photographer and journalist were injured by retaliatory rocket fire launched from Lebanon on Sunday”. On the other hand, Beirut reports that “Lebanese villages and towns in the region were subjected to shelling from Syrian territory”.
The Lebanese military sent “units [that] responded to the sources of fire with appropriate weapons, reinforced their deployment, and maintained security” and reported that “contacts continue between the army command and the Syrian authorities to maintain security and stability in the border area”. The new terrorist “government” in Damascus also reportedly sent reinforcements to the border area.
The incidents come over a month after fighting was reported between the HTS-run forces and Lebanese tribesmen back in early February. At the time, the former sent troops to “set up checkpoints in an attempt to thwart smuggling”. The fighting stopped after Beirut and local tribes came to an agreement that resulted in the latter’s withdrawal from the border.
It should be noted that the security situation in western parts of Syria deteriorated dramatically after the new terrorist “government” started a genocidal campaign against the locals, murdering even Sunnis who offered shelter to their Alawite and Christian compatriots. The Russian military in the area continues to house thousands of refugees, with more coming in daily. New footage confirms that gruesome atrocities by the HTS-run “security forces” continue unabated, while the EU/NATO keep supporting and even financing the terrorists.
Namely, Germany just pledged an additional €300 million ($326 million) in “foreign aid” for the new terrorist “government”. Its Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock insists that “over half of it will bypass the interim government of Jolani, to be distributed through NGOs and UN agencies”.
“As Europeans, we stand together for the people of Syria, for a free and peaceful Syria,” Baerbock declared without even mentioning the ongoing massacres.
The assertion that the terrorist Jolani regime “will be bypassed” is beyond laughable as recent revelations about the USAID and its illegal activities around the world show that around $15 billion were funneled into Syria precisely through the USAID. This money ended up in the pockets of various terrorist groups that took over Syria and are now killing civilians across the occupied country. Estimates vary, ranging from over a thousand to as many as 10-15,000 casualties.
The areas populated by minorities (particularly Alawites and Christians) are disproportionately affected, meaning that the new terrorist “government” is determined to eradicate any and all groups deemed “infidels”. Locals are subjected to brutal torture and then murdered by the EU/NATO-backed Islamic radicals.
Worse yet, Brussels is now even condemning the victims for fighting back, calling them “pro-Assad forces” and accusing them of “destabilizing Syria”. On the other hand, somewhat astonishingly and unexpectedly, the US is condemning the jihadists after decades of supporting them. Both Donald Trump and JD Vance have criticized not only the terrorists, but also the preceding US governments, even admitting their policies led to the eradication of ancient Christian communities in the Middle East.
Even some (now former) Democrats, such as the former congressman Dennis Kucinich slammed this foreign policy approach, asking rhetorically: “Why would America champion policies that lead to the killing of Christians, the destruction of churches, the massacre of Alawites and the rise of radical jihadists?”
“Why did our leaders knowingly aid those who murdered the very people America claimed to want to protect? The answer lies in a corrupt, immoral foreign policy dictated not by ethics, human rights, or even national security, but by the interests of the military-industrial complex and strategists who view human lives as pawns in a geopolitical chess game,” he concluded.
‘This isn’t war. It’s genocide’: Why the world is silent about massacres in Syria
Survivors of the violence against the Alawite, Christian, and Druze communities share their stories
RT | March 15, 2025
Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), the dominant militant group in northwestern Syria, once presented itself as a local opposition force. Just over a month ago, the group was formally disbanded and became part of the Syrian Defense Ministry, yet its origins tell a far more sinister story. Born out of the ashes of Jabhat al-Nusra, Al-Qaeda’s official branch in Syria, HTS carries the same ideological DNA as the world’s most notorious terrorist network. While it has sought to rebrand itself for international legitimacy, its methods remain unchanged: Massacres, ethnic cleansing, and the systematic extermination of those who do not conform to its radical ideology.
Nowhere has this been more evident than in Syria’s coastal cities, where HTS and its foreign recruits have unleashed an unspeakable wave of violence against Alawite, Christian, and Druze communities. Entire villages have been erased, their inhabitants slaughtered in the dead of night. Yet, as these horrors unfold, the world remains indifferent, and the silence of international powers only emboldens the perpetrators.
The massacre in Latakia: A night of unimaginable horror
In one of the darkest nights in Syria’s recent history, coordinated attacks on rural Latakia resulted in mass executions. Survivors tell of masked men storming their villages, dragging families from their homes, and carrying out public executions. Those who resisted were burned inside their homes, leaving behind entire neighborhoods reduced to smoldering ruins.
Testimonies from survivors suggest that many of the perpetrators were foreign fighters, brought in from regions far from the Middle East.
“They didn’t even speak our language,” an elderly survivor told RT. “They had no idea who we were, no reason to hate us – except that they were told to.”
Entire villages have been abandoned, their populations either massacred or displaced. Satellite imagery confirms what survivors describe – rows of torched homes, mass graves hastily covered, and ghost towns where life once thrived.
The bloodbath in Tartus: A slaughter without mercy
Tartus, once a thriving coastal city, has become another graveyard. HTS fighters stormed residential areas, conducting door-to-door massacres. Families were accused of supporting the government or practicing the ‘wrong’ faith before being lined up and shot. Those who were not executed on the spot were locked inside buildings which were then torched.
A local journalist, speaking anonymously for fear of reprisal, described the scale of the killings:
“There were so many bodies that people stopped counting. They weren’t buried properly – just dumped into ditches.”
Foreign fighters played a leading role in these atrocities. A humanitarian worker recalled speaking with a man who had barely escaped:
“He told me he heard Chechen, Uzbek, and North African Arabic among the attackers. These weren’t local militants – these were imported killers, trained elsewhere and sent here to finish us off.”
Despite the horror, survivors insist they were never fighting for political power – only for survival. “We weren’t taking up arms to reclaim land or rule over anyone,” a displaced father from Tartus told RT. “We were just trying to stop them from killing our children in their beds.”
Jableh: The systematic erasure of a community
The violence in Jableh was particularly gruesome. Hundreds of men were rounded up, executed, and dumped into mass graves. Women and children were kidnapped, their fates unknown. Witnesses reported hearing gunfire for hours as the slaughter continued unchecked.
“They lined up all the men and took them away,” a survivor said with a voice shaking. “Later, we found their bodies piled on top of one another, shot execution-style.”
One woman who managed to escape described her captors:
“They were foreigners. Some were Arab, others were not. They had dead eyes, no emotion.
To them, we weren’t people – we were just bodies to be destroyed.”
Another survivor, now living in a refugee camp, said, “People say we were fighting for power, but we were just trying to keep our families from being butchered. No one wanted war. We just wanted to survive.”
Executioners without borders
What makes these massacres even more horrifying is the sheer number of foreign fighters involved. Witnesses and survivors consistently report hearing different languages among the attackers, sometimes even Western languages.
“These aren’t local fighters,” a displaced resident now sheltering in Damascus said.
They were trained somewhere else, then sent here to do what they do best – kill.”
The involvement of foreign jihadists suggests a well-coordinated, externally supported operation, designed not just to fight a war, but to systematically erase communities. Intelligence sources indicate that these fighters were funneled into Syria through neighboring countries, trained in camps before being deployed to slaughter civilians.
The global silence
Despite overwhelming evidence of genocide, Western and regional media continue to present the massacres as “clashes” between HTS and government forces, deliberately sidestepping the mass extermination of Syria’s Alawite community.
A Syrian human rights activist, speaking under anonymity, condemned this distortion:
“This isn’t war. It’s genocide. Yet, the world’s media avoids using that word because it doesn’t fit their political narrative.”
Western governments that once backed opposition forces are now reluctant to acknowledge the nightmare they helped unleash. By turning a blind eye, they enable the continuation of these crimes, and their silence serves as complicity in the atrocities.
The United Nations has remained largely passive, offering vague statements of concern but taking no meaningful action. Meanwhile, the perpetrators roam free, emboldened by the knowledge that no one will hold them accountable.
For the people of Latakia, Tartus, and Jableh, the message is clear: No help is coming. The world will not intervene. But history will remember. And the silence of the international community will forever be its most damning indictment.
Featured Video
The Destruction of Libya in 2011
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
Book Review
On Herd Mentality
By Jeb Smith | April 14, 2026
I no longer trust “we the people,” because of the powers influencing them. Media and government schooling form their general ideas on reality and governance. Therefore, it’s not a case of the voter choosing the politicians. Instead, the system is conditioning and conforming the voter to the authorities’ desires.
In democracies, the people are kept occupied working and paying taxes, too busy to acquire information outside the approved sources. You will find they know and care far more about the next iPhone than political philosophy. Of those who hold some interest, 95% just toe the party line, holding the same opinion as the primary media source they listen to. They lack both the desire and time to expand their horizons.
Media’s purpose is to conform people’s thought to a preferred goal, which is why Republican and Democratic voters both firmly hold their parties’ general stances, reciting the same talking points. The people do not originate ideas; their thoughts are fed to them by the media so they can consume, digest, and parrot back whatever they are served. When it comes to politics, we rarely think for ourselves. We are told what to think.
Watch PBS, MSNBC and read your local newspaper for six months, and you will receive a particular view and understanding of the world. Then listen to The Mike Church Show, The Blaze, and The Daily Wire, and you will get not just another perspective but a whole different world of facts and events. The world people believe they live in can be entirely different depending on their news sources.
We enjoy seeing the enemy humiliated, which describes why those engulfed in politics love their preferred media sources; they keep returning for more like a drug addict. Networks ensure their “experts” align with the worldview they and their audience desire. The people who watch PBS, BBC, and so forth expect a specific perspective to be presented. Fox News watchers demand the same. In doing this, we both encourage and assure we are misled.
In their book Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government, professors Christopher H. Achen and Larry M. Bartels argue, based on substantial research, that voters do not decide the party platform and agenda. Instead, the parties control the “ideologies” of the voters. When the party the voter identifies with changes its position, the individuals also change theirs. They discovered the individual would quickly adopt the views of their group; they will ignore or change their own opinions over time to fit in with the collective they identify with. Achen and Bartels wrote “group memberships largely drove policy views, not vice versa.” … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- EU Defense Agency head says compulsory military service could be necessary
- France To Vote On Bill That Would Criminalize Criticism Of Israel
- There are No Ceasefires with Israel, Only Opportunities for Later Attacks
- China to Ignore Trump’s Blockade: The Strait Remains Open to Us
- Trump’s desperate bombasts amount to war crimes
- Most Israelis oppose Iran ceasefire, reject talks: Poll
- Iran to charge ships from ‘hostile’ nations to cross Hormuz – security chief
- UK, Spain reject Trump’s new scheme to blockade Hormuz Strait
- Russian frigate ‘resurfaces’, chases off NATO pirates days after Kiev ‘sank’ it
- Ukraine Targets Russian Merchant Fleet With NATO Intel Support – Presidential Aide
- If Americans Knew
- Emergency waivers move arms for Israel, UAE to speed lane
- Caitlin Johnstone: Nobody’s “Obsessed” With Israel — It’s Just A Uniquely Horrible Country
- Israel’s Ben Gvir says he feels like the ‘owner’ of Al-Aqsa Mosque
- History of flotilla campaigns to end Israel’s siege of Gaza
- Humanitarian Scorecard: Six Months In, Gaza Ceasefire is Failing
- Mark Levin Seems Upset We Haven’t Nuked Iran
- Israeli prison authorities are blocking hundreds of solidarity postcards being sent to female Palestinian prisoners
- ‘I wished for death’: Sexual violence in Israel’s prisons is an ‘organized state policy’
- Israeli army shoots, kills 9-year-old girl in her Gaza classroom
- Israel is attacking Lebanon to sabotage the Iran ceasefire, but the media is hiding its true motivation
- No Tricks Zone
- Cave Discovery Reveals Today’s Desert Climates Were Recently Far Warmer, Wetter, Teeming With Life
- German Expert: Heat Dome Led To Record Temps In Western USA…Warmer In 1934, 1936
- New Study: No Linear Warming Or Glacier Retreat Along Northern Antarctic Peninsula Since 1980s
- An Inconvenient Tree: Uncovered In Alps… Europe Much Warmer Than Today 6000 Years Ago
- New Study Reports A 60% Slowdown In Greenland’s Ice Loss Rate In The Last Decade
- Low Intensity Tornado Wrecks Major Solar Farm, Creating A Potential Toxic Dump
- New Study Finds Warming Saves Lives…Cold Temperatures 12 Times More Deadly Than Excess Heat
- German Science Blog Accuses PIK Climate Institute Of Hallucinating Climate Tipping Points
- Devastating Assessment Of Comirnaty Vaccine By Former Senior Pfizer Europe Toxicologist
- New Study: CO2 Is ‘Effectively Negligible’ As An Explanatory Climate Change Factor Since 2000
Aletho News 
