Unpacking glaring contradictions in US-Zionist justifications for war against Iran
By David Miller | Press TV | March 5, 2026
While the likes of Trump, Netanyahu, and Rubio peddle inconsistent justifications for the illegal and unprovoked aggression on Iran, CIA intelligence shreds claims of imminent threats, revealing how the Zionist entity dictates US foreign policy.
US President Donald Trump unleashed a barrage of contradictory explanations for the joint US-Zionist assault on the Islamic Republic of Iran, launched on 28 February 2026.
In his initial video statement, Trump asserted the strikes aimed to eliminate “imminent threats” from Iran, including its alleged pursuit of nuclear weapons and long-range missiles capable of reaching the American homeland.
He painted Iran as a “vicious group of very hard, terrible people” whose actions endangered US interests.
This narrative quickly evolved. By 3 March, Trump admitted the decision stemmed from his “opinion” that Iran would attack first if not struck preemptively.
“It was my opinion that they were going to attack first,” he stated, abandoning earlier claims of concrete intelligence.
Such flip-flops, once again, expose exaggeration. Trump claimed Iran neared intercontinental ballistic missiles threatening the US, an assertion contradicted by US intelligence assessments.
The BBC highlighted how Trump’s “imminent threats” lacked support, noting Iran’s nuclear capabilities remained far from weaponisation despite rhetoric.
Trump’s pre-strike doubts further undermine his case. The Associated Press reported Trump’s dissatisfaction with ongoing nuclear talks, leading to the order despite diplomatic avenues. This pivot from diplomacy to aggression reeks of opportunism, not necessity.
Netanyahu’s decades-long push: ‘Regime change’ at any cost
Zionist entity premier Benjamin Netanyahu has long championed aggression against Iran, viewing it as an existential foe. In justifying the 2026 strikes, Netanyahu declared them pre-emptive to thwart Iran’s nuclear and missile programs, threatening overwhelming force.
He warned that allowing Iran nuclear weapons and ICBMs would endanger humanity.
Netanyahu’s rhetoric echoes his four-decade obsession. Even complicit journalists like Mehdi Hasan noted Netanyahu “has been yearning, dreaming of doing this for 40 years,” with Trump as the first US leader to oblige.
The Guardian labelled the assault an “illegal act of aggression” without a lawful basis, driven by Netanyahu’s preference for military solutions over diplomacy.
Post-strike, Netanyahu celebrated the operation’s goals and called (in Farsi) for Iranians to “come to the streets, come out in your millions, to finish the job, to overthrow the ‘regime’ of fear that has made your lives bitter”. Mondoweiss exposed how initial nuclear justifications morphed into overt regime change admissions, mirroring Iraq War tactics.
“When we are finished, take over your government,” President Trump said, addressing the Iranian public in his own video. “It will be yours to take.”
Yet The Nation revealed aims to turn Iran into a failed state, obliterating coherent governance. Netanyahu dusted off the genocidal language used against the Palestinians during a visit onSunday, 1 March, to a site struck by an Iranian missile.
“We read in this week’s Torah portion, ‘Remember what Amalek did to you.’ We remember—and we act,” he said.
The Amalekites are identified in the Hebrew Bible as a persistent adversary of the Israelites, linked to a Torah commandment to erase their memory. Specifically, 1 Samuel 15:3 mandates the killing of men, women, and infants. This was a clarion call to eliminate all Iranians, showing the utter hypocrisy of calling out on the streets those he wishes dead.
Rubio’s Freudian slip: Admitting Zionist sway over US decisions
Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s comments laid bare the Zionist entity’s influence on US policy. On 2 March, Rubio stated the US struck because “we knew that there was going to be an Israeli action,” prompting preemptive moves to avoid higher US casualties from Iranian retaliation.
Rubio elaborated that awareness of Zionist plans necessitated US involvement, framing it as defensive. Al Jazeera described this as a “looping justification,” highlighting how Zionist intentions drove US timing.
Facing backlash, Rubio walked back his words, insisting the strikes were inevitable regardless of Zionist actions. The New York Times reported his clarification: “The president determined we were not going to get hit first.”
Axios noted Rubio’s remarks ignited MAGA divisions, underscoring Zionist power. The Guardian highlighted Democratic fury over Rubio’s implication of a “war of choice” on behalf of Zionists. PBS detailed Rubio’s defence, warning Iran of further escalation. These revelations confirm that US policy follows Zionist whims.
CIA intelligence shreds the ‘imminent threat’ facade
CIA assessments dismantle claims of Iranian aggression. The Associated Press revealed that US intelligence showed no pre-emptive Iranian strike planned against the US.
Briefings to Congress confirmed no such indicators. Reuters echoed Pentagon admissions: no intelligence on Iran attacking first. The Hill reported similar findings, contradicting Trump’s “imminent threat.”
A House of Commons Library briefing noted in 2025 that US intelligence judged Iran not to be building nuclear weapons. CNN detailed CIA tracking of Iranian leaders, but no offensive plans. Al Jazeera reported CIA talks with Kurds for uprisings, indicating an offensive US posture. Even the Zionist funded propaganda network Iran International quoted ex-CIA Director Petraeus on Iran’s strategic errors, but no pre-strike aggression.
These reports expose fabricated threats to justify unprovoked war.
Pentagon’s panic: Depleted THAAD stocks and radar losses
Pentagon officials express intense paranoia over dwindling air defense stockpiles as a result of Iran’s legitimate self-defense. The Washington Post reported sources describing the mood as “intense and paranoid.” The Daily Beast characterised these Pentagon officials as “secretly panicking” about THAAD interceptor shortages if fighting drags on.
This panic stems from high consumption rates. It takes two or three interceptors per incoming missile, straining limited THAAD stocks.
Some sources claim that for every $1 Iran spends on drones, countries like the UAE (and by implication the US and the Zionist entity) spend approximately $20 to $28. The Washington Post said officials are warning that resources are “stretched thin.”
Compounding this, the US Navy resists escorting ships through the Strait of Hormuz. USNI News reported Navy officials informing shipping leaders of no availability for escorts, despite Trump’s pledges.
Lloyd’s list detailed this U-turn, with the Navy ruling out protection.
These issues link directly to Iran’s destruction of the AN/FPS-132 radar at Al Udeid base. NDTV reported Iranian claims to have obliterated this $1.1 billion system, crucial for ballistic missile tracking. The radar’s loss weakens early warning, compressing reaction times for THAAD systems.
Army Recognition, a defence industry news site, explained that this reduces sensor depth, forcing more interceptor use and accelerating stock depletion. In fact, they describe it in full as this: “early-warning radar uses a fixed UHF phased-array to detect and continuously track ballistic missiles and space objects at very long range, generating early launch warning, trajectory and impact predictions, and cueing data for layered defenses such as THAAD, Patriot, and naval air-and-missile defense systems across the Gulf”.
So, it affects the whole range of layered air defences.
For Navy escorts, diminished radar coverage heightens risks in Hormuz. Radar losses are key to broader defense cracks, making naval operations precarious without full surveillance.
These problems have only been compounded by the latest strikes, which even the New York Times is admitting have damaged or destroyed Radar and other monitoring and targeting equipment in US bases across the region in Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the UAE.
This chain—radar destruction leading to inefficient defenses and stock drain—fuels Pentagon panic and Navy caution, exposing vulnerabilities in the aggression.
Zionist entity’s grip: How the US became a tool in Iranian aggression
The Zionist colony has long steered US policy toward confrontation with Iran. Al Jazeera probed how Zionist plans precipitated US strikes, with Rubio admitting awareness shaped decisions.
The establishment think tank CFR detailed US intervention following Zionist unilateralism, escalating to full aggression. Mondoweiss argued the war follows an Iraq playbook: false WMD claims shifting to regime change. The Guardian condemned it as illegal, driven by Netanyahu’s impatience with diplomacy.
Euronews quoted Iran’s UN ambassador decrying US betrayal during talks, highlighting Zionist sabotage. Al Mayadeen announced Netanyahu’s declaration of joint aggression. The Nation exposed aims to fragment Iran, with Zionist officials targeting all leadership. WBUR reported Trump’s regime change calls, echoing Zionist goals.
This puppetry endangers global peace, subordinating US interests to messianic Zionist ambitions.
Key contradictions in leadership statements
- Trump’s threat claims vs. intel: Trump warned of missiles soon reaching the US, but even the NYT fact-checks show these are inaccurate.
- Netanyahu’s pre-emption vs. evidence: Netanyahu framed strikes as a gateway to peace, yet Arab News notes endless war denial.
- Rubio’s Zionist trigger vs. walkback: Rubio suggested Israeli plans forced the US hand, later denied.
- Intel on no strike vs. official narratives: AP sources confirm no preemptive Iranian plans.
These inconsistencies fuel scepticism in the American security apparatus as well as – increasingly – with the US allied states in West Asia.
These deceptions are being unmasked in real time. The unthinkable is now dawning on the US and its allies; this may be the moment that the US is pushed out of West Asia once and for all.
Solidarity with Iran at this time demands truth over propaganda and the final push to remove US influence and finally collapse the Zionist colonisation project in Palestine.
Where in the World Is Benjamin Netanyahu? On the Move or Out of Sight?
By Jonas E. Alexis • Unz Review • March 16, 2026
No, this is not another conspiracy theory. Several hypotheses have emerged suggesting that Netanyahu may be dead, missing, or facing some other serious circumstance. The reality, however, is that his current whereabouts remain unknown. Nevertheless, there are several points that can still be articulated.
Do you recall the period during which Israeli forces were heavily bombarding the population of Gaza? During that time, Netanyahu frequently appeared on the political stage, presenting a series of perfidious claims intended to justify why the largely defenseless population in Gaza purportedly deserved such devastating treatment. Over the past decade, Netanyahu has adopted a similar posture with respect to Syria, Libya, and other regions that Israel has sought to undermine or destabilize.
The narrative has shifted considerably. Netanyahu is obviously absent from public appearances; he is neither addressing the nation from podiums nor proclaiming victory. He may be sheltering in a secure location, receiving heightened protection, strategically awaiting a particular moment to emerge, or perhaps entirely removed from public view. What is evident, however, is that he is not asserting triumph—a clear indication that Israel may not be achieving its objectives, or that the Israeli regime almost certainly miscalculated the Iranian defenses. Furthermore, Iran has not appealed to the United States or Israel to terminate hostilities or request a ceasefire. In other words, the current conflict differs markedly from prior engagements and does not appear to favor Zionist Israel or the United States.
Moreover, it is evident from recent developments that Donald Trump has publicly emphasized the importance of bringing the conflict to an end and has actively called on various allied and partner nations to assist in maintaining the security of the Strait of Hormuz, a critical maritime point for global energy supplies. However, these appeals have not yet resulted in significant commitments from other states, and Iran has so far resisted overtures to negotiate a cessation of hostilities. These dynamics just indicate that the current war differs substantively from previous Israeli debacles in the Middle East.
In other words, regardless of interpretation, Iran has already delivered a powerful strategic pushback against U.S. and Israeli actions, which can be viewed as a critical counterbalance to the policies and interventions of these powers. Obviously, a conflict of this magnitude exacts a heavy toll on both sides in terms of human and material costs. Nevertheless, Iran appears to have shifted the dynamics of the confrontation, signaling two central messages: first, that it will no longer tolerate continued aggression without any serious confrontation, and second, that the Israelis and the Zionist regime can bleed–politically, strategically, ideologically, and economically.
It is interesting that Iran is undertaking actions that many Western policymakers have failed to address effectively for decades. Iran’s assertiveness highlights the contrast with politicians across the ideological spectrum in the West—both self-identified right and left, or conservative and liberal—who have often expressed concern over migration from Muslim and Arab countries, yet have largely remained silent regarding the repeated interventions by the United States and Israel in the Middle East, which have resulted in the destabilization and destruction of multiple countries like Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan.
This clearly shows a contradiction. Some people keep saying that Muslims and migrants are destroying Europe, but they stay silent about, or support, endless wars in the Middle East and Africa. This is simply lunacy. You cannot destroy countries like Syria and Iraq for the sake of Israel and then expect “peaceful harmony” in Europe and America. You cannot keep supporting one empire after another around the world and expect your own region to stay safe. You also cannot support leaders like Trump invading countries such as Venezuela and then suddenly start talking about “white identity” in Europe. If these people cannot see this basic contradiction and abandon it, there is nothing we can do to help them.
Michael Jones has argued that Trump may, inadvertently, be signaling the end of the American Empire, and this perspective warrants consideration. Certainly, neither Trump nor the Israeli government set out with such an outcome in mind. However, given their sustained engagement in diabolical policies across the Middle East, their objectives are being viewed increasingly as unattainable. Trump’s tenure, in this respect, illustrates a critical lesson: the pursuit of an “America First” agenda is fundamentally incompatible with unwavering support for the Israeli regime and the Zionist ideology. These positions represent inherently contradictory political ideologies; for an “America First” policy to maintain coherence and credibility, the United States and much of the West would need to reconsider the uncritical alignment with Israeli interests.
There is no way around this principle. Even during Trump’s first term, he was saying things like “America First” and “enough is enough with endless wars in the Middle East.” At the same time, he was becoming closer to the Israeli government and powerful elites in the United States who support those wars. Because of this, it seemed clear to me that Trump was misleading the American people.
Now that Netanyahu is no longer boasting about winning a war against Iran, Trump has to ask the Iranians to stop the conflict. Otherwise, the American economy could suffer serious damage. As writer Ilana Mercer has argued, the Iranians should make Israel pay a price for its actions. Only then will Israel learn some basic lessons.
Trump’s war posturing against Iran traces back to Bush’s infamous 2002 ‘axis of evil’ speech
By Ivan Kesic | Press TV | January 31, 2026
On January 29, 2002, US President George W. Bush’s State of the Union Address infamously branded Iran as part of an “axis of evil,” marking a rhetorical escalation that hardened a decades-long policy of confrontation and laid the groundwork for the persistent crises that continue to threaten regional stability today.
The twenty-fourth anniversary of Bush’s “axis of evil” speech came this week amid a starkly familiar backdrop: US naval “armada” massing in the Persian Gulf and renewed threats of military action from Bush’s successor, Donald Trump.
This moment is not an aberration but the continuation of a sustained, multi-decade strategy aimed at isolating and pressuring the Islamic Republic of Iran.
The policy did not originate with Bush but in the sanctions regimes of the 1990s, significantly shaped by pro-Israeli lobbying efforts within the United States.
It hardened with the rise of neoconservative thinkers who favored regime change over containment – a doctrine vividly applied to Iraq.
Throughout a campaign of disinformation and propaganda regarding weapons of mass destruction, the leveraging of exiled terrorist groups, and a consistent narrative of Iranian threat have been employed to maintain the so-called “maximum pressure.”
As history echoes in January 2026, with a Republican administration again aligning with an Israeli Likud regime to confront Iran, the patterns of the past illuminate the perilous present.
Defining Speech: January 29, 2002
Bush’s State of the Union address fundamentally reshaped the US posture toward Iran in ways that his predecessors had deliberately avoided.
In that speech, Iran was labeled a nation that “aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people’s hope for freedom.”
By grouping Iran with Iraq and North Korea as part of an “axis of evil,” the infamous and widely condemned declaration decisively rejected any tentative diplomatic outreach that had briefly flickered after the September 11 attacks.
During that period, symbolic gestures, such as candlelight vigils in Tehran, and behind-the-scenes communication channels suggested Iran’s conditional cooperation in Afghanistan.
However, the “axis of evil” label extinguished these nascent contacts. It signaled that the hostile administration in Washington would view Iran not as a potential partner, even tactically, but as a permanent adversary and a primary target in the global “war on terror.”
Crafted within a circle of advisors known for their overt pro-Israeli leanings, the phrase was immediately and enthusiastically embraced by the Israeli regime, which saw it as a long-sought alignment of US rhetoric with its own strategic goals.
The speech institutionalized a framework of hostility that would dictate policy for years, replacing the previous administration’s fluctuating approach with one of unambiguous confrontation.
Dual containment and the sanctions regime
Long before the “axis of evil” rhetoric, the framework for isolating Iran was carefully constructed during the Bill Clinton administration under the policy of “dual containment,” which targeted both Iran and Iraq.
From its inception, this policy was heavily influenced by pro-Israeli lobby groups in Washington. Even as Clinton’s foreign policy team was forming, concerns arose about appointees from the Carter administration who were deemed insufficiently sympathetic to these interests.
Warren Christopher, who was appointed Secretary of State, was initially viewed with caution but ultimately became a key architect of a hardened stance toward Iran.
Christopher, who had served as chief negotiator of the Algiers Accords and was criticized by some Iranian officials, developed a personal animosity toward Iran.
He publicly labeled Iran an “outlaw nation,” a “dangerous country,” and one of the “principal sources of support for terrorist groups worldwide.”
This rhetoric provided a public rationale for an escalating series of economic sanctions designed, in his words, to “squeeze Iran’s economy.”
A powerful proponent of this policy was Martin Indyk, former research director at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)-affiliated Washington Institute for Near East Policy, who served on the National Security Council and later as Ambassador to Israel.
Under his guidance, the threefold accusations of sponsoring terrorism, opposing regional peace efforts, and pursuing weapons of mass destruction became the unwavering justification for punitive measures against the Islamic Republic.
A fierce competition emerged in Congress to demonstrate increasing hostility toward Iran, with figures like Senator Alfonse D’Amato pushing for ever-tighter sanctions – often propelled by direct lobbying from AIPAC, which acted as the “locomotive” behind the legislation.
This culminated in the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA) of 1996, which aimed to penalize foreign companies investing in Iran’s energy sector. Later reports revealed that the explicit goal of the act was regime change in Iran.
Neoconservatives and the preference for military solutions
The arrival of the Bush administration marked a significant shift in the philosophy underlying US foreign policy – though not in its ultimate objective.
By the late 1990s, while the corporate world and some pragmatic diplomats began questioning the efficacy of unilateral sanctions, a new faction with immense influence pushed for a more radical and hard-nosed approach.
This neoconservative wing, closely aligned with Likudist ideology in the occupied Palestinian territories, viewed sanctions and containment as too slow and unreliable.
They regarded military force as a faster, more effective means of dealing with hostile states.
Key figures such as Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, and Douglas Feith – all with longstanding ties to pro-Israeli think tanks and advocacy groups – assumed senior roles within the Pentagon and advisory boards.
Their worldview was crystallized in the 1996 policy paper A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm, prepared for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, which advocated attacking Iraq to reshape the regional landscape.
For these strategists, patient pressure through sanctions was secondary to the transformative potential of direct military action and regime rollback.
While initially focused on Iraq, Iran remained a firm subsequent target.
They argued that only the forceful removal of threatening regimes could guarantee American and Israeli security, a belief that came to define the administration’s response after the September 11, 2001 attacks.
Iraqi precedent: Destruction as a model
The neoconservative doctrine found its first full-scale application in Iraq. The 2003 invasion, premised on bogus claims of weapons of mass destruction that were later proven false, fulfilled a long-held goal to eliminate the Saddam Hussein-led Ba’athist regime.
The architects of the invasion were not satisfied with only regime change but aimed for the comprehensive degradation of Iraqi power.
After two major wars and over a decade of crippling sanctions, Iraq’s state apparatus and military-industrial base were utterly destroyed.
Some proponents openly described the objective as returning Iraq “to the pre-industrial era,” a stark admission that the goal extended beyond disarmament to eliminating Iraq’s capacity to function as a modern, sovereign regional counterweight.
The devastating consequences – civil strife, the rise of takfirism, and immense human suffering – were regarded as collateral damage within a broader strategic vision.
For those advocating confrontation with Iran, the Iraqi campaign served as both a template and a warning. It demonstrated the overwhelming military power the US could deploy to dismantle a state, while also exposing the catastrophic instability that could follow.
Nevertheless, the ability to reduce a perceived enemy to a state of permanent weakness was noted, informing the maximalist pressure later applied to Tehran.
Propaganda arsenal: Lies and manipulations
Building and sustaining public and international support for relentless pressure on Iran required a sustained campaign of allegations and propaganda.
The core accusations remained consistent: pursuit of nuclear weapons, support for terrorism, and an implacable hostility to peace in the region.
These charges were amplified through a symbiotic network of government officials, pro-Israeli lobbying organizations, sympathetic media outlets, and designated “experts.”
Sensational – and fabricated – stories were regularly fed to the press. In the early 1990s, reports frequently citing unnamed intelligence sources or anti-Iran groups aboad claimed that Iran had purchased nuclear warheads from Kazakhstan or was on the verge of developing a bomb, claims repeatedly debunked by international inspectors and the countries involved.
Media outlets with particular editorial stances published alarming estimates, suggesting Iran was only years or even months away from nuclear capability – deadlines that continually receded as each passed without incident.
The language used was deliberately inflammatory, with senior officials referring to Iran’s “evil hand” in the region and describing it as a “rogue state.”
This ecosystem ensured that any Iranian attempt at diplomatic outreach or confidence-building was overwhelmed by a pre-existing narrative of deceit and malign intent, making substantive dialogue politically untenable in Washington.
Useful tool: MKO role in anti-Iranian propaganda
A particularly revealing aspect of the propaganda and pressure campaign has been the relationship with the Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO), a terror cult with offices scattered across Europe and the US.
Designated by the US State Department as a terrorist organization due to its history of violent attacks, including against Americans in the 1970s, Iranian officials and civilians in the 1980s, and its alliance with Saddam Hussein during the Imposed War, the terror group nonetheless found influential supporters and was eventually de-listed by Hillary Clinton.
Despite its cult-like structure and lack of popular support inside Iran, the MKO managed to gain an active lobbying and public relations operation in the United States and Europe.
Senior members of the US Congress, especially those with strong pro-Israeli records, championed the group, inviting its representatives to testify and attending its rallies, arguing it represented a “democratic alternative” to the Islamic Republic.
The MKO’s utility was cynically acknowledged; one Congressman stated, “I don’t give a s*** if they are undemocratic… They are fighting Iran, which is… a terrorist state. I say let’s help them fight each other.”
This usefulness peaked in August 2002, when an MKO front held a press conference in Washington to “reveal” the existence of two secret nuclear facilities in Iran at Natanz and Arak.
While these facilities were not in violation of Iran’s safeguards agreement at the time, the revelation – intelligence reports suggest originating with Israeli intelligence and channeled through the exiles – provided the perfect pretext to demand intrusive new inspections and escalate international pressure.
Thus, the MKO served as a deniable cut-out for disinformation and a persistent amplifier of the baseless and sham accusations against the Iranian government.
Unbroken chain: Policy sustained to the present day
The strategic imperative to confront Iran has proven remarkably durable, transcending individual US administrations and enduring significant geopolitical shifts.
This hostile and bellicose policy remains intact today. In January 2026, the situation closely mirrors earlier cycles of tension between Tehran and Washington, dating back to decades of US hostility and a failed “regime change” project.
US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, leading a Likud-dominated coalition, are once again employing military threats against Iran after failing miserably in June last year to dismantle the Islamic Republic of Iran.
The US military has reportedly amassed naval and air forces around Iran’s perimeter, announced by Trump himself, a show of force reminiscent of previous escalations.
This military posture is accompanied by an intensification of a long-standing economic stranglehold, as the Trump administration enforces so-called “ultimate pressure” sanctions with renewed vigor, targeting critical sectors and aiming to sever Iran’s access to the global financial system entirely.
The foundational grievances remain unchanged: allegations of building a “nuclear weapon,” despite Iran’s continued adherence to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) framework after its earlier collapse, and support for regional allies.
Last month, Trump and Netanyahu backed deadly riots and terrorism in Iran, and then threatened to attack Iran if “lethal force” was used against the rioters, arsonists and terrorists. After the riots ended, the focus shifted back to the non-existent “nuclear weapon.”
The tools have expanded beyond diplomatic isolation and covert pressure. Recent reports from within Iran detail how externally backed groups, employing tactics and rhetoric similar to the MKO terrorist cult, sought to exploit domestic unrest by spreading incendiary propaganda and inciting violence, apparently aiming to destabilize the country.
The alignment between the Trump administration and the Likud regime in Tel Aviv remains as close as ever, with both viewing the other as a vital partner in a long-term struggle.
Just as in 2002, diplomatic overtures from Tehran aimed at easing tensions are dismissed or met with increased demands.
The legacy of the “axis of evil” speech has created a foreign policy paradigm that has locked the US and Iran into a perpetual cycle of confrontation, where the mechanisms of pressure – economic warfare, military threat, and the use of terrorist groups – have proven easier to sustain than to dismantle, continually pushing the region toward the brink of war.
What Trump is doing today is simply a continuation of Bush’s policy, which was also carried forward by Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden. The policy remains unchanged.
Charlie Kirk Murder Mysteries Multiply
By Kit Klarenberg | Al Mayadeen | September 26, 2025
Every day, grave questions and deeply concerning mysteries surrounding the September 10th murder of Turning Point USA chief Charlie Kirk multiply. Per the FBI, the case is open and shut. College dropout Tyler Robinson, an apparent political radical who despised the right-wing activist and influencer for “spreading hate”, seized the opportunity of Kirk’s appearance at Utah Valley University to take him out permanently. While the Bureau and mainstream media have worked overtime to convict Robinson in the court of public opinion, many are unconvinced.
Their doubt is understandable. Robinson turned himself in to the police, as publicly-released photos of Kirk’s alleged killer resembled him and he feared being killed in a SWAT raid on his home. Nonetheless, he denies responsibility, and the assassination scenario posited by authorities – including multiple clothing changes, Robinson leaving his rifle wrapped in a towel in nearby woods for police to find, while dawdling around UVU campus for hours after the shooting despite having the means to immediately flee afterwards in his car – is patently absurd.
What evidence has been released supporting his guilt ranges from woeful to literally non-existent. For example, FBI Director Kash Patel has claimed Robinson wrote a letter confessing to the killing, only for it to be destroyed in uncertain circumstances by persons unknown. Still, “forensic evidence” related to the note apparently somehow confirms its contents. This letter was authored despite Robinson stating in private messages purportedly sent to his roommate and lover that he “had hoped to keep this secret till I died of old age.”
Those exchanges, contained in a publicly-available charging document against Robinson, have been subject to widespread allegations of fakery, and outright mockery. The texts are not replete with time stamps, and appear incongruously self-incriminating for a shooter who allegedly undertook extensive measures to cover his tracks, to the extent that it effectively makes a water-tight case against Robinson on behalf of authorities. Robinson is also quoted using terms such as “squad car” and “drop zone”, among other language, it seems highly improbable a 22-year-old left-winger would employ.
More sinisterly, there is the open question of whether Israel was in any way involved in Kirk’s slaying. While an ardent Zionist for much of his time in the public eye, in the last months of Kirk’s life he began to voice criticism of Tel Aviv’s influence over US politicians, and the threat of Benjamin Netanyahu dragging Washington into war with Iran. In July, a TPUSA conference featured numerous speakers deeply critical of the Zionist entity.
Knowledgeable sources have informed The Grayzone this summit prompted numerous wealthy allies of Netanyahu to bombard Kirk with threatening phone calls and text messages, demanding he correct course and cease platforming anti-Zionist voices. The backlash reportedly left the TPUSA chief feeling “frightened”, and he publicly bemoaned the malign pressure to which he was being subjected in an August 6th interview. Weeks before Kirk’s assassination too, hardline Zionist billionaire Robert Shillman ended his longstanding financial sponsorship of TPUSA.
Concrete proof of Tel Aviv’s culpability for Kirk’s murder is unforthcoming, although one might reasonably enquire why Netanyahu has felt it necessary to issue multiple statements denying the charge. Even hardcore Zionists have cautioned his determination to prove Israel’s innocence smacks of protesting too much. It’s also vital to ask why TPUSA security apparatchiks were responsible for a little-examined litany of catastrophic professional failures on September 10th, leaving Kirk an open, ready target for execution.
‘So Impressive’
The most substantive documentation implicating Tyler Robinson in the shooting is video footage of an individual leaping from the roof of a UVU building directly facing the central campus area where Kirk’s event was held, before making a run for it while lugging a backpack. The FBI and prosecutors charge it was from here Kirk was shot, and the mainstream media has universally accepted this account. A screwdriver, reportedly used to construct and then deconstruct the murder weapon, bearing Robinson’s DNA was allegedly found there.
However, the clip isn’t proof the individual pictured was Robinson, or that they were carrying a rifle. Even more suspiciously, this clip was captured by a static CCTV camera trained directly on the area from where Robinson supposedly targeted Kirk. It was thus perfectly positioned to record him arriving, setting up, assembling the rifle, calibrating its sights, taking the shot, disassembling and camouflaging his weapon, then starting his escape. Bizarrely, no images of this chain of far more incriminating and noteworthy events have emerged.
This deficit can hardly be regarded as inconsequential, given the UVU building’s roof serving as Robinson’s sniper’s nest is absolutely fundamental to the conclusion Kirk was shot from the front. There are other significant problems with this core component of the official narrative. For one, the hole spurting blood that erupted in Kirk’s neck far more resembles an exit rather than an entry wound, strongly suggesting the bullet was fired from elsewhere.
Moreover, if that gory spurt was an entry wound, there should’ve been a massive eruption of blood behind him emanating from an even bigger exit wound – but there was none. Authorities have failed to address or even acknowledge this glaring issue. On September 21st, TPUSA spokesperson Andrew Kolvet attempted to offer an explanation. He relayed how the surgeon who tended to Kirk in the hospital told him the bullet “absolutely should have gone through,” and such a shot “would have taken a moose or two down.”
Yet, in a medically unprecedented “miracle”, Kirk’s “body stopped it”. Kolvet claimed his “bone was [sic] so healthy and the density was so impressive that he’s like the man of steel.” More unbelievably still, a coroner conveniently found the bullet that claimed Kirk’s life lodged “just beneath [his] skin”. This bullet has not to date been presented publicly. There was a camera mounted behind Kirk during the event, which might confirm from which direction he was shot. But what it captured remains another mystery.
‘Main Threat’
In the days following Kirk’s murder, smartphone footage of the shooting’s immediate aftermath began to circulate widely. The video shows that while the crowd had almost fully dispersed, there was virtually zero visible police presence on the ground, or indication of any efforts being undertaken by law enforcement or TPUSA’s security detail to isolate the scene of Kirk’s shooting to prevent evidence being contaminated, degraded or tampered with – quite the reverse, in fact.
An individual wearing dark sunglasses is seen in the clip standing Kirk’s bloodspattered chair upright, then using it as a makeshift stool to remove a camera situated behind where Kirk was sitting. He steps away and removes the memory card, hands it to another person, who then appears to stuff the device into his baseball cap before walking away. The primary individual in question, confirmed to be a TPUSA operative, also removed the memory card from a camera directly facing Kirk.
Both moving Kirk’s chair and removing the camera memory cards represent unambiguous evidence tampering, a serious crime under US federal and state law, for which perpetrators can face prison time and financial penalties. Why capturing those cards was considered an urgent priority for Kirk’s associates isn’t remotely clear. There is no indication that the TPUSA operative responsible is wanted for questioning by authorities, let alone that he will be punished for his actions. This is despite even more suspect footage of the as-yet-unnamed individual subsequently emerging.
The clip shows Kirk’s security team rushing him to an SUV parked behind his speaking spot following the shooting, and bystanders racing after them to safety. Incredibly, the TPUSA operative who subsequently interfered with the crime scene can be spotted perched on a wall filming the chaos below, as if he was already in position before Kirk was shot, and knew precisely what was about to happen. He then moved to capture the memory cards.
The degree of professionalism exhibited by the TPUSA operative in both seemingly situating himself preemptively to ideally capture the dramatic scenes instantly following Kirk’s assassination, and swiftly moving to seize and spirit away crucial evidence before police investigators arrived on the scene, starkly contrasts with the apparent incompetence of TPUSA’s security detail, and UVU’s own. Just six campus police officers were deployed to oversee the event, which attracted around 3,000 people.
Attendees testify that UVU implemented no formal entry gates for the event, their bags weren’t searched, and there was no indication that nearby rooftops or buildings were being monitored for suspicious activity. These literally fatal failings have been harshly condemned by US Secret Service veterans, with particular criticism reserved for the decision to hold the event outdoors, which UVU claims was specifically requested by TPUSA representatives. Kirk’s prior public appearances had invariably been subject to intensive security measures.
On September 2nd, Kirk gave his penultimate rally in Visalia, California. Held indoors, 60 officers were deployed for a crowd of 2,000. Clear restrictions were in place on what attendees could have in their possession, including signs. Over the preceding days, local law enforcement conducted wide-ranging reconnaissance in preparation, researching spots of interest to prospective shooters, and identifying locals ill-disposed to Kirk. On the day itself, both police drones and officers closely monitored his movements to and from the venue, scouting nearby rooftops.
Commenting on the rank professional blunders that supposedly facilitated Kirk’s assassination, Greg Shaffer, who headed TPUSA’s protection detail 2015 – 2022, suggested Kirk’s security team may have erroneously focused exclusively “on threats coming from a much closer distance” rather than a sniper, as “the main threat” had “always” been “somebody getting in the inner circle and attacking Charlie.” Shaffer’s remarks might be more illuminating than he intended – for “somebody” certainly could have infiltrated Kirk’s “inner circle”, explicitly to clear a path for his execution.
Tel Aviv bus bombings: False flag or Netanyahu’s luck?
By Robert Inlakesh | The Cradle | February 23, 2025
At 8:30 PM on Thursday night, an Israeli firefighting department said that “a report was received about a bus explosion in a bus parking lot” on Ha’amal Street in Bat Yam, southern Tel Aviv. Later reports suggested that a passenger had notified the bus driver that a suspicious package had been left inside the vehicle, triggering an emergency evacuation, after which an explosive device detonated the backside of the bus.
The event occurred in a parking lot only a few hundred meters away from two buses, dozens of meters apart, that had also exploded shortly prior in the parking lot for the Bat Yam Stadium and Bat Yam Country Club. The two vehicles were parked in open areas, not beside the other buses that were parked next to each other, exploding at a time when nobody was within distance.
Following this, it was reported that the Israeli authorities had discovered two more bombs planted on buses. One explosive device was said to have been neutralized on a bus near the Wolfson Hospital in the industrial hub of Holon, located over 4 kilometers away from the previous explosions. Another explosive device was also announced to have been on a bus in Yimit 2000, before it was later ruled out as unconnected.
Soon after, there were reports of suspicious activity at Israel’s Haganah train station and suspicious cargo on the light rail that was soon ruled out but didn’t stop a shutdown of all transportation by 10PM that same night. However, it was reported that a “suspect” in the bombing case was pursued at Tel Aviv’s Haganah station and had even fled onto the train tracks to avoid arrest.
A photo of an improvised explosive device (IED) located on a bus in the Holon area was quickly published in the Hebrew media and, in Arabic, said “Revenge for Tulkarem.” The entire event ended without a single casualty, not even a light injury.
A series of “miracles”
The explanation that the Israeli authorities have offered as to why the bombs went off prematurely is that the timers were incorrectly set. This conclusion was drawn within hours and communicated to the Hebrew media, claiming that the intended time of detonation was 9 AM on Friday, but instead, they were programmed for 9 PM on Thursday night. Yet, the incident was first reported at 8:30 PM, as noted above, which calls into question this explanation.
The passenger who noticed the bomb on the third bus that was blown up – on Ha’amal Street in Bat Yam – told the media that, following the evacuation of the bus, “as everyone was moving away, the explosion occurred.” This has widely been accepted by Israelis as a “miracle.”
Another “miracle” was that the first two buses also happened to not only detonate when nobody was around, but both happened to be parked several meters away from other buses that were clearly lined up next to each other. This made it so that no other buses were blown up, and the overall damage costs were kept to a minimum.
The assailant/s who planted the bomb that was neutralized also happened to write a note in Arabic that left a possible motive. This IED was not only laced with a clue, that would have disappeared had it exploded, but is indicative of someone who wanted their work to be known. Yet, no group has actually claimed the attack.
Israel’s ongoing invasion of the northern West Bank, which began in January, has led to the murder of around 100 Palestinians, and in the Tulkarem Refugee Camp in particular, some 75% of its residents have been forced from their homes. However, the Israeli army’s campaign is yet to inflict a defeat on the armed groups operating there.
Another strange development was two vague statements released on Telegram by the Qassam Brigades’ Tulkarem branch, hinting at what occurred in Tel Aviv and threatening painful blows in the future. This has served as evidence of Hamas’s involvement in the bombings.
The Cradle was informed by a senior figure in the Hamas movement that it has not issued any statements claiming responsibility and that reports otherwise are false.
The current Israeli assessment points the finger at Hamas, claiming that Iran was behind the planned attack and had coordinated it with a Hamas cell operating in the occupied West Bank. This is the current narrative that is making headlines in Israeli Hebrew media.
Intriguingly, two Israeli suspects were arrested by Israeli intelligence in connection with the bombings. According to a Channel 12 News report, one of the Jewish Israeli suspects is said to have helped transport those who planted the explosive devices. The detained Israeli citizen is allegedly set to appear behind closed doors at the Tel Aviv Magistrate’s Court and is being denied access to a lawyer, while interrogations are ongoing to determine whether the “Israeli Jew from Gush Dan” knew about the intentions of who he was transporting.
Responding to the accusations, Bassem Naim, a leading member of the Hamas politburo, told The Cradle the following:
“Based on the timing and the way in which it happened, the first possibility for me is that Netanyahu or members of his government escaped from their obligations in the ceasefire agreement and created an external enemy to relieve the increasing internal pressure. Anyone who reads the history of the Zionist movement will find dozens of proven events that were planned and executed by Zionist elements against Jews themselves.”
Lending credit to the allegations of the Hamas official are the apparent issues with the coordination of the bombings. The armed groups inside the West Bank have not proven themselves capable of pulling off these kinds of attacks before, showing minimal military sophistication. On the other hand, by Israel’s own admission, this was a well-planned operation that evaded detection by the Israeli army and Shin Bet, hence the blame being placed on Tehran.
At the same time, it was also so poorly executed that it left a letter of intent, as if expecting one of the explosives to fail upon detonation, also messing up the timing so terribly that three IEDs exploded prematurely, and all were placed on buses that just so happen to have been isolated from anything else. On top of this, there’s no group that has actually claimed responsibility.
Netanyahu’s favourable coincidences
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has emerged from the bus bombings to push for harsher military measures inside the occupied West Bank, ordering the deployment of more army battalions into the territory. He has also taken the opportunity to weaponize the incident against the Gaza ceasefire.
The internal blame for Israel’s failure to thwart the attack is now also being placed upon the Shin Bet, the head of which is Ronen Bar and has been at loggerheads with PM Netanyahu for some time and was even recently demoted from his role in managing the Gaza ceasefire talks.
The Israeli Premier has also announced a “massive counter-terror operation” in the West Bank, right as the current invasion of the northern West Bank, dubbed “Operation Iron Wall,” was said to be coming to an end.
Also, on Thursday, an anonymous figure was cited by Israeli media as claiming that Benjamin Netanyahu will not allow the Gaza ceasefire to enter into its second phase. The goal of the Israeli leader has been to extend the first phase of the tripartite ceasefire agreement in a bid to save his political career.
In a rather bizarre media stunt, Netanyahu gave one of his three public addresses this Friday from inside a Palestinian family’s home in Tulkarem. After forcing Palestinians out of their house, it was taken over to be used as a military position, from which the Israeli PM stated that “we are entering the terrorist strongholds, clearing entire streets used by terrorists, their homes. We are eliminating terrorists and commanders.”
The bus bombings in Tel Aviv granted Netanyahu the ability to attack his internal opposition while blaming Hamas, Iran, and the West Bank’s armed resistance groups. The attack itself resulted in minimal material damage, not even so much as a light injury, granting a mandate for military escalation based upon the premise that if the bombings were successful, there would be hundreds of casualties.
An accumulation of coincidences, holes in the official narrative, and what Israeli media call “miracles” have all led to accusations of the incident being a false-flag attack. There is still no conclusive evidence to prove this assertion, yet with Israel imposing censorship on the issue, various outstanding questions are yet to be answered.
Leading War Criminal Benjamin Netanyahu Will Visit Donald Trump
By Philip Giraldi • Unz Review • January 30, 2025
President Donald Trump has invited Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to meet with him at the White House on Tuesday February 4th. Netanyahu will be the first foreign head of state to visit America’s new president at the White House and the message being sent by virtue of that fact would seem inescapable, i.e. that Israel is in the minds of the country’s powerbrokers and media indeed America’s “best friend” and “closest ally.” Or is it? It is possible, though admittedly less likely, that Trump, he of the enormous ego, might well take the opportunity to suppress any thoughts that the Israeli leader is basically dictating the course of US foreign policy in the Middle East. Trump just might want to make it clear in the face-to-face that he is the one who is in charge.
I must admit that when the story broke my first thought was that Netanyahu might possibly discover that he has been lured to Washington. When his plane lands at Dulles International or Andrews AFB, I even hoped there would be an international police contingent waiting for him to show him the warrant for his arrest, read him his rights, shackle him, and send him off to The Hague to be tried for his numerous war crimes and his involvement in genocide. Hopefully, Joe Biden and Tony Blinken would be treated similarly and sent off on the same plane. But my dream outcome for the visit faded as reality set in and I came to accept that Bibi will be more likely feted as royalty by the neocons and other not-quite-human trash that now infests the US government.
There is however admittedly a distinct possibility that Trump will assert himself as he apparently did recently when a video was posted by him on the Trump social media site Truth Social. The video featured Columbia professor Jeffrey Sachs bad mouthing Bibi, saying “Netanyahu had from 1995 onward the theory that the only way we’re gonna get rid of Hamas and Hezbollah is by toppling the governments that support them. That’s Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Iran. And the guy’s nothing if not obsessive. And he’s still trying to get us to fight Iran this day, this week. He’s a deep dark sonofabitch, sorry to tell you. ’Cause he’s gotten us into endless wars, and because of the power of all of this in the US politics, he’s gotten his way.”
Or, alternatively, Trump could easily continue the Middle East policy that prevailed in his first term as president, which was, like Genocide Joe Biden, to defer to Israel on nearly everything. Trump moved the US Embassy to Jerusalem and violated international law by declaring the city to be the true legal Israeli capital; he endorsed the annexation of the Syrian Golan Heights by Israel; he chose to ignore atrocities committed by Israeli settlers and soldiers directed against the Palestinians living on the West Bank; and he withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) agreement to monitor and limit a possible Iranian nuclear program. Also regarding Iran, he ordered that country’s Quds Force commander Qassim Soleimani assassinated in January 2020 while Soleimani was on a peace mission to Baghdad.
Iran continues to be the target of both the US and Israel. Lest anyone should think that the JCPOA move was motivated to encourage Iran to develop a weapon, Trump’s argument was that the program was flawed because it did not go far enough in penetrating and investigating Iranian military sites and labs. It also created a national security pretext permitting Israel to insist that Iran was hiding a secret nuke program, an excuse for a preemptive attack on it jointly launched by Israel and the United States. Interestingly, outgoing CIA Director William Burns now claims that the Iranians have no nukes and have no capability to quickly produce one. He also maintains that there is no evidence that they even have any desire to acquire a nuclear weapon, a reality that clearly contradicts the Israeli propaganda regarding an “Iranian nuclear threat.”
Nevertheless, it is regularly reported by Israel and the neocon dominated media in the US that Team Trump and the Israeli security council have been discussing a preemptive strike on the Iranians. But perhaps contrary to that assessment Steve Witkoff, Trump’s Middle East envoy and the man who pressured Netanyahu into agreeing to a ceasefire with Hamas, has since the inauguration been given the portfolio for dealing with the Middle East including responsibility for Iran negotiations. The previous Trump appointee who had that responsibility was Brian Hook, who was a hardliner who believed in applying “maximum pressure” on the Iranians and has now been replaced.
Witkoff is also reported to be continuing to meet with and pressure Netanyahu to complete all three phases of the Gaza agreement, something which is contradicted by Israeli media reporting which suggests that Netanyahu believes that he can resume his military offensive with US support after the six weeks of phase one. In addition to Witkoff, another more recent appointment might give one hope for a gradual reversal of policy in line with Trump’s apparent belief that American involvement in the Middle East has been expensive, destructive, and contrary to the American national interest. Michael DiMino, a former CIA analyst and Department of Defense veteran, is the Trump pick to be deputy assistant secretary of defense with responsibility for the Middle East operations. DiMino is facing fierce Israel Lobby opposition to his appointment, but he continues to maintain very clearly that, in his opinion, Iranian conventional forces do not pose a threat to the US, meaning that war with Tehran should not be viewed as an option.
Some observers think that Trump’s intentions might be most clearly reflected in his choices as US Ambassadors to Israel. His first term produced David Friedman, Trump’s personal lawyer and a passionate Zionist. Friedman functioned more as a cheerleader for Israel and all its works than a promoter or defender of any actual US interest. The new ambassador Evangelical Christian Zionist Mike Huckabee might prove to be even worse than Friedman, which is saying a lot. When making the appointment, Trump said in a statement regarding Huckabee that “Mike has been a great public servant, Governor, and Leader in Faith for many years. He loves Israel, and the people of Israel, and likewise, the people of Israel love him. Mike will work tirelessly to bring about Peace in the Middle East!”
Huckabee’s vision of “peace” will likely be based on a mountain of dead and dispossessed Palestinians. He believes God gave historic Palestine to the modern state of Israel, and is an outspoken advocate of Israel’s planned expansion in the occupied West Bank. While visiting an Israeli West Bank settlement in in 2017, Huckabee claimed the land was not Israeli occupied. “I think Israel has title deed to Judea and Samaria. There are certain words I refuse to use. There is no such thing as a West Bank. It’s Judea and Samaria. There’s no such thing as a settlement… There’s no such thing as an occupation.” In 2008, during his own presidential campaign, Huckabee said there was “really no such thing as a Palestinian.”
Those concerned that Trump might be moving to favor Israel above all nations note that the administration’s directive to halt all spending on foreign assistance programs, which included Ukraine, exempted Israel and also Egypt, where Trump is hoping to dump upwards of a million Palestinians in the Sinai Desert to “clean up” the mess in Gaza. Trump has also approved the sale to Israel of 1800 M-84 2000 pound bombs which are used primarily to destroy large buildings and kill large numbers of people. The transfer of the weapons to Israel had been suspended by the Biden Administration but Trump announced that “A lot of things that were ordered and paid for by Israel, but have not been sent by Biden, are now on their way!” He did not mention that US weapons “sold” to Israel are often paid for by the US taxpayer as part of military aid. The sale of a large number of dual-use armored Caterpillar bulldozers to Israel, useful for knocking down whatever habitable spaces remain in Gaza, has also received the green light from the administration. Trump has also blocked the Biden-imposed sanctions on extremist settler groups that have been harassing, beating, and killing the Palestinians who are trying to survive on the West Bank. Finally, Trump has issued an executive order that will require American universities to monitor the political activities of foreign students in a bid to reduce antisemitism. Those who have gotten involved in pro-Palestinian demonstrations on campus could have their visas canceled and they will be subject to deportation.
That is quite a bit of pro-Israel movement for Donald Trump’s first week in office, don’t you think? Those who believe that Trump might be preparing to lay down the law with Netanyahu must understand that he will also have to contend with the hopelessly Zionist Congress, which gave the monstrous Netanyahu 56 standing ovations when last he appeared in Washington. We will know soon enough what the meeting between Netanyahu and Trump in the White House was all about and we shall also find out whether the bilateral relationship will continue to consist of Israel cracking the whip and the United States government performing. If Trump dares to challenge the status quo it could set the stage for a major conflict between the new president and the immensely powerful Israel Lobby. As Trump is a very stubborn man with a huge ego, that interplay could be very interesting to watch, particularly as it could lead to the United States finally freeing itself from the country that has been pulling its foreign and national security policy strings for so many years.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is inform@cnionline.org.
ICC says facing threats over arrest warrants for Netanyahu, Gallant
Press TV – December 2, 2024
The International Criminal Court (ICC) says it has faced coercion and intimidation after judges issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his ousted war minister over war crimes in Gaza.
Addressing the ICC members in The Hague, ICC President Tomoko Akane said the court faced “coercive measures, threats, pressure, and acts of sabotage.”
“We are at a turning point in history… International law and international justice are under threat. So is the future of humanity.”
“The International Criminal Court will continue to carry out its lawful mandate, independently and impartially, without giving in to any outside interference.”
The ICC issued the arrest warrants on November 21.
The court determined there were “reasonable grounds” that Israel’s siege and assault on Gaza “created conditions of life calculated to bring about the destruction of part of the civilian population.”
Following the issuance of the warrants, the United States, Israel’s great benefactor and an accomplice in the Gaza genocide, swiftly rejected the ICC decision.
Some US Republicans called on the Senate to sanction the ICC. President Joe Biden said the warrants were “outrageous.”
“Several elected officials are being severely threatened and are subjected to arrest warrants from a permanent member of the UN Security Council,” the ICC president stated.
“The court is being threatened with draconian economic sanctions from institutions of another permanent member of the Security Council as if it was a terrorist organization,” she said.
It is “appalling” that countries appear “scandalized” when the ICC hands down arrest warrants based on international law, Akane added.
“If the court collapses, this will inevitably imply the collapse of all situations and cases… The danger for the court is existential.”
DAWN, a US-based rights group that has welcomed the arrest warrants, has warned Biden administration officials – including Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Pentagon chief Lloyd Austin – that they could be next.
ICC replaces on health grounds judge mulling request for Netanyahu arrest warrant
MEMO | October 25, 2024
The International Criminal Court (ICC) on Friday announced it would replace, on health grounds, one of the judges deciding on a prosecution request to issue an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, a move that could spark further delays in the case, Reuters reports.
In May, prosecutors asked for warrants for Netanyahu and his Defence Minister, Yoav Gallant, as well as three Hamas leaders, saying there were reasonable grounds that the men had committed war crimes and crimes against humanity.
The President of the ICC said the presiding judge in the case, Romanian magistrate, Iulia Motoc, had asked to be replaced on health grounds on Friday and was immediately replaced with Slovenian ICC judge, Beti Hohler.
The replacement is expected to further delay a decision on possible warrants in the case looking at the Gaza conflict as the new judge will need time to catch up on the filings.
Hezbollah drone hits Netanyahu’s home as rocket barrage pummels Haifa
The Cradle | October 19, 2024
A Hezbollah drone launched from Lebanon targeted the private home of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on 19 October, the prime minister’s office said.
Saudi news outlet Al-Hadath first reported the drone attack, which targeted Netanyahu’s residence in the coastal city of Caesarea, located 60km north of Tel Aviv, early on Saturday.
The prime minister and his wife were not present at the time of the attack, and no injuries were reported.
Caesarea resident Yaheli Karbi told Haaretz that she saw a helicopter flying above the area near the Prime Minister’s residence around 7:30 am.
“I saw [the helicopter] hovering over Bibi’s house,” she said. “I then saw the drone arrives and heard it hit. There was a very strong smell of smoke,” she added.
The Israeli military said Saturday morning that some 55 rockets were fired from Lebanon at northern Israel within an hour, causing sirens to be activated in several cities and towns across the Upper, Western, and Central Galilee areas.
Some of the rockets were intercepted, while others landed in open areas, the military stated.
A short time later, Israel targeted a vehicle traveling on the Jounieh highway just north of Beirut, killing two people and injuring two others.
It was the first such Israeli strike in the area since the start of the war.
On Friday, Hezbollah launched several attacks on Israeli military targets.
The Lebanese resistance movement announced it launched a barrage of precision-guided missiles targeting the Kiryat Eliezer air base, located west of Haifa.
It also launched a swarm of assault drones at the Ein Shemer base, a missile defense and regional brigade base located east of the city of Hadera.
Israel has intensified its attacks on Hezbollah targets and Lebanese civilians and civil defense workers across the country, including two large massacres earlier this week.
An Israeli airstrike on Wednesday killed the mayor of Nabatieh, one of the largest cities in southern Lebanon. He and 16 others were killed at the municipal headquarters while in a meeting to coordinate aid deliveries to residents and those displaced by war.
On Monday, an Israeli strike massacred at least 24 people from the same family, 12 women, ten men, and two children, in Aitou, a village in the mountainous Zgharta district in northern Lebanon.
The family had rented a home in the Christian-majority town after being displaced from their home in the south by Israeli bombing.
Hamas demands return to agreed-upon ceasefire deal, calls new talks ‘cover for Israeli massacres’
The Cradle | August 12, 2024
Hamas has called on mediators in the ceasefire and prisoner exchange talks to present a plan to implement the proposal agreed to by the resistance movement in early July and to oblige Israel to do so as well.
“We demand that the mediators submit a plan to implement what they presented to the movement and that we agreed to on 2 July 2024, based on Biden’s vision and the Security Council resolution, and oblige the occupation to do so, instead of going to more rounds of negotiations or new proposals that provide cover for the occupation’s aggression and give it more time to perpetuate the war of genocide against our people,” Hamas said on 11 August.
The Hamas statement also said Israel’s assassination of political bureau chief Ismail Haniyeh and the continuation of its massacres against civilians in Gaza prove its intentions of preventing a ceasefire deal.
Senior Hamas official Osama Hamdan told Al-Araby on Sunday that if there is no real pressure by the US president on Israel, “he does not have anything to bet on to make the [upcoming] negotiations successful].”
He added that Washington falsely guaranteed Israel’s acceptance of the proposal presented by Joe Biden, adding that “it is time” to oblige Israel to do so.
Biden unveiled a permanent ceasefire plan in late May, claiming Israel had also agreed to the proposal. Yet Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu remained insistent on having the right to continue the war and pursue Hamas after the captives’ exchange, a position which he has stuck to until now.
US and Qatari mediators eventually updated the Biden plan and presented it to Hamas in early July. The resistance movement proposed amendments to the revised plan on 3 July, which Israeli sources said were positive and could enable a deal to pass.
Yet Netanyahu’s position on pursuing the war’s goals, despite talks for a permanent ceasefire, obstructed the negotiations and prevented an agreement from being reached.
Israel had also rejected a proposal agreed to by Hamas on 6 May.
“The plan I put together, endorsed by the G7, endorsed by the UN Security Council, et cetera, is still viable. And I’m working literally every single day – and my whole team – to see to it that it doesn’t escalate into a regional war. But it easily can,” Biden said on 11 August.
Washington has been beefing up its presence across the region to defend Israel from the Resistance Axis, which has vowed to respond to the recent Israeli attacks on Tehran and Beirut.
Hamas’ statement came two days after Netanyahu’s office said Israel would send mediators to upcoming ceasefire talks, scheduled for 15 August, “to finalize the details of the implementation of the agreement framework.”
In a statement on Monday, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) said, “It is unreasonable to hold any negotiations while the occupation’s crimes continue in shelters, schools, displacement tents, and hospitals.”
New negotiations are “meaningless as long as the aggression government and war criminals have not provided clear and declared approval of the formulation that was originally presented by them and adopted by US President Joe Biden,” the PFLP added.
Israel Has a History of Killing Hamas Leaders Who Are Trying To Secure Ceasefires
Benjamin Netanyahu’s reckless assassination of Ismail Haniyeh undermines the prospects for a peace deal and the release of the hostages
Ismail Haniyeh in Doha, Qatar, on March 26, 2024. Photo by AFP via Getty Images
By Mehdi Hasan – zeteo – July 31, 2024
“Israel’s leaders killed three birds with one stone,” wrote Reuven Pedatzur, a senior military affairs analyst for the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. “They assassinated the man who had the power to make a deal with Israel; they took revenge on someone who had caused more than a few Israeli casualties; and they signaled to Hamas that communications with it will be conducted only through military force.”
Was Pedatzur referring to the Israeli assassination of senior Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh, the head of the group’s political bureau, in Tehran in the early hours of Wednesday morning?
No. Pedatzur died in a road traffic accident in 2014. His quote from Haaretz, above, was in response to the Israeli assassination of another senior Hamas commander, Ahmed Jabari, in November 2012, which kicked off the 2012 Gaza war.
As my former colleague at The Intercept, Jon Schwarz, documented in great detail last year, “Jabari had come to believe that it was in the best interest of Palestinians for Hamas to negotiate a long-term truce” and had been in communication with the respected Israeli peace activist Gershon Baskin. “Just before the assassination, [Baskin] gave Jabari a draft proposal for such a truce to review and approve. The draft was agreed to by Baskin and Hamas’s deputy foreign minister, and Baskin also said he had previously shown it to Ehud Barak, then the Israeli minister of defense.”
Would Jabari have signed off on a ‘hudna,’ or long-term truce, between Hamas and Israel? We’ll never know.
Israel, in fact, has a long and cynical history of killing Hamas leaders who are in the midst of ceasefire negotiations or, even, proposing long-term truces with the Jewish state.
Remember Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, the quadriplegic co-founder and spiritual leader of Hamas? He was assassinated less than three months after he proposed a long-term truce with Israel “if a Palestinian state is established in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.”
His successor, Abdel Aziz al-Rantisi, was assassinated less than three months after he made a similar truce offer to Israel.
Then there was the Netanyahu government’s 2012 assassination of Jabari, who, as mentioned, was reviewing a “long-term mutual cease-fire” deal just “hours before he was killed,” according to Baskin.
The parallels between 2012 and 2024, between the killings of Jabari and Haniyeh, are eery.
“He was in line to die, not an angel and not a righteous man of peace,” Baskin said of Jabari shortly after his killing, “but his assassination also killed the possibility of achieving a truce and also the Egyptian mediators’ ability to function.”
The same could be said of Haniyeh. Mainstream Western media outlets agree that the Hamas leader was – by Hamas standards – a “pragmatist”; a key figure in the ongoing negotiations to secure a ceasefire in Gaza and free the Israeli hostages.
From Reuters:
“For all the tough language in public, Arab diplomats and officials had viewed [Haniyeh] as relatively pragmatic compared with more hardline voices inside Gaza, where the military wing of Hamas planned the October 7 attack. While telling Israel’s military they would find themselves ‘drowning in the sands of Gaza,’ he and his predecessor as Hamas leader, Khaled Meshaal, had shuttled around the region for talks over a Qatari-brokered cease-fire deal with Israel that would include exchanging hostages for Palestinians in Israeli jails as well as more aid for Gaza.”
From Sky News:
“Haniyeh was the pragmatic face of Hamas. He was less hard-line and militaristic than Yahya Sinwar, who is the head of Hamas inside Gaza and is leading the battle. Haniyeh was the public face of Hamas’s diplomacy in Arab capitals. He was leading efforts to negotiate a ceasefire in Gaza.”
This was the person that the far-right Israeli government of Benjamin Netanyahu chose to assassinate on Iranian soil on Wednesday.
Why?
Put simply, Netanyahu and his coalition of fascists and bigots do not want a deal to release the hostages. They prefer to continue the war, no matter the cost to Gaza’s civilians or to their own citizens still held inside of the enclave. Despite Joe Biden’s ludicrous claims to the contrary, it is Netanyahu who has been the biggest obstacle to a deal to free Israel’s hostages in Gaza. The former spokesperson for the hostages’ families says Netanyahu rejected a deal. Benny Gantz, a former member of Israel’s war cabinet, says Netanyahu blocked a deal. Israeli defense officials tell Haaretz that “Netanyahu systematically foiled the negotiations to free the hostages.”
There is nothing new here. To misquote Winston Churchill, Israel has always preferred “war-war” over “jaw-jaw.” Israeli governments – especially those led by Netanyahu – have preferred having Hamas as the permanent enemy – or as an “asset,” to quote the current Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich – rather than trying to do a permanent deal with Hamas.
As the late Israeli journalist Pedatzur wrote, in his analysis of the disastrous Jabari assassination in 2012:
“Our decision makers, including the defense minister and perhaps also Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, knew about Jabari’s role in advancing a permanent cease-fire agreement. … Thus the decision to kill Jabari shows that our decision makers decided a cease-fire would be undesirable for Israel at this time, and that attacking Hamas would be preferable.”
Change the name ‘Jabari’ to ‘Haniyeh’ above, and those words could have been written today.
Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.
Netanyahu’s ‘Abraham Alliance’ Proposal Completely Detached From Reality – Analyst
By Ilya Tsukanov – Sputnik – 25.07.2024
Israel’s prime minister has sketched the outlines of a new NATO-style alliance between Tel Aviv, Washington and Arab countries which he said could “counter the growing Iranian threat.” Dr. Mehran Kamrava, professor of government at Georgetown University’s Qatar campus, explains why the proposal is ludicrous.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s hopes to bring countries like Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and perhaps Egypt into a new Israeli and US-led, NATO-style pact dubbed the ‘Abraham Alliance’ is not only unrealistic, but not original, either, Kamrava told Sputnik, commenting on Netanyahu’s Wednesday afternoon address to a joint session of Congress.
“I don’t think that [an alliance between Israel and the Gulf States, ed.] is a realistic assumption because Saudi Arabia normalized relations with Iran… Bahrain and Iran have been in conversations about a rapprochement, and the UAE, despite having maintained its relationship with Israel, has also maintained a relationship with Iran,” Kamrava pointed out.
In his speech, Netanyahu outlined a “vision for the broader Middle East” involving taking a cue from what the US did after the Second World War by creating NATO and applying it to the Middle East. The proposed bloc should include the US and Israel, and “all countries that are at peace with Israel” or wish to “make peace with Israel,” Netanyahu said.
The Abraham Alliance proposal is “not new,” Kamrava stressed, noting that Netanyahu has “been advocating this for a number of years,” with Israel’s push to normalize ties with its Gulf neighbors seen as the first step in this direction.
Today, Israel can only dependably rely only on United States Central Command and Washington for weapons and other support, Kamrava said. That’s because “the Israeli lobby is quite powerful in the United States, particularly in Congress,” with both parties and all of its major figures, from presidents Biden and Trump to vice president Harris, declaring themselves Zionists or otherwise voicing “strong support” for Israel.
Netanyahu, meanwhile, remains mired in a “deep” and hopeless political mess, Kamrava said, facing “pressure from [his] left that want the hostages back…pressure from the Israeli army, which has said that it is unable now to bring the remaining hostages home through continued use of force and the continuation of the war,” and “pressure from the right that want a complete eradication of Palestinians.”
In this situation, only a continuation of the war, and playing up the “Iranian boogeyman” can save him, the observer summed up.
Featured Video
No Threat Can Force Iran’s Surrender /Trita Parsi & Lt Cl Daniel Davis
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
An Expert Military Analysis of War with China
Actually, None is Necessary
By Fred Reed • Unz Review • December 13, 2020
The Correlation of Armed Forces: U.S. goods and services trade with China totaled an estimated $634.8 billion in 2019. Exports were $163.0 billion; imports were $471.8 billion. The U.S. goods and services trade deficit with China was $308.8 billion in 2019. Trade in services with China (exports and imports) totaled an estimated $76.7 billion in 2019. Services exports were $56.5 billion; services imports were $20.1 billion. The U.S. services trade surplus with China was $36.4 billion in 2019.
There is talk within the Washingtoniat of a possible war with China. Steve Bannon, who apparently was dropped on his head as a child, actually favors such a war. We hear the usual shoo-the-boobs alarm about how the Chinese are doing something terrible and we must gird our loins and American values and show them what for, bow wow, woof. The danger is that the current game of who-blinks-first in Asian waters might actually provoke a shooting war. You know the kind of thing: One warship refuses to get out of the way of another, a collision ensues, some retard lieutenant who signed up on waivers opens fire, and we’re off and running. It is not a good idea to let children play with matches.
The said war is discussed either in emotional terms by idiots or in purely naval terms by those familiar with such things, so we hear of the First Island Chain and the Second Island Chain and whose missiles against the other’s missiles and so on. This would be appropriate if we were fighting World War Two again. Which we aren’t. Let’s take a quick-and-dirty look at how such a war might go.
To begin the war, America would overestimate itself and underestimate China. This is doctrine in the Pentagon. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Theodore Postol: Iran’s Missiles & Drones Were Underestimated
- Iran To Target Military Industrial-Tech Complex That Facilitated Gaza Genocide
- Collapsing Empire: The Resistance Disarms ‘Israel’
- Suicide Should Not Be a Government Service
- Rethinking America’s greatest threat: Iran vs. Israel-Firsters
- Iran accuses adversaries of false flags to strain Turkey ties
- Poland rules out sending Patriot missiles to US/Israel amid war on Iran
- Tehran approves new Hormuz plan with major restrictions
- No Threat Can Force Iran’s Surrender /Trita Parsi & Lt Cl Daniel Davis
- UK’s New Pandemic Plan Would Turn Big Tech Into a Mass Location Tracking Network
- If Americans Knew
- Ann Coulter Rips Into Fox News for Iran War Coverage, Compares to False Rigged 2020 Election Reporting
- Joe Kent Urges Americans To Call White House and Congress To Object To Sending Troops Into Iran
- DNC Resolution to Reject AIPAC Funding Puts Democratic Leaders in the Hot Seat
- Swedish foundation to build 400 schools as over 650,000 Gaza children remain without education for 2 years
- Israeli army admits photshopping image of slain Lebanese journalist
- This is how Israel is systematically killing health workers under the cover of war in Lebanon
- Carrying life under fire: Israeli invasion of Lebanon leaves pregnant women facing deadly risks
- Champagne all around for the new death penalty (for Palestinians) law – Not a ceasefire Day 172
- Why are Palestinian books struggling to be seen on Amazon?
- The Line Between Affinity and Conspiracy
- No Tricks Zone
- 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
- Former Pfizer Toxicologist Dr. Helmut Sterz Tells Bundestag Hearing Pfizer Vaccine Should Have Never Been Approved
- Energy Expert: Germany’s Nuclear Phaseout Was A “500 Billion Euro Mistake”
- New Research: South Australia’s Mid-Holocene Sea Surface Temperatures Were 4°C Warmer Than Today
- Storing Green Energy To Last Germany 10 Days Would Require A 60-Million Tonne Battery
- New Studies: UK Sea Levels Were 4 Meters Higher Than Today During The Mid-Holocene
- Destructive Green New Deal: German Energy And Metal Group Warns Of Drastic Crisis
Aletho News 
