Mali: a new front in the Western war on multipolarism
Strategic Culture Foundation | May 1, 2026
An audacious coup attempt against the government in the West African state of Mali appears to have been thwarted by the Malian Armed Forces, supported by their Russian allies.
The surprise coup was launched last weekend when an estimated 12,000 fighters attacked at least five cities, including the capital, Bamako. Fighting continued during the past week, with most of the casualties – over 1,000 dead – suffered by the insurgents who came under heavy ground and air fire from state forces backed by Russian auxiliaries belonging to the Africa Corps.
Mali’s leader, Assimi Goïta, made a nationwide televised address appealing for calm and stating that the country’s security situation had been brought under control. He paid tribute to his defense minister, General Sadio Camara, who was killed in action on the first day of the coup attempt on April 25. The leader also acknowledged the actions of his country’s strategic partner, the Russian Federation, for helping to defeat the coup, which he condemned as “foreign-sponsored”.
For its part, the Kremlin said it would continue supporting the Malian government to restore stability and security to the country.
Both the Malian authorities and Moscow have accused Western sponsors of involvement in the insurgency. Russia’s foreign ministry claimed that Western military instructors had helped coordinate the wide-ranging attacks. There were reports of militants armed with French Mistral anti-aircraft missiles and U.S.-made Stinger Manpads. There are also unverified reports of mercenaries from Ukraine and NATO states fighting on the ground.
This is not the first time that NATO and Ukraine have been linked to destabilizing the national security of Mali. Two years ago, Mali cut diplomatic links with Kiev after a Ukrainian military intelligence official claimed that Ukrainian forces had been supplying insurgents.
In the latest uprising, the Western news media have been quick to highlight supposed military gains made by the rebels. The Western coverage has sought to portray the violence as a spontaneous challenge to the government in Bamako, which the Western media disparages as a “military junta”. The same media have also claimed that the unrest is a blow to Russia’s strategic interests in Africa. In particular, it is claimed that Moscow’s security partnership with Mali and other African states is being exposed as ineffective and weak.
Two militant groups were involved in the coup attempt this week. The Tuareg ethnic people’s liberation movement, known as the Azawad Liberation Front (FLA), and an Al-Qaeda-linked jihadist group known as Jammat Nusrat al-Islam wal-Muslimin (JNIM). Both entities had been fighting each other until recently, but now seem to have allied. Who brokered that expedient alliance?
The widespread insurgent attacks mounted against five cities covering a distance of some 2,000 kilometers also suggest that the fighters were provided with considerable intelligence and logistical support. Mali is a huge country, the sixth largest in Africa, with a land area twice that of France or Texas. Previous attacks were mainly confined to the remote northern half of the country, which is typically a desert landscape. To launch an assault on the capital in the south is a significant development. The devastating bomb attack on the defense minister’s residential compound near Bamako also suggests that there was foreign assistance.
The geopolitical background is highly significant. Mali formed an Alliance of Sahel States (AES in French) in September 2023 along with Niger and Burkina Faso. The three former French colonies ordered the withdrawal of French military forces and asserted a newfound political independence. They accused France of playing a double game by secretly supporting separatists and Islamist groups to give a pretext for French military involvement in their countries. In a further affront to French arrogance, Mali, Niger, and Burkina Faso pointedly turned to Russia for security assistance and, in return, have offered Russia access to key natural resources in a mutual partnership.
For centuries, France and other Western states have plundered Africa without giving anything back to the continent except new forms of economic slavery and exploitation.
Meanwhile, Russia and China have gained renewed partnerships with many African nations. A history of colonial depredation hampers neither Russia nor China. Indeed, the Soviet Union has a largely honorable legacy of supporting African independence, which many Africans acknowledge. In the contemporary context, Moscow and Beijing’s espousal of a multipolar world and cooperative development has resonated strongly with African countries.
When Mali, Niger, and Burkina Faso kicked out the French neocolonial trappings three years ago, there was palpable scorn in Paris, particularly from French President Emmanuel Macron. If the Sahel alliance succeeded with Russian help, that would be a major blow to France’s national esteem and the anti-Russian propaganda narrative of the NATO bloc.
The attempted coup in Mali should be viewed in this light. It is much bigger than Mali’s internal tensions and divisions. What’s at stake is maintaining the right of political independence and sovereignty in African nations to choose their own political and developmental path. In a word: self-determination. Old colonial powers like France and other NATO members would like to turn the clock back to the former times of hegemonic control.
As many informed analysts have noted, the current conflicts in Ukraine and other places, such as Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, Latin America, Asia-Pacific, the Arctic, and so on, are not isolated aberrations. They are all part of a “new great game” for Western powers to reassert global dominance.
The Western ruling elites want to, indeed need to, confront the rising multipolar world that challenges their hierarchy of privileges and profits. Russia and China are the main targets for the Western powers to win their strategic war. The proxy war in Ukraine is part of that. So too is Washington’s aggression against Iran to cut off energy supplies to China and Asia.
The coup attempt in Mali is another site of struggle that appears to be instigated by NATO powers in their proxy war against Russia and the historic vision for a multipolar world.
There is an ominous echo of the Syria scenario, where Western powers finally overthrew a Russian ally at the end of 2024, to be replaced by jihadists whom the West backed covertly for years before that.
Given the strategic importance, Russia and China must not let this happen in Africa. The firm defense of Mali this week by the country’s leadership and armed forces, acting with the support of Russia and the mass of Malian people, indicates that Western intrigue will fail.
Nuclear Apartheid: Iran’s Rise Exposes the NPT Fraud and the West’s Israel Exception
By Freddie Ponton – 21st Century Wire – April 29, 2026
The fight over Iran’s vice presidency at the 2026 NPT Review Conference looked procedural only if one ignored the history that walked into the room with it. The United States, the United Kingdom, speaking for France and Germany, Australia, and the United Arab Emirates objected to Iran’s appointment, yet Iran kept the post after a Non-Aligned Movement nomination and no blocking vote was forced, exposing a basic fact that now hangs over the treaty system. The United Arab Emirates did not merely object but formally and unequivocally disassociated itself from Iran’s election, while citing Tehran’s continuous violations of its safeguards obligations.
That moment is crucial because it revealed a shrinking gap between Western power and Western authority. The states that still dominate military alliances, financial coercion, and media narratives could denounce Tehran in New York, but they could not turn denunciation into institutional compliance, and they could not persuade the wider diplomatic field that their understanding of non-proliferation deserved automatic deference. What looked like a dispute over one vice presidency was in fact a public measure of a much deeper revolt against selective enforcement.
The bargain they broke
The deeper story begins in 1995, when the NPT was indefinitely extended on the basis of a broader political package that included the Resolution on the Middle East. That resolution called on all states in the region that had not yet done so to join the treaty and place their nuclear facilities under full-scope IAEA safeguards, and the UN Secretariat background paper explicitly records that the resolution was an essential element of the outcome on which indefinite extension was secured.
The 2010 Review Conference reaffirmed that point in unusually clear language. It said the 1995 resolution remained valid until its goals were achieved, recalled the importance of Israel’s accession to the treaty and the placement of all its nuclear facilities under comprehensive safeguards, and endorsed concrete steps toward a 2012 conference on a Middle East zone free of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. The conference never delivered what it promised, and Algeria’s 2026 working paper now states bluntly that Israel’s stance helped render the 1995 resolution “devoid of substance,” while the UN Secretariat paper records that many states saw the failure of implementation as seriously undermining the treaty itself.
The Israeli exception
That is why so much of the Global South reads the current crisis through Israel rather than through Iran alone. The UN Secretariat background paper states in neutral terms that all states of the Middle East except Israel are parties to the NPT and that all states in the region except Israel have undertaken to accept comprehensive IAEA safeguards, giving documentary form to the asymmetry that the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) and Arab states have been protesting for decades.
NAM’s own recent language is harsher because the political implications are harsher. At the 2024 IAEA General Conference record, Uganda speaking on behalf of NAM warned that a selective approach undermined the viability of the safeguards regime, expressed great concern over Israel’s acquisition of nuclear capability, and called for a total prohibition on nuclear-related transfers and assistance to Israel, while the April 2026 NAM statement to the UN Disarmament Commission again demanded that Israel renounce nuclear weapons, accede to the NPT without precondition or delay, and place all its facilities under full-scope safeguards.
That continuity was reaffirmed in the Kampala Declaration, which carried the same line through 2025 and closed the institutional bridge to the April 2026 NAM position. For the movement, this is not a side file or an ideological hobbyhorse. It is the living proof that the rules are preached as universal and applied as political.
The South’s quiet revolt
Once that history is acknowledged, the so-called silence of NAM and many Global South states on Iran’s vice presidency stops looking like ambiguity and starts looking like discipline. They did not need to issue sentimental declarations of love for Tehran in order to refuse a Western effort to re-police multilateral legitimacy, because the issue before them was larger than Iran’s image and deeper than one nomination. It was whether the same powers that had tolerated, normalized, or materially shielded the Middle East’s only non-NPT nuclear exception would now be allowed to decide who is morally disqualified from procedural office inside the treaty system.
That is why the resistance was institutional rather than theatrical. After dismissing the objections as baseless and politically motivated, Iran disassociated itself from the election of the United States as vice president, and according to one contemporaneous account, from Australia’s as well, turning the confrontation into a mirror held up to the old order. The 2025 report of the sixth session of the conference on a Middle East zone free of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction said Israel’s refusal to join the NPT and submit all its facilities and activities to comprehensive safeguards undermined the credibility of the non-proliferation regime and imposed additional burdens on regional states, while the same report condemned attacks on Iran’s safeguarded nuclear facilities as a grave threat to the credibility of the NPT and the integrity of the entire IAEA safeguards regime.
In that setting, refusing to let Washington, London, Paris, Berlin, and Canberra define the boundaries of legitimacy was not indulgence toward Iran, but a defense of sovereign equality against a one-sided nuclear order.
What their objection revealed
The objections from the United States, the E3, and Australia therefore boomeranged. They were intended to isolate Iran, but they instead illuminated the moral exhaustion of a bloc that speaks in the language of non-proliferation while presiding over an order in which disarmament obligations are endlessly deferred, nuclear sharing and modernization continue, and Israel’s opaque arsenal remains politically protected from the universality routinely demanded of others. The analysis from the European Journal of International Law (EJIL) long ago captured the pattern by showing how NAM kept international attention on Israel’s nuclear status and how double standards around Israel helped fuel resistance inside the regime, and the documents gathered since then show that this reading did not fade but hardened.
Australia’s place in this picture is revealing precisely because it is less central than Washington or the E3 and yet moved in lockstep with them against Iran’s vice presidency. That choice placed Canberra inside a camp that could still object loudly but could no longer command consent, and it tied Australia to a diplomatic posture that much of the Global South now experiences as selective guardianship rather than principled stewardship. The same is true of the E3, whose claim to defend the treaty sounds increasingly thin when the documentary record shows decades of unfinished obligations on the Middle East file and continued Western insistence that the burden of credibility falls primarily on disfavored treaty members rather than on the region’s protected exception.
A treaty stripped bare
What emerged in New York, then, was not simply a quarrel over Iran. In fact, we all witnessed the exposure of a treaty order whose founding compromise on the Middle East has been repeatedly postponed, diluted, and evaded, until many of the states asked to keep faith with the system now see the system itself as compromised at the core. The 2026 UN Secretariat paper, the 2026 Algeria submission, the April 2026 NAM statement, the 2024 IAEA record, and the 2025 IAEA safeguards resolution all converge on the same underlying reality that Israel’s non-accession, unsafeguarded status, and continuing exceptional treatment have become inseparable from the crisis of NPT credibility.
That is why Iran’s vice presidency is so significant, because it marks the point at which a large part of the non-aligned world stopped pretending that the greatest danger to the treaty’s legitimacy begins and ends in Tehran, and instead used procedure to register a quieter but more consequential judgment that the deeper non-proliferation crisis lies in a regime that punishes some, excuses others, and then demands respect for the imbalance it created.
On April 27th, the West could still denounce, but could no longer decide; and that, more than the vice presidency itself, is the message now being sent from the Global South to Washington, the E3, and Australia.
How A Fake Iranian Terror Group Was Invented To Proscribe IRGC in Europe
The story of Ashab al-Yamin
By David Miller | Tracking Power update | April 21, 2026
Now that several more “attacks” have been credited to this fake group, here is my investigation on the topic.
A series of arson attacks and alleged incidents targeting alleged Jewish-linked sites across Europe have been attributed to a little-known group called Harakat Ashab al-Yamin al-Islamia (HAYI), or Ashab al-Yamin. The group has been widely described in media and security circles as an Iran-backed network, allegedly linked to the IRGC.
Since March 9, HAYI has been credited with what some analysts describe as “hybrid warfare” style operations spanning multiple countries from Greece and Belgium to France, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. Among the most high-profile incidents was the burning of four ambulances in Golders Green, North London, on March 22.
The emergence of this group coincides with the escalation of the US-Israeli war against Iran. In parallel, media outlets and pro-war commentators have warned that Tehran could expand the conflict by carrying out attacks across Europe.
But a closer examination raises serious questions about its actual existence and the pro-Israel groups pushing this narrative.
Several of the incidents attributed to HAYI do not appear to have directly targeted Jewish communities. Others remain murky, with limited verified information about the perpetrators. And beyond scattered claims and online statements, there is little concrete evidence that this group as described actually exists.
In the fog of war, narratives can move faster than facts.
At the same time, governments across Europe and the UK are moving to formally designate the IRGC as a terrorist organization — a policy long pushed by pro-war, pro-Israel lobbying networks. Many of the same actors amplifying the HAYI narrative are also leading that campaign within Western media to manufacture consent for war and accelerate this political objective of proscription. While raising the possibility that unverified claims of an Iran-linked threat are being leveraged to shape public fear and justify sweeping new security measures tied to the widening war.
This investigation examines each reported attack, the sources promoting the HAYI narrative, and how claims of a coordinated campaign may be shaping public perception — fueling fears of rising antisemitism, calls for expanded security measures and proscribing the IRGC as a terrorist organisation amid an illegal war.
But what is Ashab al-Yamin? Where did it come from and does it exist at all?
This investigation reveals that there is no such group. It appears to be a fictional cut out. Half of its reported activities simply did not occur. The other half were so amateurish, and inconsequential – with not a single injury – One theory is that they may have been messily undertaken by hired gig criminals and/or incompetent Sayanim, the name given to Mossad’s network of little helpers in countries all over the world. This investigative analysis shows that even the Zionist regime and its assets in establishment think tanks acknowledge that so-called “gig criminals” have been involved in this series of events, in a striking parallel with similar events in Australia (fourteen of them between October 2024 and January 2025) which were similarly low impact with no casualties, declared to be “fake” by Australian police in March 2025. … continue
France’s New Nuclear Strategy to Weaken Security in Europe – Russian Foreign Ministry
Sputnik – 20.04.2026
The security of non-nuclear European countries will ultimately be weakened by France’s plans to deploy nuclear weapons on their territory, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko said in an interview with Sputnik.
“As a result, instead of the French declaring a strengthening of the defense of their allies, to whom, incidentally, they are not promising any ironclad guarantees, the security of these countries is actually weakening,” Grushko said.
France reportedly possesses 280 nuclear warheads. Denmark has already concluded a strategic nuclear deterrence agreement with France, which is intended to complement NATO’s deterrence mechanisms. Poland is also negotiating with France to join this initiative.
In his March speech on France’s nuclear deterrence policy, French President Emmanuel Macron said that his country must strengthen its nuclear doctrine in the face of new threats. Therefore, he ordered an increase in the number of French nuclear weapons. According to Macron, France should also consider expanding its nuclear strategy to all of Europe, but must also preserve its sovereignty.
Israel attacks three nations for alleged backing of Iran
RT | April 19, 2026
Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations has lashed out at his French, Chinese, and Pakistani counterparts, accusing their countries of effectively backing Iran by allegedly striking deals to secure safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz.
The rebuke appears to stem from media reports which recently indicated that commercial vessels from all three countries were able to transit the Strait of Hormuz during the blockade, in some cases with Iranian authorization, despite broader restrictions on shipping imposed by Tehran.
“I asked the French ambassador: How much money did you pay Iran to move ships safely through the Strait of Hormuz?” Danny Danon said in a post on X shortly after speaking at the UN General Assembly session on the Strait of Hormuz blockade.
“Surprisingly, he had no answer,” he wrote, adding: “The ambassadors of China and Pakistan also had no answer.”
Navigation through the Strait of Hormuz, a key route handling around 20% of global oil and liquefied natural gas flows, has been disrupted since Tehran effectively blocked the waterway in response to the US-Israeli bombing campaign that began on February 28.
On Friday, Iran opened the Strait to all commercial vessels, framing the move as part of ceasefire arrangements linked to the Israel–Lebanon truce, but closed it again the following day. The decision came as US President Donald Trump said the US blockade on Iranian ports and shipping would remain in force until a peace deal is reached. Washington imposed the restrictions after bilateral talks in Pakistan collapsed last weekend.
In March, Iran said that vessels of India, China, Russia, Iraq, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka would be allowed to pass through the crucial waterway. Beijing is ranked as the biggest buyer of Iranian oil and most of its supplies pass through the chokepoint. At the same time, Malaysian authorities thanked Tehran for allowing the passage of the country’s ships.
In April, the Financial Times reported, citing the tracking data, that a container ship owned by a French shipping company had sailed through the Strait of Hormuz along with several other ships.
At the UN, France previously voted in favor of resolutions condemning Iran’s blockade of the strait, China either vetoed the measures or voted against critical wording, while Pakistan abstained.
France To Vote On Bill That Would Criminalize Criticism Of Israel
France Is About To Outlaw Criticism Of Israel
Protesters hold a banner reading “Supporting Palestine is not a crime” and “Stop genocide in Gaza” at a rally against the Yadan bill, in Paris on 12 April 2026.
The Dissident | April 13, 2026
A bill that the French National Assembly will vote on, on April 16th and 17th, effectively outlaws criticism of Israel, making it a criminal offence to question Israel’s “right” to exist as a Jewish supremacist apartheid state on occupied Palestinian land, compare Israel’s conduct to the Nazis, or support armed resistance against Israeli occupation and aggression.
The bill writes, “Today, anti-Jew hatred in our country feeds on obsessive hatred towards Israel, regularly delegitimized in its existence and criminalized. This phenomenon is exacerbated by extreme spirits who, under the pretext of expressing their hatred towards a State, are the instigators of a reinvented anti-Semitism, which could be described as ‘geopolitics’.”
The bill seeks to criminalize critics of Israel and paint them as terrorists, writing that the “call for the destruction of Israel and its comparison to a Nazi regime – are rooted in consciences with impunity, taking up the rhetoric of movements recognized as terrorist such as Hamas or Hezbollah.”
The bill seeks to criminalize:
- “Public remarks presenting acts of terrorism as legitimate resistance” (ie support for armed resistance against the Israeli genocide in Gaza or occupation of Lebanon).
- “Causing the destruction or denial of a State or publicly advocating its destruction or denial” (i.e., questioning Israel as a Jewish apartheid state, including calls for a single democratic state in historic Palestine with equal rights).
- “to clarify and extend the crime of challenging the Shoah, by enshrining several essential contributions of case law” adding “the comparison of the State of Israel to the Nazi regime would therefore be sanctioned as an outrageous trivialization of the Shoah” (i.e. factually pointing out that the state of Israel is behaving like the Nazis, including by committing Genocide in Gaza, as the UN independent international commission found in September of last year, and by calling for an expansionist greater Israel and ethnic cleansing to establish Jewish settlements ,similar to the Nazi concept of Lebensraum, an idea that has been openly endorsed by Benjamin Netanyahu and his main political opponent Yair Lapid).
Analyst Arnaud Bertrand documented that the bill attempts to make the criminalization of speech as broad as possible.
He noted that “Article 1 introduces the concept of ‘implicit’ provocation to terrorism and punishes it with five years imprisonment and a fine of €75,000,” adding, “What does ‘implicit provocation to terrorism’ mean? Nobody knows. And that’s the point. It means whatever a prosecutor wants it to mean: a perfectly good case could be made that, for instance, quoting international law on the right of occupied peoples to resist with respect to Hamas is, in fact, ‘implicit provocation to terrorism.’”
He added that “The same article also expands the terrorism apology offense to include ‘minimizing or trivializing acts of terrorism in an outrageous manner’” adding that “a judge could decide that providing context, explaining root causes, or insufficiently condemning an act amounts to ‘trivializing’ terrorism”, “for instance, a history teacher explaining the origins of Hamas or Hezbollah is providing context – but a prosecutor could argue that contextualization is trivialization. The same reasoning could apply to a journalist, a researcher, or anyone on social media who says ‘yes, it was terrible, but here’s why it happened.’ The ‘but’ becomes a crime, as it is trivialization.”
He also noted that, “ if you advocate for a one-state solution where Israelis and Palestinians live as equals, you are de-facto calling for the ‘destruction’ of the state of Israel. Well, that would now be punishable by 5 years in prison”.
The bill is called “the Yadan Law” because its creation was headed by National Assembly deputy Caroline Yadan, who represents the “French legislative constituency for citizens abroad” where “Israel has the largest number of voters in the constituency, with over 50,000 registered French voters”.
JNS noted that, “Yadan was elected to parliament as a representative of Renaissance but downgraded her ties to the party, switching to an independent affiliated lawmaker in September following the Macron administration’s decision to recognize a Palestinian state.”
In other words, the bill was brought by a Zionist French politician whose main constituency are Israelis.
Arnaud Bertrand noted, “The U.S. has congressmen paid by AIPAC: France has cut out the middleman entirely, we have MPs whose constituency is literally in Israel.”
Caroline Yadan is a genocide denier who has written, “The term genocide corresponds neither to the rights nor to the facts, nor to the intentions of the war in Gaza.”
Referring to the bill, the former French anti-terrorism judge Marc Trevidic said, “I’d never seen anything like it, the notion of implicit incitement to terrorism. Can you imagine what that means? A censor of other people’s thoughts, trying to figure out what a person meant”.
There is no doubt that this bill is designed to silence criticism of Israel, and that the lawmaker behind it is pushing it forward on behalf of her Israeli constituents.
UK, Spain reject Trump’s new scheme to blockade Hormuz Strait
The Cradle | April 13, 2026
The UK and others have rejected Washington’s plan to impose a blockade on Iranian ports and target ships transiting the Strait of Hormuz in collaboration with the Islamic Republic.
UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer said “we are not supporting the blockade” in an interview with BBC Radio on 13 April.
Starmer added that the UK is not “getting dragged in” to the US-Israeli war against Iran. He emphasized the priority is reopening the strait, noting it is “vital that we get the strait open and fully open.”
Turkiye opposed the blockade and called for renewed diplomacy, while China warned against escalation and urged both sides to maintain stability.
The Spanish government has also condemned the US move. “It’s just another episode in this downward spiral we’ve slipped into,” Spanish Defense Minister Margarita Robles said on Monday, adding that US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “want to impose rules on the international community, which is illogical.”
Germany did not criticize the move. “The supposed blockade … does not mark the end of this diplomatic process,” a government spokesperson said, adding that “We see it as a move to ramp up the pressure.”
The US military’s announcement did “not mention a blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, but rather a blockade of Iranian ports – that is a different approach,” the German spokesperson added.
Earlier on Monday, France announced that London and Paris will organize a conference to discuss forming a “strictly defensive” and “peaceful” mission to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.
“As regards the Strait of Hormuz, in the coming days, together with the UK, we will organize a conference with those countries prepared to contribute alongside us to a peaceful multinational mission aimed at restoring freedom of navigation in the strait,” said French President Emmanuel Macron.
“This strictly defensive mission, separate from the warring parties to the conflict, is intended to be deployed as soon as circumstances permit,” he added. Paris had previously rejected a US proposal on the formation of an international coalition aimed at reopening the Strait, saying it would help escort ships only when the war ended.
A Bahraini resolution to reopen the strait by force was vetoed by Russia and China right before the ceasefire was announced.
The Strait of Hormuz remains closed to Washington and its allies despite the recent ceasefire between the US and Iran.
Vessels unaffiliated with the US and Israel, including a French one, have recently been given access following coordination with the Islamic Republic.
The US threat to blockade Iran’s ports was made by CENTCOM on Sunday night. It said it would begin a blockade “of all maritime traffic entering and exiting” Iranian ports starting 10:00 am Eastern Time (ET) on 13 April.
“The blockade will be enforced impartially against vessels of all nations entering or departing Iranian ports and coastal areas, including all Iranian ports on the Arabian Gulf and Gulf of Oman. CENTCOM forces will not impede freedom of navigation for vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz to and from non-Iranian ports,” it added.
After the announcement, Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf said, “enjoy the current pump figures,” adding that “with the so-called ‘blockade,’ Soon you’ll be nostalgic for $4–5 gas.”
The Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters of the Iranian military made a statement on Monday, accusing Washington of “piracy” while vowing to act “decisively” in order to permanently control the Strait of Hormuz and secure Iran’s waters.
Seven US allies endorse Hormuz ‘coalition,’ offer ‘no commitment’ for military action
The Cradle | March 20, 2026
The UK, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Japan, and Canada issued a joint statement on 20 March in support of a potential “coalition” to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, while specifying “no commitment” to a concrete military role.
“We express our readiness to contribute to appropriate efforts to ensure safe passage through the strait,” the close US allies announced.
The joint statement did not, however, touch on any military involvement or the commitment of any forces to the initiative.
One political reporter writing for Axios said the statement was “largely a gesture to placate [US] President [Donald] Trump, who has railed against allies for declining to help secure the strait and warned that a failure to do so could undermine the future of NATO.”
The allies condemned attacks on commercial vessels and energy infrastructure, citing “the de facto closure of the Strait of Hormuz by Iranian forces,” and called on Tehran to “cease immediately its threats, laying of mines, drone and missile attacks and other attempts to block the strait.”
Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni said no state is considering “a military mission to forcibly break the Iranian blockade,” adding the EU favors “diplomacy and de-escalation.”
She clarified that any contribution would apply to a “post-conflict phase” and require agreement among all parties.
Other governments echoed this position, with Germany confirming “no military participation,” while France said its deployments remain strictly defensive.
The UK ruled out a NATO mission, focusing instead on negotiations, though it has sent planners to coordinate options.
Despite the political backing and global panic over soaring energy prices , maritime data shows the strait is only partially restricted, as roughly 90 vessels crossed in early March.
Iran has established a controlled “safe” shipping corridor through its territorial waters in the Strait of Hormuz, allowing only approved vessels – mainly from countries like India, Pakistan, China, Iraq, and Malaysia – to transit after IRGC vetting, while ships linked to the US or Israel are effectively excluded.
Access is currently negotiated on a case-by-case basis but is moving toward a formal system requiring detailed disclosures of ownership and cargo, often coordinated through intermediaries and, in at least one case, involving a reported $2-million payment.
So far, at least nine vessels have used the route, which passes near Larak Island for inspection, but traffic remains minimal.
The US remains largely the only country carrying out direct military operations, deploying forces and striking Iranian positions along the strait, as well as conducting offensive strikes inside Iran.
Earlier US-led efforts to secure regional shipping routes followed a similar trajectory, with coalitions struggling to gain meaningful participation as several allies refused or limited involvement, leaving only a small number of naval deployments.
Efforts to secure maritime routes during the Israeli genocide on Gaza in 2024 faced the same constraints, as US and EU resources proved insufficient to deter Yemeni strikes across the Red Sea.
Officials had warned that strikes on Yemen were “not contributing to the solution,” while Yemeni attacks on vessels continued, raising pressure on global trade routes.
Yemeni forces maintained their stance as a support front for Gaza, persisting with attacks until Washington ended its campaign under an Omani-brokered truce, with President Trump claiming Yemeni forces “don’t want to fight anymore.”
‘Not our war’: Trump’s naval coalition to reopen Strait of Hormuz dead in the water
The Cradle | March 16, 2026
Several countries have either rejected or expressed serious concerns about US President Donald Trump’s plan to form a coalition aimed at escorting vessels through the Strait of Hormuz, which Tehran has closed to Washington and its allies in retaliation for the brutal US-Israeli strikes on the Islamic Republic.
Germany’s Minister for Foreign Affairs, Johann Wadephul, said on 15 March that he was “skeptical” of Trump’s plan.
“Will we soon be an active part of this conflict? No,” he went on to say.
German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius said, “What does Trump expect a handful of European frigates to do that the powerful US Navy cannot?” adding, “This is not our war, and we did not start it.”
Meanwhile, France officially rejected the US request to send warships to the Strait of Hormuz.
The French Foreign Ministry rejected reports that it was gearing up to send vessels, saying, “No. The carrier strike group remains in the Eastern Mediterranean. France’s position remains unchanged: defensive and protective.”
Australia has also denied the request, as have Japan, China, Norway, and Spain. The UK and South Korea said they were reviewing options.
The US president had demanded that NATO states join his proposed coalition, threatening that they would face a “very bad future” if they did not.
Trump had also expressed hope that “China, France, Japan, South Korea, the UK, and others, that are affected by this artificial constraint, will send ships to the area so that the Hormuz Strait will no longer be a threat by a nation that has been totally decapitated.”
Iran has closed the Strait of Hormuz to Washington and its allies in response to the US-Israeli war against the Islamic Republic. Several vessels trying to cross in violation of Iranian warnings have been targeted.
A number of countries have reached out to Tehran for access to the Strait, through which 20 to 30 percent of the world’s energy passed prior to the war.
India has confirmed that two of its ships passed after talks with Iran. Tehran also allowed a Turkish vessel to pass through the strait.
“The Strait of Hormuz has not been militarily blocked and is merely under control,” said Alireza Tangsiri, naval commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi stated, “The Strait of Hormuz is open. It is only closed to the tankers and ships belonging to our enemies, to those who are attacking us and their allies. Others are free to pass.”
After Yemen began its pro-Palestine blockade in the Red Sea following the start of the Gaza genocide in 2023, Washington launched a naval operation under the name Prosperity Guardian – aimed at deterring Sanaa’s forces and facilitating the transit of vessels.
The US failed to secure enough partners, and the mission ultimately failed.
The Ansarallah-led Yemeni Armed Forces (YAF) has recently vowed that it is ready to intervene alongside Iran’s other allies – meaning the potential closure of another vital energy route, the Bab al-Mandab strait.
Macron’s aircraft carrier and warplanes to the Persian Gulf is a dangerous vanity project
By Finian Cunningham | Strategic Culture Foundation | March 12, 2026
Like a knight in shining armour, French President Emmanuel Macron is vowing to defend Europe’s interests as the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran escalates.
Macron is not defending Europe or French honor. His theatrical swashbuckling is going to get more people killed and very possibly make the economic impact on Europe even more disastrous.
On a visit to Cyprus this week, Macron declared that a strike on Cyprus was a strike on Europe. He was referring to drone attacks on a British air base on the Mediterranean island last week that were blamed on Iran. It’s not clear who fired the drones at a time when false-flag operations are suspected in Turkey and Azerbaijan, carried out by Israeli forces seeking to embroil the region.
The French president was also filmed inspecting troops on board the Charles de Gaulle, France’s sole aircraft carrier, which he said is being sent along with 12 other warships to the Strait of Hormuz. The aircraft carrier was abruptly redirected from NATO exercises in the Atlantic to the Mediterranean.
The Strait of Hormuz has been closed to oil tankers since the U.S. and Israel launched their aggression on Iran two weeks ago. Europe is particularly vulnerable to oil price shocks and diminishing supply since the EU cut itself off from Russian energy markets over the proxy war in Ukraine.
In addition to the French armada being dispatched to the Persian Gulf, Macron has also ordered Rafale fighter jets to “defend the skies” over the United Arab Emirates, where the French have a base.
However, Macron’s latest show of bravado has telltale question marks. He emphasized that the French naval mission and its air assets were “purely defensive.” This indicates a lack of resolve, and that Paris is worried about the political backlash among French voters if it is seen to be wading into a reckless war started by the unhinged Americans and Israelis.
Also, Macron will be concerned that Iran views any involvement by European states as a party to the aggression and will likewise be targeted. That’s why Macron was trying to make out that French warships would be only “escorting tankers” to ensure passage through the Strait of Hormuz. The subtext to Iran is, please don’t hit us.
But Iran has categorically stated that as long as the U.S. and Israel’s aggression continues, then not one drop of oil will pass out of the Persian Gulf. If French warships try to enter the Gulf even as escort vessels, they will be seen as trying to break Iran’s tactical blockade. That will make them legitimate targets for Iran.
Macron qualified his armada plan as happening when the conflict subsides. That hardly sounds like a forthright act of bravery, more like hedging your bets.
What the French leader is doing is engaging in a vanity contest. Notably, the British Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, has been ridiculed by Donald Trump as “not being Winston Churchill” over his dithering to send military support. The British press has noted that Macron was trolling British weakness and “rubbing our noses in it”. The visit to Cyprus – which still has colonial links with London – was aimed at showing up the British as ineffective, unlike the chivalrous French coming to the rescue.
Macron is also attempting to sideline Germany’s Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who was in the White House last week, sucking up to Trump by avowing Berlin’s support against Iran. There has been a long-running ill feeling in Paris that Germany is becoming too big for its boots militarily. Macron is endeavoring to don the mantle of European leadership by declaring the defense of interests in the Persian Gulf.
The blunt truth is that Europe and France in particular are a non-entity. The EU is a mess because it has been a pathetic vassal to the United States, cutting itself off from Russian energy and damaging its economies. Now that oil is being cut off from the Persian Gulf and oil prices are heading above $100 per barrel, the Europeans are hit with a double whammy – all because of their subservience to Washington.
Macron’s strutting around the Charles de Gaulle to the strains of the Marseillaise is just theatrics to contrive looking as if he is doing something.
Another vanity factor is the major loss of the French warplane deal with Colombia last week.
For years, the French have been bidding for the sale of their Rafale fighter jets to the South American country. At the last minute, Colombia canceled the purchase and opted instead for Swedish Gripen jets. The loss is huge, amounting to €3 billion for French revenue and thousands of manufacturing jobs. But even more than that, the knock-on effect is a serious setback to French ambitions to crack the strategic Latin American market.
As soon as the news of the Colombia setback was announced, Macron took to nationwide television with his plans to send the Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier and its squadron of Rafale jets.
This is Macron compensating for being jilted by Colombia and the potential damage to France’s military reputation and future sales of its Rafale. He is using the Persian Gulf as an advertising platform for the French military.
The mobilizing of French sea and air assets is less about “defending” Europe and more about boosting national ego and Macron’s self-image as a reincarnation of Napoleon or De Gaulle.
Macron’s folly could see him getting France and Europe dragged into a disastrous war instigated by Trump and the genocidal Israeli regime.
Iran has warned that France or any other European involvement in the war will not be viewed as neutral. France, Britain, and Germany have fanned this war by their duplicity and pandering to the United States and Israel. Macron’s vanity is an added dangerous factor for escalating the conflict and the catastrophic impact on the global economy.
If Macron and the Europeans had any moral fibre, they should be condemning the U.S. and Israeli aggression against Iran, not exploiting it for self-aggrandizement.
Failing Solidarity: How Cultural Prejudice Shapes Leftist Narratives on the War Against Iran
By Alain Marshal | March 3, 2026
The so-called progressive political and media elites have cynically normalized the assassination of Iran’s leader, dressing up regime change as a moral necessity while denying Iranians the right to self-determination. In doing so, they expose a racist double standard that humanizes Israeli victims, dehumanizes Iranian lives, and buries the very principles of freedom, dignity and international law they claim to defend.
Just imagine the uproar if Iran had killed more than 150 Israeli schoolgirls
The ritual is immutable:
1/ condemn the Iranian “regime” and more or less explicitly welcome the “death” (above all, never say “assassination”) of Khamenei;
2/ having thus provided justification for the US-Israeli war of aggression — the supreme crime according to the Nuremberg Tribunal — and validated the grotesque and abject talking points of the criminals against humanity that Trump and Netanyahu are regarding the alleged “dictatorship of the mullahs,” proclaim, hand on heart, that one does not condone war and artificially dissociate the other victims of these strikes, while affirming solidarity with the Iranian people;
3/ finally and above all, make no reference to the fact that this same people took to the streets by the millions to support their “regime” in January, and are doing so again today, despite the bombs:it is not the real aspirations of the Iranian people that matter — deeply rooted as they are in their own history, values, and spirituality, infusing every aspect of their life with the teachings of Twelver Shia Islam and a deep attachment to the Prophet and his progeny — but rather those that the “civilized West” determines for them, seeking to shape them in its own godless image. Colonial mentality obliges — the same mentality that led Jules Ferry to declare that “the superior races have the duty to civilize the inferior ones.”
It is absolutely sickening to see that more than two years of genocide in Gaza have done nothing to change the crass ignorance, steeped in racism and Islamophobia, of our so-called progressive Left, whose hyperbolic reaction of solidarity we witnessed when it came to the 40 Israeli babies “beheaded” — existing solely in the putrid imagination of propagandists. In France, even La France Insoumise (LFI, main leftist party headed by Jean-Luc Mélenchon), which had managed to distance itself from the inept and complicit “neither-Maduro-nor-Trump” discourse on Venezuela, is now revelling in the war crime constituted by the assassination of a foreign leader, servilely described by Mélenchon as “the executioner of his people,” parroting US-Zionist propaganda and dismissing the millions of Iranians who hold him in reverence and regard him as their political and spiritual leader. Let us therefore listen to Mélenchon, the “Tribune of the plebs”:
“This is the first time there has been a war with no good guys. This is the first time there has been a war with only people we don’t like, I mean governments we don’t like. The government of Iran inspires no sympathy in me: for my part, I have opposed it from the very beginning. When its leader Ali Khamenei dies, I am obliged to say that I feel no sadness.
Mélenchon then claims that just as Nazism was a form of supremacism, the governments of Trump, Netanyahu and Khamenei are each in their own way supremacist powers competing for domination — going so far as to suggest that Khamenei proclaims Iran’s “superiority within Islam and over the Middle East,” an absurd characterization that serves only to justify equating aggressors with the attacked. He concludes: “Neither Shah nor Mullahs.”
No sadness, then, for Khamenei, nor for his wife, nor for his daughter, nor for his son-in-law, nor for his 14-month-old granddaughter, murdered alongside him — except insofar as one adopts the Israeli logic whereby, in order to assassinate one person, dozens or even hundreds are killed with him, invoking “collateral damage,” or even consigning them to oblivion by denying their very existence.
No sadness either for international law, the purposes and principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, the fundamental norms governing relations between States, global peace and stability. Nor for the more than 100 million Iranians and Shiite Muslims throughout the world (including in France and in the other European and Western countries) who mourn the loss of their Guide — whose popularity is questioned only by the ignorant and the ideologues, as for his followers, he is more than the Pope is to Catholics — because they do not embrace the model of society promoted by Mélenchon, who opposes the Islamic Republic on principle, even were it massively supported by the Iranian people, simply because the very principle of a theocracy repels him.
Iran must be regime-changed, even if that means sending it back to the Stone Age, like Syria and Libya, destroying all its incredible accomplishments since 1979 in fields such as healthcare, education, and the sciences — achievements made despite crippling sanctions and persistent external pressures, just like Cuba, from dramatic improvements in life expectancy to the expansion of medical and higher education, rapid growth in research output and scientific innovation, and self-sufficiency in pharmaceutical and high-tech sectors. Iranian women are 70% of Iran’s STEM graduates (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics), but one must guess they are not “free” until they wear miniskirts. Such blindness and the outright denial of the right to political and cultural self-determination are outrageous.
“I feel no sadness”
Although Western tradition humanizes only Israeli victims, deemed alone worthy of compassion, let us defy convention and give a name and a face to the martyrs: above, Zahra Mohammadi Golpayegani, 14 months old, Khamenei’s granddaughter, murdered with her family. No sadness, really? And below, several faces of the victims of the strike on a girls’ primary school — how abominable single-gender education must seem in your eyes — whose wearing of the veil, which Mélenchon once described as a “rag on the head,” may perhaps shock you.
Mélenchon, whose condemnations and impassioned outbursts after October 7 are well remembered — when the Palestinian Resistance had merely exercised its right to struggle against occupation (and Israel responded with the Hannibal doctrine and genocide) — would he dare to say “I feel no sadness” if Trump or Netanyahu had been killed along with their wife, children, and grandchildren, without provocation, triggering a regional war that could quickly becomeWorld War III? Never in a million years. He would have condemned the very act of international terrorism constituted by the aggression and assassination of a foreign leader, evoked all its potentially cataclysmic ramifications, and explicitly mentioned the victims. But when it comes to Iran, none of this matters. Iranian and Israeli lives are not equal in the eyes of the “supremacists,” whether ethnic, political, or civilizational — are they, Mr. Mélenchon?
As for Mediapart, long regarded as one of France’s leading left-leaning media outlets, it no longer even bothers to conceal its Atlanticist and Zionist allegiances, openly embracing them. It congratulated Israel on the “tactical stroke of genius” represented by the mass terrorist beeper attack against Lebanon (later discreetly revising the description to a “strategic success” once it recognized that the original wording was apologetic), and is now explicitly turning the victim into the culprit, daring to claim that Iran had it coming because it refused to “capitulate on its foundations,” namely its defense capabilities (nuclear weapons being nothing more than a crude pretext), and refused to allow itself to be carved up (see the surreal article Rather than Capitulate on Its Foundations, the Iranian Regime Prefers to Endure War, torn to pieces by the comments of Mediapart subscribers themselves, who are increasingly turning their backs on this vile NATO bootlicking). France remains, without a doubt, the daughter of Jules Ferry the colonialist and Pétain the collaborationist.
If our grandees truly cared about international law, the rights of peoples, and global peace and security, the assassination of Khamenei would be unanimously condemned with horror and indignation, both in itself and for the cataclysmic consequences it could entail, from a global economic crisis to a third world war. If “human animals” possessed as much dignity as Western and Israeli lives in the eyes of our self-proclaimed “feminists,” the Iranian schoolgirls targeted by Israel would make every front page — and draw condemnations dwarfing those provoked by the fake story of 40 decapitated babies. Instead of ludicrous accusations of expansionism or imperialism toward Iran, we would be reminded at every second that Israel — the intergalactic champion of killing children and destroying schools and hospitals — dreams of turning the entire Middle East into Gaza, and wants to ensure Trump follows through on “Operation Epstein’s Fury” to the very end.
The great historical tradition of international solidarity, which once led French men and women to risk their lives and endure torture in support of the Algerian FLN, is no more. At best, one can expect the “progressives” and other self-styled “revolutionaries” to place aggressor and victim on the same footing. Far from those who claim neutrality in situations of injustice, and who, as Desmond Tutu said, merely play the game of the oppressor, we affirm our genuine internationalist solidarity with the Islamic Republic of Iran in the face of imperialist and Zionist aggressors, and affirm not only its right to defend itself, but its right to choose its model of society, including that of a “theocracy,” which is only a dirty word for fanatic secularists.
This blog is the result of voluntary work. To support it, you can make a donation.
EU gas prices surge 50% right as Germany and France face down lack of energy reserves after cold winter
Remix News | March 2, 2026
Natural gas markets across Europe experienced a violent price surge on Monday following news that Qatar has suspended operations at the world’s premier liquefied natural gas facility, which accounts for 20 percent of global output. EU leaders are reportedly preparing for a crisis scenario if the war drags on due to already low gas reserves in the biggest member states, particularly Germany and France.
Prices went as high as 50 percent before settling back down to the current level of 45 percent at the time of publication, resulting in the current price of €46 per megawatt-hour. Similar price jumps were seen in the United Kingdom’s NBP benchmark index.
Adding to a potential crisis, EU storage levels have dropped below 30 percent capacity at the end of the winter season, significantly lower than the 40 percent recorded at this time last year. However, some of the biggest countries are facing the lowest levels of gas. Gas Infrastructure Europe shows German storage at 20.5 percent and French reserves at 21 percent. These low inventories leave the bloc increasingly susceptible to price swings and supply shortages if an LNG crunch worsens.
Now, the EU is already considering scenarios where the war could drag on for a long period of time, including up to years. While President Donald Trump has cited the figure of “four weeks” in regard to wrapping up the war, it remains unclear how long the war could go on.
Politico reports that the EU’s efforts to wean itself off of Russian gas and oil have created a “panic moment.”
“For Europe, I think it creates a panic moment,”Ana Maria Jaller-Makarewicz, lead energy analyst at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, told Politico. “Four years ago [following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine] we had these issues.” But this time, she said, “We are not just now concerned about Russia, but about Qatar, the U.S. … so I think now since we have increased dependencies on other sources, we have also increased our vulnerability.”
Noting Qatar’s role as the second-largest supplier of LNG in the world, she noted that if Qatar cannot deliver natural gas efficiently and on time, “Russia could be the big beneficiary.”
“We could also see Russian energy flowing to other countries. There could be an opportunity for Russia if this Qatar LNG is stopped,” said the analyst.
QatarEnergy has not disclosed extent of damage
The energy crisis intensified after U.S. and Israeli military strikes on Iran escalated regional instability. In response to an attack on its infrastructure, QatarEnergy confirmed it had halted production linked to the North Field gas reservoir. While the company acknowledged the suspension, it gave no further details about the state of the fields and the company’s operations.
The world is currently focusing its attention on the Strait of Hormuz, a vital maritime chokepoint largely under Iranian influence.
Following the recent strikes, Iran has moved to obstruct traffic through the narrow passage, which serves as a primary artery for Qatari LNG and global oil, the vast majority of which is destined for Asian markets. However, energy is a global market, and a bottleneck in one location leads to a surge in prices everywhere.
The price surge may be only temporary, but experts warn that any prolonged closure of the strait could lead to a long-term surge in energy prices. Some have even warned of oil surging to $120 a barrel, while most believe prices within the range of $80 to $90 are a realistic possibility.
Featured Video
Trump Announces Operation To Escort Ships – Fmr. CIA Analyst Larry Johnson
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Israel’s recurring use of terror on civilians
By Bob Finch | January 26, 2009
Insanely disproportionate use of violence against unarmed civilians… continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- 1977 Influenza Pandemic Sequence Shows Signs of Laboratory Creation: Journal ‘Cell’
- China issues first prohibition order to safeguard international trade order under rule of law
- Iran rejects Trump’s ‘Project Freedom,’ warns US over Hormuz role
- TRUMP ANNOUNCES OPERATION TO ESCORT SHIPS – Fmr. CIA Analyst Larry Johnson
- A few observations on Iran’s latest proposal to Trump
- ‘I urged that our objective be regime change… so did Netanyahu’ – ex-Trump adviser on Iran
- “STAGED”: Conspiracy Theories Are Everywhere!
- NATO courts screenwriters to embed alliance messaging in film, TV
- Iran replaces UAE ports with Pakistan corridor to break US blockade
- Iran sets one-month deadline for end to US-Israeli war, blockade: Report
- If Americans Knew
- As Palestinians die, Ben-Gvir celebrates birthday with golden noose cake – Daily Update
- Israel’s New Ambassador to the ‘Christian World’ Served as Envoy to Azerbaijan During the Ethnic Cleansing of Christians from Nagorno-Karabakh
- US set to sell $1B “Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System” to Israel – Daily Update
- Israeli Strikes Kill at Least 32 Across S Lebanon, Including Children – Amid “Ceasefire”
- Israel to pour $730m into propaganda arm amid reputational crisis
- Real Cost of Iran War Likely Double the $25 Billion Figure the Pentagon Gave to Congress
- Israel conducts farthest-ever strike in long history of attacks on Gaza humanitarian aid flotillas
- In Gaza, Israel commits 10+ ceasefire violations a day – Daily Update
- US ships 6,500 tons of munitions, equipment to Israel in 24 hours
- A New Library in Gaza Rises From the Ashes of Destruction
- No Tricks Zone
- Another Study Links Warming To Cloud Forcing, Shortwave Radiation, Natural Atmospheric Circulation
- Wind Energy Is Toxic, Hazardous To Human Health, Scientific Review Shows
- Oversupply Of Volatile Solar Energy Leads To Record NEGATIVE Prices!
- New Study: Extreme Heat Records, Heatwaves, Extreme Cold Records Declining Across US Since 1899
- It’s The Cold, Stupid! Cold 20 Times More Lethal Than Heat, Multiple Studies Show
- European Institute For Climate And Energy: “Climate Debate is Seldom About Science”
- New Study: The Climate May Be 5 Times More Sensitive To Solar Forcing Than Commonly Assumed
- EV Industry Reached $70 Billion In Losses In 2024 Due To Delusional Green Ideologies
- Reality Check: Maldives Have Actually Grown In Size Or Remained Stable Over Recent Decades
- Abrupt Climate Change Also Occurred NATURALLY In The Past …25 Times During Last Ice Age
Aletho News 