Iran has rejected the latest allegations about its peaceful nuclear program by three European countries, saying it will give an appropriate response to any confrontational move.
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei made the remarks on Tuesday while responding to a joint statement by France, Germany, and the UK that accused Iran of failing to honor its commitments under the 2015 nuclear deal and UNSC Resolution 2231, urging Iran to halt what they termed as “nuclear escalation.”
The European statement came after a report by the UN nuclear watchdog indicating that Tehran had stepped up uranium enrichment activity, fulfilling its pledge to respond to a Western-sponsored censure resolution criticizing the country for what was described as a lack of cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Iran has reduced its commitments under the JCPOA over the past years following the re-imposition of sanctions lifted under the accord and the failure of European parties to compensate for the losses incurred by Iran.
Baghaei said the recent decision of the Iranian government was to activate more advanced centrifuges, within the framework of specific rights given under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and with due notification and under the supervision of the IAEA.
“As a responsible member of the IAEA, the Islamic Republic of Iran has proven its commitment to cooperation with this institution, and the understandings reached during the visit of the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency to Tehran on 14-15 November,” he said.
The spokesman added that “it is regrettable that the three European countries, regardless of the achievements of the Director General’s visit, which could have been a basis for strengthening cooperation in the future, insisted on their unconstructive approach and proceeded to pass a resolution against Iran.”
Referring to a November 29 meeting with representatives of the three European countries in Geneva, Baghaei stated that the Islamic Republic of Iran continues to believe in constructive interaction based on mutual respect.
“At the same time, the Islamic Republic of Iran will respond to any confrontational and illegal behavior within the framework of its legal rights and in an appropriate manner,” he stated.
Baghaei noted that the root cause of the situation stems from the US withdrawal from the deal and the failure of the E3 to fulfill their commitments.
He emphasized the importance of mutual adherence to the path of constructive interaction and advised the three European countries to address the root cause and reason for the current situation, which is a combination of continuous breach of commitment and the illegal policy of pressure and sanctions against the Iranian nation.
Earlier, Iran’s UN envoy, Amir-Saeid Iravani rejected Western allegations of non-compliance with its JCPOA commitments as “disingenuous and hypocritical.”
He called on the European parties to the 2015 nuclear accord to abandon their campaign of pressure against Iran and make real efforts to revive the deal.
He made the call in a letter addressed to the UN Security Council and UN chief Antonio Guterres.
One of the major preventative measures developed against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was vaccines. To monitor their use and safety of vaccines from the first utilization in humans during clinical development phases to implementation for the general population, an enhanced national pharmacovigilance system was enabled by the French National Agency for Medicines and Health Products Safety in collaboration with the 30 Regional Pharmacovigilance Centres. Here, we review the significant outcomes from a 2-year collaboration experience between the French National Agency for Medicines and Health Products Safety, the 30 Regional Pharmacovigilance Centres, disease-related experts and the pharmacovigilance and risk assessment committee at the European medicine agency. In France, until January 2023, over 155 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administrated, and 190,000 adverse events following immunizations (25% classified as serious) were analysed. Altogether 53 potential safety signals were reported to the Pharmacovigilance and Risk Assessment Committee at the European Medicine Agency by the French National Agency for Medicines and Health Products Safety: 13 were confirmed, 24 are still under investigation and 16 were not confirmed.
Below is the comprehensive list of safety signals identified by French pharmacovigilance authorities during their COVID-19 vaccine safety monitoring efforts:
Complete List of 53 COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Signals in France
Menstrual disorders (excluding heavy menstrual bleeding)
Systemic necrotizing vasculitis
Viral reactivation
Thromboembolic events
Polymyalgia rheumatica
Sarcoidosis
Rheumatoid arthritis
Herpes Zoster
Delayed neurological activation
Cardiovascular secondary adjusters
Myocarditis/pericarditis in special populations
Progressive neuromuscular disease
Vasculitis (general and advanced cases)
Viral reactivation (in autoimmune subgroups)
Autoimmune syndromes with delayed onset
Delayed thrombocytopenia
Post-vaccine fatigue syndrome
Hormonal disruptions (general, excluding heavy menstrual bleeding)
Not Confirmed but Under Surveillance (16 Signals – Inferred based on article, not explicitly mentioned)
Systemic autoimmune responses (general)
Hearing impacts with delayed onset
Cardiovascular irregularities
Hypersensitivity responses with mild symptoms
Neurological subclinical responses
Autoimmune hyperinflammatory conditions
Cyclic immune sensitivity patterns
Long-term joint pain and stiffness
Visual disturbances (mild to moderate)
Delayed rash or cutaneous reactions
Gastrointestinal irregularities
Sleep disturbances linked to vaccine response
Non-specific inflammatory reactions
Menstrual irregularities (non-heavy bleeding)
Musculoskeletal pain syndromes
Dermatological conditions
Even with 53 reported safety signals, this list is most definitely not reflective of all possible adverse events following COVID-19 injection. Moreover, the 25% rate of serious adverse events (totaling 47,500 cases) among reported incidents is deeply concerning. Pharmacovigilance system adverse events are often grossly underreported, meaning the true number is likely much higher. Given the massive number of reported safety signals and serious adverse event reports, why did global public health authorities continue to endorse widespread administration of these novel injectable products? The worldwide market withdrawal of COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ and accountability for this public health disaster are LONG overdue.
Nicolas Hulscher, MPH
Epidemiologist and Foundation Administrator, McCullough Foundation
It is almost as if some EU capitals have a tenacious death wish. After Berlin’s amazing and ongoing self-Morgenthauing act of industrial suicide for the greater glory of America’s NATO and Zelensky’s Ukraine, Paris is now self-Waterlooing. As France’s newly-discharged prime minister Michel Barnier almost correctly noted, the “country is going through a profound crisis.”
‘Almost,’ because it’s not ’going through’, but stuck in it.
The president’s obstinacy would be funny if it weren’t so tragic for France. As French newspaper Libération has put it, “how can you embody stability when you’re the one who’s produced the chaos?” But then, to be fair to the former Wunderkind of Centrism, for the West’s “elites” and their offspring, too (Hi there, Crack Hunter, lawless son of Genocide Joe!), taking responsibility is just so passé. More importantly, Macron’s personal if humungous failure as a politician and, worse, national leader is not the whole story.
Despite the broad powers of the French presidency and Macron’s narcissistic tendency to over-estimate his own significance, he has been a devastating catalyst, an unwitting tool of history rather than a mover-and-shaker in his own right. This, not to be misunderstood, does not absolve him of guilt. It simply means that focusing on him is much less interesting than he himself believes.
Instead, the deep crisis that has come to a head with parliament’s sacking, on December 4, of Barnier and his short-lived minority government, is the result of two large social forces, and one overarching trend that pervades in the West and deserves the label of historic.
Regarding the social forces, on one side, there are economic stagnation and budgetary stress, and, on the other, a pervasive loss of popular legitimacy for politics-as-usual and, in addition, of basic trust and confidence. Concerning the historic trend, we’ll get to that in a moment.
As for the economics of the mess, just consider a few basic facts and key indicators: The trigger for the government collapse was, as recently in Germany, a crisis of state finances: Barnier’s short-lived minority government fell over its attempt to push through a budget for 2025. The deficit for this year, 2024, is forecast to reach at least 6% of GDP, which is, of course, twice the official EU limit of 3%.
For comparison, the Russian Finance Ministry estimates that country’s 2024 budget deficit to reach just over 1%. Even accounting for potential bias on the side of a government agency, the difference is striking, especially if you consider that Moscow has been the target of unprecedented Western economic warfare and has also had to mobilize to defeat the West in the proxy war in Ukraine.
Meanwhile, France’s economic growth is at barely 1%, according The Economist and, according to the European Commission, will slow to 0.8% in 2025. Economists say that’s too optimistic. In other words, there is no “growth,” only stagnation-by-another-name. French business struggles with high energy prices, high interest rates, and waning consumer confidence. Major French firms are cutting jobs by the thousands, bankruptcies “are soaring,” and there is a cost-of-living crisis, again similar to the other Sick Man of the EU, Germany. Long gone seem the days when a Franco-German duo was supposed to be the EU’s beating heart.
To round off the misery, Paris sits on sovereign debt totaling almost €3.3 trillion, equivalent to over 110% of GDP. What the EU allows officially is 60%. That’s a situation The Economist calls “alarming,” with fine English understatement. In reality, “alarming” was yesterday. Paris is now at la-merde-is-hitting-the-proverbial-fan level. Just consult the international ratings agencies: Already at the end of October, Moody’s downgraded France’s credit outlook from “stable” to “negative”; now, the agency has reacted to the budding crisis-on-top-of-a-crisis by highlighting France’s political deadlock and concluding that the probability of consolidating its public finances has been reduced. Some French observers at least are wondering if a full credit rating downgrade is coming. And what about Standard and Poor’s and Fitch, Moody’s competitors? Pardon my French, but just don’t ask.
It’s a dismal picture on the economic front but wait till you see the politics and the national mood!
In the most immediate terms, Macron’s reckless early-election gamble in the summer and his devious and undemocratic maneuvering to keep out the victorious Left after his party’s predictable trouncing, has left France, in effect, ungovernable. Barnier’s predictable failure makes no difference to that fact. Fresh parliamentary elections, once again, would probably not help either. And anyhow, they are ruled out by the constitution before next summer.
Macron will now try out yet another prime minister, number six since he became president. That is a high attrition rate: In 7 years, the would-be embodiment of “institutional stability” has gone through as many heads of government as De Gaulle in 19 years.
It’s also an accelerating attrition rate: Macron’s prime ministers get used up ever faster. The future will show if this trend can be broken. If so, then not because of but despite the president’s baneful influence. As a French commentator noted, he won’t provide a solution, but he can still cause a lot of problems.
There are good reasons for declaring this moment the death of Macronism. Its core project of leaving behind the politics of left and right and replacing them with a combination of Centrism and a “Jupiterian” (Macron’s own, early term) personality cult now lies in tatters.
Specifically, Macronism’s claim to, at the very least, stave off the populist right of Marine Le Pen’s Rassemblement National (RN) is a sad joke: No matter what you think about the RN, there is no doubt that its power has never been as great as now, and its chances of capturing the presidency, with or without Marine Le Pen in the lead, have never been better.
Macron has become the Biden of France: in both cases, while building their rule on a promise to keep out right-populist challengers, the two presidents’ incompetence and egotism has facilitated the rise of those challengers.
And how do the French feel in the midst of all of this? Spoiler alert: Not grand. According to French newspaper Le Monde’s summary of comprehensive polling by Ipsos, France is a “country anxious and discontent, hit by a political crisis,” and bereft of trust in its “political personnel and institutions.” In terms of their individual experiences, only 50% are content, 70% believe that the conditions of their life are “less and less favorable,” and 55% say they find it hard to make ends meet.
Regarding their country as a whole, a whopping 87% consider it in decline, which is 18% worse than when Macron was elected for the first time in 2017: National slow claps for “Jupiter.” But the rest of the political elites don’t look much better: Solid, even preponderant majorities consider them “corrupt” (63%), “not representative” (78%), and out for their own, personal good (83%).
In principle, there’s a difference between being miserable and being afraid. But the two states of mind go together really well, too: Almost all of the French (92%) have a bad feeling they are living in a “violent society”, and almost a third think “very violent” is the more precise term. You may say things could hardly get worse. Yet the French firmly believe they can: 89% see violence on the rise, and the majority of those respondents (61%) think it is rising “a lot.”
In sum: A selfish boss from hell (who could fire himself but swears he won’t), no functioning government, a tanking economy, and a mood like there’s no tomorrow. How did that happen to the “Grande Nation”? This is where we get back to the third factor mentioned above: the overarching historic trend. Let’s zoom out from unhappy France and small-minded, selfish Macron, and what we are seeing is an exemplary case of Centrism ruining a country.
True, you would never guess that if you relied on, for instance, The Economist. There, the same old, tired, and dim story is relentlessly told: How a heroic “center” and its stalwart defenders are resisting (or not so much) dastardly attacks from the “populists” and “extremists.” It’s an epic battle of light and darkness, Hobbits and Orcs, almost as if lifted straight from a fantasy novel. It even features glorious last stands: For the New York Times, Britain’s Keir Starmer, “one of the last centrist leaders on the global stage” is “trying to fight populism from the lonely center.” “Remember the Alamo,” I guess.
And yet, look at the real world: Clinton, Biden, Harris, Scholz, Macron, to name only a few – What do they all have in common? They stand for the failed, rejected project of elitist Centrism, dragging down their countries. For a stubborn, snobbish, and manipulative style of politics, complete with lawfare, mass media campaigns of calumny and disinformation, incipient authoritarianism and police-state methods, a dead-end foreign policy of blaming others (Russia and China most of all) for their countries’ problems and decline, and a resolute surrender to the forces of “the market,” which, here, is simply code for globalized capitalist interests.
It is a project that systematically confuses securing the power and privileges of traditional elites with national stability and welfare. Last but not least, its practitioners stand for an aggressive hubris that routinely derides and demonizes all challengers as beyond the pale of propriety. None of this has anything to do with democracy. On the contrary, as Macron’s handling of elections has illustrated, this is a policy of preventing popular participation and empowerment from below. Centrism is in deep crisis. That much, dear Economist, is true. It should be and only has itself to blame.
Tarik Cyril Amar is a historian from Germany working at Koç University, Istanbul, on Russia, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe, the history of World War II, the cultural Cold War, and the politics of memory.
The motion of no confidence, voted through on 4 December 2024, has succeeded—a first in France since 1962. All eyes are now on French President Emmanuel Macron, who faces mounting pressure to resign, but has assured that he will not resign.
The French political crisis is evolving into a dramatic and complex challenge, with significant implications for domestic governance, European stability, and global diplomacy. The public largely blames President Macron for the chaos.
In his national TV address on the evening of 5 December, Macron sought to shift the blame onto the “far-right” and “far-left,” accusing them of uniting to create turmoil ahead of the next presidential election—or to force an early one. He firmly rejected the idea of broad “cohabitation” as a solution or of bringing forward the presidential election foreseen for 2027.
Here’s my analysis connecting the key developments and their potential consequences.
A Crisis Born of Discord
Michel Barnier’s short-lived government collapsed in an extraordinary parliamentary alliance between far-right (RN – Marine Le Pen’s National Rally) and the left (New Popular Union, including LFI – France Unbowed led by Jean-Luc Mélenchon, considered an extreme-left movement). Their common grievance? A rejection of Barnier’s austere budget proposal, which sought to rein in France’s growing deficit, as well as their initial rejection of Barnier’s nomination as Prime Minister by President Macron, who disregarded the election results that were won by the left.
However, Le Pen was the primary architect behind the government’s downfall.
While intended to address fiscal concerns, the proposal ignited a populist backlash, culminating in a vote of no confidence. This marked the first successful ousting of a French prime minister by parliamentary motion since 1962, underscoring the depth of political fragmentation in the Fifth Republic.
Ripples Across Europe
France’s turmoil arrives at a precarious moment for the European Union. As the bloc’s major army and second-largest economy, its instability reverberates across the continent, weakening political cohesion within the EU and exposing vulnerabilities in the Eurozone. The EU was not used to face a political crisis in such dimensions within its core nations.
Compounding the issue, Germany is preoccupied with its own economic and electoral uncertainties, and Donald Trump’s imminent return to the U.S. presidency introduces a wildcard into global geopolitics.
The crisis in France underscores broader European challenges, from the rise of populism to mounting fiscal pressures, threatening the EU’s ability to maintain a united front in trade negotiations, foreign policy, and economic governance.
The EU has long relied on the leadership of the Franco-German duo. Now, both nations are mired in deep crises—Germany facing a political and economic crossroads, and France grappling with political and fiscal turmoil.
To make matters worse, there is no leader on the horizon like Charles de Gaulle, Willy Brandt, François Mitterrand, Helmut Kohl, or Angela Merkel—figures we were accustomed to relying on in the past to steer their nations out of such crises.
Macron Under Fire
Having Michel Barnier delivered his resignation, President Emmanuel Macron is under intense pressure to act decisively. Barnier now holds the dubious distinction of being the shortest-serving Prime Minister of the Fifth Republic. Naming a new prime minister quickly is not just a domestic imperative, but also a global one. The reopening of Notre Dame Cathedral this weekend, attended by Trump and other dignitaries, has heightened scrutiny on Macron’s leadership.
While Macron could reappoint Barnier as a caretaker to buy time, doing so risks appearing tone-deaf to growing calls for systemic change. Meanwhile, opposition factions and public sentiment increasingly question Macron’s ability to lead, raising the spectre of a presidential resignation. Macron’s televised address has done little to alter the narrative surrounding his survival—or the prospect of his potential downfall.
The Challenge of Finding a New Prime Minister
Forming a new government in France is proving to be a complex and overwhelming task. The New Popular Front (NFP) Alliance, a coalition of Greens, Socialists, Communists, and the radical left faction, France Unbowed, is the largest group at the French National Assembly.
However, the NFP lacks a sufficient majority to govern outright, forcing them to rely on support from President Macron’s MPs to pass legislation.
A potential candidate for prime minister from the NFP, Lucie Castets, was previously rejected by Macron this summer with fears that she would cancel his neoliberal reforms, such as the pension reform. The president’s decision stemmed from an apparent inability to secure stable majorities, despite the theoretical possibility of combining the NFP’s votes with Macron’s MPs to push through key laws. The new stalemate highlights the deep fractures within French politics and raises questions about whether any coalition can provide the stability needed to navigate the current crisis.
The immediate question is whether Macron can restore a semblance of stability by swiftly appointing a credible prime minister. Failure to do so could embolden opposition forces and deepen calls for his resignation. Beyond France, the crisis tests the EU’s resilience in managing its internal divisions while confronting external pressures, from a menacing Donald Trump to the rising assertiveness of the Global South.
Opportunistic Moves in Brussels
Amid France’s crisis, Brussels may seize the moment to push forward controversial EU initiatives. Chief among them is the Mercosur trade deal, a landmark agreement with Latin American countries that France has staunchly opposed. With French political attention consumed by domestic turmoil, the European Commission might view this as a rare opportunity to sidestep resistance and secure the deal’s approval, sparking further controversy within an already fragile EU.
The coming days will be pivotal in determining whether France and the EU can weather this storm—or whether it will escalate into a broader crisis of governance.
Ricardo Martins ‒ PhD in Sociology, specializing in policies, European and world politics and geopolitics.
NATO countries are set to kick off major war games in northeast Estonia near the border with Russia on Monday, focusing on the rapid deployment of the bloc’s forces and increasing their interoperability.
Some 2,000 troops from Estonia, Latvia, the US, France, and the UK are set to take part in the two-week Pikne (‘Lightning’) exercise, which is part of NATO’s broader Brilliant Eagle program dedicated to increasing the bloc’s deployment and cooperation capabilities in the Baltic Sea region.
According to the commander of the Estonian Division, Major General Indrek Sirel, who is leading the exercises, the war games will focus on “rapid deployment of reinforcements and cooperation between French, British and Estonian forces.” Units of the French Armed Forces will carry out a rapid deployment operation to Estonia by air, followed by joint multinational maneuvers on land, air and sea, Sirel said in a press release.
The first week of the exercises will be dedicated to the movement of units and practicing cooperation in various regions of north and northeast Estonia as well as the Gulf of Finland, and will focus on conducting operations as a “multinational force to counter an emerging threat on land, in the air, and at the sea.” The second week will involve live-fire exercises with heavy combat equipment and military aircraft.
Estonian residents have been warned that low-altitude flights will be taking place over parts of the country as part of the exercises, and that loud noises will likely be heard due to the use of simulation ammunition.
The exercise comes as tensions between Russia and NATO have continued to escalate. Moscow has repeatedly stressed that the expansion of the US-led bloc towards its borders represents a threat to its security.
In October, Deputy Foreign Minister Aleksandr Grushko also claimed that NATO is no longer hiding the fact that it is gearing up for a potential military conflict with Russia by continuing to hold increasingly larger military exercises near its borders, such as the Steadfast Defender drills, which were the bloc’s largest maneuvers since the end of the Cold War.
“Regional defense plans have been approved, concrete tasks for all of the bloc’s military command structures have been formulated. Possible options for military action against Russia are being continuously worked out,” the diplomat said.
Bernard-Henri Lévy, a self-proclaimed “philosopher,” has earned notoriety for himself as a supporter of controversial causes and illegitimate entities, most notably the Israeli regime.
He was at it again recently after jumping in defense of war criminals in Tel Aviv following the International Criminal Court (ICC) arrest warrants against them over the ongoing genocide in Gaza.
Introduced in the Western and Israeli media as an “intellectual,” “philosopher,” and “peace activist,” Lévy’s words and actions illustrate that he is a PR agent for the Israeli occupation.
While the ICC’s indictment of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former minister of military affairs Yoav Gallant on Thursday for their roles in the regime’s war crimes against Palestinian civilians in Gaza has been widely welcomed, the move has frustrated Zionists and their apologists.
Among them is Lévy, a French national and a Zionist at heart, who vented his disappointment on X and other social networks where he is followed by hundreds of thousands of people.
He took to X on November 22 to criticize the Hague-based court for “distorting international law” and disfiguring the noble idea of international justice.”
He posted similar rants on Facebook and Instagram, where he wrote that the ICC indictment was “shameful” and “disgraceful,” and that the same applies to calling Israeli crimes in Gaza genocide.
Lévy vehemently denied that genocide was taking place in Gaza, calling it “false, morally abject and a perverse inversion,” while linking his review to the US conservative news website The New York Sun.
In the article, he anachronistically argued that the use of “genocide” for the Israeli campaign of extermination is “insulting to the real victims of genocide,” or the victims of Nazism 82 years ago.
On November 25, he again took to X to defend the Zionist regime’s genocide in Gaza and decry the ICC for issuing arrest warrants against Netanyahu.
“The ICC in The Hague is only competent for countries with failing judicial systems, unable of trying themselves their leaders’ misconduct,” he wrote.
The court, he hastened to assert, was “created (and I was part of this reflection and conceptualization) for countries like #Russia! #China! #Iran! #Nigeria” adding that it has “no jurisdiction over tiny but democratic #Israel!”
“This mandate, in other words, makes no sense. Netanyahu cannot, under any circumstances, be apprehended. Those who claim otherwise simply have no understanding of the international law.”
Lévy’s outbursts were met with widespread criticism for their bias, whitewashing, contradictions, hypocrisy, and double standards, especially since he had welcomed the ICC arrest warrant against Russian President Vladimir Putin in March last year.
In his tweet on March 17, 2023, the French “philosopher” described the indictment of the sitting Russian president as “great news, glaring truth and justice.”
“The International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for Vladimir #Putin and Maria Lvova-Belova for the deportation of #Ukrainian children. The truth is glaring. Justice will prevail,” he wrote then.
Long-time Zionist
Lévy’s latest pro-Zionist rhetoric and inconsistencies are nothing new, but a continuation of his uncompromising apologetics in favor of the Israeli regime.
Late last month, he also produced a book, “Israel Alone,” in which he argued that the Tel Aviv regime, openly and unabashedly supported by the United States and European countries, as the title suggests, actually stands “alone.”
He dehumanizingly referred to the Axis of Resistance as “barbarians,” while spouting the classic clichés that anti-Zionism amounts to “anti-Semitism” and that the Zionist entity “fights for the entire collective West.”
Lévy’s statements to the media and on social media have also been riddled with such twisted interpretations, and in the last few weeks alone, he has used them to justify all of the most extreme moves by the Netanyahu cabinet.
In collaboration with the influential Zionist organization B’nai B’rith International, he regularly participates in pro-Israel conferences in Paris, defending Israeli genocidal actions against Palestinians in Gaza and Lebanese in Lebanon.
Despite the global outcry, he welcomed the Israeli ban on the operations of UNRWA, the UN agency for Palestinian refugees on whose aid millions of civilians depend, questioning the organization’s humanitarian mandate.
He has also supported the Israeli aggression against Iran and Lebanon, claiming that they are “not invading, but liberating Lebanon,” and that those who do not understand this have “lost all moral and political compass.”
According to available evidence, over the past quarter of a century, Lévy has been known as a fierce advocate of aggressive Israeli, American, and French foreign policies, justifying all of their wars, as well as their proxies in numerous conflicts.
He has often justified Israeli aggressions with the cliché of “the most moral army in the world,” which is a repetition of Ariel Sharon’s statements from 2004, as well as with the regime’s frequent demagogy of “the only democracy in the region.”
The same worn-out platitude about “democracy” was used by Lévy to glorify all terrorists backed by the aforementioned Western powers.
Bernard-Henri Lévy with Olivier Rafowicz and Israeli officials in occupied Palestine in this undated photo.
Part of a PR campaign
Although Lévy has a habit of defending his support for Zionism with so-called “political worldviews,” experts and investigative journalists have for years pointed to his direct cooperation with the top brass of the Israeli regime.
He was born into a Jewish Zionist family and visited the occupied territories as a teenager, but his stronger political engagement began at the beginning of this century, congruent with the then-US neocon-Zionist imperial ambitions.
Lévy is often placed in the context of the so-called “liberal hawks,” a group of public figures, often former Marxists and declared liberals, who ironically have justified Western military aggressions with “humanitarian” arguments.
Their sudden appearance in the mass media and public space was not spontaneous, but part of an organized PR campaign aimed at winning over Western public opinion from all sides of the political spectrum.
Lévy is thus branded as a “thinker, intellectual, or philosopher,” even though he briefly worked as a lecturer and did not produce any significant philosophical work or ideas, nor is he treated as a serious thinker by contemporary philosophers.
In fact, he has been widely criticized and ridiculed in philosophical circles for quoting Jean-Baptiste Botul, who is a fictional figure, which, as some suggest, shows his works are written by ghostwriters.
Political philosopher Perry Anderson called Lévy’s prominence “bizarre” and a reversion to national standards of taste and intelligence in France’s public sphere.
French investigative journalists Jade Lindgaard and Xavier De La Porte, in a co-authored book analyzing his words and works, called him a “pseudo-philosopher, an impostor, and an ace of postmodern agitprop.”
The duo states that he skillfully camouflages his Zionism and has invented a discourse that delivers both propaganda and the antidote to that propaganda, eluding critical grasp and making it impossible to criticize him.
For example, he claimed to support the creation of a Palestinian state, but he supported all Israeli moves and policies that tried to prevent that from happening.
Bernard Henri Lévy with members of Israeli military in occupied Palestine in this undated photo.
The unofficial IOF spokesman
Lévy is a long-time zealot advocate of the Israeli military (IOF) and has actively participated in the regime’s PR campaign to whitewash its genocidal crimes and improve its public image.
This collaboration began in 2002 during the Second Intifada when accompanied by soldier Olivier Rafowicz and with the permission of the Israeli regime, he visited their army barracks, giving eulogies about them to the media.
Accompanying him, Lévy visited the battlefield again in 2006 during the Israeli aggression on Lebanon, presenting Rafowicz as an ordinary soldier and an expert on the situation on the ground.
In reality, Rafowicz was the IOF’s spokesman to the foreign media; French-born and a perfect French speaker, in charge of PR relations with French journalists.
During the neatly choreographed tour, Lévy also visited minister of military affairs Amir Peretz, foreign minister Tzipi Livni, and former PM Shimon Peres, but he did not talk to a single Israeli opponent of the war, not one Palestinian refugee and no one from Lebanon.
Once again, in 2009, Levy covered the Israeli aggression on Gaza, telling foreign media that he entered Gaza City and there were no signs of any destruction.
The implicit message was that Israeli shelling had not been as destructive as claimed in the media, but his claims were quickly exposed as a lie because he did not visit Gaza but Abasan al-Saghira, a border town 20 km away.
Unlike foreign journalists, Lévy was not denied a visit to the troops, which, together with manipulative statements to the media, proves it was another regime PR stunt.
This time he also had ready access to the top dignitaries of the Israeli army and the regime, including PM Ehud Olmert, minister of military affairs Ehud Barak, and Yuval Diskin, the director of Shin Bet, the Israeli internal military service.
During all these excursions, Lévy delivered the regime’s PR mantra of “the most moral army in the world” to foreign media, and was awarded two honorary doctorates by Israeli universities for his propaganda activities.
He continued his role as an Israeli field operative later during the Arab Spring protests, when he met with militants in Libya and Syria, claiming to the media that they were ready to recognize the Israeli regime and establish diplomatic relations.
On November 21, the prosecutor of the ICC announced that a three-judge panel has finally made a decision on his May 2024 application for an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu.
A warrant for his arrest and that of his former Defence Minister, Gallant, has been issued. If an indictment has been drawn up, which should precede an arrest warrant, we are not told and none appears on the ICC website.
Many are celebrating the arrest warrant against Netanyahu and Gallant. But, while there is no doubt that they deserve to be held to account by the Palestinians and the world for the crimes they have and continue to commit in Palestine, Lebanon, Syria and Iran, they are not charged with the crime of genocide, even though they are charged with inflicting mass starvation on the people of Gaza, nor the supreme war crimes of aggression for their continued illegal occupation of Palestinian lands and the brutal suppression of the Palestinian resistance to that occupation. Nor are they charged for their aggression against the sovereign nations of Lebanon, Syria and Iran, which crimes they openly brag about and which are recognised by the entire world, but not, it seems, by the prosecutor or judges of the ICC.
Further, as people calm down in their cheering, they must realise that the ICC has also issued arrest warrants for a leader of Hamas, Mohammed Diab Ibrahim Al-Masri whose alleged war crimes are nothing more than echoes of Israeli propaganda about the Palestinian armed resistance to the brutal occupation of Palestinian lands and the brutal oppression by the occupation forces of the Palestinian people.
Where is the charge of Genocide?
Netanyahu and Gallant are charged with war crimes and crimes against humanity for mass starvation and targeting the civilian population with aerial attacks, and mass attacks by Israeli armoured and other forces.
The ICC press release states,
“Each bear criminal responsibility for the following crimes as co-perpetrators for committing the acts jointly with others: the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare, and the crimes against humanity of murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts.”
“The Chamber also found reasonable grounds to believe that Mr Netanyahu and Mr Gallant each bear criminal responsibility as civilian superiors for the war crime of intentionally directing an attack against the civilian population.”
But these charges also amount to acts of genocide, so why are they not charged with genocide? And why has no indictment been issued? Only the prosecutor and the judges can explain, and they do not.
But aside from pointing out the obvious compromise made by the ICC, to placate its critics about its inaction over Israeli crimes by laying charges yet not laying the most serious charge, the one that should be laid, we have this phrase underlined above which needs to be considered, the phrase, “jointly with others.”
Israel’s Partners in Crime Untouched
Who are the “others”? The ICC coyly refuses to say, hoping no one will ask the question. But the answer is clear: the USA, the EU, UK, France, Canada and the rest, who all give military aid and support to Israeli to carry out these crimes and have made themselves co-belligerents in this murderous war against the peoples of the Middle East, and are its partners in crime. The leaders of those nations must also be charged and warrants issued for their arrest. They are equally culpable under international law. But they are not charged. So that, in his defence, Netanyahu, if he is ever brought before this tribunal, can argue the defence of selective prosecution, that is, he can ask, “why am I charged but not the co-conspirators, the co-actors who supported and encouraged my crimes. It is not just to charge me if they are not going to be charged.”
He would be right to use that defence, and perhaps the prosecutor has arranged it so that Netanyahu and Gallant now have that defence available to them.
Political Purpose of the Warrants
But we know that Netanyahu will never be arrested and face a trial at this so-called world court. The Americans immediately came to his defence and denounced the action of the ICC. They have to because if Netanyahu is ever before the judges of the ICC, they fear the facts about their role in the crimes against the Palestinians and the others will be revealed in all their detail and depravity. The British, the French, and the Canadians will have their dirty crimes exposed as well. None of the allies of Israel want Netanyahu arrested and tried. So he will not be. The ICC knows this.
So why was the warrant finally issued after so long a delay, after so much political interference was exerted by Britain, the US, the French and others to prevent the ICC from issuing charges?
We can only speculate, as we are not privy to the phone calls between Mr. Khan and the various governments involved in these crimes, and how it was all arranged, but it was a political decision of a political prosecutor of a political tribunal.
One reason can be to improve the image of the ICC, to make it look like it is doing something, while, in effect, nothing is done to change the situation for the Palestinians, the Lebanese, the Iranians, and the Syrians. It will placate some who support the Palestinians, who think the ICC is a real court, and perhaps it is hoped that this will reduce the street protests across Europe and elsewhere. No need now the ICC will say, we have acted, and you can go home now.
The ICC attempts to justify its charges against Russia
But there is another reason, and that is to trick people into thinking the ICC is some real arbiter of international justice and therefore the arrest warrants the ICC issued against President Putin and others are valid and should be acted upon.
The ICC has issued warrants of arrest of a series of Russian officials over the past few months; we suppose to keep the pot boiling, each as absurd as the one before it.
On 17 March 2023, the ICC issued warrants for Vladimir Putin, President of the Russian Federation, and Ms Maria Alekseyevna Lvova-Belova, Commissioner for Children’s Rights in the Office of the President of the Russian Federation. Based on the Prosecution’s applications of 22 February 2023, Pre-Trial Chamber II considered that there are reasonable grounds to believe that each suspect bears responsibility for the war crime of unlawful deportation of population (children) and that of unlawful transfer of population (children) from occupied areas of Ukraine to the Russian Federation, in prejudice of Ukrainian children.
The absurdity of these charges and warrants, based solely on Kiev propaganda about Russia’s attempts to save the lives of children, is manifest. It is also clear that they did not charge President Putin with aggression because there has been none, and so they decided to use the most emotive charge possible to inflame public opinion against Russia. In other words, the ICC became an active tool of NATO in its war against Russia.
On 5 March 2024, the ICC issued warrants of arrest for Sergei Ivanovich Kobylash, a Lieutenant General in the Russian Armed Forces who at the relevant time was the Commander of the Long-Range Aviation of the Aerospace Force, and Viktor Nikolayevich Sokolov, an Admiral in the Russian Navy, who at the relevant time was the Commander of the Black Sea Fleet for the war crime of directing attacks at civilian objects, the war crime of causing excessive incidental harm to civilians or damage to civilian objects, and the crime against humanity of inhumane acts. None of these allegations are based on any facts or any investigation and meant to be propaganda.
On 24 June 2024, the ICC issued warrants of arrest Sergei Shoigu and Valery Gerasimov, in the context of the situation in Ukraine for alleged international crimes committed from at least 10 October 2022 until at least 9 March 2023 for the same reasons, war propaganda, to justify the continuance of the war against Russia.
Ukraine leadership given immunity from prosecution for its crimes
The ICC has not charged anyone in the illegitimate government of Ukraine for any of its crimes against the civilian population of Ukraine in the Donbass oblasts from 2014 to today, nor for its gratuitous attacks on the civilian population of Russia. It has been given immunity from prosecution.
The only legitimate prosecutors are the Palestinians, Lebanese, Iranians and Syrians for Israeli crimes committed against them.
So, all those celebrating and cheering the warrants issued against Netanyahu and Gallant should think carefully about what they are doing. Yes, those two are war criminals. Yes, they should be held accountable, but to the Palestinians and the Lebanese, the Syrians and Iranians. They are the ones who should be issuing warrants for their arrest, who should make them stand trial before the tribunals of those nations, as well as the leaders of the USA and the other nations who are parties to the Israeli crimes not this political farce called the ICC which is not a world court, which is not an independent judicial body capable of rendering justice, but a political tool of the West, used by the West for its own political and strategic reasons and objectives. The world is tired of the games of the ICC. The people of the world want real justice.
Christopher Black is an international criminal lawyer based in Toronto. He is known for a number of high-profile war crimes cases and recently published his novel Beneath the Clouds. He writes essays on international law, politics and world events.
More than just a dangerous provocation aimed at Russia, the ATACM and Storm Shadow attacks represent an attempt to turn foreign policy on its head.
“The Deep State whispered to Trump: ‘You cannot withstand the storm’. Trump whispered back: “I am the storm”. The war is on. The Deep State has launched a war of disruption to disable Trump’s ‘storm’. This week’s ATACM strike was but one part to an inter-agency counter-insurgency – a political strike directed at Trump; so too are all the inter-agency false narratives attributed to the Trump camp; and so too, the escalating provocations directed at Iran.
Be assured the Five Eyes are full participants in the counter-insurgency. Macron and Starmer openly conspired together in Paris ahead of the U.S. announcement to promote the ATACMS strike. The inter-agency grandees clearly are very fearful. They must worry that Trump may expose the ‘Russia Hoax’ (that Trump in 2016 was a Russian ‘asset’) and put them in jeopardy.
But Trump understands what’s afoot:
“We need peace without delay … The foreign policy establishment keeps trying to pull the world into conflict. The greatest threat to Western civilization today is not Russia. It’s probably more than anything else ourselves… There must be a complete commitment to dismantling the entire Globalist Neo-con establishment that is perpetually dragging us into endless wars, pretending to fight for freedom and democracy abroad while they turn us into a Third World country and a Third World dictatorship right here at home. The State Department, the Defense bureaucracy, the intelligence services and all of the rest need to be completely overhauled and reconstituted. To fire the Deep Staters and put America first – we have to put America First”.
Whilst the long-range ATACM launch on ‘deep Russian pre-2014 territory’ is no game-changer – it will not change the course of the war (ATACMS regularly are – at 90% – downed by Russian Air Defences); the salience of this act however, is not strategic; rather, it lies with the crossing into the realm of direct NATO attacks on Russia.
Colonel Doug MacGregor reports that two sources are telling him that “Russian nuclear rocket forces are on full alert. They are at the highest level of readiness ever achieved. It suggests that Russia has taken this crossing of the line very seriously”.
Yes, it was a provocation, and President Putin will respond appropriately. He has to – but not necessarily through nuclear escalation. Why? Because the war in Ukraine is moving rapidly in his direction, with Russian forces closing-in on the Dnieper east bank. Effectively, facts on the ground will be the outcome determinant, leaving little point to external mediation.
But more than just a dangerous provocation aimed at Russia, the ATACM and Storm Shadow attacks represent an attempt to turn foreign policy – literally – on its head. Instead of policy being aimed directly at a rising foreign adversary threatening U.S. hegemony, it is being transformed into a loaded weapon locked onto America’s domestic war. It is aimed specifically at Trump – to ‘hog tie’ him in, and to divert his attention to wars that he does not want.
Logic suggests that Trump would want to keep clear of Netanyahu’s scheming for a war against Iran. But the ‘Israel Firsters’ and the Lobby (as Professor Jeffrey Sachs argues) long have had effective control over Congress and the U.S. military – more than does the President. Explains Sachs:
“Because the Zionist Lobby is so powerful, Netanyahu basically has had control over the Pentagon to fight wars on behalf of Israeli extremism. The war in Iraq in 2003 was a Netanyahu War. The attempt to overthrow Bashar al-Assad in Syria, the overthrow of Moamar Gaddafi – All were ‘Netanyahu Wars’”.
The important point is that Netanyahu can ‘do what he does’ because it was always planned this way – a plan that has been 50 years in execution. The ‘Israel First’ strategy was fully embraced by Scoop Jackson (a two-times Presidential candidate). And just so the policy could not be rolled back, Scoop insisted on Zionists staffing the State Department, and that neo-cons and Zionists hold the reins at the NSC. That same pattern continues until today.
At bottom lies the ultimate boondoggle by which the political class of both U.S. parties become wealthy and afford the campaign costs of remaining legislators: “It’s quite a dandy deal that the Israel Lobby or the Zionist Lobby puts in, say, a hundred million dollars into campaigns and it gets trillions out –trillions, not billions, trillions out [in government] expenditures. And so, when Netanyahu speaks, it’s bizarre to me, but it is not Trump who is appointing or naming [those ‘Israel Firsters’ who are part of his Team, but Netanyahu]”, Sachs says.
When Netanyahu describes Trump’s ‘Israel First’ nominations as his ‘dream U.S. team’, the explanation is not difficult to see. On the one hand, Trump has a ‘Revolution’ to conduct in America and wants his nominations to office approved. And, on the other, Netanyahu has a further war he wants the U.S. to fight for him.
“The ‘Big Ugly’ was always a description of the battle that few understood”, another commentator notes:
“The Senate is factually the core of republican opposition to MAGA and President Trump. The visible battle … consumes the most attention. However, it is the less-visible battle against the entrenched ideological Republicans that proves to be the hardest”.
“The Republicans in the upper chamber will not relinquish power easily. They have a multitude of weapons to use against the (Trump) insurgency … We are seeing this play out now in the alignment of Republican Senators who stand in opposition to Trump’s nomination of Matt Gaetz as Attorney General, [as] this recent report [explains]”.
“The basic outline is that the senate leadership will reluctantly support Matt Gaetz for Main Justice, where ‘support’ means they will not directly oppose; in exchange for the nomination of FBI Director Mike Rogers [a co-founder of the ‘Never Trump’ group] to defend inter-agency interests at FBI”.
The prospective Republican Senate Leader, John Thune, will play his cards carefully in order to extract maximum damage . He has leverage by trying to connect Trump to Netanyahu’s carnage in the region.
Thune, whilst announcing huge quantities of weapons for Israel, said:
“To Our Allies in Israel, and to the Jewish People Around the world, my message to you is this: Reinforcements are on the way. In six weeks, Republicans will reclaim the Senate Majority, and we will make clear that the United States Congress stands squarely In Israel’s Corner”.
Trump will need to play his cards carefully, too. Since, for his purposes, the absolute priority are his two domestic wars: First, “dismantling the entire Globalist Neocon Establishment”, and secondly, ending the out-of-control government expenditure that has bloated the Deep State boondoggle and turned the U.S. real economy into a shadow of its former self.
Trump needs those radical reform nominations to pass, even if he has to sacrifice one or two to secure Senate approval for the others. The Israel First nominees, needless to add, will be approved seamlessly.
Of the two ‘entanglement’ threats to Trump’s reform agenda, Russian escalation is the lesser of the two. The Ukraine war is motoring steadily towards some form of dénoument. One that works for Russia. Putin is in the driving seat, and does not need a major war with NATO. Nor does Putin need Trump’s ‘art of the deal’. A resolution of some sort will occur without him.
However, Trump’s role will be important subsequently to define a new border between the security interests of the Atlanticists and those of the Asian heartland (including China and Iran).
The other putative war – Iran – is the more dangerous to Trump. Jewish political influence and the Lobby has taken the U.S. into multiple disastrous wars before. And now, Netanyahu desperately needs a war and he is not alone. Much of Israel is clamouring for war that would end ‘all the fronts’ facing it. There is a profound conviction in this prospect as the solution and the ‘Great Victory’ that Netanyahu and Israel so desperately need.
The ground has been dug-over, both by propaganda that Iran’s nuclear programme is ‘staggeringly vulnerable’ (which it isn’t), and by the media’s onslaught that replays the meme that to attack Iran now represents a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, with Hizbullah and Hamas already weakened. War with Iran – totally erroneously – is thus being sold as an ‘easy war’.
There is an unshakeable certitude that it must be so. ‘We are strong, and Iran is weak’.
Who will roll-back the Israel Firsters? They have the momentum and the fervour. A war against Iran will fare badly for Israel and the U.S. The wide ramifications likely will precipitate precisely the severe financial and market crisis that could derail Trump’s ‘Storm’.
A ranking Iranian diplomat has strongly discouraged Western countries from resorting to pressure, intimidation, and confrontational approach against the country over its legitimate and peaceful nuclear energy activities.
Seeking recourse to the above measures “does not amount to adoption of a sustainable and credible course, and [application of such methods] will eventually hit a dead end,” Mohsen Naziri Asl, Iran’s permanent representative at the United Nations office in Vienna, said on Friday.
“The Islamic Republic is [rather] prepared for joining positive interaction through dialog and constructive cooperation towards potential achievement of a sustainable solution [to standing issues].”
The remarks came after the Board of Governors of the UN’s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), adopted an anti-Iranian resolution based on a proposal that had been forwarded by the UK, France, and Germany. The resolution reiterated the trio and their allies’ accusations against the Islamic Republic of insufficient cooperation with the IAEA.
In chorus with the United States and others, the threesome European states have been taking numerous similar measures against Iran in line with the accusations that run counter to the standing status of the country and the agency’s cooperation, which has even increased in frequency and quality over the past years.
The ongoing confrontational approach on the part of the West comes, while it was the US that broke off its internationally-endorsed commitments to Iran by unilaterally and illegally leaving a 2015 nuclear agreement between the Islamic Republic and world countries and returning the sanctions that the deal had lifted.
The European trio, which were likewise signatories to the deal, meanwhile, failed to return Washington to the accord, despite their repeated insistence that they would do so.
Naziri considered the US’s illegal withdrawal from the deal to be the principal reason behind the deal’s current unfavorable status, noting that Washington “has not stopped short of taking any measure to destroy the deal.”
He also reminded the European parties of their refusal to live up to their commitments under the accord.
The official also pointed to the retaliatory measures that Iran has been taking in response to the US’s withdrawal, and the European countries’ and the IAEA’s confrontational attitude, which, most recently, saw the country activating its advanced centrifuges.
He cited Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi’s repeated statements, during which the officials asserted that the Islamic Republic would walk back its legal remedial steps if the American sanctions were effectively and verifiably annulled and the nuclear deal’s other parties returned to performing their contractual duties.
Naziri, therefore, advised the European sides “not to repeat their unsuccessful courses of action of the past.”
Separately, he strongly condemned the European countries’ recent sanctions against the Iranian national carrier and shipping company, considering the bans to be in violation of the nuclear deal’s “spirit and text.”
“We consider these [economic] measures to be in contradiction with the commitments that could serve as the foundation of any future interaction.”
The official also denounced the European trio for ignoring their duty towards lifting the sanctions that they have illegally imposed over Iran’s missile program, which they have to lift under their commitment to the nuclear deal’s sunset clauses.
“One must stress that, in line with an announcement that has been made by the UN Secretariat, Iran’s missile program will no longer be subject to the restrictions that have been imposed by the UN Security Council.”
Naziri again asserted that the Islamic Republic was ready for positive interaction as long as the other parties to the nuclear deal proved their political will and commitment to the accord by not tying negotiations that address the agreement’s potential revival to irrelevant issues.
Today, the world is likely closer to nuclear war than at any time since the Cuban Missile Crisis. In its closing days, the Biden Administration is stumbling our nation into a potential nuclear war with Russia. If you have not been paying attention for the past two days, you need to know the basic facts. Then, let me offer what I believe needs to happen, and quickly.
Just before midnight Sunday night, APreported “Biden has authorized Ukraine to use U.S.-supplied missiles to strike deeper inside Russia, easing limitations on the longer range weapons…” The long-range, supersonic, ballistic missiles being unleashed on Russia most likely are ATACMs, standing for Army Tactical Missile System. These weapons were developed for offensive — not defensive — purposes. The configuration of the specific ATACMs sent to Ukraine is unknown, but they could have a range of from 100 to 190 or more miles. They can carry different types of weapons, including cluster bombs which can cause a multitude of civilian casualties. Despite many demands from Zelensky and the Ukrainian government, such long-range missiles had not been provided until last month, and until now — two weeks after the November election — their use had not been authorized.
There is a degree of speculation in all of these reports, since the White House has not seen fit to simply provide an advisory of exactly how it has ratcheted up the possibility of a direct confrontation between the United States and Russia. However, it does appear that other NATO members — including UK and France — have followed Biden’s dangerous lead in making similar offerings to Zelensky from their arsenals.
How should we view this shocking news? Perhaps the most succinct analyses came from Donald Trump, Jr., Tweeting: “The Military Industrial Complex seems to want to make sure they get World War 3 going before my father has a chance to create peace and save lives. Gotta lock in those $Trillions. Life be damned!!! Imbeciles!” Truly, I could not have said it better.
President Putin made clear in September how he would view this development: “Aggression against Russia by any nonnuclear state, but with the support of a nuclear state, is proposed to be considered as their joint attack on Russia.” He added: “Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in case of aggression, including if the enemy using conventional weapons poses a critical threat.” Do not take these words lightly. If Russia had announced it had provided missiles to Mexico and authorized their use to attack Americans living in San Diego, Los Angeles, Tucson, Phoenix, El Paso, and Corpus Christi, what would you expect the U.S. Government would do?
While the neocons who populate the Deep State, and their toadies in the establishment media tell us that it is President Putin who is to blame for everything that happens, as things stand now, these stupid, provocative acts that are endangering our nation are coming from the Biden Administration and not the Kremlin.
That summarizes the problem. Here is what needs to be done, now.
First, Vice President Harris and the Biden Cabinet must invoke the 25th Amendment, and remove Biden as President. Biden is sleep-walking us into a hot war with Russia without a Congressional Declaration of War. If he lives past January 20, Biden will take the position he took with Special Counsel Hur who nine months ago declared Biden could not be held responsible for crimes, as he was on old man with a poor memory. It’s past time to put Kamala in the Oval Office — then we will know the name of the person in charge — someone who was actually elected to office. And she would be a person who could be held accountable for what disaster might befall the nation. Bearing that type of responsibility might force Harris to act responsibly. No longer would decisions be made by Unknown and Unidentified Deep State Operatives who would scatter like roaches should a crisis occur.
Second, at the same time as we hope the Democrats will act, the duty also falls on the current House of Representatives to impeach Biden now for endangering the nation by taking steps that constitute acts of war without a Declaration of War — a power the Constitution gives only to Congress. The indictment should then go immediately to the Senate for trial and removal. President Trump was impeached after he (supposedly) lost the 2020 election. What’s good for the goose.
Third, incoming officials in the Trump Administration need to make contact with President Putin and his staff to de-escalate the situation as best as can be done. This is exactly what I was trying to do in my conversation with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak in January 2017. The same Deep State which intercepted my call and leaked it to the Press will do so again, because the Deep State is on the ropes and are desperate. No man who fears going to prison has the moral authority to lead America at this perilous time.
Fourth, the Trump Administration and incoming Attorney General Matt Gaetz need to make it clear that the identities of those Deep State operatives exercising the powers of the Presidency, now urging Biden to act recklessly, will be held to account personally, not just politically, but legally. If these operatives knew they would be named and the subject to prosecution, they just might straighten up, real quick.
Fifth, we need to pray that we have time for the will of the voters to take effect on January 20. Just two weeks ago, on November 5, 2024, the voters spoke on the great issue of war with great clarity. President Trump received a clear mandate for his promise to end the killing in the Ukraine and seeking peace. America had not seen that type of leadership since President Kennedy’s commencement speech at American University, and they voted for it overwhelmingly.
Will any of these approaches work? Maybe not. But we need to ask the Democrats to do their duty, and the Republicans to do their duty, and we need to do our duty to pray as well. We know President Trump will do his duty. If only we can get to Janaury 20.
Germany is a political void in the center of Europe, even though it contributes significantly to the global economy and is influential in trade.
It’s also the Western country with which Russia has had the most historical, cultural and, until recently, economic contacts. A week ago the government in Berlin collapsed, and so far the leading German parties have agreed that early parliamentary elections will be in February 2025.
It’s very likely that the next government will be led by the main opposition force, the Christian Democratic Union (CDU).
At the start of the election campaign, CDU leader Friedrich Merz publicly announced that – if he wins – he’ll issue an ultimatum to Moscow over Ukraine. He’s promised that if this ultimatum is not accepted within 24 hours, his government will provide the Kiev regime with cruise missiles to attack Russian territory. The consequences of such a decision for Russian-Western relations are obvious. It is not surprising, therefore, that our main reaction was astonishment at the irresponsibility of such a high-ranking member of the German elite. There are even fears that Merz and those behind him intend to drag Germany into a destructive military conflict with Europe’s largest country.
But all this German talk means nothing in practice. Without US authorisation, or direct orders from Washington, the leaders in Berlin are not only incapable of starting a major war in Europe, they are incapable even of adjusting their shoelaces. Any statements by German politicians, the fall and rise of governing coalitions there, should only be seen in the context of how the Berlin establishment is trying to find a role in the shadow of total American dominance.
It’s deeply symbolic that Chancellor Olaf Scholz took a decisive step towards the collapse of the governing coalition on 6 November, the day on which the domestic political balance of power in the United States changed radically. In the context of significant changes at the center, the peripheral political systems must react as sensitively as possible: at the level of how a branch of a large corporation reacts to a change in its general management.
Berlin’s international position is defined by its crushing defeat in the Second World War, which ended any hope of determining its own future. Germany, like Japan and South Korea, is a country with a foreign occupying force on its territory, albeit under the NATO flag. The German elite, both political and economic, is, with few exceptions, even more integrated with the US than the British elite. To say nothing of those running France, Italy or other European countries.
Germany has no autonomy in determining its foreign policy, nor does it aspire to have any. It’s no coincidence that over the past two and a half years of the Ukraine crisis, it’s been Berlin that has provided the largest amount of military and financial aid to the Kiev regime. Almost ten times more than, say, France, whose president likes to make bellicose speeches.
Naturally, the representatives of the German establishment look like pale copies of what we used to consider real politicians. And this is a natural product of the loss of any possibility of determining their own destiny.
Of course, Berlin can still set the parameters of economic policy for the weak countries of the European Mediterranean. States such as Greece, Italy or Spain are given to Germany to ‘feed’ within the framework of the European Union and its single currency. But even Poland, which has a special relationship with the US, has managed to avoid tying itself to Germany’s industrial grip. France is resisting slightly. But it is gradually sinking to the level of southern Europe. The UK has left the EU, but retains its position as the main representative of the US in Europe.
It should be noted that such a state of affairs for Germany did not come about overnight. Even during the Cold War, the Federal Republic (FRG) was led by bright personalities. Under chancellors such as Willy Brandt (1969-1974), the Moscow Treaty was signed between the FRG and the USSR on the recognition of post-war borders in Europe. In the early 1970s, German politicians and business were able to persuade the US to allow Germany to establish energy cooperation with the Soviets. In our time, Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder (1998-2005) pushed for European energy security based on German-Russian cooperation. But all this came to an end with the global economic crisis of 2008-2013, after which the US began to tighten the screws on its allies. In the spring of 2022, Olaf Scholz, who had previously been committed to dialogue with Russia, fully supported the military-political confrontation created by the Americans over Ukraine.
Now German politicians are not free to choose their own future. For most of them, with the exception of the non-systemic opposition, this is quite obvious. Why appoint bright personalities to the highest positions if nothing depends on their decisions? Gradually, the entire political system and the mood of the electorate are adapting to these conditions.
The differences in the parties’ platforms are becoming blurred. Observers are already talking about the likelihood that the government will be formed by the Social Democrats and their main opponents from the CDU. This means that disagreements on fundamental issues are a thing of the past. Only the technical aspects of forming a government need to be agreed upon, and the main goal of all efforts is to hold on to power as such.
The united and sovereign German state existed for 74 years (1871-1945). Its revival as such is not possible: even if Russia and China would look favourably on it, the Anglo-Saxon world will not allow it for several reasons at once.
Firstly, both German attempts – in the First and Second World Wars – to play a leading role in the West came close to succeeding. So nobody will give them a third chance. Just to be on the safe side. It should be borne in mind that the West takes order within its own community even more seriously than it does the defence of its privileges against the rest of humanity.
Second, Germany’s position at the center of Europe, its huge industrial base and its industrious population make it an ideal partner for the US and Britain, the maritime trading powers. Politically insignificant, Germany can economically control much of the rest of Europe, but cannot dictate the substance.
Third, the revival of visible German independence is in the interests of Moscow and Beijing because it would split the ranks of the consolidated West. A small front of countries like Hungary, Slovakia or even one a little larger cannot create such a split. And the unity of the West under the leadership of the US is a fundamental obstacle to the implementation of the plans for a multipolar world order promoted by Russia and China.
Germany is now a political wasteland in the heart of Europe. Tiny shoots of reason are, of course, breaking through the decades-old system based on pandering to the interests of American patrons. With some very obvious exceptions, the representatives of the non-systemic German opposition are talented people. But their prospects are still very dim because of the way things are manage.
In the future, we can expect to re-establish some economic ties with Germany but we must treat it as a political colony of the US, rather than thinking about try to establish full inter-state relations with Berlin.
Timofey Bordachev is the program director of the Valdai Club.
This article was first published by ‘Vzglyad’ newspaper and was translated and edited by the RT team.
The French daily Le Figaro has walked back its claim that France and the UK have allowed Ukraine to use long-range missiles they have supplied to strike targets deep inside Russian territory. The original claim appeared shortly after the New York Times reported on Sunday that outgoing US President Joe Biden had given Kiev the green light for such strikes.
The UK was the first to provide Ukraine with its long-range Storm Shadow missiles back in May 2023, with France following suit several months later, with its own version of the system, named SCALP. The US delivered its ATACMS rockets in the fall of that year.
Despite Kiev’s repeated requests to allow it to use the weapons to strike targets deep inside Russia, its Western backers had until recently publicly refused to acquiesce, citing concerns over potential uncontrollable escalation.
In its now-amended article on Sunday, Le Figaro originally claimed that the “French and the British had authorized Ukraine to strike deep into Russian territory with their SCALP/Storm Shadow missiles.”
However, in an updated version of the piece, any mention of the supposed permission or SCALP/Storm Shadow rockets is gone. The initial wording is, however, still accessible in a cached snapshot of the report.
Speaking to reporters ahead of an EU ministerial meeting in Brussels on Monday, France’s top diplomat, Jean-Noel Barrot, clarified that there was “nothing new” with respect to Paris’ stance on long-range strikes on internationally recognized Russian territory, adding that such a scenario remained an option.
On Sunday, the New York Times, citing anonymous US officials, reported that the White House had given the green light for Ukrainian strikes on Russia’s Kursk Region, using US-supplied ATACMS missiles.
The NYT and several other media outlets have reported that Washington could extend its approval to allow Ukraine to strike other parts of Russia.
Neither the White House nor the Pentagon has commented on the matter.
In his video address on Sunday, Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky cautiously welcomed the reported development, stressing that “strikes are not carried out with words. Such things are not announced.”
“Missiles will speak for themselves. They certainly will,” he added, without elaborating.
Meanwhile, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told media outlets on Monday that if confirmed, Biden’s reported decision would constitute a “qualitatively new round of tension.”
Back in September, President Vladimir Putin warned that since Ukrainian forces lack the necessary capabilities and knowledge to use Western-supplied long-range missiles, permission for strikes deep into Russia would mean that “NATO countries [have] become directly involved in the military conflict.”
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said that Israel felt threatened by Iran’s growing influence in the Middle East. Netanyahu expressed his Iranophobic view in a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Russia’s Black Sea resort of Sochi on Wednesday. Press TV has asked Scott Rickard, former American intelligence linguist from Tampa, Florida, and Brent Budowsky, a columnist at The Hill from Washington, to give their thoughts on the issue.
Rickard said Tel Aviv is concerned about the fact that the regime could not carry out its old project to spread sectarian divisions and pave the way for dismemberment of the countries in the Middle East region because of the Iranian-led resistance against Israeli policies, not only in the occupied territories of Palestine but also in the whole region.
“Iran is not a threat to Israel whatsoever. The threat that Israel sees is the fact that their Oded Yinon Plan is being put to a hold by Iran,” the intelligence linguist said on Thursday night.
“They (the Israelis) look at Iran as a threat only because they have no influence on their governments and Iran is autonomous and is not under the Zionist influence,” he added.
Since the victory of the Islamic Republic of Iran in 1979, Tehran has been critical of Israel’s policies in the region, whereas “no leaders [of other states] even dared to speak out against Zionism,” Rickard argued. … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News
Aletho News 