‘No evidence’: UNIFIL chief refutes Israeli claims about Hezbollah rearming in south Lebanon
Press TV – December 9, 2025
The commander of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) says the multinational peacekeeping mission has not found any evidence of Hezbollah rebuilding its military capabilities, contradicting Israeli claims used as the pretext to strike southern Lebanon.
Speaking in an interview with Israel’s Channel 12 television channel on Monday, Diodato Abagnara said he had seen “no evidence” that the Lebanese resistance movement was rearming south of the Litani River.
Abagnara, who took over as head of UNIFIL in June, also condemned continued Israeli airstrikes on Lebanon, which have killed hundreds of people, as “blatantly violating the ceasefire agreement.”
He warned that the slightest mistake could lead to a major escalation, describing the security situation as “really fragile.”
Abagnara also noted that the presence of Israeli troops in five points along the Blue Line demarcating the border between Lebanon and the Israeli-occupied territories constitutes a “flagrant” violation of UN Resolution 1701.
The resolution, which brokered a ceasefire in the 33-day-long war Israel launched against Lebanon in 2006, calls on the occupying Tel Aviv regime to respect Lebanese sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Israel and the Hezbollah resistance movement reached a ceasefire agreement that took effect on November 27, 2024. Under the deal, Tel Aviv was required to withdraw fully from the Lebanese territory, but has kept forces stationed at five sites, in clear violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701 and the terms of last November’s agreement.
Since the implementation of the ceasefire, Israel has violated the agreement multiple times through repeated assaults on the Lebanese territory.
Lebanese authorities have warned that the Israeli regime’s violations of the ceasefire threaten national stability.
The Myth of Total Victory and the Reality on the Ground: Is Israel Winning Its Seven-Front War?
By Robert Inlakesh | The Palestine Chronicle | December 2, 2025
From the Gaza genocide to the assassination of Hezbollah’s senior leadership, Israel has carried out unprecedented destruction across the region. Yet, despite everything that has happened since October 7, 2023, has Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu truly delivered the “total victory” he promised over his regime’s adversaries?
The current state of play across West Asia has left many in despair. Undoubtedly, the genocide in the Gaza Strip has inflicted a generational psychological wound, not only on the people of the region, but concerned citizens throughout the world.
When the genocide began in October of 2023, many assumptions were made regarding who or what was going to come to the aid of the Palestinian people.
Some trusted in international institutions, others believed that the Arab masses would mobilize or assumed that the rulers of Muslim Majority countries would utilize their trade leverage, resources, and even militaries to rescue the people of Gaza. Then there were those who depended upon the Iranian-led Axis of Resistance.
On the question of the international institutions, the Israelis were brought before the UN’s top judicial organ, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which found Tel Aviv plausibly guilty of committing genocide. However, when it issued its provisional measures, the court was simply ignored.
The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) even passed resolution 2728 on March 25, 2024, which called for a ceasefire until the end of the Muslim Holy Month of Ramadan, which was supposed to be binding and was again ignored by Israel.
Then came along the International Criminal Court (ICC)’s arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. Tel Aviv and Washington decided to go after the court and its prosecutor, undermining its authority.
The Arab Nations, with the exception of Yemen’s Ansarallah government in Sana’a, refused to lift a finger, as did the rulers of most Muslim Majority nations. The populations of Jordan and Egypt that were expected to act, didn’t even live up to the popular actions taken by European populations. The people in the major cities of the West Bank and in occupied Jerusalem didn’t even stage notable protests.
The only ones who acted were the Axis of Resistance. Lebanese Hezbollah and Yemen’s Ansarallah waged support fronts in solidarity with Gaza, while some Iraqi factions occasionally sent suicide drones and rocket fire from Syria would occur periodically.
Yet the way that the Axis of Resistance dealt with the genocide appeared to be the execution of a strategy to ultimately de-escalate hostilities and bring the assault on Gaza’s people to an end. The Israelis, however, were not interested in a cessation of hostilities and were instead hell bent on destroying the entire Iranian-led Axis once and for all.
Israel broke every tenet of international law and violated all diplomatic norms. They would go on to carry out countless assassinations eventually stretching across Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, with a failed attempt on the lives of Hamas leaders in Doha, Qatar. The consular segment of Iran’s embassy in Syria was even bombed.
Israel carried out the pager terrorist attacks across Lebanon, which wounded thousands and killed dozens, including countless women and children. This not only shook Lebanese society to the core, but also proved a major security and communications blow to Hezbollah itself. The infiltration of Hezbollah allowed Israel to murder the majority of the organization’s senior leadership. Perhaps the biggest psychological blow was the assassination of Hezbollah’s Secretary General, Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah.
Shortly after thousands had been murdered by Israel’s onslaught on Lebanon between September and late November, the next major blow to the Axis of Resistance came in the form of regime change in Syria. Suddenly, a US-backed government had been ushered into power and instantly opened up lines of communication with Israel.
What occurred in Syria was significant for a number of reasons, the most important of which was the collapse of the Syrian military and occupation of vast portions of territory in southern Syria, including the strategic high-ground of Jabal Al-Sheikh (Mount Hermon). It also meant that weapons transfers to Lebanon, to supply Hezbollah and the Palestinian armed factions, were instantly made much more difficult.
The resistance in the West Bank that had been growing in the north of the occupied territory since 2021 was significantly cut down through aggressive Israeli and Palestinian Authority military campaigns. In the Gaza Strip, the resistance forces were also degraded and had no supply lines. Meanwhile, the only consistent front that never buckled and only accelerated their attacks was the Yemeni Armed Forces, but due to their geographical constraints were limited in what impact they could have.
For all of the above-noted reasons, the Israelis have appeared to have gained the upper hand, and this has left many fearing what they have in store next. It is assumed that further attacks on Lebanon and Iran will be aimed at achieving regime change in Tehran, which, if successful, would indeed declare Israel the undisputed ruler of the region.
A Reality Check
Despite the gains that the Israelis have made, they have also suffered enormous blows themselves, which are often left out of many analyses offered on the current situation the region finds itself in. Before delving into this, to avoid accusations of “cope”, it is important to make note of a few different points.
Many refutations offered to the pessimistic view commonly adopted of the region engage in exaggeration, speculation, and refuse to even acknowledge the obvious losses their side has suffered. This is often the practice of those who remain die-hard supporters of resistance against the Israelis and their regional project.
When such positive and romanticized depictions are used to describe the current situation and are heard by those who are convinced that their side has already lost, they often experience a visceral opposition to that sense of optimism. Supporters of the resistance to Israel’s tyranny attempt to rescue morale through slogans and dogmatic rhetoric, which falls on deaf ears, as such explanations lack logical consistency.
This all being said, things are not exactly as doom-and-gloom as the popularized pessimism that prevails across the region suggests.
At this current moment, Israel has not won on any front; the caveat is obviously that the Axis of Resistance has not won either. Every front is a de facto stalemate. This being said, the Israelis have undoubtedly inflicted much greater damage on their adversaries in the short run.
Yes, the Palestinian factions in Gaza have been weakened, and the human cost of the war has been enormous, beyond anyone’s imagination, but they have not been defeated. Instead, they have waged a guerrilla war against the occupying army that has targeted the civilian population as a means of attempting to defeat them by proxy. Are they capable of defeating the Israeli military? No, not by themselves, but this has always been the case.
In Lebanon, the Israelis certainly dealt a massive blow to Hezbollah; there can be no doubt about it. Although they were incapable of collapsing the group and it is clear that they still retained an abundance of arms, something demonstrated throughout the course of the war in late 2024. Today, Hezbollah is rapidly rebuilding its capabilities and preparing for the inevitability of the next round.
One key takeaway from the Israel-Lebanon war was that, beyond assassinations and intelligence operations, the Israelis proved incapable on the ground and were even deterred from conquering villages like Khiam along with the Lebanese border area. Their greatest tactical achievements came at the beginning of the war, while the remainder of the battle proved that Israel’s only edge came through its air force.
The reason why the Lebanon war was a loss for Hezbollah was down to the collapse of Hezbollah’s image. Previously, the propaganda of the organization and the trust commanded by its leader, Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah, had convinced the world that the group was powerful enough to destroy Israel by itself. In his last speech, before he was murdered alongside 300 civilians, Nasrallah had publicly admitted that there is, in fact, no parity between Hezbollah and Israel militarily.
In 2006, just as occurred in 2024, the result of the war was a stalemate. No side decisively beat the other. Instead, it was the combined fact that Hezbollah’s performance was militarily stunning, from a planning and execution point of view, in addition to the fact that nobody expected the group to even survive, let alone force the Israelis to abandon their war plans. If you look at the difference in Lebanese to Israeli casualties in 2006, there is no comparison; in fact, it was even a major achievement for Hezbollah to have hit Haifa with rockets back then.
The 2006 war proved that Hezbollah was a force to be reckoned with, that it would inflict serious blows on Israel if it sought to re-invade and re-occupy southern Lebanon, so Tel Aviv made the calculation that it was best to leave it alone. This is why there were 17 years of deterrence, where Israel would not dare bomb Lebanon.
Fast forward to 2023, Hezbollah was a group capable of striking any target across occupied Palestine, and in 2024 hit Tel Aviv for the very first time. Compared to a force of an estimated 14,000 men in 2006, Hezbollah’s current armed forces consist of over 100,000 men, making them a larger armed group than many of the militaries of various countries.
The difference is that Hezbollah is fighting Israel, which is equipped with an endless supply of the world’s most technologically advanced weapons and equipment that enables it to pinpoint target leaders.
It suffices to say, the two sides are not equal, but by no means is Hezbollah finished or weak; it is simply that the group must suffer immense sacrifices in order to prove victorious in any confrontation with Israel. This is because the equation has changed since October 7, 2023; it is no longer the case that the Israelis can be deterred. It is a long war that will lead to the total defeat of one side or the other. What happens from here is largely down to leadership and the willingness to commit to total war.
Syria is itself a totally different issue. First, we must keep in mind that the government of Bashar al-Assad was not actively engaged in the war against Israel; instead, it allowed for the Axis of Resistance to operate inside its territory and establish a defensive front in southern Syria.
Again, being realistic, the new government in Syria has weakened the entire State and divided it even more than was already the case. Ahmed al-Shara’a is joined at the hip with his US allies and pursues policies that explicitly favor his backers in Western governments. All of the denialism in the world does not change this fact, nor does it change Damascus’s establishing direct communications and even coordination with the Israelis.
To avoid going through what is already well known and beating a dead horse, there are a number of key considerations to make when looking at the situation in Syria, which could lead in various different directions.
I will preface everything below by saying that it is plausible that for the foreseeable future, the Israelis are going to succeed at every turn in Syria, as they have done since the pro-US government took power.
Unfortunately, the Syrian conflict is the top cause of sectarian division in the region. These divisions work on two pillars: tribalism and propaganda. Round-the-clock propaganda is churned out to cause fitnah and you will still hear baseless claims, including totally fabricated statistics, spread to achieve this division. Some would blame these conflicts on religion, yet it is more about blood feuds, corruption, and tribalistic tendencies.
Putting this aside, the Syrian front is now open and various possibilities exist. There is a competition between Turkiye and Israel inside the country, meaning that a proxy conflict is not off the table. It is also very possible that Ahmed al-Shara’a, who has managed to create problems with even his once staunch allies, will be assassinated or ousted from power, creating a bloody power struggle that could pour into the streets of Damascus.
For now, the weapons flow into Lebanon to supply Hezbollah is ongoing and there are also indications that during the final days of the former regime, many advanced weapons fell into various hands. The US is now working alongside the government in Damascus to ensure that these weapons transfers are stopped or at least rendered much more difficult. In addition to this, in the event of a war between Hezbollah and Israel, it is safe to assume that weapons transfers will be put to a halt.
As Israel advances further into southern Syrian territory, more villages will likely choose to resist them, as occurred in Beit Jinn recently; this will happen independent of the government in Damascus. As Ahmed al-Shara’a does not enjoy full control over his country, this also provides opportunities for armed groups to pop up and begin resisting the occupying force, something that the Syrian President will not be able to control, especially if Israel makes mistakes and gets itself embroiled in a crisis.
This story is not over and Syria is a hostile environment for Israeli forces due to the rejection of the people there. Ultimately, just as occurred in southern Lebanon, when the government abandons its duties, the people end up taking matters into their own hands to resist occupation. Does this mean we can expect a robust fighting force there soon? Probably not for now, but various possibilities exist in the foreseeable future.
Then we look to Iran and Yemen, whose capabilities remain and only grow; neither has been defeated. Iraq’s Hashd al-Shaabi have not been mobilized until now, and it is unclear what role they could play in a broader regional war, but it is of note that they exist.
What has happened is that Israel has proven time and time again that it is willing to be daring with the one tactic that they can actually excel in, assassinations and intelligence operations. However, these operations do not win wars; they are undoubtedly blows, but they do not inflict a knockout punch.
When two sides engage in such a war, it is expected that losses will occur on both sides. The Israelis have suffered a battered economy, a divided society, their settlements in the north are still in ruins, they haven’t repaired the damage inflicted on their infrastructure, and they have lost public support across the world, including in the United States. They are a global pariah sustained only by their Western backers, incapable of defeating what was viewed as the weakest link of the Axis of Resistance in Gaza.
In their favor, they have eliminated most of Iran’s influence in Syria, committed one of the worst crimes in modern history against Gaza and weakened the armed resistance there as a result of it. They also took out Hezbollah’s senior leadership, while degrading it and its political standing. In addition to this, many leaders and generals in the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC)’s chain of command were killed.
In Iran’s case, the so-called 12 Day War, back in June, had resulted in failure for the Israelis. Instead of achieving regime change and/or the destruction of Iran’s nuclear program, it is clear now that it has only succeeded in driving out international monitors and even united the population in a way previously unimaginable. Tehran has leaned into the growing trend of Iranian nationalism among its people and is preparing for another round. That battle also ended with Iran landing the last real blows.
The Israeli military must be viewed for what it is; it has the military edge in the air, possesses the most advanced weapons in the world [outside of Russia], enjoys full US support and is backed by one of the best intelligence agencies in the world. It also has something else on its side, which is that it does not care for morality or international law at all; it will break any rule to achieve an objective.
At the same time, its ground force is largely incapable, and it is also massively fatigued. The Israeli army was only really prepared to fight very brief battles and is an occupation force, which is why it now struggles to mobilize the soldiers necessary to carry out various offensive actions. It also needs to pay some of its soldiers’ danger money salaries. It has also recruited the private sector and civilians, paid as much as 800 dollars per day, to carry out their demolition missions in Gaza.
There is a reason why, on October 7, 2023, a few thousand Palestinian fighters armed with light weapons managed to collapse the Israeli southern command in a matter of hours and temporarily took control of the Israeli settlements surrounding Gaza. In other words, they are far from invincible.
Is this all to say that “Israel has lost”? No, clearly no side has won yet. There are various conspiracies in the works. In the Gaza Strip, the US is working alongside its allies to find a way to defeat the armed resistance groups. The Israelis clearly have their sights set on new wars against Lebanon and Iran; they will also likely strike Yemen hard again. However, they now find themselves in a much more vulnerable situation and could easily overextend themselves on one front, leading to significant losses.
So, can we say that Benjamin Netanyahu is closer to his “total victory”? The answer to this question is no. Is it possible that the “Greater Israel Project” will be implemented and that Iran will be toppled? This always has to be considered as a threat, because this is clearly Israel’s goal, but it is also just as likely that Tel Aviv will suffer a strategic defeat. It is especially the case because they are fighting an opposition that is more likely to commit to an all-out war, given what they have suffered up until this point.
The Terrifying Case of Natalie Strecker
By Craig Murray | December 2, 2025
I am confident that over 2 million people in the UK have shared thoughts on the Genocide in Gaza that are stronger than anything Natalie Strecker has expressed.
I am quite certain that I am one of those 2 million.
Yet Natalie Strecker, an avowed pacifist and mother of young children, today faces up to ten years in prison under the Terrorism Act when the verdict in her case comes in.
Strecker is charged with eliciting support for Hamas and Hezbollah, based on 8 tweets, cherry-picked by police and prosecutors from an astounding 51,000 tweets she sent, mainly from the Jersey Palestine Solidarity Committee account.
The tweets were rather rattled off in court and referred to occasionally again in whole and in part. There may be minor inaccuracies not affecting sense, but this is the best reconstruction of those tweets that I can make (they were not displayed to the public):
“People will be individually resisting: otherwise we would be asking them to submit to genocide on their knees”
“Solidarity with the people of Lebanon and Hezbollah has the right to resist in international law, I remind you the occupier does not, and are legally obligated to try to prevent Genocide.”
“Solidarity with the resistance. In the same way that the reistance fought the Nazis in Europe, we must support the fight against the Nazis of our generation”.
“Resistance is their legal right under moral and international law. If you don’t want resistance, then don’t create the circumstances which require it. Solidarity with the Resistance.”
“This nonsense our nation has descended into, where one side is committing genocide, and the other is proscribed for fighting it. I believe Hezbollah may be Palestine’s last hope”.
“Hamas the resistance did not break out of their concentration camp to attack Jews as Jews. We can debate whether armed resistance is legitimate. Of course there should be no attacks on civilians.”
“I am sick of the MSM propaganda about “Hamas-run health ministry figures”. Hamas is the government in Gaza. Every health ministry in the world is run by its government.”
“Are you awake? So it is down to ordinary people like you an me to end it. We must take our power back. Join me in solidarity with the people of Lebanon and Palestine. Solidarity with the Resistance.”
That is it. The prosecution case is that these tweets, both collectively and individually, amount to an invitation of support for Hamas and Hezbollah resulting in up to ten years in jail in Jersey, or 14 years in jail on the UK mainland.
The prosecution explicitly stated, and the judge notably intervened to make sure that everybody understood, that it is the offence of supporting terrorism to state that the Palestinians have the right to armed resistance in international law.
Judge John Saunders interrupted the prosecution to ask whether they were saying that he would be guilty of support for terrorism if, in a lecture, he told an international law class that Palestinians have the right to armed resistance in international law.
After some kerfuffle when faced with such an awkward question, the prosecution replied that yes, it could be the offence to tell law students that.
I should point out, at risk of dying in jail, that the Palestinians are beyond doubt an occupied people in international law, and equally beyond doubt an occupied people have the right of armed resistance.
To state that the Palestinians have the right of armed resistance in international law is not in the least controversial as a statement of law. A few Zionist nutters would try to differ, but 95% of international lawyers on this planet would agree.
I assume by perfectly logical extension that this means the prosecution must believe it is a terrorist crime in UK law, for example, to quote UN General Assembly Resolution 37/43, which:
2. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle;
3. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the Namibian people, the Palestinian people and all peoples under foreign and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, national unity and sovereignty without outside interference;
It is also worth stating that on Friday the prosecution stated, in these precise words, that “Resistance is synonymous with Hamas and Hezbollah” and that any support for, or justification of, Palestinian resistance is support for a proscribed organisation.
To repeat, there are millions of people in the UK who have stated stronger things than the tweets above. Including me. And, as the defence pointed out repeatedly, just eight tweets had been found after hundreds of hours of police time, and found amidst tens of thousands of other tweets on the Middle East, hundreds of which specifically urge non-violence.
So why are the police doing this to Natalie? Why did six armed police storm her apartment and rouse her young family at 7am a year ago, seizing all her electronics and papers, arresting her in front of her children and not allowing her to have a pee without leaving the bathroom door open so she could be observed?
This is where the story gets very dark indeed.
This is not a local Jersey initiative.
The prosecution is directed from London and Alison Morgan KC, senior Treasury counsel (UK government lawyer) is seated beside the local prosecuting counsel, openly puppeteering him every step of the way.
So why has the UK government chosen Jersey to prosecute a local pacifist mother whose statements provide possibly the weakest case of support for terrorism that has ever been heard in any court in the western world?
The answer is that here in Jersey there is no jury.
Facing this charge on the UK mainland Natalie would have a jury, and there is not a jury in the UK that would not throw this self-evidently vindictive nonsense out in 5 minutes.
Why is it worth the time and expense for Whitehall to send Alison Morgan KC here to direct a weak case against somebody who is obviously not a terrorist?
The plain answer is that this is a pilot for what they can get away with on the mainland when they abolish juries in such trials, as “Justice Secretary” David Lammy has announced that they will indeed do.
In Jersey the system is inherited from the Normans. The judge sits with two “jurats” or lay magistrates. They determine innocence or guilt. These come from a pool of 12 permanent jurats. In practice these are retired professionals and frequently have strong connections to the financial services industry.
What the jurats emphatically are not is Natalie Strecker’s working class peers of a kind who would be represented on a jury. I strongly recommend this brief article on the corruption of Jersey society by a man who was for 11 years the Government of Jersey’s economic adviser.
The judge, Sir John Saunders, seems a decent old stick in a headmasterly sort of way. He has told the court that “Mrs Strecker’s good character is not in doubt”. On Friday he stated that this was “A very difficult and in many ways a very sad case for the court to deal with. But I have to construe it according to strict legal principles”.
In the Palestine Action proscription case, as I reported, counsel for the UK government openly stated “We do not deny that the law is draconian. It is supposed to be”. In the mass arrests of decent people over Palestine Action, people have understood what a dreadfully authoritarian law the proscription regime is.
An intelligent observer cannot sit in Judge Saunders’ courtroom without realising that he thinks this is a dreadful law, but accepts that it is his job to enforce it. He reminds me of the caricature of the lugubrious headmaster stating “This is going to hurt me more than it is going to hurt you”.
In effect, Alison Morgan and the UK government are attempting through this prosecution to make even the most basic expression of support for Palestine a serious criminal offence. Remember that a terrorism conviction destroys your life – it almost certainly brings loss of employment, debanking and severe travel restrictions.
The International Court of Justice has decided that Israel has a real case to answer on Genocide, and most experts believe that Israel is committing Genocide. In Natalie’s correct image, the UK government is trying to make it a terrorist offence to say anything other than that the Palestinians should quietly submit to Genocide on their knees.
The danger is that the hubris of lay magistrates will lead the jurats to try cleverly to construe Natalie’s comments as support for terrorism in line with the government’s wishes. Natalie has, however, one defence in Jersey not available in mainland UK – here in Jersey the prosecution has to show intent: that she intended to cause support for terrorist organisations.
The prosecution has also relied on the extremely wide definition of support adopted in UK terrorist cases, that “support of” merely means “expression of agreement with”.
In defending the tweet about Hamas-run health ministry figures, Natalie Strecker’s counsel Luke Sette countered this rather well when he said: “there is no offence of causing people to think less badly of Hamas”
I confess however I am slightly puzzled that I have not heard the defence argue that the prosecution positions are grossly disproportionate violations of freedom of expression in terms of Article X of the European Convention of Human Rights.
I would have thought, for example, that was the natural thing to say in response to the prosecution’s contention that it would be a crime for a law lecturer to tell his class that the Palestinian people had the right of armed resistance in international law.
The verdict was decided yesterday afternoon between the judge and jurats. It will be presented in full written judgment in an hour’s time.
This is a truly horrifying case for Natalie, who cannot afford to lose her job with a Jersey government agency and most certainly does not wish to be jailed away from her children. I pinch myself to be sure that this is all really happening.
It is a truly horrifying case in terms of what the Starmer government intends to do on the mainland in further criminalising support for Palestine.
I do not support Hamas nor Hezbollah, being opposed to theocracy. But for it to be illegal to discuss the Genocide in Gaza and the role of these two organisations, unless you do it absolutely without either context or nuance, is Orwellian.
Western dissent is also a victim of the Zionist Genocide.
Hezbollah and Saudi Arabia’s uneasy détente
By Tamjid Kobaissy | The Cradle | December 2, 2025
In West Asia, where sectarian politics and external meddling collide with local power struggles, few rivalries have been as entrenched or as symbolically loaded as that between Hezbollah and Saudi Arabia.
For decades, it embodied the broader confrontation between Iran and the Persian Gulf kingdoms – a proxy war defined by ideology, oil, and shifting battlefronts. But today, under the weight of new regional calculations, rising Israeli belligerence, and the cracks in American hegemony, that once-intractable hostility is giving way to a more ambiguous and tactical coexistence.
What is developing is neither an alliance nor even reconciliation. But for the first time, Hezbollah and Riyadh are probing the edges of a relationship long defined by zero-sum enmity. A pragmatic detente is emerging, shaped less by goodwill than by the shared urgency to contain spiraling instability across the region.
Tehran, Riyadh, and the long shadow of history
The long arc of the Hezbollah–Saudi confrontation is impossible to separate from Iran’s post-revolutionary clash with Riyadh. When Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini toppled the Shah in 1979 and declared the House of Saud a reactionary tool of western imperialism, the rupture was both ideological and strategic.
The Saudis responded by bankrolling Saddam Hussein’s devastating war against Tehran, and in 1987, relations cratered after Saudi security forces massacred Iranian pilgrims in Mecca. Khomeini’s message was scathing:
“Let the Saudi government be certain that America has branded it with an eternal stain of shame that will not be erased or cleansed until the Day of Judgment, not even with the waters of Zamzam or the River of Paradise.”
Decades later, the so-called Arab Spring of 2011 reopened the wound. While Tehran stood by its state allies in Damascus and Baghdad, Riyadh threw its weight behind opposition movements and fanned the flames of sectarian conflict.
In Yemen, the kingdom launched a military campaign against the Ansarallah movement and allied forces, which Tehran backed politically and diplomatically. After Saudi Arabia executed outspoken Shia cleric Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr in 2016, Iranian protesters stormed the Saudi embassy in Tehran, prompting Riyadh to sever diplomatic ties. The two regional powers would only resume relations as part of Chinese-backed mediation in 2023.
From Hariri’s abduction to assassination plots
Within this regional maelstrom, Hezbollah became a prime Saudi target. When the Lebanese resistance captured two Israeli soldiers on 12 July 2006, to secure the release of prisoners, Riyadh dismissed it as “uncalculated adventures” and held Hezbollah responsible for the fallout.
In Syria, Hezbollah’s deployment alongside former Syrian president Bashar al-Assad’s army placed it in direct opposition to Saudi-backed militants. In Yemen, the movement’s vocal support for the Ansarallah–led government in Sanaa triggered Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) sanctions and terrorist designations.
Matters escalated in 2017 when Saudi Arabia detained then-Lebanese prime minister Saad Hariri and coerced him into announcing his resignation on television from Riyadh. Late Hezbollah secretary-general Hassan Nasrallah slammed the move as an act of war against Lebanon. The situation de-escalated only after French mediation.
In a 2022 TV interview, Nasrallah revealed that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MbS) was ready to authorize an Israeli plot to assassinate him, pending US approval.
Quiet channels, Iranian cover
The Beijing-brokered rapprochement between Tehran and Riyadh changed the regional tone but did not yield immediate dividends for Hezbollah. On the contrary, Saudi Arabia intensified its efforts to roll back Hezbollah’s influence in Beirut, especially following Israel’s October assault on Gaza and southern Lebanon.
Riyadh pressured Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam to implement the so-called “Barrack Paper,” aimed at politically sidelining Hezbollah and stripping its arms. Speaking to The Cradle, a well-informed political source reveals that the kingdom informed the former Lebanese army commander – now the country’s president – Joseph Aoun, that it would proceed with its plans even if they triggered civil war or fractured the military. The source describes this as emblematic of Riyadh’s short-term crisis management, mirroring Washington’s reactive regional strategy.
Despite this, signs of a tactical shift began to emerge. In September, Nasrallah’s successor, Sheikh Naim Qassem, publicly called for opening a “new chapter” in ties with Riyadh – an unprecedented gesture from the movement’s leadership. According to the same source, this was not a spontaneous statement.
During a visit to Beirut, Iranian national security official Ali Larijani reportedly recieved a message from Hezbollah to Riyadh expressing its openness to reconciliation. In a subsequent trip to the kingdom, Larijani presented the message to MbS.
While initially dismissed, it was later revisited, leading to discreet backchannel coordination directly overseen by Larijani himself.
Tehran talks and guarded understandings
The Cradle’s source adds that since then, three indirect rounds of Hezbollah–Saudi talks have reportedly taken place in Tehran, each under Iranian facilitation. The first focused on political de-escalation, while the latter two addressed sensitive security files, signaling a mutual willingness to test limited cooperation.
One provisional understanding emerged: Saudi Arabia would ease pressure on Hezbollah in Lebanon and drop immediate demands to disarm the movement. In exchange, Riyadh asked Hezbollah to keep its weapons out of Syria – echoing a broader Gulf consensus – and assist Lebanese authorities in curbing drug smuggling networks.
In private, Riyadh reportedly acknowledges Hezbollah’s military resilience as a strategic buffer against Israel’s regional belligerence. The Persian Gulf states no longer trust Washington to shield them from Tel Aviv’s increasingly unilateral provocations – as was seen in the Israeli strikes on Doha in September. But Hezbollah’s dominance in Lebanon remains a challenge to Riyadh’s political influence.
Hezbollah, Saudi Arabia, and the Iranian umbrella
The Hezbollah–Saudi contacts are just one strand in a broader strategic dance between Riyadh and Tehran. According to The Cradle’s source, Saudi Arabia has assured Iran it will not join any Israeli or US-led war, nor allow its airspace to be used in such a scenario. In return, Tehran pledged not to target Saudi territory. These commitments are fragile, but significant.
The source also reveals that US President Donald Trump had authorized MbS to explore a direct channel with Iran, tasking him with brokering understandings on Yemen and beyond. Larijani conveyed Iran’s openness to dialogue, though not to nuclear concessions. MbS reportedly stressed to Trump that a working accord with Tehran was essential to regional stability.
In parallel, Lebanese MP Ali Hassan Khalil, a close advisor to Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, is expected to visit Saudi Arabia soon following meetings in Tehran. This suggests continued shuttle diplomacy across resistance, Iranian, and Saudi nodes.
Strategic divergence, tactical convergence
Still, no one should confuse these developments with a realignment. Rather than a reset, this is merely a tactical repositioning. For Riyadh, the old boycott model – applied to Lebanon between 2019 and 2021 – failed to dislodge Hezbollah or bolster pro-Saudi factions. Now, the kingdom is shifting to flexible engagement, partly to enable economic investments in Lebanon that require minimal cooperation with the dominant political force.
The pivot also serves Saudi Arabia’s desire to project itself as a capable mediator rather than a crude enforcer. The 7 October 2023 Operation Al-Aqsa Flood has tilted regional equations, while Israeli expansionism has become a destabilizing liability. A Hezbollah–Israel war would not stay confined to the Blue Line. Gulf cities, energy infrastructure, and fragile normalization deals would all be at risk.
From Hezbollah’s side, the outreach reflects both constraint and calculation. The resistance faces growing pressure: an intensified Israeli campaign, a stagnating Lebanese economy, and the need to preserve internal cohesion. A tactical truce with Riyadh offers breathing space, and possibly, a check against Gulf-backed meddling in Syria.
When Sheikh Naim Qassem declared that Hezbollah’s arms are pointed solely at Israel, it was also a signal to the Gulf: we are not your enemy.
The real enemy, for both sides, is the unpredictable nature of Israeli escalation. Riyadh fears being dragged into an Israeli-led regional war that it cannot control. Hezbollah fears encirclement through economic, political, and military pressure. Their interests may never align, but for now, they are no longer mutually exclusive.
Will Saudi Arabia fund Israel’s grip over Lebanon?
By Mohamad Hasan Sweidan | The Cradle | Novmber 27, 2025
In the wake of Israel’s November 2024 apparent ceasefire with Lebanon, Tel Aviv has moved to reshape the post-war order in its favor. Treating Lebanon as a weakened and fragmented state, Israel seeks to impose a long-term, unilateral security and economic regime in the south, bolstered by US backing.
Simultaneously, Saudi Arabia has thrust itself into the reconstruction process as the main Arab financier. But the kingdom risks becoming a junior partner in an Israeli-American project that sidelines it from real decision-making. The question facing Riyadh is clear: Will it bankroll its own marginalization?
Tel Aviv’s vision: Disarmament, deterrence, domination
Israel’s strategy for Lebanon extends far beyond the oft-repeated demand to disarm Hezbollah. It envisions a sweeping transformation of Lebanon into a demilitarized satellite state governed under a US-Israeli security framework. Nowhere is this clearer than in Tel Aviv’s insistence on remaining inside Lebanese territory until Hezbollah is stripped of its deterrent capabilities, not just south of the Litani River, but across the country.
Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz and former Northern Command chief Uri Gordin have both publicly outlined this goal. Gordin even suggested establishing a permanent buffer zone inside Lebanon to serve as a “bargaining chip” for future negotiations, while Katz confirmed that Israeli forces would remain indefinitely in the south. Tel Aviv no longer seeks temporary deterrence, favoring permanent subordination.
Katz, for his part, has stated “Hezbollah is playing with fire,” and called on Beirut to “fulfill its obligations to disarm the party and remove it from southern Lebanon.”
Most recently, while addressing the Knesset, he warned that “We will not allow any threats against the inhabitants of the north, and maximum enforcement will continue and even intensify.”
“If Hezbollah does not give up its weapons by the year’s end, we will work forcefully again in Lebanon,” Katz reiterated. “We will disarm them.”
According to this blueprint, Lebanon is not considered a sovereign neighbor, but a security appendage to Israel’s northern frontier. State institutions are expected to serve as administrative fronts for a de facto Israeli-American command center. International aid, including funding from Arab states of the Persian Gulf, is being weaponized to enforce this new security-economic order.
From the perspective of Israel, the goals in Lebanon are not limited to the disarmament of Hezbollah. They go beyond that toward a deeper project of transforming Lebanon – especially the south – into a kind of security-economic colony.
This includes consolidating a long-term military presence, imposing new border arrangements, and paving the way for settlement projects or institutionalized buffer zones, as evidenced by current maps showing the presence of Israeli forces at several points inside Lebanese territory.
Saudi Arabia’s options: Pressure or partnership
Enter Riyadh. The Saudi Foreign Ministry has repeatedly called for Lebanese arms to be confined to the state and endorsed the implementation of the 1989 Taif Agreement.
In September, Saudi Foreign Minister Faisal bin Farhan, in a speech to the UN General Assembly, stressed that:
“Saudi Arabia stands with Lebanon, supports everything that strengthens its security and stability, and welcomes the efforts of the Lebanese state to implement the Taif Agreement (1989), affirm its sovereignty, and place weapons in the hands of the state and its legitimate institutions.”
The Saudi envoy to Lebanon, Yazid bin Farhan, reiterated Riyadh’s position: the exclusive right to possess arms must lie with the Lebanese state. In private information, during a meeting between Bin Farhan and Sunni leaders in Lebanon, the diplomat stressed that pressure must be put on disarming the party, even if that requires reaching a civil war.
On the surface, Saudi and Israeli objectives appear aligned. Tel Aviv applies military pressure. Riyadh applies economic and political pressure. Both demand the end of Hezbollah’s armed presence. But while Israel’s aim is absolute control over Lebanon’s security order, Saudi Arabia still seeks a political system that reflects its influence. In this, Tel Aviv’s ambitions collide with Riyadh’s.
However, Israel has no intention of sharing influence with any Arab state – nor even Turkiye. Its model is exclusionary. It views Riyadh not as a partner, but as a bankrolling mechanism to finance the dismantling of Lebanon’s axis of resistance under Israeli terms. As former deputy director of the National Security Council, Eran Lerman put it, Saudi Arabia is merely a pressure tool to bring Lebanon to heel.
Thus, the crux of the matter is this: Riyadh may envision itself as a key stakeholder in post-war Lebanon, but Israel sees it as a disposable auxiliary.
The 17 May redux: Recolonizing south Lebanon
To grasp the depth of Israel’s project, one need only look to its precedents. In 1983, Israel, alongside the US and under Syrian oversight, tried to enshrine a similar model via the 17 May Agreement. That deal called for an end to hostilities, gradual Israeli withdrawal, a “security zone” in the south, and joint military arrangements. In practice, it turned Lebanon into a protectorate tasked with safeguarding Israeli security interests.
Today, after the 2024 war, Tel Aviv is resurrecting that same formula. Israeli forces have remained stationed at multiple points inside Lebanon despite the ceasefire terms mandating full withdrawal. Airspace violations and near-daily raids persist under the pretext of preventing Hezbollah from “repositioning.” Think tanks in Tel Aviv, alongside joint French-US proposals, are now pushing phased disarmament: first the south, then the Bekaa, then the Syrian border, ultimately ending all resistance capabilities.
International support is being dangled as a carrot. Aid from the US, France, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and others is contingent on Lebanon executing a disarmament plan under International Monetary Fund (IMF) oversight and within a strict timeline. This is the economic arm of the Israeli security project.
More dangerously, Israeli studies suggest that reconstruction of southern villages should be explicitly tied to the removal of resistance forces, while preserving “full freedom of action” for the Israeli army in Lebanese air and land space.
Can Riyadh afford Tel Aviv’s trap?
In parallel with this vision, western analyses close to decision-making circles in Washington and Riyadh show that Saudi Arabia itself sees Lebanon as a pivotal arena in its conflict with Iran. Any serious return to the Lebanese file is linked to the weakening of Hezbollah’s influence.
But the key divergence between the Saudi and Israeli approaches lies in a critical question: Who ultimately holds the keys to decision-making in Lebanon?
Riyadh aims to use its financial and political capital to recalibrate the Lebanese political order in its favor, minimizing Iranian sway while reinforcing its own influence. But Israel’s plan is more radical: to redefine Lebanese sovereignty altogether, placing it under perpetual Israeli security oversight.
In this model, Saudi Arabia – and any other Arab state – is reduced to the role of financier, tasked with implementing terms written in Tel Aviv and Washington rather than contributing an independent Arab vision for the region.
From this angle, Tel Aviv’s persistent invocation of the “military option” in Lebanon works against Gulf interests. It positions Riyadh and its allies as the paymasters for reconstruction, forced to foot the bill for a post-war settlement they had no role in shaping.
If Saudi Arabia concedes to this logic – and fails to leverage its influence in Washington, in Arab diplomatic circles, and in donor mechanisms – it risks forfeiting Lebanon to a joint Israeli-American order.
That order would mirror the defunct 17 May Agreement, only more deeply entrenched. Lebanon would not only be demilitarized. It would become a living model of “security-economic conjugation,” designed to recalibrate regional influence away from the Arab world and toward an Israeli-dominated Levant.
Israel fortifying outposts in southern Lebanon in violation of ceasefire
Press TV – November 26, 2025
Satellite imagery shows Israel continues to occupy and fortify military positions in southern Lebanon in violation of Lebanese sovereignty, one year after signing a ceasefire with Hezbollah.
According to Planet Labs PBC, the Israeli military occupies five strategic positions along the Blue Line, the de facto border between Lebanon and the occupied territories. These positions are surrounded by earthen fortifications and connected by widened access roads.
The outposts, covering one to two hectares each, include sections for temporary buildings and military vehicles, according to an analysis by AFP, which says the access roads to these positions have also been significantly expanded to facilitate vehicle movement.
The westernmost base in the Labbouneh area lies only 150 meters from a UN peacekeeping station, while the easternmost on Hamames hill is about 1.5 kilometers inside Lebanese territory.
The analysis also shows near-total destruction of buildings in villages near the outposts due to Israel’s systematic demolition of infrastructure.
By maintaining control over southern Lebanese villages, Israel continues to violate the ceasefire it signed on November 27, 2024, which required a full withdrawal of its forces within 60 days.
Israel says it keeps these positions to ensure Hezbollah does not carry out military activities in the area.
However, analysts state that these fortified positions and demolitions mirror the war tactics employed by Israel in the Gaza Strip.
According to the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), the regime’s forces have committed over 7,500 air violations and nearly 2,500 ground violations in the past year, totaling almost 10,000 breaches of the ceasefire.
In a latest violation, Israel assassinated top Hezbollah commander Haitham Tabatabai in a strike on a residential area near Beirut on Sunday.
Hezbollah warned that Israel has committed a grave mistake, saying the resistance group is considering its response to the killing.
Lebanese President Michel Aoun also condemned the attack, calling it a clear demonstration of Tel Aviv’s disregard for repeated international appeals. Aoun urged the global community to act to prevent further aggression against the Lebanese people.
Enemy plot against Lebanon similar to conspiracy imposed on Syria, says lawmaker
Press TV – November 16, 2025
A senior Lebanese lawmaker says his country does not need a new agreement given the fragile ceasefire that Israel repeatedly violates, warning that the occupying entity is devising a plot against Lebanon similar to the conspiracy imposed on neighboring Syria.
“Some in Lebanon insist on disarmament of Hezbollah and assert that the enemy will no longer have an excuse against Lebanon in case the resistance movement lays down arms,” Hussein Hajj Hassan, a member of Loyalty to the Resistance Bloc – the political wing of Hezbollah in the Lebanese parliament – said on Saturday evening.
“They believe the sole reason behind Israel’s aggression against Lebanon lies in Hezbollah’s weapons,” he said, adding that the plot the Tel Aviv regime is drawing up for Lebanon is akin to the conspiracy imposed on Syria.
“It involves creation of a buffer zone, continuation and expansion of the Zionist occupation, and destruction of the elements of power, not only the Hezbollah resistance movement, but also the government.”
Hajj Hassan noted that the talk of a new agreement with Israel is meaningless whilst the regime does not stand committed to the ceasefire deal concluded in November last year.
“The ceasefire agreement has been brokered by the United States and France, carries UN guarantees, and stipulates the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanese territory, cessation of aggression, release of Lebanese prisoners, and reconstruction of the country. The need for a new deal is pointless, especially as the previous agreement has not been implemented at all by Zionist occupiers,” the Lebanese legislator said.
“Is there a resistance group and weapons in Syria? So why does the Zionist regime keep invading the country, occupying more land there, and affirming that it will not pull out?” Hajj Hassan questioned.
The Lebanese lawmaker highlighted that Syria’s ruling Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) regime is allied to Washington, yet the Zionist regime is pressing ahead with its acts of aggression and occupation of Syrian territories.
“The more concessions you grant the Zionist enemy, the weaker you become. Hezbollah and national unity are the only guarantors of deterrence and defense,” he emphasized.
Israel and Hezbollah reached a ceasefire agreement that took effect on November 27, 2024. Under the deal, Tel Aviv was required to withdraw fully from the Lebanese territory—but has kept forces stationed at five sites, in clear violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701 and the terms of last November’s agreement.
Since the implementation of the ceasefire, Israel has violated the agreement multiple times through repeated assaults on the Lebanese territory.
Lebanese authorities have warned that the Israeli regime’s violations of the ceasefire threaten national stability.
Syria’s HTS deploys foreign fighters to Lebanon border: Report
Press TV – November 13, 2025
Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) has reportedly deployed foreign Takfiri fighters from northern Syria to the border with Lebanon, sparking renewed concern over the group’s destabilizing activities and growing presence in the region.
According to sources cited by The Cradle, foreign militants affiliated with HTS were transferred in recent days from the Harem area in Idlib province to the city of al-Qusayr, near the Syrian–Lebanese border.
The movement reportedly coincided with the transfer of heavy military equipment, including armored vehicles and other hardware.
“At the same time, forces affiliated with the Ministry of Defense of the ‘Syrian Transitional Government’ attempted to advance and take positions inside Lebanese territory, specifically in the Wadi al-Thalajat area of Ras al-Maara, along the Syrian–Lebanese border in the Damascus countryside,” the sources said, referring to barren areas where the Lebanese army is not present.
These reports emerge shortly after Washington announced Syria’s participation in the US occupying coalition in the Arab country, as Abu Mohammed al-Jolani — once affiliated with al-Qaeda and Daesh — arrived in Washington on Sunday.
The HTS military remains deeply infiltrated by extremist elements. Many of its current commanders and officers are known former members of al-Qaeda and Daesh factions.
The reported buildup of HTS-linked forces near Lebanon coincides with renewed US threats that such militias could be deployed against Hezbollah.
On Friday, US envoy Tom Barrack said that “Damascus will now actively assist us in confronting and dismantling the remnants of ISIS, the IRGC (Islamic Revolution Guards Corps), Hamas, Hezbollah, and other terrorist networks, and will stand as a committed partner in the global effort to secure peace.”
Analysts warn that the alignment of US policy with extremist-leaning Syrian factions such as HTS risks reigniting cross-border violence and undermining the security achieved by Hezbollah and the Lebanese Armed Forces after expelling Daesh and al-Qaeda elements from Lebanon’s eastern border in 2017.
Jolani told the Washington Post in an interview that “good” progress has been made in direct talks to reach an agreement with Israel, while boasting about weakening the Axis of Resistance on behalf of Tel Aviv.
“Israel has always claimed that it has concerns about Syria because it is afraid of the threats that the Iranian militias and Hezbollah represent. We are the ones who expelled those forces out of Syria,” he said.
“The US is with us in these negotiations, and so many international parties support our perspective in this regard. Today, we found that Mr. Trump supports our perspective as well, and he will push as quickly as possible in order to reach a solution for this,” he added.
Jolani also met with US-based Syrian rabbi Yosef Hamra.
Hebrew reports have revealed that a main part of the agreement will likely involve HTS–Israeli intelligence sharing and cooperation against the Axis of Resistance, specifically Iran and Hezbollah – which helped the former government recapture large swathes of Syria from al-Qaeda and Deash.
Israel carried out heavy strikes in Damascus and elsewhere in southern Syria earlier this year, under the pretext of protecting the Druze minority from Jolani’s extremist forces.
Now, it continues to carry out incursions, seize territory, and expand the occupation it established after the fall of former Syrian president Bashar al-Assad’s government last year.
Yet Jolani and other HTS officials have repeatedly signaled that they pose no threat to Tel Aviv.
The deployment of Takfiri fighters along the Lebanese border serves as a pretext for confronting resistance groups and advancing Israeli interests, coming as Israel continues its repeated acts of aggression across Syrian territory following the collapse of former President Bashar al-Assad’s government late last year.
Analysts are asking why al-Jolani does not deploy any forces against Israel, which continues to attack and occupy parts of Syria almost daily.
The HTS-led regime will reportedly hand over the occupied Golan Heights to Israel as part of a looming normalization deal with the illegal entity.
Since taking power, HTS has committed widespread war crimes and brutal repression, particularly against minority communities such as the Alawites, who have faced targeted violence, as Syria has experienced waves of sectarian and regional unrest under the group’s control.
US envoy says Syria will ‘actively assist’ Washington in confronting Hezbollah
The Cradle | November 13, 2025
US envoy Tom Barrack said on 13 November that the extremist-led government in Damascus will “actively assist” Washington and Tel Aviv in confronting Hezbollah in Lebanon.
“I had the profound honor of accompanying Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa to the White House, where he became the first Syrian Head of State ever to visit since Syria gained its independence in 1946,” Barrack said on X.
He also hailed the former Al-Qaeda chief’s “commitment” to joining Washington’s ‘anti-ISIS’ coalition, “marking Syria’s transition from a source of terrorism to a counterterrorism partner – a commitment to rebuild, to cooperate, and to contribute to the stability of an entire region.”
“Damascus will now actively assist us in confronting and dismantling the remnants of ISIS, the IRGC, Hamas, Hezbollah, and other terrorist networks, and will stand as a committed partner in the global effort to secure peace,” the envoy added.
Barrack’s comments are the latest in a series of recent threats made by the envoy against Lebanon.
He had said just last month that Lebanon would soon face a broad Israeli campaign unless it moved to fully disarm Hezbollah immediately.
Since then, Israel has killed at least 44 Lebanese people.
Lebanon’s army has been dismantling Hezbollah infrastructure south of the Litani River since the start of this year, in line with the November 2024 ceasefire agreement, which Israel has violated every day for the past year.
But Tel Aviv claims Hezbollah is rearming and rebuilding its presence faster than the Lebanese army is dismantling, threatening escalation and vowing not to withdraw its forces occupying south Lebanon until the resistance surrenders all its arms.
Washington has publicly backed Tel Aviv’s position.
Barrack’s comments on Friday were not his first threats of Syrian military action against Lebanon. In July, he said Syria views Lebanon as its “beach resort” and would carry out an assault against the country unless Hezbollah disarmed.
Clashes broke out between the Lebanese army and Syrian troops earlier this year, after Damascus’s forces advanced against the border under the pretext of dealing with smuggling.
The fighting ended after talks between Beirut and Damascus.
The envoy’s new threat came just two days after former Al-Qaeda chief and self-appointed Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa boasted to the Washington Post about the help his extremist forces have given Israel.
“Israel has always claimed that it has concerns about Syria because it is afraid of the threats that the Iranian militias and [Lebanon’s] Hezbollah represent. We are the ones who expelled those forces out of Syria,” he said.
Hezbollah fought in Syria for years alongside the former government, and took part in the recapture of several parts of the country from groups including Al-Qaeda’s Nusra Front, Ahrar al-Sham, and others who were at the time considered the Syrian opposition. The Nusra Front was later rebranded into Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), the group that toppled former Syrian president Bashar al-Assad’s government in 2024 and now dominates Syria’s Defense Ministry.
The Nusra Front occupied large swathes of the northern and eastern Lebanese border region for years at the start of the Syrian war, and was eventually expelled by Hezbollah and the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) in 2017.
The Nusra Front, headed by Sharaa, was responsible for numerous bombings and killings inside Lebanon, including the capital, Beirut.
Direct negotiations have been taking place between Sharaa’s government and Israel over the past several months. In September, Barrack said a Syrian–Israeli security deal was nearly complete.
Hebrew reports have revealed that a main part of the agreement will likely involve Syrian–Israeli intelligence sharing and cooperation against the Axis of Resistance, specifically Iran and Hezbollah.
Washington’s pro-Israeli think tanks drumming up excuses for new Iran war
By Robert Inlakesh | Al Mayadeen | November 12, 2025
Since the conclusion of the Iranian-Israeli war this June, pro-war think tanks responsible for influencing US government policy have been signalling the need for a second round of attacks against Iran and its nuclear program. Now they are picking up the heat.
Despite the boisterous and triumphant remarks coming from officials within the Trump administration, confidently claiming the complete destruction of Iranian nuclear facilities, behind the scenes Washington’s key think tanks appear to uphold a consensus view that the job is not done.
Think tank panels, analysis, and policy recommendations for the US government’s next steps towards Iran have centred around the understanding that, short of an agreement which spells Iran’s declaration of regional defeat, another round of direct warfare will eventually be necessary. Yet, they often caveat this with the disclaimer that the next round must close the conflict for a long time and not drag things out until another round occurs.
In the interim period between wars, the role of these think tanks is crucial to shaping Washington’s understanding of the tasks at hand. Although by nature, what they are saying is always going to be propagandistic and pursuing a specific agenda; segments of their analyses and certain statements from conference panelists are far more useful than most stories published about Iran in the corporate media. If you pay attention to these think tanks, reading between the lines, it makes the logic behind US and Israeli policy make more sense.
On November 5, Kenneth M. Pollack and Reuel Marc Gerecht recently spoke at a panel hosted by the Washington-based pro-“Israel” Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD) think tank, where they addressed the issue of linking US lessons from Iraq, in the post-Gulf War setting, to Iran after the 12-day war.
A few takeaways here were that while regime change should be a target, they also commented on the differences in confronting Iran, drawing key distinctions between Iranian leader Ayatollah Khamenei and former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. Gerecht, a resident FDD scholar, makes it clear that Khamenei’s strategic thinking is much more complex, intelligent, and hence difficult to deal with.
Instead of advocating a repeat of the invasion of Iraq, they focus on strategies to weaken and isolate the Islamic Republic, including the aggressive pursuit of disarming Hezbollah in Lebanon and getting heavily involved in Iraq through the upcoming election cycle.
A policy brief published by the FDD on November 7 specifically looks at the potential opportunities for the United States inside Iraq, framing the election as an influence battle between Tehran and Washington. It is clear that the ultimate goal is to pursue the disarmament of the Hashd al-Shaabi.
Interestingly, despite the propaganda often produced for think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, depicting the Islamic Republic as being at the brink of collapse and that the Iranian public will play a key role in this, the FDD’s Gerecht paints a starkly different picture. It appears as if his calculation is built on the assumption that the anti-government Iranian diaspora are not to be relied upon to achieve regime change.
Gerecht also labels the son of the deposed Iranian dictator, Shah Reza Pahlavi, “Baby Shah”, as neither of the panelists appear to put great faith in the pro-regime change Iranian opposition, expressing the frustrations that often come along with working with them.
Meanwhile, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) has argued that Iran must be confronted over its growing confidence following the June war with “Israel”. The policy analysis entitled “Iran’s Self-Confidence Returns?” lays out the argument that Tehran’s ballistic missile program appears to be the backbone of its defense strategy over that of using its allies.
This article centres around the public statements of Khamenei and the post-war assessments offered by senior Iranian officials, in addition to factoring in the strength and rebuilding process of Tehran’s ballistic missile program.
Without openly stating it, the WINEP piece appears to be getting at the idea that Iran must again be militarily punished due to its growing confidence and that a political deal, which Donald Trump voices interest in, is not a possibility. Overall, the piece makes a number of mistakes in its framing of Iranian confidence over the months, but also is a sober enough analysis to admit that Iran managed to land significant and damaging blows against the Israelis.
It is clear that the Israelis are currently in a difficult spot when it comes to carrying out a new series of attacks against Iran, and this comes down to the number of potential cards that Tehran has to play. This is especially the case in the event that the conflict expands and becomes regional.
Therefore, at least outwardly, the Israelis themselves appeared poised to target Lebanon next, an attempt to weaken the Lebanese Resistance significantly and thus isolate Iran in the event of a future prolonged confrontation.
Meanwhile, think tanks based in Washington are busy forging arguments as to why the United States must get involved in any future Israeli-Iranian war, understanding that this is necessary for “Tel Aviv” to achieve any kind of victory against an enemy that is too powerful for it to deal with alone.
On to the Next Front: Israel Threatens Lebanon with a New War
By Robert Inlakesh | The Palestine Chronicle | November 4, 2025
Israel’s goal is to eliminate its regional opposition entirely. In Lebanon, the US-Israeli alliance has pursued the push to disarm Hezbollah. The Israeli strategy is to outmaneuver the Lebanese group by opening new rounds of war, while imposing immense suffering on the people.
Israel is now threatening to open up another war against Lebanon and is initiating a propaganda campaign to justify its actions. It has, in reality, violated the ceasefire every day since it was imposed and its strategy is to eventually push the State to internal chaos and collapse.
While it may be well known, at this point, that Israel continues full steam ahead on the war path with Lebanon, as it threatens to bombard Beirut and escalate its ongoing bombing campaign, there are two important points that are necessary to understand what is truly going on.
The beginning of any conversation on the issue is to understand that Israel alone is the reason for the conflict and that its propaganda surrounding Hezbollah’s disarmament is disingenuous. From there, we can properly assess what the Israeli strategy is in Lebanon and what it seeks to gain.
Israeli media is currently ripe with analysts and military officials commenting about the rapid re-armament of Hezbollah, even claiming that, in one year, the Lebanese group has managed to rebuild to the extent that internal estimates believed only to have been possible in a 15 to 20-year time frame. In the Hebrew media framing of events, it is clear that the justification for a new military operation in Lebanon is explained through a “security” lens, arguing that war is necessary to weaken their greatest adversary to the north.
Meanwhile, in the Gulf and Western-owned Arabic media, along with English-language corporate media, their coverage depicts a failure of the Lebanese government to disarm Hezbollah as the primary issue at hand. The framing harbors the point that the problem here pertains to Hezbollah’s weapons, that this is the reason for the conflict, and that, while Israel may not be helping the situation, the guilty party is the so-called “Iranian proxies”. This line of reasoning argues that, given Hezbollah’s disarmament, Lebanon will be transformed and return to some notion of its “glory days” of old.
Immediately, here there are two narratives that are not congruent, despite bearing some similarities and arguing from the same pro-Israeli point of view, which should be a major red flag for anyone who is looking at this issue critically.
Israel’s Claims about Hezbollah’s Weapons
Ever since the ceasefire was supposed to come into effect late last November, Israel has violated the deal over 7,000 times according to UNIFIL figures. Hezbollah, on the other hand, has not violated the agreement.
According to the ceasefire agreement, the Israeli military should have long withdrawn its forces from the south of the country, yet it has vowed to permanently remain inside what it now considers a security zone; in other words, an illegal occupation of Lebanese lands.
Meanwhile, the Lebanese army has adhered to the deal by dismantling sites used by Hezbollah south of the Litani River, while the group itself agreed to begin disarmament in this zone. Despite this and the work done to remove Hezbollah’s military presence in southern Lebanon, the Israelis only expanded the zone of illegal occupation, continued their strikes, murdered more civilians, and seized more Lebanese hostages. Israel has even struck the Lebanese capital a number of times since the ceasefire was imposed, to which there was no response from Hezbollah.
When it comes to the issue of total disarmament, Hezbollah has rejected this notion. Earlier this year, Lebanese President Joseph Aoun had attempted to reach a deal whereby Hezbollah would surrender its weapons to the Lebanese Army and integrate within it, as a national defense strategy was put together. Israel and the United States both rejected such an idea.
The Lebanese public was then polled on this issue and overwhelmingly expressed their opposition to disarmament, in the event that there is no national defense strategy in place, fearing that the Lebanese Army itself could not defend the country against existential threats posed by its southern and eastern borders.
Despite this, under the orders of US envoy Tom Barrack, Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam decided to push forward with the agenda to totally disarm Hezbollah by later this year, a task widely viewed as impractical and likely to lead to civil war if attempted violently. Both Washington and Tel Aviv pushed for this, regardless, offering Beirut nothing in return, only threatening to escalate tensions.
Hezbollah itself was born out of the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon, created to resist the illegal occupation of southern Lebanese territory. Immediately upon its founding, it understood the importance of bearing arms and continuing to resist, until the very last drop of blood. The reason for this is simple: they had the example of what had just happened to the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).
After Israel murdered around 20,000 people in Lebanon and besieged the PLO’s leadership in Beirut, the group’s Chairman, Yasser Arafat, agreed to “end” the war through disarmament and moving his leadership to Tunisia. Once the Palestinian Resistance was no longer there, the Israelis then occupied southern Lebanon and, along with their fascist militia allies, committed massacres against innocent women and children. These massacres, which targeted primarily Palestinians, but also Lebanese Shia and others, were amongst the worst in the history of the conflict, such as the infamous Sabra and Shatila camp massacre that killed as many as 3,500 civilians alone.
What led up to the 1982 invasion was that the PLO found itself in a very similar scenario to Hezbollah today. The Israelis constantly violated the existing ceasefire agreement, attempting to draw a response that would justify further military operations, to which the PLO did not bite.
The PLO, for its part, was not only adhering to the ceasefire, it was also heading up a diplomatic mission that was paving the way for a “two-State solution” process, in line with the organization’s 10-point plan and Saudi Arabia’s Fez Initiative. The Israelis branded this as the PLO’s “peace offensive”, viewing it as a threat and seeking any excuse to invade Lebanon, which they finally found with an incident that the PLO had nothing to do with.
Hezbollah managed to struggle against Israel for decades, forcing them to abandon their occupation of the south in 2000, and later thwarting an Israeli invasion in 2006. After this, despite Israel still occupying the Sheba’a Farms and Ghajar village, Hezbollah’s weapons managed to cause a deterrence scenario, whereby they achieved nearly 17 years of relative calm. The Israelis would not dare to bomb their territory.
On October 8, 2023, Hezbollah’s Secretary-General, Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah, would then change this equation by entering into a support front battle, in order to fight alongside the people of Gaza and ensure their victory. The first operations carried out by Hezbollah targeted military sites illegally occupied by Israel in the Sheba’a Farms, a move not prohibited under international law.
The Israeli response then came against Hezbollah sites and civilians in southern Lebanon, soon including the targeting of journalists, medical workers, women, children, and the elderly. Therefore, Hezbollah began escalating its attacks and responding by hitting military sites, then eventually strategically striking settlements in a tit-for-tat battle. While Israel murdered hundreds of civilians in Lebanon, only a dozen Israeli non-combatants were killed by Hezbollah’s fire, which almost entirely focused on military sites and strategically hit settlements.
Even after Israel’s pager attacks across Lebanon, which murdered and maimed women and children, not just Hezbollah members, killing dozens and injuring thousands, Hezbollah still intended to keep its military operations limited to a support front and not all-out war. Then, the Israelis imposed a war on Lebanon, anyway, killed up to 5,000 people in total, assassinating Hezbollah’s senior leadership, and invaded the country with the intent of reaching the Litani River area.
Hezbollah managed to carefully manage the war, not letting it boil over into an all-out extermination campaign as had happened in Gaza, also succeeding in halting the Israeli military’s ground advances in the south.
Despite the words of Hezbollah’s martyred leader, Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah, in his last speech, vowing to continue firing until a ceasefire is reached in Gaza, the group eventually decided that it would agree to a ceasefire in order to stop the war from escalating to the next phase: anticipated to bring the all out destruction of Beirut.
What Israel’s Agenda Entails
At this point, after reading the above-mentioned context provided, a reasonable skeptic would argue the point that Israel agreed to the ceasefire and, therefore, they must be interested in peace or, at least, their intentions are not as malicious as is being argued. To which the natural answer has been that the Israelis repeatedly violated every tenet of the deal they had agreed to.
Yet, this explanation is not sufficient to explain away the Israeli counterpoint often made. A more rounded answer to this question not only explains why Israel agreed to the ceasefire at the time, but also what their current strategy is.
While Israeli propaganda has it that Hezbollah had been defeated, that some 90 percent of their weapons were destroyed and its mission was completed, the truth is that the war was reaching a boiling point.
In late September and early October of 2024, the Israelis had pulled off their most significant tactical victories against Hezbollah. Their pager attacks, bombings against major weapons depots, and assassinations of senior officials were all massive blows against Hezbollah.
Yet, by late November of 2024, the Israelis had failed to advance any significant distance in southern Lebanon on the ground; they had also gotten themselves tangled up in a deadly tit-for-tat battle. Although the Israeli strikes did far more damage, Hezbollah was revealing and firing new kinds of munitions, day in and day out, even striking high-rise buildings in Tel Aviv.
It was clear to anyone following the course of the war that Hezbollah had an abundance of weapons that were not about to run out, but that the group had also been greatly shaken up. On the Israeli side, their weapons were never going to run dry, yet they failed to achieve anything too significant after the first few weeks, and their ground forces were taking a beating.
After Hezbollah proved it still possessed ballistic missiles capable of striking high-rise buildings in the heart of Tel Aviv, it was clear from the threats being issued by the Israeli leadership that a new phase of the war was afoot. This clearly was not about defeating Hezbollah and would have resulted in destruction against Israeli-held cities that had not yet been seen.
Therefore, understanding that repeating the Gaza model of destruction in Lebanon was not going to serve either side, both agreed to a ceasefire. The result was a stalemate, yet politically and in terms of public perception, the Israelis clearly had the edge.
Hezbollah could not credibly claim a victory and was clearly desperately in need of repair, after suffering severe blows to everything, from its chain of command to its communication, intelligence wing, political standing, and even its weapons. According to multiple sources inside Lebanon, up to 25 percent of Hezbollah’s weapons were destroyed. Although this is nowhere near the Israeli numbers, it is certainly significant.
Tel Aviv saw that, through their actions, they were capable of seriously shaking Hezbollah and putting them in a terrible political predicament, but eliminating them altogether was a goal that clearly failed.
So, the next step was to pursue this goal through other means. Instead of dissolving and the public support for the group evaporating, the base of the group inside Lebanon had doubled down. To them, what was done specifically to their former leader, Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah, ignited an everlasting fire, inflicting emotional pain that exists in each household until this day.
Israel then sought to impose an equation whereby they could fire at will in Lebanon, while forcing the pro-American stooges picked to run the government to do their bidding. Naturally, the US and Israel knew that the disarmament of Hezbollah was never going to happen by the end of the year, and, without any roadmap as to how to achieve it, there was not even the slightest chance of success with this strategy.
Nevertheless, the US-Israeli alliance has pursued this push to disarm Hezbollah, the Iraqi PMU, Hamas, along all the Palestinian resistance factions, through political maneuvers and agreements.
While ceasefire agreements hold in both Gaza and Lebanon – translating to Israel reducing its attacks while its enemies actually respect the agreements – they scheme for the next inevitable round of confrontations.
Before proceeding with this line of analysis, it is important to establish Israel’s goal, which is to both conquer or impose its will on more territory and eliminate its regional opposition entirely. A perfect demonstration of what happens in the event of disarmament is the case of Syria, where the Israeli military continues to illegally occupy more territory, arm separatists to fight a government it is dealing directly with and refuses to allow the country to enjoy any sovereignty.
The new Syrian government has collaborated with the Israelis openly in the south of the country, worked on their behalf to stop weapons transfers into Lebanon, kicked out and disbanded all the Palestinian resistance groups in the country and is openly aligned with the US. Despite all of the Syrian regime’s pandering, the Israelis are still arming groups to divide the country into separate sectarian regimes and bomb it, at will, additionally refusing to allow the rebuilding of the Syrian army.
On October 7, 2023, the Israelis suffered a severe blow, yet they also saw an opportunity to go after every one of their opponents and to carve out their “Greater Israel Project”, which its Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu admits to and frames as a “seven-front war”.
In this regional war, Iran is its strongest opposition. However, they have no actual ground options against the Israelis, meaning that as long as any round of conflict with the Islamic Republic is short, they can survive. Hezbollah, on the other hand, has a ground force consisting of around 100,000 men, which makes up for the lack of parity when it comes to missiles and other capabilities.
Incapable of winning any decisive victory over Hezbollah, the Israeli strategy is to put the Lebanese group on the back foot, to open up new rounds of war that will set them back further, each time damaging them, but not inflicting a total defeat. This strategy means that the wars have to be limited and not all-out.
In the Israeli mindset, the Lebanon question is similar to the Gaza question. Solving it is not only destroying Hamas or Hezbollah, because another group will inevitably rise to assume their position. The issue is to use proxy groups, whether sectarian or extremists of whatever flavor, to divide society and turn their focus on within. It is a process by which the people there must be re-educated, propagandized, forced into internal division and controlled as slaves who adhere to Israel’s regional ambitions. Syria is a great example of Israel’s dream.
When we now turn to Israel’s most recent threats against Lebanon, we are in a phase of political pressure being applied upon the government in Beirut, but also on the public, which is collectively anxious about the perceived inevitability of war. Should that war soon come, the Israelis will seek to achieve their goals quickly, impose immense suffering and then go back to a ceasefire, similar to what we have now.
If Hezbollah fails to inflict a perceived defeat upon the Israelis, it will severely damage their image and even sow doubt amongst their own supporters, who all long for revenge. Not only do they seek revenge for what Israel did last year, but they continue to suffer daily oppression at the hands of the occupying force that remains in the south of their country.
The Israelis believed that symbolically imposing their dominance over the Lebanese people, something clearly on display with the fighter jet flyover of Beirut during the funeral of Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah, they could beat the people’s spirits down. For now, they have only grown more motivated towards revenge.
Broadly speaking, the public perception, even amongst Hezbollah’s most die-hard supporters, is that Israel is militarily superior and the old perception of the Lebanese group’s power is gone. From an Israeli perspective, this is a good thing, yet it could also serve as the opposite in any future battle.
Hezbollah was perceived as a massive victor in the 2006 war, not because they decisively defeated Israel, but because they were such a massive underdog and still managed to dictate the pace of the conflict in many regards. Mere survival for such an armed group was considered a victory, let alone the master-class pulled off by the group during the war. Back then, Hezbollah did not possess weapons that could hit Tel Aviv, let alone guided ballistic missiles and suicide drones. In many ways, it was comparable to the power of Hamas on October 7, 2023.
Therefore, if Hezbollah plays its cards correctly this time around, it could come off with what is considered a devastating defeat of Israel. The problem with this will be Israel’s reaction to its own failure, as we are no longer in the era of 2006-style battles being permissible, as was the case in Gaza; the Israelis could exit a battle, as occurred in 2014, and be content, but not now. If the Israelis start getting embarrassed in Lebanon, they could feel the need to escalate further.
This is where two major questions arise: Will Iran fight alongside Hezbollah? And how far are Hezbollah willing to go?
Under the scenario that Iran joins in, this could lead to two potential outcomes: A much broader war or an intervention that forces the Israelis to close the war and accept defeat. The Iranians also have their Iraqi Popular Mobilization Units (PMU) allies, who number above 250,000 and could potentially be used to fight Israel, also.
The reason why Iran could decide to throw its weight behind Hezbollah, this time, is down to the inevitability of another US-Israeli attack on them and the fact that losing Hezbollah could spell strategic defeat.
As for the question of how far Hezbollah is ready to go, if its current Secretary-General, Sheikh Naim Qassem’s rhetoric about waging “a Karbalae battle”, that is to say a war to the death, then we should expect their forces to enter the northern Galilee. If this occurs, Israel will interpret it as another October 7-style failure, meaning the number of civilians we can expect them to kill across Lebanon will be unprecedented.
If Hezbollah fighters breach the borders, this will provide a moment of truth for the Palestinian Resistance in Gaza, as well. What the groups in Gaza will do is impossible to predict, but there will certainly be major decisions that will have to be made in such a scenario.
All of this is, to some extent or another, understood by the Israelis. They know the dangers of pursuing this course of action and what happens if it spirals out of control, yet it appears as if they are willing to take these chances. So far, the Iranians have decided to hold back and so the Israelis have walked away from each round, having achieved some objectives and only suffering minor consequences.
If Israel gets its way, it will seek to continue its phased attacks on Gaza, Lebanon and even Iran, each time attempting to score new victories and to inflict major psychological blows on the populations inside these countries. Israeli victory hedges upon limited confrontations and maximum civilian suffering, to rob the people of their sense of stability, their faith in victory, and to divide them, turning the people on each other as a means of crippling their leadership.
Lebanon Speaker Berri: Unlike ‘Israel’, Hezbollah Fully Complied with Ceasefire
Al-Manar | November 4, 2025
Lebanese Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri affirmed on Tuesday that the Hezbollah resistance group fully complied with the ceasefire agreement with the Zionist entity, noting that ‘Israel’ had not done so.
Speaking from his residence at Ain Al-Tineh during a meeting with a delegation from the Union of Islamic Radio and Television Networks, Berri wondered: “When, where, and how has Israel ever respected a single clause of the ceasefire agreement?,” referring to continued Israeli attacks on Lebanon.
He noted that the Lebanese Army “deployed south of the Litani River with more than 9,000 soldiers and officers, fully capable of extending its presence to the internationally recognized border.”
The Lebanese speaker emphasized the importance of activating the ceasefire monitoring “mechanism” process, noting the possibility of seeking assistance from civilian and military experts when needed, as was done in delineating the Blue Line and the maritime border.
Berri revealed that US envoy Morgan Ortagus had discussed two issues during her recent visit, Israel’s claim of weapons flowing from Syria and the negotiation process.
“Both claims are false,” he said. “The US, which controls the skies through satellites and advanced surveillance, knows this well,” the speaker said in remarks carried by local media.
Moreover, Berri criticized “certain domestic voices that reject even mentioning the word ‘Resistance’ in political or media discourse,” wondering: “What country in the world denies the purest chapter of its own history?”
Regarding the electoral law, Berri stated: “We told everyone that if there are ideas for solutions, we have ours and are ready to discuss them — but do they really want a solution? The current law is in force, and elections must be held on time; otherwise, a political confrontation is inevitable.”
Addressing reports of normalization with the Israeli enemy, Speaker Berri voiced confidence that the Lebanese people “will say no.” In this context, he recalled remarks by late Lebanese jurist Abdallah Lahoud, who said that “the only sect that has no interest in peace or normalization with Israel are the Maronites — let alone the rest of Lebanon.”
On reconstruction and southern resilience, Berri said, “The most important battle today is the battle of steadfastness and remaining on our land, despite the daily killing and destruction by the Israeli occupation forces.”
Featured Video
The Iran War has destroyed fertilizer markets and farmers everywhere, almost
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Study Buried For Four Years Shows Crime Lab DNA Testing Is Severely Flawed
By Tim Cushing – TechDirt – September 27, 2018
DNA is supposed to be the gold standard of evidence. Supposedly so distinct it would be impossible to convict the wrong person, yet DNA evidence has been given far more credit than it’s earned. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- The Iran War has destroyed fertilizer markets and farmers everywhere, almost
- Capitulate or Die: The Gaza ‘peace process’ and Western propaganda
- FSB Blows Lid on Western Plot to Hack Russian Officials’ Phones — But Here’s the Shocker
- Do Palantir’s bosses have blood on their hands over the Starobelsk massacre?
- US Eyes Spreading its Nuclear Footprint Deeper into Europe – Report
- Kiev admitted it launched drones at NATO member – media
- Russia Raises Alarm Over Ukraine’s Surging Black Sea Terrorist Activity
- ‘Luring Russia into war’
- Russia accuses France and the UK of piracy over cargo ship seizure
- Hungarian PM Magyar claims that he has obtained billions in EU funds, but what strings are attached?
- If Americans Knew
- Israeli settlers, soldiers, gov’t go all out against West Bank Palestinians – Daily Update
- A Slow-motion Execution of the West Bank Health System
- The Palestinian journalists held in Israel’s ‘cemeteries for the living’
- Super PAC Network Backing Connie Chan Received Hundreds of Thousands from AIPAC
- Israel’s Solution to the Gaza Problem Is Well Underway
- UK Bans Prominent Commentators Over Their Statements on Israel
- Israel’s killing machine deepens its invasion into Lebanon – Daily Update
- ‘To call it a ceasefire is a joke’: Israeli soldiers share rare accounts from Gaza with AP
- Israeli Espionage: How Israel and its American agents stole US uranium
- From Paul Findley to Thomas Massie: How the Israel Lobby Purges Republican Dissenters
- No Tricks Zone
- Germany’s Ecological Holocaust… Once Fairy Tale Forests Getting Cleared For Wind Turbines
- A Grand Solar Minimum Has Arrived…Global Cooling Of At Least 1°C Is Expected By The 2030s, 2040s
- European “Expert Commission” Urges COVID-19-Like Global Climate State Of Energency!
- Real-World Observations Do Not Support The Position That Climate Change Is Human-Caused
- Germany’s AfD Party Calls Debunked Climate Scenarios “Greatest Fraud In Human History”
- Researchers Find Rapid Global Warming Phase At End Of Last Ice Age (Ca.18,000 Years Ago)
- Even The DNA Of Single-Celled Plankton Can Upend Alarmist Arctic Sea Ice Melt Claims
- Scandal: Although Climate Panic Is Canceled By IPCC, Europe’s Policymakers Continue With Their Crushing Policies
- How Once Hardcore Climate Alarmist Lucy Biggers Realized It Was All A Scam, Brainwashing
- German Expert: “No Climate Crisis” …”Warming Generally Better For Humanity”
Aletho News 