US Strikes Kill Five in Alleged Pacific Anti-drug Campaign
teleSUR – April 13, 2026
United States military forces killed five men after striking two boats in the Pacific Ocean suspected of links to drug trafficking, according to the US Southern Command (Southcom).
Southcom said the vessels were intercepted along known routes in the Eastern Pacific and targeted on the grounds that they were associated with organizations designated as terrorist groups. In the first boat, three crew members were onboard; two were killed and one survived. Authorities notified the US Coast Guard to initiate search and rescue protocols for the survivor. In the second vessel, all three occupants died in the strike.
The command released a 34-second video showing explosions on both boats while at sea, describing the actions as part of a strategy of “applying total systemic friction on the cartels.” The strikes are part of Operation Southern Spear, launched in September across Central America, South America, and the Caribbean.
Despite having the operational capacity to intercept vessels, seize alleged illicit cargo, and detain those onboard, US forces have continued to carry out bombardments in similar scenarios.
Since the start of the campaign, U.S forces have killed at least 168 people and destroyed 50 vessels, according to official records and analyses of search and rescue data. Reports indicate that at least 15 individuals have survived such operations, with two briefly detained by the US Navy before being repatriated. Another 11 people are presumed dead after not being located during rescue efforts.
Washington has framed the campaign as part of its efforts to curb drug trafficking flows in the region.
EU Defense Agency head says compulsory military service could be necessary
RT | April 13, 2026
Compulsory military service could be reinstated in the EU, Andre Denk, the head of the European Defense Agency (EDA), has said, citing a lack of volunteers.
Several EU countries have reintroduced the draft since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022, citing the perceived ‘Russian threat’.
President Vladimir Putin has dismissed claims that Russia harbors aggressive intentions against its Western neighbors.
In an interview with Spain’s El Pais published on Monday, Denk said, “we have a human resources problem, and one of the ways to solve it will be through mandatory military service” – adding that his home country of Germany will likely go down this path eventually.
Denk also urged EU nations to invest more in domestic arms production, with a particular focus on drones and anti-drone systems.
Last year, Finland announced plans to raise the upper age limit for rank-and-file military reservists by 15 years, from 50 to 65, starting in 2026.
The country, which shares a 1,340-km (830-mile) land border with Russia, abandoned its long-standing policy of military neutrality and joined NATO in April 2023.
Around the same time, Lithuania unveiled an expanded conscription plan that would run year-round from 2026 on. It reinstated compulsory military service in 2015 after a seven-year suspension.
In neighboring Latvia, Defense Minister Andris Spruds stated last September that his party, the Progressives, would seek mandatory military service not only for men, but also for women, starting from 2028.
Several months earlier, Denmark announced that it would begin drafting women this year.
In Germany, a new law that took effect on January 1 and introduces a voluntary model has sparked protests, with critics warning that it could open the door to reinstating conscription, which was suspended in 2011.
France To Vote On Bill That Would Criminalize Criticism Of Israel
France Is About To Outlaw Criticism Of Israel
Protesters hold a banner reading “Supporting Palestine is not a crime” and “Stop genocide in Gaza” at a rally against the Yadan bill, in Paris on 12 April 2026.
The Dissident | April 13, 2026
A bill that the French National Assembly will vote on, on April 16th and 17th, effectively outlaws criticism of Israel, making it a criminal offence to question Israel’s “right” to exist as a Jewish supremacist apartheid state on occupied Palestinian land, compare Israel’s conduct to the Nazis, or support armed resistance against Israeli occupation and aggression.
The bill writes, “Today, anti-Jew hatred in our country feeds on obsessive hatred towards Israel, regularly delegitimized in its existence and criminalized. This phenomenon is exacerbated by extreme spirits who, under the pretext of expressing their hatred towards a State, are the instigators of a reinvented anti-Semitism, which could be described as ‘geopolitics’.”
The bill seeks to criminalize critics of Israel and paint them as terrorists, writing that the “call for the destruction of Israel and its comparison to a Nazi regime – are rooted in consciences with impunity, taking up the rhetoric of movements recognized as terrorist such as Hamas or Hezbollah.”
The bill seeks to criminalize:
- “Public remarks presenting acts of terrorism as legitimate resistance” (ie support for armed resistance against the Israeli genocide in Gaza or occupation of Lebanon).
- “Causing the destruction or denial of a State or publicly advocating its destruction or denial” (i.e., questioning Israel as a Jewish apartheid state, including calls for a single democratic state in historic Palestine with equal rights).
- “to clarify and extend the crime of challenging the Shoah, by enshrining several essential contributions of case law” adding “the comparison of the State of Israel to the Nazi regime would therefore be sanctioned as an outrageous trivialization of the Shoah” (i.e. factually pointing out that the state of Israel is behaving like the Nazis, including by committing Genocide in Gaza, as the UN independent international commission found in September of last year, and by calling for an expansionist greater Israel and ethnic cleansing to establish Jewish settlements ,similar to the Nazi concept of Lebensraum, an idea that has been openly endorsed by Benjamin Netanyahu and his main political opponent Yair Lapid).
Analyst Arnaud Bertrand documented that the bill attempts to make the criminalization of speech as broad as possible.
He noted that “Article 1 introduces the concept of ‘implicit’ provocation to terrorism and punishes it with five years imprisonment and a fine of €75,000,” adding, “What does ‘implicit provocation to terrorism’ mean? Nobody knows. And that’s the point. It means whatever a prosecutor wants it to mean: a perfectly good case could be made that, for instance, quoting international law on the right of occupied peoples to resist with respect to Hamas is, in fact, ‘implicit provocation to terrorism.’”
He added that “The same article also expands the terrorism apology offense to include ‘minimizing or trivializing acts of terrorism in an outrageous manner’” adding that “a judge could decide that providing context, explaining root causes, or insufficiently condemning an act amounts to ‘trivializing’ terrorism”, “for instance, a history teacher explaining the origins of Hamas or Hezbollah is providing context – but a prosecutor could argue that contextualization is trivialization. The same reasoning could apply to a journalist, a researcher, or anyone on social media who says ‘yes, it was terrible, but here’s why it happened.’ The ‘but’ becomes a crime, as it is trivialization.”
He also noted that, “ if you advocate for a one-state solution where Israelis and Palestinians live as equals, you are de-facto calling for the ‘destruction’ of the state of Israel. Well, that would now be punishable by 5 years in prison”.
The bill is called “the Yadan Law” because its creation was headed by National Assembly deputy Caroline Yadan, who represents the “French legislative constituency for citizens abroad” where “Israel has the largest number of voters in the constituency, with over 50,000 registered French voters”.
JNS noted that, “Yadan was elected to parliament as a representative of Renaissance but downgraded her ties to the party, switching to an independent affiliated lawmaker in September following the Macron administration’s decision to recognize a Palestinian state.”
In other words, the bill was brought by a Zionist French politician whose main constituency are Israelis.
Arnaud Bertrand noted, “The U.S. has congressmen paid by AIPAC: France has cut out the middleman entirely, we have MPs whose constituency is literally in Israel.”
Caroline Yadan is a genocide denier who has written, “The term genocide corresponds neither to the rights nor to the facts, nor to the intentions of the war in Gaza.”
Referring to the bill, the former French anti-terrorism judge Marc Trevidic said, “I’d never seen anything like it, the notion of implicit incitement to terrorism. Can you imagine what that means? A censor of other people’s thoughts, trying to figure out what a person meant”.
There is no doubt that this bill is designed to silence criticism of Israel, and that the lawmaker behind it is pushing it forward on behalf of her Israeli constituents.
Trump’s desperate bombasts amount to war crimes
By William J. Watkins Jr. | The Libertarian Institute | April 13, 2026
President Donald Trump owes the Pakistanis for securing a fourteen-day ceasefire with Iran. He now has a chance to extricate the United States from the biggest blunder of his second term. Tensions, however, remain high. “It is emphasized that this does not signify the termination of the war,” the Iranian government said in a formal statement. “Our hands remain upon the trigger, and should the slightest error be committed by the enemy, it shall be met with full force.”
One must worry that Trump does not appreciate the ceasefire off-ramp as good luck or an unmerited gift; instead, he likely will credit his threats to destroy “a whole civilization…never to be brought back again.” If the ceasefire breaks down, Trump could fulfill his commitment to “rain Hell” on Iran.
While typing away on Truth Social, Trump is oblivious that he is giving an anticipatory confession to war crimes. In addition to the posts quoted above, the president has threatened to destroy Iran’s power plants, oil wells, and desalinization facilities if certain demands are rejected. Civilizational devastation, Trump raved, “will be in retribution for our many soldiers, and others, that Iran has butchered and killed over the old Regime’s 47 year ‘Reign of Terror.’”
Trump’s promises violate fundamental tenets of the laws and customs of armed conflict (also known as international humanitarian law, “IHL”) which yields individual criminal responsibility under international law. This area of IHL is clear and not subject to different spins.
As an initial matter, Trump’s war plans violate protocols to the Geneva Convention codifying the principle of distinction. According to Article 48 of the relevant protocol, “the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives.” [Emphasis added] Article 51 further prohibits “[a]cts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population.”
Trump’s possible targets enumerated on Truth Social are integral to provision of basic services to civilians. The president is not threatening military bases, missile silos, or drone manufacturing facilities. Instead, he proposes to bring suffering on Iran’s civilian population simply because he can. IHL prohibits such methods of war as uncivilized.
Trump and his war hawk apologists will likely counter that destruction of certain infrastructure could produce a military benefit and thus is allowed. This is not true. Article 51 sets forth the principle of proportionality which prohibits military attacks expected to cause harm to civilians that is excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. Just because soldiers use electricity and drink water does not mean that the United States is justified in destroying all of Iran’s power plants and desalinization facilities.
Further damning to the president’s case is his stated reason for attacking civilian targets and infrastructure: “retribution” for the conduct of a regime he alleges no longer holds power. IHL strictly prohibits reprisals against the civilian population. A reprisal is an action typically illegal that is taken to force the enemy to stop its own violations of IHL. For example, if Iran executed American prisoners of war (“POWs”), the United States could execute Iranian POWs to persuade Iran to comply with the Geneva Convention. In the present conflict, Trump has not identified Iranian IHL violations and even if he had done so, the United States could not institute reprisals against civilian targets or persons.
At best, Trump’s statements on Truth Social are desperate bombast from a leader who regrets taking advice from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC). At worst, they are an outline for barbarism unfit for the leader of a federal republic.
If the ceasefire does not result in a permanent settlement and Trump follows through on his threats to civilians and civilian infrastructure, IHL is squarely against him. He should not be surprised if the International Criminal Court (“ICC”), which is charged with investigating war crimes and similar matters, issues a warrant for his arrest. Such a warrant would prevent Trump from traveling outside of the United States because of the risk of arrest. No more golf trips to Ireland for the Donald.
While Trump has just complaints about the lawfare waged against him by the likes of Alvin Bragg, Letitia James, and Fani Willis, an ICC matter would be different. Trump’s own words convict him and are counter to the established laws and customs of armed conflict.
Iran’s report details US-Israeli war crimes in targeting schools, hospitals, livelihoods
Press TV – April 10, 2026
Iran’s Human Rights Headquarters has condemned the US-Israeli attacks that “deliberately” targeted civilian places directly affecting people’s daily lives and livelihoods as a “clear violation” of the most basic humanitarian and legal principles, stressing that they amount to “war crimes”.
In a statement on Friday, the office strongly condemned “the repeated and deliberate attacks by the Zionist regime and the United States against a wide range of civilian targets, including residential homes, hospitals, medical and relief centers, vital infrastructure, economic centers, bridges, schools, as well as vessels and barges used for people’s livelihoods”.
The statement referred to the attack on four fishing boats in the Lengeh port and other civilian vessels set ablaze, saying the attacks have directly violated “fundamental human rights, including the right to life, the right to work and the right to development.”
These acts of aggression “may amount to war crimes”, it said, referring to threats by US President Donald Trump and his war secretary Pete Hegseth to return Iran to the “Stone Age” and attack its vital infrastructure as “a clear evidence of the war crime intent of this aggressor regime.”
The statement noted that the fundamental principle of separation – the principle of distinction between military and civilian – in international humanitarian law obliges all parties to the conflict to avoid targeting civilian persons and property.
“Systematic attacks against ordinary people, the country’s vital arteries and development infrastructure are a gross violation of these principles and constitute a war crime.”
The statement also emphasized that the US and Israeli practice of “collective punishment” of the Iranians breaches the principle of prohibition of the threat and use of force in international law.
“This inhuman approach, which is devoid of the logic of law, morality and human conscience, reveals the true mentality” of those behind these “brutal” attacks, it added.
The statement urged the international community, human rights institutions and the United Nations to take immediate, decisive action against the US and the Israeli regime for committing these crimes and holding them accountable for these crimes.
It warned that any silence or indifference on the part of international institutions constitutes “approval and complicity” in these crimes.
How UK Regulator Ofcom Quietly Bypassed International Law to Police American Speech
A UK regulator bypassed every formal legal treaty and just emailed American companies into compliance, 98% of them apparently obliged
By Dan Frieth | Reclaim The Net | April 9, 2026
A Freedom of Information response has confirmed what the UK’s speech regulator would probably have preferred to keep quiet. Ofcom fired off 197 information demands to American tech companies under the Online Safety Act, and not a single one went through the US-UK Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty, the formal diplomatic process that exists for exactly this kind of cross-border legal enforcement. Every one of those 197 notices was sent directly, by email or post, to companies operating entirely on American soil.
The number comes from a FOI request filed by Daniel Lü, who asked Ofcom a series of pointed questions about how it enforces the Online Safety Act against non-UK targets.
Ofcom confirmed that as of February 26, 2026, it had issued 197 Section 100 notices to US businesses. Zero through MLAT. The treaty between the US and UK that governs how one country’s legal process gets enforced in the other’s jurisdiction was treated as optional. Ofcom decided it didn’t apply.
That admission drew an immediate response from Preston Byrne, the American lawyer who represents 4chan and other US companies targeted by Ofcom.
Byrne called the 197 notices a “breathtaking” “attack on the First Amendment” and pointed out the uncomfortable math.
Only two US companies, 4chan and Kiwi Farms, have publicly refused to comply with Ofcom’s demands. If Byrne’s assessment is right, that leaves Ofcom enjoying “a 98% compliance rate with foreign censorship orders that violate the First Amendment.”
A British regulator sent nearly 200 demands to American companies, bypassed every established legal channel, and almost all of them appear to have simply done what they were told. The chilling effect is already here.
Ofcom Uses Free Speech to Hide Its Censorship Methods
Lü did more than ask for the number of notices. He asked for policy documents about how Ofcom selects its foreign enforcement targets, what guidance it gives its teams about the legality of emailing criminal penalty warnings to US corporations, and whether Ofcom has any internal guidance on protected speech.
Ofcom admitted it holds much of that information. Then it refused to hand it over. The reason, cited directly from the FOI Act, was that disclosure “would, or would be likely to, inhibit the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation; and/or would otherwise prejudice, or would be likely otherwise to prejudice, the effective conduct of public affairs.”
A speech regulator is claiming that transparency about its censorship operations would damage free and frank deliberation. Ofcom is borrowing the language of free expression to shield itself from accountability over how it suppresses expression. The irony is so complete it feels deliberate.
On the question of whether Ofcom holds any guidance on protected speech, the answer was even more revealing. Ofcom said it doesn’t have any. No internal documents addressing what speech is protected when it exercises its enforcement powers against foreign companies.
It pointed instead to its general obligations under the Online Safety Act, the Communications Act 2003, and the European Convention on Human Rights, along with links to already-public guidance documents. That’s the speech protection regime for companies being censored by the UK from American soil: a few hyperlinks to existing publications.
The MLAT Problem Isn’t New. It’s Getting Worse.
The treaty issue is central. MLAT exists so that when one country wants to enforce its laws against people or companies in another country, there’s a formal process involving both governments. For the US side, that means routing through the Department of Justice. A judge gets involved. There’s oversight. There are procedural protections.
Ofcom has previously argued it doesn’t need to use MLAT because its Section 100 notices are administrative, not criminal. That distinction might satisfy Ofcom’s lawyers in London, but it doesn’t satisfy anyone else. Byrne and his clients have argued in federal court that Ofcom’s demands have no legal force precisely because they skipped the treaty process. 4chan and Kiwi Farms received their enforcement demands by email, sent to addresses that in some cases weren’t even authorized to accept legal service.
The Lü FOI also asked whether Ofcom holds any correspondence with the US Department of Justice or the FBI about its enforcement activity. Ofcom’s response: it holds no information related to this question. The regulator didn’t talk to anyone in the US government before firing off 197 demands to US companies. It just hit send.
What the FOI Actually Revealed, and What Ofcom Hid
Lü’s request covered six questions. The pattern in Ofcom’s responses tells its own story. On the questions where Ofcom could respond by linking to documents that are already public, it was happy to share. On everything else, it cited exemptions, claimed it didn’t hold the information, or both.
When asked for policy documents about enforcing the OSA against non-UK providers, including any records discussing MLAT, Ofcom said it holds some information but won’t release it. It also claimed it holds no records of MLAT discussions or legal guidance about whether emailing criminal penalty warnings to American corporations is valid. Either Ofcom never considered whether its enforcement method was legal under international law, or it did consider it and doesn’t want anyone to see that analysis.
When asked how it selects non-UK enforcement targets, Ofcom cited exemptions under the Communications Act 2003 and linked to its public enforcement guidance, plus its own decisions against 4chan and other US entities. The internal criteria, the actual decision-making process for choosing which American companies to go after, stayed hidden.
When asked about its approach to “qualifying worldwide revenue,” the basis for calculating fines that can reach £18 million or 10% of global revenue, Ofcom linked to its public guidance explaining that companies are expected to self-report their revenue to Ofcom. Companies that Ofcom is threatening with fines are supposed to voluntarily tell Ofcom how much money they make, so that Ofcom can calculate a bigger fine. The compliance incentives here are about as perverse as they get.
Byrne Goes to Congress
Byrne said he forwarded Ofcom’s admission directly to the US government. He tagged US Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy Sarah Rogers, Senator Eric Schmitt, and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, and called on Congress to act. This is consistent with Byrne’s approach throughout the Ofcom fight. He has previously said he copies the US government on Ofcom correspondence that crosses his desk.
The legal strategy from the US side has been to deny Ofcom any clean precedent. The four companies that received formal enforcement action, 4chan, Kiwi Farms, a mental health forum called SaSu, and the social network Gab, all refused to comply. 4chan responded to one of Ofcom’s fines with a picture of a hamster. The point was to make Ofcom’s orders publicly and visibly unenforceable on American soil, turning each attempted punishment into a political liability for the regulator rather than a deterrent for the rest of the American internet.
But the 197 number changes the scale of the problem. Those four companies were the public-facing enforcement targets, the ones Ofcom wanted to make examples of. Behind them, 193 other US companies apparently received quieter demands and, if Byrne’s analysis is correct, most of them complied without a fight. Without lawyers, without publicity, without anyone in Congress knowing it happened.
Byrne has pushed the GRANITE Act, a proposed law that would allow US entities to sue foreign governments for censorship attempts and void foreign censorship orders in US courts. Sarah Rogers, the US Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy, has appeared on GB News in London suggesting Congress is considering a federal version of the law. The Trump administration has made public statements objecting to the Online Safety Act. The US State Department sent diplomats to London in 2025 to challenge Ofcom directly.
Whether all of that translates into legislation remains an open question. Ofcom, for its part, has already moved on to bigger targets. After spending a year trying to fine platforms like 4chan and getting nowhere, the regulator recently opened new investigations into Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Roblox, and X. The small companies held the line. The question now is whether the large ones will too, or whether they’ll decide that complying with a foreign regulator’s censorship demands is easier than asserting their constitutional rights.
Alberta Bill Would Fine Political Deepfakes $10,000 Without Satire Exemptions
By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | April 7, 2026
Alberta’s government wants the power to fine people $10,000 for creating a political deepfake. The bill makes no distinction between a fake video designed to suppress votes and a satirical meme poking fun at the premier.
Justice Minister Mickey Amery tabled Bill 23, the Justice Statutes Amendment Act, 2026, on March 30.
The legislation would prohibit individuals and entities from creating or distributing deepfakes that are likely to mislead voters about the conduct or statements of a party leader, minister, leadership or nomination contestant, MLA candidate, the chief electoral officer, the election commissioner, Elections Alberta employees or election officers.
We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.
The ban’s reach is notable for what it doesn’t say. There is no carve-out for satire, no exemption for parody, no protection for political memes. A deepfake clearly labelled as humor could still be prosecuted if someone, somewhere, decided it was “likely to mislead voters” about a politician’s statements. Who decides what’s likely to mislead? The election commissioner, the same office empowered by the bill to issue directions to stop the creation, distribution, or publication of content it deems in violation.
Officials said the prohibition would apply at all times, not only during the election cycle. The ban operates year-round, every year, regardless of whether Albertans are anywhere near a ballot box. It applies to content about sitting politicians even when no one is voting.
“We know that deepfake technology is going to continue to improve, and the distinction between what is reality and what is fake is becoming more and more difficult to distinguish,” Amery said.
Alberta’s bill takes a different approach. Rather than relying on existing fraud and election interference laws to prosecute genuine bad actors, it creates a broad new category of banned speech and gives a government appointee the power to enforce it.
“Bill 23 ensures that our elections will remain fair and honest,” Amery said. “This is why Bill 23 will prohibit the creation and distribution of deepfakes that are likely to mislead voters about the statements or conduct of a candidate. Public confidence is essential to a healthy democracy.”
The phrase “likely to mislead” is where the real power sits. A deepfake of a premier singing a ridiculous song, obviously fake to any viewer, could technically be argued to mislead someone about the premier’s “conduct.” A satirical clip of a justice minister saying something absurd could be classified as a misleading depiction of their “statements.” The legislation provides no guidance on how to distinguish a genuine attempt at voter suppression from a political joke that happens to use AI-generated media.
Those who violate the rules face fines of up to $10,000, and entities up to $100,000. Additional fines could be imposed for each day of non-compliance. Those are serious penalties for speech that may well be constitutionally protected under the Canadian Charter. The chilling effect is predictable. An Alberta resident thinking about making a satirical AI video about their MLA now has a strong incentive to not bother. The government doesn’t need to prosecute anyone for the law to work exactly as a speech restriction always works, by making people think twice before they speak.
The bill also happens to be buried inside a much larger piece of legislation that quietly reshapes how Albertans can challenge their own government. Bill 23 would create a 12-month blackout period before and after provincial elections for starting or continuing a citizen initiative petition. It would also repeal deadlines for the government to call a referendum for any future successful policy or constitutional petition. A citizen petition that gathers enough signatures no longer comes with any deadline for the government to actually act on it. A petition delayed long enough is a petition that never matters.
Alberta already has laws against fraud and election interference. The question is whether a province needs a new law that bans a broad category of political expression, with vague definitions and no protections for satire or parody, enforced by fines that would bankrupt most individuals.
Opposition parties have indicated tentative support for the bill, which is unsurprising.
The deepfake provisions will probably pass. They’ll sit on the books alongside the citizen petition restrictions, the removed referendum deadlines, and the expanded government oversight of the signature verification process. Bill 23 gives the Alberta government more tools to control what citizens say about their politicians and fewer obligations to respond when citizens try to hold those politicians accountable.
The US-Israeli War on Science is an Assault on our Future
The late Dr. Mortada Sorour (left) and Dr. Hussein Bazzi (right), professors at Lebanese University who were killed by Israel.
International Union of Scientists | April 1, 2026
The International Union of Scientists condemns the American-Israeli killings of scientists and bombing of universities.
On 12 March 2026, the Israeli military killed Dr. Hussein Bazzi, chemistry professor and Dean of the Faculty of Sciences, and Dr. Mortada Srour, Professor of Chemistry and Physics, two scientists at the Lebanese University’s Rafik Hariri Campus in Hadath. This killing of scientists occurred in the context of Israeli bombings and invasion that have displaced around one million Lebanese and killed over 1100, a crisis that has been compared to the Nakba of 1948 and the ongoing Gaza Genocide. Israel has been destroying housing, including the apartments of surgery professor Haytham Kaafarani and chemistry professor Bilal Kaafarani.
On 23 March, US-Israeli forces killed Dr. Saeed Shamghadri, a distinguished professor of engineering at the Iran University of Science and Technology (IUST), along with his two children and others in his building. Since then, the US and Israel have bombed at least 20 of Iran’s universities, including the IUST in Tehran and the Isfahan University of Technology. This destruction is part of a larger pattern of US-Israeli scholasticide in Iran, including the massacre of more than 170 people, mostly schoolchildren, at an elementary school in Minab, and the targeting of more than 600 schools across Iran. The US military also tested a new weapon on a school in Lamerd, killing 21, mostly children.
Dr. Saeed Shamghadri, professor of engineering, killed in a US-Israeli bombing
Israel and the US have likewise attacked healthcare. Israel has bombed more than 60 healthcare facilities in Lebanon, while the US-Israel coalition has attacked at least 50 hospitals in Iran.
We recognize this violence as a continuation of the scholasticide perpetrated in Gaza, where US-backed Israel destroyed all of Gaza’s universities as part of their genocide. Scientists, universities, schools, and hospitals represent the future that humanity aims to build. By killing scientists, the US and Israel aim to destroy the futures of the people of Lebanon and Iran. Since the start of the Gaza Genocide in 2023, Israel and its backers have dismantled international law and the rules of war established in the era since 1945. These latest attacks confirm that the US and Israel have a vision of lawless destruction and slaughter.
The International Union of Scientists therefore condemns in the strongest possible terms the killing of scientists and the destruction of educational infrastructure by US and Israeli forces. We call upon the international scientific community to document these crimes against scientists and students, extend material support to displaced scholars, and demand accountability for the aggressors.
Germany seeks to restrict stays abroad for men of fighting age – Berliner Zeitung
RT | April 7, 2026
German men who remain abroad for more than three months without prior approval may start facing penalties under a military-related legal requirement, according to the Berliner Zeitung.
The rule obliges men of fighting age, between the ages of 17 and 45, to obtain permission before extended stays abroad. It came into force on January 1, 2026, but April is when the first three-month period expires and enforcement may begin, the outlet has said.
Germany is in the process of a massive military buildup, with plans to spend reportedly more than €500 billion (around $580 billion) on defense by 2029. German officials have set 2029 as the deadline for the armed forces to be “war-ready” for a potential conflict with Russia.
Moscow has repeatedly denied any plans to attack NATO as “nonsense” and ridiculed Western politicians over such claims. In February Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated that Russia had “no reason” to attack the EU or NATO unless attacked first.
The new requirement, which was introduced under the Military Service Modernization Act and reportedly largely went unnoticed, previously applied only during a “state of tension” or a “state of defense,” defined as situations of heightened external threat or armed attack. Since the amendment took effect, it now applies at all times, including in peacetime. The Defense Ministry said the measure is intended to maintain a reliable registry of individuals eligible for military service.
Several EU states, including Germany, have recently moved to reintroduce conscription. The German government has said the armed forces should grow from around 180,000 active soldiers to more than 260,000 by 2035.
Students staged protests in late March in German cities against Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s plans to expand military service. Demonstrators accused the government of preparing forced mobilization, with some chanting that “Merz should go to the front himself and risk his own life.”
The new rules faced criticism from the MPs in the Bundestag, with the Green Party’s security policy spokeswoman, Sara Nanni, telling Die Welt on Sunday that “citizens have a right to know quickly whether they are required to report, and if so, what their reporting obligations are.”
When addressed about the backlash by Politico on Tuesday, a spokesman for the German Defense Ministry said that it “is currently developing detailed provisions to allow for exemptions from the approval requirement, also with a view to avoiding unnecessary bureaucracy.”
According to the ministry, approvals to leave the country are expected to be issued in all cases as long as military service remains voluntary in Germany.
Al Mayadeen voices solidarity with Dr. Marandi amid death threats
Al Mayadeen | April 5, 2026
Al Mayadeen Media Network has expressed full and unwavering solidarity with Professor Mohammad Marandi in response to online campaigns openly calling for his assassination.
Professor Mohammad Marandi, a distinguished Iranian academic with global recognition, has been targeted by pro-Israeli accounts on X, including a verified account that posted a $1 million bounty explicitly calling for his assassination.
Despite repeated requests for the post’s removal and the suspension of the account, the platform and its CEO, Elon Musk, have taken no action.
Al Mayadeen characterized the spread of such content on global media platforms as ‘blatant, intelligence-driven terrorism,’ expressing profound outrage and disbelief that US-owned media outlets would permit calls for the extrajudicial killing of academics and scientists.
The network condemned these assassination threats as a manifestation of ‘cowboy-era barbarism,’ underscoring that Professor Marandi wields only his voice and his commitment to independent thought.
Al Mayadeen further highlighted the stark hypocrisy in permitting such threats against a peaceful academic while systematically curtailing the voices of those associated with resistance movements.
Call for global solidarity
Al Mayadeen called on the global academic, scientific, and media communities to publicly support Dr. Marandi and condemn the policies of major digital platforms that tolerate incitement to violence while suppressing legitimate expression.
The network warned that such practices foster a perilous environment in which intimidation and assassination threats can flourish unchecked.
“The threats against Professor Marandi are a stark example of how media platforms enable terror under the guise of free expression, while silencing those who challenge the status quo”, Al Mayadeen stated.
Professor Mohammad Marandi continues to be a leading authority on Iranian and regional affairs, and Al Mayadeen reaffirmed its commitment to safeguarding his right to speak freely, free from threats of violence or state-orchestrated harassment.
Bahrain faces scrutiny for opposition crackdown after detainee killed
Al Mayadeen | April 3, 2026
A Bahraini man detained during last month’s missile strikes on the kingdom has died in custody under contested circumstances, sparking renewed scrutiny of the country’s security practices amid wartime tensions.
Mohammad al-Mousawi, a Bahraini national who was detained as Bahrain came under attack from Iran, disappeared for several days before his family was contacted and asked to retrieve his body from a military hospital, relatives said. They reported that his body bore multiple injuries, including slash marks, bruising, and wounds on the soles of his feet.
His death has quickly become a flashpoint in the country, with critics accusing authorities of reverting to tactics used to suppress protests during the 2011 uprising.
Bahrain, which hosts the US Navy’s Fifth Fleet, has detained dozens of individuals since the outbreak of the war, including people accused of:
- filming strikes and demonstrations,
- expressing support for Iran against US-Israeli aggression
- alleged espionage.
“They want to make sure nobody challenges the state’s narrative and silence any voices not telling the story of the war how they want it to be told,” said Sayed Ahmed al-Wadaei of the Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy, a London-based advocacy group.
Bahraini Interior Ministry dismisses clear evidence
The Interior Ministry claimed al-Mousawi had been arrested on suspicion of spying for Iran, an allegation his family denies. Authorities also dismissed circulating images of his injuries as “inaccurate and misleading,” while insisting that the country is acting to protect national security.
In a statement, the government rejected accusations of sectarian discrimination, saying all actions were carried out in accordance with the law and that independent bodies are responsible for investigating claims of abuse.
Al-Mousawi had previously spent around 11 years in prison as part of a 21-year sentence on charges widely regarded as false, including accusations of arson and alleged membership in a “terrorist cell”. His family and rights groups have clarified that these charges are false and fabricated.
Severe abuse evident on al-Mousawi, Bahrain denies the obvious
A relative and a close family friend said Mohammad al-Mousawi disappeared on March 19 after attending prayers with two companions who also remain missing. Both spoke to the Associated Press on condition of anonymity, citing fears of reprisals. Rights groups have long accused Bahraini authorities of carrying out enforced disappearances.
On March 27, the family said they were called to collect his body. A relative who viewed it at the morgue reported signs of severe abuse, including injuries consistent with whipping using cables, as well as apparent electrocution and cigarette burns.
The Associated Press reviewed images of the body that showed marks consistent with accounts from five witnesses who said they saw it in person, all speaking anonymously. Bahrain’s Interior Ministry said al-Mousawi had been held by the National Security Agency, whose arrest powers were restored in 2017 after being revoked following the 2011 unrest.
The Ministry dismissed the images as “inaccurate and misleading,” while a military hospital attributed the death to a heart attack. His family said he had no known preexisting conditions. Ahmed Banasr of Physicians for Human Rights said the injuries were consistent with blunt force trauma, noting that wounds on the soles of the feet suggested abuse rather than a fall or fight.
Bahrain’s long record of repression, violence seeps into al-Mousawi’s case
Human rights organizations say the detention and death of Mohammad al-Mousawi mark a new phase in Bahrain’s long-running crackdown on opposition, which peaked during the 2011 protests. That year, the ruling Al Khalifa family suppressed mass demonstrations with support from Saudi and Emirati forces.
“It remains to be seen how far the government will go in its crackdown on people,” said exiled Bahraini activist Maryam al-Khawaja, whose father is imprisoned in Bahrain. “What we are witnessing now is certainly far more severe than in recent years,” she added.
Since the start of the war on Iran, at least 41 people, including migrant workers, have been arrested on accusations of publishing images of Iranian strikes. Some face charges of “treason”, which can carry penalties ranging from life imprisonment to the death penalty. In one case, 21-year-old Hussein Futeil and a friend were detained after posting videos of themselves waving a portrait of Iranian leader Sayyed Ali Khamenei during a protest outside the US Embassy.
According to his father, Naji Futeil, the two briefly reappeared after hours of questioning before Hussein later informed his family he faced five charges, including misuse of social media, incitement of hatred, and treason. Rights advocates say the cases reflect a broader effort to silence opposition, with Sayyed Ahmed al-Wadaei stating authorities aim to ensure no one challenges the state’s narrative.
Featured Video
House Resolution Calls for Tech Companies to Censor Speech
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
Book Review
Alarmist climate science as a textbook example of groupthink
By Paul MacRae | May 1, 2012
… Groupthink was extensively studied by Yale psychologist Irving L. Janis and described in his 1982 book Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes.
Janis was curious about how teams of highly intelligent and motivated people—the “best and the brightest” as David Halberstam called them in his 1972 book of the same name—could have come up with political policy disasters like the Vietnam War, Watergate, Pearl Harbor and the Bay of Pigs. Similarly, in 2008 and 2009, we saw the best and brightest in the world’s financial sphere crash thanks to some incredibly stupid decisions, such as allowing sub-prime mortgages to people on the verge of bankruptcy.
In other words, Janis studied why and how groups of highly intelligent professional bureaucrats and, yes, even scientists, screw up, sometimes disastrously and almost always unnecessarily. The reason, Janis believed, was “groupthink.” He quotes Nietzsche’s observation that “madness is the exception in individuals but the rule in groups,” and notes that groupthink occurs when “subtle constraints … prevent a [group] member from fully exercising his critical powers and from openly expressing doubts when most others in the group appear to have reached a consensus.”[2]
Janis found that even if the group leader expresses an openness to new ideas, group members value consensus more than critical thinking; groups are thus led astray by excessive “concurrence-seeking behavior.”[3] Therefore, Janis wrote, groupthink is “a model of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members’ strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action.”[4]
The groupthink syndrome
The result is what Janis calls “the groupthink syndrome.” This consists of three main categories of symptoms:
1. Overestimate of the group’s power and morality, including “an unquestioned belief in the group’s inherent morality, inclining the members to ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their actions.” [emphasis added]
2. Closed-mindedness, including a refusal to consider alternative explanations and stereotyped negative views of those who aren’t part of the group’s consensus. The group takes on a “win-lose fighting stance” toward alternative views.[5]
3. Pressure toward uniformity, including “a shared illusion of unanimity concerning judgments conforming to the majority view”; “direct pressure on any member who expresses strong arguments against any of the group’s stereotypes”; and “the emergence of self-appointed mind-guards … who protect the group from adverse information that might shatter their shared complacency about the effectiveness and morality of their decisions.”[6]
It’s obvious that alarmist climate science—as explicitly and extensively revealed in the Climatic Research Unit’s “Climategate” emails—shares all of these defects of groupthink, including a huge emphasis on maintaining consensus, a sense that because they are saving the world, alarmist climate scientists are beyond the normal moral constraints of scientific honesty (“overestimation of the group’s power and morality”), and vilification of those (“deniers”) who don’t share the consensus. … Read full article
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Iran unveils new control measures over Strait of Hormuz transit
- House Resolution Calls for Tech Companies to Censor Speech
- Ceasefire no longer viable after 200 days of Israeli violations: Hamas
- Israeli strikes intensify across southern Lebanon, casualties reported
- Left in Disbelief: Israel in Panic over Hezbollah FPV Drone Nightmare
- Trump Taps Israel Lobbyist From Mossad Cutout FDD To Join Iran Negotiations
- Trump’s Blockade Snatches Defeat from the Jaws of Victory
- Geopolitics and Geoeconomics of the Strait of Hormuz
- Mali: a new front in the Western war on multipolarism
- CHD Scientist: CDC, FDA COVID Vaccine Safety Monitoring ‘Insulting, and Many People Are Injured’
- If Americans Knew
- Israel’s New Ambassador to the ‘Christian World’ Served as Envoy to Azerbaijan During the Ethnic Cleansing of Christians from Nagorno-Karabakh
- US set to sell $1B “Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System” to Israel – Daily Update
- Israeli Strikes Kill at Least 32 Across S Lebanon, Including Children – Amid “Ceasefire”
- Israel to pour $730m into propaganda arm amid reputational crisis
- Real Cost of Iran War Likely Double the $25 Billion Figure the Pentagon Gave to Congress
- Israel conducts farthest-ever strike in long history of attacks on Gaza humanitarian aid flotillas
- In Gaza, Israel commits 10+ ceasefire violations a day – Daily Update
- US ships 6,500 tons of munitions, equipment to Israel in 24 hours
- A New Library in Gaza Rises From the Ashes of Destruction
- Israel’s top Jewish religious body ‘refuses to condemn’ smashing of Jesus statue
- No Tricks Zone
- Wind Energy Is Toxic, Hazardous To Human Health, Scientific Review Shows
- Oversupply Of Volatile Solar Energy Leads To Record NEGATIVE Prices!
- New Study: Extreme Heat Records, Heatwaves, Extreme Cold Records Declining Across US Since 1899
- It’s The Cold, Stupid! Cold 20 Times More Lethal Than Heat, Multiple Studies Show
- European Institute For Climate And Energy: “Climate Debate is Seldom About Science”
- New Study: The Climate May Be 5 Times More Sensitive To Solar Forcing Than Commonly Assumed
- EV Industry Reached $70 Billion In Losses In 2024 Due To Delusional Green Ideologies
- Reality Check: Maldives Have Actually Grown In Size Or Remained Stable Over Recent Decades
- Abrupt Climate Change Also Occurred NATURALLY In The Past …25 Times During Last Ice Age
- Cave Discovery Reveals Today’s Desert Climates Were Recently Far Warmer, Wetter, Teeming With Life
Aletho News 