“Smart War” and State Terrorism
By Laurie Calhoun | The Libertarian Institute | July 1, 2025
On June 16, 2025, President Donald Trump threatened the 10 million inhabitants of Tehran, Iran, with death, for their government’s alleged nuclear aspirations.
The message was posted to the president’s Truth Social account, shared on X/Twitter, and then picked up by all major mass media outlets, making it common knowledge to everyone on the planet that Trump was preparing to join Israel’s war on Iran.
On June 17, 2025, President Trump directly threatened Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei with assassination.
Sometimes crazy people issue vague threats which they have no power to follow through on. Such persons are best avoided and ignored. In order to be effective, death threats must be credible, otherwise there is no fear generated in the persons being addressed, for they recognize that they are dealing with no more and no less than a feckless buffoon. Whatever one may think of President Trump, his menacing social media posts are credible threats, given his official role as commander-in-chief with the power to unleash formidable military might on the people of the world. In case anyone did not already know this, Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt reminded the press corps on June 20, 2025, that “Iran and the entire world should know that the United States military is the strongest and most lethal fighting force in the world, and we have capabilities that no other country on this planet possesses.”
Trump’s warning to the entire population of Tehran that they should all evacuate the city was a fortiori a credible threat, given the U.S. government’s wide-ranging “War on Terror,” during which both Afghanistan and Iraq were invaded and occupied. Several other countries were subjected to thousands of missile strikes “outside areas of active hostilities,” that is, where there were no U.S. troops present and thus no force-protection pretext for the use of state-inflicted homicide.
Verbal threats of the use of deadly force by a president often culminate in military action because the commander may be easily persuaded by his advisors to believe that he (and the nation) will lose credibility if he fails to follow through on his words, which, he is told, would be a sign of weakness. Predictably enough, then, on June 22, 2025, President Trump delivered on his threat to bomb Iran, although he claimed to have struck only three specific sites: Fordow, Isfahan, and Natanz. It was at these sites where nuclear enrichment and the development of nuclear arms were allegedly underway. The Trump administration’s Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard reported to members of congress in March 2025: “The [Intelligence Community] continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.”
On June 17, 2025, when a journalist reminded Trump of Director Gabbard’s assessment, the president bluntly blurted out, “I don’t care what she said.” It has become increasingly obvious that Trump’s foreign policy in the Middle East is primarily informed not by his own cabinet but by the intelligence services of Israel, above all, Mossad.
For anyone unfamiliar with the modus operandi and general demeanor of Mossad, I recommend the films Munich (2005), The Gatekeepers (2012), and The Operative (2020).
That Trump has been decisively influenced by the government of Israel was further evidenced by his direct threat against Supreme Leader Khamenei and the fact that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been calling for regime change in Iran for decades.
On June 20, 2025, two days before Trump’s missile strikes on Iran, Director Gabbard did an about-face, insisting that her earlier testimony before congress had been misrepresented and ignored her finding that Iran had been enriching uranium:
Gabbard’s retraction, or creative reinterpretation, of her former testimony bears similarities to the case of Bush administration Secretary of State Colin Powell, who initially opposed the 2003 invasion of Iraq and then for reasons which remain unclear suddenly became one of the mission’s most ardent supporters. In Powell’s case, he went even so far as to present the case for war to a less-than-enthusiastic United Nations Security Council. After a colorful Powerpoint presentation featuring an array of ersatz evidence—ranging from speculation about Iraq’s aluminum test tubes, to a receipt for “yellow cake” purchase, to photos of what were claimed to be mobile chemical labs—Powell recognized that he did not have the votes needed to secure U.N. approval and so abruptly withdrew the war resolution. The United States then proceeded to invade Iraq unimpeded, claiming, among other things, that the 2003 military intervention was legal because of previous U.N. resolutions violated by President Saddam Hussein. In other words, after having sought U.N. approval, the U.S. government suddenly denied that it needed such approval before invading Iraq anyway.
Unlike George W. Bush, when Donald Trump bombed Iran “at a time of his choosing,” as they say, he did not have the support of the U.S. congress. Presidents Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Trump all depended on the Bush-era AUMFs as they continued to lob missiles on several countries beyond Afghanistan and Iraq, including Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, et al. But the carte blanche AUMFs granted to Bush in 2001 and 2002 had nothing whatsoever to do with the conflict between Israel and Iran. Neocons naturally devise all manner of interpretive epicyclic curlicues to arrive at the conclusion that Iran is in fact “fair game” for bombing. As stated and ratified, however, the AUMFs granted by congress to George W. Bush were intended to facilitate the U.S. president’s quest to bring justice to the perpetrators of the September 11, 2001 crimes.
Lest anyone forget, President Trump was not unique among twenty-first century presidents in bombing countries whose residents had nothing to do with the shocking demolition of the World Trade Center. President Obama effected a regime change in Libya without securing the support of congress because, he claimed, it was not really a war, since he was not deploying any ground troops. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did her part to persuade Obama that “Gaddafi must go!” She later characterized the Libya intervention as a shining example of “smart power at its best,” even though a few U.S. State Department officials, including the ambassador to Libya, Christopher Steele, were killed in the post-bombing mêlée. Today, Libya is essentially a failed state. Obama himself has confessed that the biggest regret and worst mistake of his presidency (reported in The Guardian) was not having a plan for the aftermath of his supposedly “humanitarian” intervention, which he enlisted NATO to carry out.
In the immediate aftermath of the June 22, 2025 missile strikes, Trump officials followed the Obama administration’s Libya playbook in insisting that his attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities was not the beginning of a long, protracted engagement in Iran. This was meant to draw contrast with the unpopular multi-decade wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Ignoring Trump’s threat to the residents of Tehran, Vice President J.D. Vance and others recited the Obama administration refrain that the mission was “not a war” with Iran. As Vance explained, the limited missile strikes were carried out only in order to dismantle Iran’s nuclear facilities. According to the government of Iran, a total of 610 people were killed and thousands more injured by the bombs of the U.S. and Israeli governments. However, none of the persons who perished were Americans.
Availing himself of the Obama-era “smart war” trope, Vice President Vance also observed that Trump’s preemptive military strikes differed from those of his predecessors because, unlike Trump, the previous presidents were “dumb”. Oliver Stone produced a film, W (2008), which persuasively portrays Bush as a half-wit, but no one ever suggested that Vice President Dick Cheney or the cadre of other war profiteers and neocons who coaxed Bush into preemptively attacking Iraq were stupid.
In any case, by now, the U.S. government has directly massacred so many thousands of people (and millions indirectly) in so many different countries, often located outside areas of active hostility (war zones or lands under occupation), that the citizenry has become largely inured to it all. Tragically, over the course of the twenty-first century, we have witnessed an apparently permanent paradigm shift to the profligate state use of homicide to terrorize and kill anyone anywhere deemed dangerous or even suspicious by U.S. officials or their contracted analysts. This radical paradigm shift was made possible by a new technology: the weaponized drone, which began to be used by the Bush administration first under a pretext of force protection in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Bush team effectively initiated the Drone Age by firing a missile on a group of terrorist suspects driving down a road in Yemen on November 3, 2002.
As the Global War on Terror stretched on and angry jihadists began to proliferate and spread throughout the region, President Obama assumed the drone warrior mantel with alacrity, opting to kill rather than capture thousands of suspected terrorists outside areas of active hostilities. In his enthusiasm for drone killing, Obama went even so far as to intentionally and premeditatedly hunt down and kill U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki (located in Yemen at the time, in 2011), without indicting him, much less allowing him to stand trial, for his alleged crimes.
Following the Obama precedent, in 2015, U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron opted to execute British nationals Ruhul Amin and Reyaad Khan, who were suspected of complicity in terrorism, after they had fled from the U.K. to Syria, and despite the fact that the parliament had rejected Cameron’s call for war on Syria. Cameron’s missile strikes against British citizens located abroad was all the more surprising because capital punishment is illegal in the U.K. as well as the European Union, of which Britain was a member at that time.
One state-perpetrated assassination leads to another, and on January 3, 2020, President Trump authorized the targeted killing via drone strike of a top Iranian commander, Qassem Soleimani, who was in Baghdad on a diplomatic mission at the time. Trump openly proclaimed, and indeed bragged, that the homicide, which he authorized, was intentional and premeditated. According to the president, Soleimani was responsible for past and future attacks against both Israel and the United States. The summary execution of a specific, named individual would have been considered an illegal act of assassination in centuries past but today is accepted by many as an “act of war” for the sophomoric reason that it is carried out by a military strike rather than undercover spies armed with poisons or garrottes.
In view of Trump’s unabashed, vaunted, assassination of Soleimani, and his full-throated support of Netanyahu, the threat to liquidate Supreme Leader Khamenei was just as credible as the “evacuation order” to the entire population of Tehran. Leaders today exult over their use of cutting-edge technology to eliminate specific, named individuals, as though summarily executing the victims were obviously permissible, given that targeted killing is now regarded by governments the world over as one of the military’s standard operating procedures. Such unlawful actions were fully normalized as a tool of “smart war” during the eight-year Obama presidency.
Shortly after Trump officials went out on the media circuit to insist that the bombing of Iran’s alleged nuclear production facilities was not the initiation of a U.S.-Iran war, Trump took to social media again, this time to suggest that his administration’s ultimate goal might really be regime change:
Less than one day later, the new official narrative became that Trump had masterfully brought the “twelve-day war” to a miraculous close, thanks to his superlative deal-making capabilities.
All of this would be risible, if not for the fact that many millions of persons in Iran continue to live under a persistent threat of death, given the wildly unpredictable comportment of President Trump, seemingly exacerbated by his longstanding commitment to stand by Israel, regardless of how outrageously Netanyahu behaves. The more and more daring acts of assassination perpetrated by the government of Israel clearly illustrate where state-perpetrated homicide and its attendant terrorist effects under a specious guise of “smart war” eventually lead.
Targeting named terrorist suspects allegedly responsible for previous crimes swiftly expanded to include signature strikes against groups of unarmed persons designated potentially dangerous and located anywhere in the world—in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Iran, or anywhere else they please. The Israeli government has even deployed exploding cellphones and car bombs, the latter of which was once a tactic primarily deployed by dissident anti-government groups and crime syndicates. The repeated use by the Israeli government of car bombs to kill research scientists illuminates the slippery slope from missile strikes outside areas of active hostilities to what are empirically indistinguishable from Mafia hits. Car bombs have long been used by the Mafia and other nongovernmental organized crime groups, but the Israeli government openly perpetrates the very same acts under cover of “national self defense”.
Washington’s normalization of assassinations has emboldened leaders such as Netanyahu, who today conducts himself according to the principle “everything is permitted” in the name of the sacrosanct State. Witness what has been going on in Gaza since October 7, 2023: terrorism, torture, starvation, and summary execution. All of this is being condoned by every leader in the world who continues to voice support for, or even aids and abets, Netanyahu’s mass slaughter. This support for mass slaughter is provided ostensibly under the assumption that the perpetrators are doing no more and no less than defending the State of Israel.
Following the examples of U.S. Presidents Trump and Obama, and UK Prime Minister Cameron, all of whom publicly vaunted their assassination prowess, Prime Minister Netanyahu, having apparently recognized that the implement of homicide is in fact morally irrelevant, openly and brazenly executes persons determined by Mossad to be dangerous, with no concern for the thousands of innocent persons’ lives ruined along the way. In Operation Red Wedding, the Israeli government claimed to have dispatched, in a matter of minutes, thirty senior officials associated with the IRGC (Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps) including military chiefs and top commanders located throughout Iran at the opening of the June 2025 “Twelve-Day War.” The operation was praised by the pro-Israel media as featuring “bespoke” acts of targeted killing made possible by “pattern of life” intelligence.
Drone assassination, successfully marketed by the Obama team as “smart war,” smoothed the way to the uncritical acceptance by many citizens of the reprobate expansion of state killing to include acts historically committed by members of nongovernmental organized crime. Looking back, the rebranding by U.S. officials of political assassination as an act of war, provided only that the implement of death is a missile, was a slick and largely successful way of persuading U.S. citizens to believe that extrajudicial, state-inflicted homicide abroad is an acceptable means to conflict resolution. Even though it bypasses all of the republican procedures forged over millennia, including judicial means, for reconciling the rival claims of adversaries.
In the maelstrom of the twenty-first-century wars on Afghanistan and Iraq, assassination was labeled targeted killing and successfully sold to politicians as “smart war,” a surgically precise way to defeat the enemy without sacrificing combatant troops. Whichever label is used, assassination or targeted killing, acts of summary execution by governments involve the intentional, premeditated elimination of persons suspected to be possibly dangerous, a criterion so vague as to permit the targeting of virtually any able-bodied person who happens to be located in a place where terrorists are thought to reside.
There are three differences between “targeted killing” carried out by drone warriors and assassination. First, the weapon being used is a missile. Second, drone operators wear uniforms, while undercover assassins and hitmen do not. Third, far from being “surgically precise,” drone warfare increases the slaughter of innocent bystanders in their own civil societies, which is facilely dismissed as the “collateral damage” of war. In this way, the advent of lethal drones and their use outside areas of active hostility has served to terrorize entire populations forced to endure the hovering above their heads of machines which may—or may not—emit missiles at any given time on any given day.
Credible death threats to heads of state and evacuation orders issued to millions of people not only terrorize the persons being addressed, but also undermine the security of the citizens of the United States. The populace will bear the brunt of the blowback caused by such reckless behavior on the part of officials who operate with effective impunity and are ignorant of or oblivious to the nation’s republican origins. By launching preemptive missile strikes, the Pentagon does not protect but sabotages the interests and well-being of not only U.S. citizens but also the citizens of the world.
Nonetheless, many U.S. politicians and members of the populace, along with heads of state such as Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney, U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Australia Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, et al., having been thoroughly seduced by the “smart war” marketing line, appear to have no problem whatsoever with the tyrannical and arguably deranged death threats of the U.S. president. They have become altogether habituated to the assassination of persons now regarded as a standard operating procedure of war. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen effectively condoned Trump’s behavior by issuing this statement in the aftermath of the June 22, 2025 U.S. missile strikes against Iran: “Iran must never acquire the bomb.”
If terrorism is the arbitrary killing of or threat of death against innocent persons, then there can be no further doubt that the largest state sponsor and perpetrator of terrorism in the twenty-first century is in fact the U.S. government. President Trump inherited from President Obama and his mentor, drone-killing czar John Brennan (appointed by Obama as CIA director in 2013), the capacity to terrorize entire civilian populations and execute individuals at his caprice. No less than every drone strike launched in the vicinity of civilian populations beyond war zones, Trump’s completely unhinged threat to a group of people with nowhere to seek refuge, and no way of knowing whether the U.S. president is issuing a serious warning or simply bluffing, attempting some sort of perverse ploy to bring Iran’s Supreme Leader Khamenei back to the negotiation table (where he was, before Israel began bombing Iran), was an act of terrorism.
It is not “smart” to terrorize millions of human beings in the name of preventing terrorism. It is a contradiction, pure and simple.
Laurie Calhoun is a Senior Fellow for The Libertarian Institute. She is the author of Questioning the COVID Company Line: Critical Thinking in Hysterical Times,We Kill Because We Can: From Soldiering to Assassination in the Drone Age, War and Delusion: A Critical Examination, Theodicy: A Metaphilosophical Investigation, You Can Leave, Laminated Souls, and Philosophy Unmasked: A Skeptic’s Critique. In 2015, she began traveling around the world while writing. In 2020, she returned to the United States, where she remained until 2023 as a result of the COVID-19 travel restrictions imposed by governments nearly everywhere.
Moscow blasts US redo of ‘Iraqi weapons of mass destruction’ stunt
RT | June 22, 2025
Russia has sharply condemned the United States for its airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, calling the attacks “irresponsible, provocative and dangerous,” and warning they risk pushing the Middle East toward a large-scale war with potentially catastrophic nuclear consequences.
Speaking at an emergency session of the UN Security Council on Sunday, Russian Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia accused Washington of violating the UN Charter, international law and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
“The United States has opened a Pandora’s box, and no one knows what consequences may follow,” Nebenzia said, noting that by targeting IAEA-supervised nuclear sites, Washington has “once again demonstrated total disregard for the position of the international community.”
Nebenzia drew a pointed comparison to the lead-up to the 2003 Iraq War, when then-US Secretary of State Colin Powell presented false evidence to “justify the invasion of another sovereign state, only to plunge its people into chaos for decades and not find any weapons of mass destruction.”
“Many today feel a strong sense of déjà vu,” he said. “The current situation is essentially no different: we are once again being urged to believe in fairy tales in order to once again bring suffering to millions of people living in the Middle East.”
Russia argued that Tehran has not been proven to be pursuing a nuclear weapon, echoing earlier assessments by US intelligence that were dismissed by President Donald Trump as “wrong.” Nebenzia accused Washington of fabricating a narrative to justify the use of force and of undermining the decades-long diplomatic framework built around Iran’s peaceful nuclear program.
The Russian envoy also criticized what he described as the hypocrisy of Western nations that had for days called for “restraint” in the same Security Council chamber, yet failed to condemn Washington for joining Israeli strikes – and even blamed Iran for the escalation.
“We are witnessing an astonishing example of double standards,” he said. “Iran has been and remains one of the most thoroughly inspected states under the NPT, but instead of encouraging such an attitude, it receives bombardments of its territory and civilians by a state that refuses, in principle, to sign the NPT.”
Nebenzia warned that the US strikes undermine the authority of the IAEA and the global non-proliferation regime, and that continued escalation could return the world to an era of uncontrolled nuclear risk.
“This is an outrageous and cynical situation, and it is very strange that the Director General of the IAEA did not say a word about it. Neither has he ever called on Israel to join the NPT,” Nebenzia added.
Calling for urgent action, Russia – joined by China and Pakistan – submitted a draft Security Council resolution demanding an immediate and unconditional ceasefire and a return to diplomatic talks on Iran’s nuclear program.
Recycled Blatant Lies: US & Israel Push for Regime Change in Iran – Expert
By Svetlana Ekimenko – Sputnik – 19.06.2025
The United States and Israel are in “open rebellion against international law and the UN Charter,” according to Professor Alfred de Zayas, author of 10 books including “The Human Rights Industry” and “Building a Just World Order.
The US and Israel are pushing a “primitive, vulgar pretext” to justify aggression against Iran, Professor Alfred de Zayas told Sputnik.
The former UN Independent Expert on International Order underscored that for them, facts are irrelevant.
“Blatant lies, propaganda and demonization of Iran suffices to create an atmosphere that would dupe the American people and the world into ‘tolerating’ an invasion,” he stressed.
Both the IAEA and US intelligence admit there’s “zero evidence” Iran is building a bomb, he reminded.
Furthermore, military force is expressly prohibited under Article 2(4) of the UN Charter.
“If there is a violation of the Non Proliferation Treaty, Iran can be excluded from the benefits of the NPT, but under no conditions can there be aggression,” according to the expert.
Same Playbook, Different Target
Disregarding international law and the UN Charter, the US and Israel are recycling the 2003 tactics – false WMD claims – that were used to justify regime change in Iraq, said Alfred de Zayas.
In 2003, at least Jacques Chirac of France and Gerhard Schroeder of Germany refused to participate in the illegal war. Now, even more countries, like France and Germany, are on board with this, the pundit remarked.
Mainstream Media Complicit
“The media bears considerable responsibility for this tragedy that may yet develop into World War III,” the pundit warns.
Iran calls on UN Security Council to hold Israeli regime accountable for its crimes
Press TV – June 13, 2025
Iran’s Permanent Representative of to the United Nations, Amir Saeed Iravani, addressed an emergency session of the UN Security Council on Saturday
Iran’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Amir Saeed Iravani, addressed an emergency session of the UN Security Council on Saturday following the Israeli military aggression against the Islamic Republic.
He called on the UN Security Council to “strongly condemn” the “illegal aggression” by the Israeli regime and demanded urgent and concrete measures by the world body to hold the regime accountable and prevent further destabilization of international peace and security.
Israel launched a series of premeditated and coordinated attacks early on Friday, targeting multiple Iranian cities, including nuclear facilities and vital civilian infrastructure.
The envoy described the Natanz nuclear site in central Iran’s Isfahan province – under full International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards – as a primary target.
“These criminal and savage attacks have killed at least 78 people, including senior military officials and innocent civilians, among them women and children, with over 320 wounded,” he told the gathering.
Iravani described the latest strikes as deliberate massacres and acts of terrorism, violating international law and human conscience.
The ambassador criticized the UN Security Council and UN nuclear agency for their inaction in response to Iran’s repeated warnings about Israeli threats to its nuclear facilities, accusing them of emboldening the regime to escalate aggression and cross red lines.
Iravani emphasized the potential catastrophic radiological consequences of attacks on safeguarded nuclear sites, warning that the effects could extend far beyond Iran’s borders.
He said Israel’s aggression also violated the sovereignty of Iraq, whose airspace was used for the aggression, with the Iraqi permanent mission to the UN formally protesting the breach.
The ambassador held the United States responsible for enabling the Israeli strikes, citing Washington’s intelligence, political support, and weapons transfers.
“The complicity of the United States in these terrorist acts is undeniable,” he said.
Iran reaffirmed its inherent right to self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter.
Recalling Security Council Resolution 487 (1981), which condemned Israel’s previous attack on Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor, Iravani called on the council to enforce international law and hold Israel accountable. He stressed that decades of inaction and double standards have emboldened Israel’s aggressive conduct.
“Any failure to act now,” he warned, “would signify the collapse of the international system and invite chaos.”
Are UK Atrocities in Afghanistan a Smokescreen for IDF Defenders?
Sputnik – 13.05.2025
Emerging reports about atrocities perpetrated by British special forces against civilians in Afghanistan may be a part of a “preemptive defense” of the IDF, former Pentagon analyst Ret. Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski told Sputnik.
If and when stories of “the incredibly disturbing activities of the UK- and US-supported IDF in Gaza” come out, the public would already be taught beforehand that “war is awful, civilians and sleeping children are always killed and it’s just a few bad apples.”
Regarding the UK soldiers and officers involved in illegal activities in Afghanistan, Kwiatkowski believes they should be placed on unpaid leave and “tried in a legal court.”
Any key eyewitnesses and whistleblowers “need immediate protection from suicide or accidents,” Kwiatkowski adds.
Hell freezeth over as Sharaa gets invited to Baghdad
By Rasool Majeed | The Cradle | April 30, 2025
Syrian interim President Ahmad Sharaa’s return to Iraq – once unimaginable following his departure in 2011 – now seems possible with Iraq set to host the Arab summit on 17 May. But the question of whether Sharaa will attend has become a flashpoint, highlighting deep divisions within Iraq.
At the time of his departure, Sharaa, also known as Hayat Tahrir al Sham (HTS) leader Abu Mohammad al-Julani, was affiliated with the Al-Qaeda-linked group the Nusra Front, an early incarnation of HTS – both UN-designated terrorist organizations – and left Iraq to join the foreign-backed war against Syria.
Having been exiled from Iraq, the very idea that he could return, not as a visiting foreign dignitary but as Syria’s head of state, has stirred opposition across political, sectarian, and tribal lines. The invitation, coming from the Arab League, has stirred serious concerns about Iraq’s sovereignty and its ability to manage West Asia’s evolving challenges.
Imposed by the Arab League
Amir al-Fayez, a member of Iraq’s Foreign Relations Committee, makes it clear to The Cradle that Iraq’s role in inviting Sharaa is not voluntary. The invitation, he explains, is mandated by the Arab League, and Iraq is expected to fulfill its duties as the host nation by sending invitations to all Arab heads of state. However, Iraq itself has little to no influence on the decision to invite Sharaa.
The Arab League’s decision to reinstate Syria in 2023 after a long suspension in 2011 has only complicated Baghdad’s position. While Sharaa’s return to the Arab fold is seen as a diplomatic victory for post-Assad Syria, Iraq has faced significant backlash domestically, with many questioning the wisdom of hosting a leader who has twice been incarcerated on terror charges in Iraq and is deeply linked to the country’s violent past.
The Arab League’s push to reintegrate Syria has brought these tensions to the surface, and Iraq’s internal factions are grappling with the political fallout.
Interestingly, the Foreign Relations Committee in the Iraqi Parliament supports Sharaa’s invitation to the summit in Baghdad. Fayez notes: “As a Foreign Relations Committee, we appreciate this position on the government’s part as it is tasked with sending invitations to all Arab heads of state without exception.”
Resistance factions’ rejection
But political parties and resistance factions in Iraq, including influential groups such as Asaeb Ahl al-Haq and Kataib Hezbollah, have voiced strong opposition to Sharaa’s visit. Qais al-Khazali, the leader of Asaeb Ahl al-Haq and an early backer of Iraq’s current Prime Minister, Mohammed Shia al-Sudani, made his stance clear on social media, warning of the potential consequences if Sharaa enters Iraq.
Khazali pointed to an arrest warrant against Sharaa, emphasizing that his presence would be illegal under Iraqi law. For these factions, Sharaa is not just a foreign leader, but a figure associated with violence, instability, terror, and murder in Iraq, making his visit untenable.
On 16 April, Sudani officially invited Sharaa to participate in the upcoming Arab summit in Baghdad. Three days later, Khazali posted on X, warning against Sharaa’s entry into Iraq, saying:
“The presence of the current Syrian regime president in Iraq is premature, as it could lead to repercussions if the law is applied and he is arrested by the security forces, due to an existing arrest warrant against him. Accordingly, and in accordance with the principle of the separation of powers, the decisions of the Iraqi judiciary must be adhered to and respected by all.”
A day before Khazali’s post, Abu Ali al-Askari, the security official for Kataib Hezbollah, also posted a statement clearly rejecting Sharaa’s visit to Iraq, pointing out:
“Arab summits were held without the presence of President Assad and without Iraq or Libya. These summits will not stop just because the convicted (Abu Mohammad Al-Julani), leader of the criminal Nusra Front, does not attend.”
Shia lawmaker Yousef al-Kalabi, described Sharaa’s entry into Iraq as “a betrayal of the memory of Iraqis who suffered under terrorism.”
Regarding Sudani’s meeting with Sharaa in Doha through Qatari mediation, Firas al-Yassir, a member of the political bureau of Al-Nujaba Movement, tells The Cradle :
“There is certainly Iraqi consensus rejecting any meeting with Sharaa by any person holding an official position in the Iraqi state. According to Iraqi law, the man is wanted by the Iraqi judiciary and is accused of killing Iraqis during the days of terrorist operations.”
Yassir adds: “No individual or entity has the right to violate Iraqi law or undermine the blood of Iraqis. If it is true that Sudani’s meeting with Sharaa in Doha occurred under American and [Persian] Gulf pressure, it would be considered a setback in Iraq’s foreign policy.”
He continues: “I expect that there is a political and popular consensus rejecting Julani’s attendance at the summit, and he is not welcomed. The issues raised about him should be addressed.”
Conditional rejection
While many have outright rejected Sharaa’s visit, some figures within the Iraqi political system, like Thair Mukhayef, have called for a more nuanced approach. Mukhayef, a tribal leader and member of parliament, has stated that while he opposes Sharaa’s visit, the matter should be decided based on Iraq’s judicial system.
According to Mukhayef, if Sharaa is proven guilty of crimes committed during the Iraq War, his visit should be barred. This position underscores the tension between legal considerations and diplomatic pragmatism. Mukhayef tells The Cradle :
“Sharaa took his position in what is called a coup against his government. There has been much talk and rumors about his involvement in violent acts in Iraq, and arrest warrants have been issued against him. Therefore, we are with the law and what the judiciary issues concerning this person.”
He adds, “If this man (Sharaa) indeed committed crimes and has an arrest warrant, we do not respect anyone who sheds the blood of our sons, and then he comes to have a red carpet rolled out for him to attend conferences and lecture on Arab nation policy within Iraq. I will reject the arrival of this figure if it is proven that he is the one who exploded, killed, and planned those crimes.”
He confirms that “Sharaa’s invitation to the summit is not from Iraq. Yes, I am with the absolute rejection, and I am not justifying it. But the invitation came from the Arab League, and Iraq is hosting this conference. I repeat the confirmation, we are with the judiciary and what it says. If it is proven that Sharaa has committed violent acts, killings, and destruction in our country, we absolutely and completely reject his entry into Iraq.”
The tribal divide
Tribal leaders in Iraq, a powerful political force in the country, have also been divided over Sharaa’s invitation. They have had a significant impact on political and security events in Iraq, from the 1920 Revolution to the post-independence period, through to the US invasion of 2003 and their uprising against ISIS in 2014 and beyond. This makes their stance on Sharaa’s invitation to Iraq significant.
Shia tribes have almost unanimously rejected Sharaa’s visit, with the Unified Tribes Council of Iraq issuing a statement calling for opposition to Sharaa, citing his role in past violence against Iraqis. These tribes view his presence as a betrayal of the bloodshed suffered during the Iraq War.
However, Sunni tribes have been more divided. Some, like former politician Mishaan al-Jubouri, have expressed support for Sharaa, downplaying his past and framing his visit as a diplomatic necessity. Jubouri and others have argued that Iraq should prioritize its regional interests, including relations with Syria, and not allow historical grievances to overshadow current political realities.
On the other hand, leaders like Sheikh Mazahim al-Huwait, a Sunni tribal leader from Ninawa, have firmly rejected Sharaa’s visit. Huwait, while supportive of trade and security cooperation with Syria, has condemned Sharaa as a figure linked to Iraq’s violent past.
Huwait’s opposition is based on both Sharaa’s personal history and the broader implications of hosting a leader implicated in the bloodshed of Iraq’s sectarian conflict. He tells The Cradle :
“We reject Julani’s visit to Iraq because his hands are stained with the blood of Iraqis, and he himself has openly admitted that after his release, he participated in operations in Iraq, having been a prisoner in US jails in 2005, where he was with me in detention … Sharaa has an arrest warrant under Article 4 Terrorism issued by the Iraqi judiciary and the Counter-Terrorism Agency. Therefore, we reject his visit.”
Regarding exchanges such as Syrian Foreign Minister Asaad al-Shaibani’s visit to Iraq or Iraqi delegations traveling to Damascus, Huwait supports them, stating: “Such visits are necessary, as cutting off trade visits and those related to security coordination is not correct. Syria is a neighboring country, and its security means Iraq’s security.”
On the Sunnis who welcome Sharaa to Iraq, Huwait opines:
“Those who welcome him, whether leaders or tribal sheikhs, are followers of the arenas of humiliation and disgrace and do not represent the Sunni community but only themselves.”
A tactical move?
While many factions and figures within Iraq oppose Sharaa’s visit on legal and moral grounds, some analysts view it as a strategic move within the larger context of Iraq’s foreign policy. Prime Minister Sudani’s meeting with Sharaa in Doha, mediated by Qatar, is believed to be part of a broader effort to enhance Iraq’s position in the region, particularly in relation to Iran.
By engaging with Sharaa, Iraq seeks to balance its ties with both Syria and Iran, which are critical to its security and political stability. Huwait, though opposed to Sharaa’s visit, acknowledges Iraq’s diplomatic role in the region and its need to engage with neighboring countries, including Syria:
“Iraq now has a significant role on the political scene, especially in the Middle East (West Asia), and it has succeeded in distancing many risks in the region, including with the Islamic Republic. There were risks concerning it with the US, and Iraq played a major role in this.”
He adds:
“It’s a heavy matter for Sudani to meet with a person who has killed his people, but Sharaa is now the president of Syria, and some countries have recognized him, and the Syrian flag is raised everywhere, including in Iraq. Sharaa asked Sudani to open dialogue with Iran, as he is in a difficult situation. He knows that opening channels with the Islamic Republic and ending conflicts with it will bring several countries, including Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen, and others, to his side.”
Sudani’s second term under fire
Those opposing Sharaa’s visit to Iraq base their objection on “his criminal record in the country” and his participation with extremist factions from 2005 to 2011, but some observers see this as “just an excuse.” The real aim of the rejection, they claim, is to embarrass Iraqi premier Sudani on the global stage and seize any opportunity to prevent him from securing a second term.
Speaking to The Cradle, Iraqi writer and political observer Jabar al-Mashadani argues:
“The Shia factions fighting within the Coordination Framework will seize any opportunity to prevent Prime Minister Sudani from securing a second term. Different parties within the framework want the position of prime minister after the upcoming elections. These factions exploit any political step in their favor, whether internal and highly local, like investment, reconstruction, and services issues, or external and strategic, especially regarding Iraq’s relationship with its anxious neighbor Syria, which affects Iraq’s internal security and politics.”
As the Arab summit approaches, the question of whether Sharaa will attend remains unresolved. While legal, political, and moral objections to his visit are strong, Iraq’s role as the summit host and its broader diplomatic interests may ultimately shape the outcome.
Regardless of whether Sharaa sets foot in Baghdad, his invitation has already sparked a major political divide within Iraq. The decision on Sharaa’s attendance may not only influence Iraq’s relationship with Syria, but may also shape the country’s future diplomatic course in a region marked by tension and shifting allegiances.
Iran signs contract to convert Iraq’s flare gas into petchem feedstock
Press TV – April 14, 2025
Iran has secured a contract to convert flare gas from Iraqi oilfields into feedstock for petrochemical plants located near its border with the Arab country.
Iranian Oil Minister Mohsen Paknejad and Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister for Energy Affairs Hayyan Abdul Ghani supervised the signing of the contract on Monday in Baghdad, according to a report by the Iranian Oil Ministry’s news service Shana.
The report said that Iran’s state-run and private companies will contribute to the flare gas recovery project in the Iraqi oilfields that are located near the Iranian border.
The report quoted Paknejad as saying that Iraq is currently burning a part of the flare gas that is extracted with oil, adding that Iran will capture the gases and transport them to its Natural Gas Liquids (NGL) plants across the border to convert them to feedstock for its petrochemical plants.
He said that the contract will alleviate a shortage of NGL feedstock in western Iran where the country is racing against time to end gas flaring in its own oilfields.
Shana said Paknejad and his delegation, who arrived in Iraq earlier in the day as part of an official visit, signed other contracts with the Iraqi side led by Abdul Ghani to facilitate petroleum sector cooperation between the world’s two major oil-producing nations.
Abdul Ghani, who is also Iraq’s oil minister, said after meeting his Iranian counterpart that the Arab country needs Iran’s technical and investment support to reach self-sufficiency in petroleum products.
The contracts include the exchange of experts between Iran and Iraq and launching joint investment projects, Shana said.
During his two-day visit to Iraq, Paknejad will also meet Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia’ Al Sudani and the country’s Minister of Electricity Ziad Ali Fadel.
Iraqi Kataib Hezbollah denies Reuters’ report citing ‘commander’
Al Mayadeen | April 7, 2025
Iraqi Kataib Hezbollah stated that the remarks attributed by Reuters to an individual described as a “Kataib Hezbollah commander” do not reflect the group’s principles or positions.
The brigades emphasized that all official media statements are made solely by their official and military spokespersons.
Any claims made in the name of Kataib Hezbollah by individuals other than these spokespersons are considered false and defamatory, it stressed.
Reuters had reported that Iraqi armed groups are ready to dismantle amid fears of a Trump strike, citing senior Iraqi commanders and officials.
Kataib Hezbollah, a group active under the umbrella of the Islamic Resistance in Iraq, took part in the military operations against Israeli targets in response to “Israel’s” war on the Gaza Strip.
US-Iran war would set entire region ablaze: Iraqi official
Last week, the Secretary-General of Iraq’s Badr Organization, Hadi al-Amiri, cautioned that a war between Iran and the United States would not be a “walk in the park” or a simple affair but would set the entire region on fire.
“The outbreak of war with Iran does not mean it will be a walk in the park; rather, it will set the entire region ablaze,” al-Amiri warned during a meeting with tribal leaders and dignitaries from Diyala province at the headquarters of the Popular Mobilization Forces’ Diyala Operations Command.
The Iraqi politician stressed that “no one should assume that we and other countries of the region will stand idly by if war breaks out between Iran and the US.”
His remarks come two days after US President Donald Trump threatened to bomb Iran if no agreement was reached on its nuclear program.
Ali Larijani, senior advisor to the Leader of the Islamic Revolution Sayyed Ali Khamenei, warned that any US or Israeli attack on Iran under the pretext of its nuclear program would force Tehran to move toward producing a nuclear bomb.
Iranian officials have also rejected negotiations under pressure or threats, affirming Tehran’s readiness to respond firmly to any attack.
Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian stated that Tehran was open to indirect negotiations with Washington but pointed out that the US approach would determine the course of the discussions.
The High Price of War with Iran: $10 Gas and the Collapse of the US Economy
By Dennis J. Kucinich | March 25, 2025
Israel is currently in turmoil, marked by widespread protests demanding Netanyahu’s resignation. Critics accuse him of prolonging war for political gain, while his dismissal of top security officials and ongoing attacks on the judiciary have further intensified the unrest.
Meanwhile, Washington DC’s drumbeat for war never stops. It’s always at the expense of a decent and secure standard of living for people in this country and abroad.
The Trump Administration, after the series of heady airstrikes against Yemen, is at this moment being beseeched by Netanyahu and his associates to prepare for a seemingly consequence-free nuclear strike against Iran, completing the trifecta of Netanyahu’s long-standing dream.
I have consistently warned against the consequences of an attack on Iran, delivering 155 speeches to the House, 63 presentations alone in the 109th Congress, between 2005 and 2007, when the Bush Administration deliberated using nuclear “bunker-busters” as a means of bringing Iran to heel.
I understood the politics then and I understand them today. I warned hundreds of times that it was not in America’s interests to go to war against Netanyahu’s hit list: Iraq, Iran, Libya…
IRAQ
In 2002, the Bush Administration caused Americans grieving over 9/11 to believe Iraq had a direct role in the attacks which took over 3,000 lives. Except, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
Bush claimed Iraq was pursuing nuclear weapons and other “Weapons of Mass Destruction” (WMDs) and was an imminent threat to the U.S. Iraq did not have WMD’s. Iraq was not a threat to the U.S. Iraq had no ability to attack America. Didn’t matter.
The war against Iraq began 22 years ago and lasted eight years. One million innocent Iraqi men, women and children perished because of lies. They were killed in relentless bombings and aggressive ground operations.
At least 4,443 U.S. servicemen and women were killed, and an estimated 32,000 wounded during “Operation Iraqi Freedom,” because of lies.
The lies cost U.S. taxpayers at least $3 trillion. Three trillion hard-earned tax dollars of the American people were spent to pay for the destruction of the people of Iraq while Americans struggled to pay bills for housing, health care, and education and the nation went further into debt.
Remember this diabolical playbook: Create a pretext. Lie to the American people about a threat. Hype the threat. Create irrational fear. Tell them military action is needed to eliminate the threat, and their fears. Bombs away.
On September 12, 2002, as a Member of Congress, I grilled then-former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during a congressional hearing entitled, “An Israeli Perspective on Conflict with Iraq” (video and transcript link below). Despite evidence to the contrary, he testified that Iraq and its leader, Saddam Hussein, were a direct threat to America due to an alleged pursuit of WMDs including a nuclear weapon. He urged the U.S. to take military action against Iraq.
I inquired of him who else he would have the United States attack.
“Iran and Libya,” he said.
I spoke to Mr. Netanyahu outside the hearing room and asked him that if he was so convinced those countries were a threat, why didn’t Israel commence the attacks?
“Oh no,” he responded. “We need you to do it.”
On October 10, 2002, the House of Representatives, by a vote of 296-133, authorized the use of military force against Iraq. I led the opposition. The war bill passed the Senate the next day, 77-23, and was signed into law by President Bush on October 16, 2002.
On March 20, 2003, the President describing Iraq as part of an “Axis of Evil,” commenced a “Shock and Awe” onslaught by American warships, aircraft and submarines, launching cruise missiles and “precision guided bombs” roundly murdering people in Baghdad. Iraq was destroyed. Saddam was deposed, captured and hung.
Libya
On March 19, 2011, despite lacking formal congressional authorization, President Barack Obama authorized an attack on Libya to depose Muammar Gaddafi. I led the opposition. Hillary Clinton’s State Department, the EU, NATO, the UK and France to name but a few, lobbied Congress hard to accelerate actions against Libya.
That country’s leaders were dumbfounded as to why, considering that they had done everything America had asked, such as open markets to foreign investment. I held up the bombing for some time by building a bi-partisan coalition of Members of Congress to vote no.
Alas, Obama and the Clinton State Department prevailed. Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner negotiated a redraft of the authorization bill and the Republicans fell in line.
The U.S., with NATO allies, joined forces, wreaking destruction and havoc upon Libya. Gaddafi was deposed, captured and killed, at an estimated cost of over a billion dollars. Obama admitted years later that this was the worst decision of his Presidency.
Iran
On July 25, 2024, Prime Minister Netanyahu, (while under a criminal investigation by the Israeli judiciary), addressed the U.S. Congress concerning Iran, which he characterized as not only a deadly enemy of Israel, but also of the United States.
“Iran’s axis of terror confronts America, Israel and our Arab friends,” Netanyahu declared.
The interests of Israel and America were and are inseparable, he proclaimed – to 58 standing ovations. One could take that heroic reception as rubberstamping an authorization for war. As Netanyahu had told me years ago, “…we need you [the U.S.] to do it.”
Today, the Houthis of Yemen continue their attacks on Israeli shipping interests in the Red Sea, in protest to the Netanyahu government’s genocidal attack on Gaza.
President Trump, ever sensitive to and allegiant to Israel, views the Houthis as proxies of Iran. The President directed America’s air forces to rain down fire and brimstone upon Yemen, a nation of teenagers. The median age in Yemen is 18.4 years. The country spends about 1/1000 of the U.S. military budget for its own defense.
Trump threatened the Iranian government: “Every shot fired by the Houthis will be looked upon from this point forward, as being a shot fired from the weapons and leadership of IRAN (his emphasis). And IRAN will be held responsible, and suffer the consequences, and those consequences will be dire.”
The Administration followed up with Executive Order (E.O.) 13902, which, according to the U.S. Treasury Department was part of a “campaign of maximum pressure” which “targets Iran’s petroleum and petrochemical sectors and marks the fourth round of sanctions targeting Iranian oil sales…”
The first Trump Administration withdrew from a Joint Plan of Action agreement (JCPOA) which provided Iran relief from sanctions in exchange for accepting limitations which would preclude nuclear weaponization.
President Trump ordered the assassination by drone strike of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, considered the second most powerful person in Iran, at the Baghdad airport, underscoring his determination to strike at Iran.
Iran has consistently asserted its nuclear research is for peaceful purposes. There has been a long-standing formal prohibition in Islamic law, a fatwa, issued by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran, against the development or use of nuclear weapons.
Recently, President Trump said he would love a deal to prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapon, “I would love to make a deal with them without bombing them.”
At the same time, U.S. B-52 bombers, capable of delivering nuclear bunker-busting bombs, were engaged in joint exercises with the Israeli Air Force, in preparation for a potential strike at Iran’s underground nuclear sites.
These joint maneuvers were reminiscent of the cooperation and interoperability exercises that took place between the UK and French forces in preparation for a real-world offensive against Libya in 2011.
Ayatollah Khamenei replied “…threats will get them (the Americans) nowhere,” and refused talks under such conditions as “deceptive.” Iranian Brigadier General Kiumars Heidari added, for emphasis, “Iran is ready to crush its enemies if it makes mistakes.”
The dialectic of conflict is escalating.
It was not in America’s interest then, nor is it now, to go to war with Iran, a nation of 90 million people, a technologically advanced society, with nearly a million-person army.
President Trump should not be misled. War with Iran would be the end of his presidency. Here is why:
Iran supplies 3% of the world’s oil. If the U.S. goes to war with Iran, crude oil prices per barrel (currently ranging from $68.86 (West Texas Intermediate) – $72.28 (Brent Crude), could rise to $200 per barrel.
The Strait of Hormuz, a major conduit for the transport of oil would be disrupted. Iran has the capability retaliate by targeting Gulf oil infrastructure, including Saudi Arabia. Market panic would ensue.
The price of a gallon of gas, currently averaging $3.13, would double, approach $7 a gallon, and in some cases, reach $10 a gallon, in states with higher fuel taxes. (This is based on historical data which calculates that every $1 increase in crude oil per barrel translates to about a 2 to 3 cent increase per gallon at the pump).
Attempts to manage supply disruptions and market distortions through the release of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve would do little to offset panic buying and stockpiling by consumers. Nor would an increase in U.S. domestic drilling be sufficient to offset lost Middle East oil supplies, due to supply shortage, infrastructure constraints and limitations on refining capacity.
Major disruptions, including high inflation, recession risks, and market instability would hit the US economy. Consumer retail spending would sink while prices rose for food and other goods, as energy costs for manufacturing, agriculture and transportation spiraled out of control.
Slower economic growth would push the U.S. into a recession, with the Fed forced to try to maintain control over inflation by hiking interest rates well beyond the current 4.25% – 4.50 % range.
Auto sales would take a hit. Corporate profits in transportation, airlines, trucking would nosedive. The Dow Jones and S& P 500 would be in shock, with major selloffs. America would arrive at stagflation, high inflation rates and negative growth as it did during the 1973 Oil Embargo.
The multiple economic impacts of the 2008 subprime meltdown and subsequent financial crash which cost the US economy $16 to $20 trillion dollars would become the morbid benchmark for the descent of the American economy.
Now contemplate this concatenation: War with Iran, reciprocal high tariffs, massive cuts in the federal workforce and domestic federal spending and you have an economy in a tailspin, with high inflation, rising unemployment, falling consumer spending, leading to an economic contraction requiring a system of government intervention which is currently being dismantled. Then there is the permanent restructuring of the tax code to accelerate wealth upwards. These conditions create political combustibility.
In the end, Iran will never crush Donald Trump. The U.S. will crush itself trying to wipe out Iran.
The economic effects of war with Iran could spell the end, not only of the viability of the Trump Presidency, but of the Republican House and Senate, a political turnaround the likes of which has not been seen in American politics since the 1932 sweep led by Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the New Deal.
In 1928 Republican Herbert Hoover took 58.2% of the popular vote and defeated Democrat Al Smith 444-87 in the Electoral College. Amidst a complete rejection of Republican economic policies and the Depression, Roosevelt took 57.4% of the popular vote in 1932 and defeated Hoover in the Electoral College 472-59.
The 270-164 advantage which House Republicans held in 1928 evaporated in 1932 as Democrats crushed Republicans with a 313-117 majority.
There has not been another turnaround like this in American political history and it was driven by the economic forces which overwhelmed a Republican Administration, followed by a program of promised reform which the new Administration delivered.
While the Administration is at the fullness of its expression of unbridled power, it faces a fateful decision regarding Iran which will determine whether the mandate received by Trump in 2024 evaporates as quickly as did Hoover’s in 1932.
Israel itself is in turmoil, with mass protests calling for Netanyahu’s resignation, charges he is prolonging the war for his political benefit, his firing of top security officials and his attacks on the judiciary.
Netanyahu is on shaky ground, pummeled by his fellow countrymen and women who worry, far from ensuring the future of Israel, his deadly policies threaten it.
One could imagine Trump, considering his own and America’s interests, could call Netanyahu and say, “Bibi, we are friends ‘til the end. This is the end.”
Links: 2002 Congressional Hearing “Conflict in Iraq: An Israeli Perspective” video and transcript
Unchecked expansionism: Senior Knesset member calls for ‘full Israeli control of Syria’
Press TV – March 10, 2025
In a brazen declaration of expansionist Zionist ambitions, an Israeli Knesset member has openly called for Syria to be placed under the regime’s full control.
Boaz Bismuth said Israel “will not allow a military force to emerge in Syria after Assad’s fall.”
“Damascus must be under full Israeli control, and we will ensure that it comes under our control.”
The remarks reveal long-standing Israeli objectives to reshape West Asia by force.
“Syria is our bridge to the Euphrates, and in the future we will reach Iraq and Kurdistan.”
The extremist Israeli politician also voiced wishful thinking that the entire region should become subordinate to Israeli policies.
“Syria must be completely subordinate to us, as must Jordan, without any military capabilities.”
“We wake up the King of Jordan in the middle of the night to make him carry out our orders.”
Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently said the regime will not tolerate the presence of the HTS or any other forces affiliated with the new rulers in southern Syria.
He also said the regime’s troops will remain stationed at a so-called “buffer zone,” seized following the fall of President Bashar al-Assad, inside the occupied Golan Heights.
The buffer zone was created by the United Nations after the 1973 Arab-Israeli War. A UN force of about 1,100 troops had patrolled the area since then.
Netanyahu said the regime’s forces will maintain an indefinite military presence at the summit of Mount Hermon, and the adjacent security zone.
Mount Hermon, known as Jabal al-Shaykh in Arabic, is a huge cluster of snowcapped mountain peaks towering above the Syria-Lebanon border.
It overlooks the Damascus countryside as well as the Golan Heights, which Israel occupied during the 1967 Six-Day War.
Following the downfall of Assad, the Israeli military has been launching airstrikes against military installations, facilities, and arsenals belonging to Syria’s now-defunct army.
The strikes were accompanied by ground incursions, as tanks and armored bulldozers penetrated Syrian territory, beyond the Golan Heights to Qatana, barely 30 kilometers from Damascus.
Israel has been condemned for the termination of the 1974 ceasefire agreement with Syria, and exploiting the chaos in the country in the wake of Assad’s downfall to make a land grab.
Former al-Qaeda affiliate the HTS took control of Damascus in early December in a stunning offensive, prompting Israel to move forces into a UN-monitored demilitarized zone within Syria.
The Israeli regime has occupied some 600 kilometers of Syrian territory since the fall of Assad.
The HTS remained conspicuously silent on the unprecedented Israeli aggression, refusing to condemn the land theft, a move seen by regional experts as a sign of internal instability.
Featured Video
Iran & Its Allies Are Threatening Every Route for Saudi Oil
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
A short history of British torture
ICC | December 2005
When the House of Commons was debating how much to increase the time limit for detention without trial the question of torture came up. Officially this was limited to the nice considerations of whether it was all right to send people to places where torture is used and whether Britain can use information collected by the use of torture in other countries. This discussion gave an impression of democratic Britain as the home of civilised behaviour where the very idea of torture is repugnant to our legislators – unlike, say, the US with its secret CIA jails… In reality, the British state has a long history of using and developing a whole range of torture techniques. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- NATO-backed Kosovo separatist ‘responsible for war crimes’
- US destroying international space law
- SCO Calls for Binding Global Deal to Prevent Arms Race in Space
- Iran & Its Allies Are Threatening Every Route for Saudi Oil
- ‘40,000 tons of bombs’: Report shows Trump planning ‘largest bomb transfer in modern US history’ to Israel
- Amazon says cloud infrastructure in Bahrain, UAE ‘beyond saving’
- How Europe became an accessory to CIA torture
- Trump says Iran urgently seeks deal, Tehran sets conditions for talks
- The Andean Shadow Army
- Russia Wants to End Ukraine Conflict – Lavrov
- If Americans Knew
- Groups urge Americans to support Van Hollen legislation on Israel’s killing of Americans & Palestinians
- Trump administration plans to send 40,000 tons of bombs to Israel: report
- Sanctions Target Iran’s Government, But Kill Hospitalized 23-Year-Old Woman
- An alternative view on the book “Israel’s Lobby: America in the Grip of a Foreign Power”
- Ed Sheeran’s band Beoga, other opening acts quit tour after Macklemore was dropped over his pro-Palestinian comments
- The assassination attempt on President Trump in Butler and the various Israeli connections to it
- “We Want That the Whole Land Be Jewish”
- BREAKING: Building collapse in Gaza kills at least 20 as they sleep – Daily Update
- ‘School is Life’: 1.5 Million Palestinian Children Face Fourth Year of Shattered Education
- Pentagon admits Iran war caused ammunition shortages, cost US $33.4bn
- No Tricks Zone
- Economic Masterminds: German Socialists Suggest Taxing Productivity Gains Stemming From Using AI
- The South China Sea Has Not Been Cooperating With The Climate Change Narrative
- Energy Crisis: Germany Enters Heating Season With Historically Low Gas Reserve Fill Levels
- New Study: The Antarctic Ice Sheet Gained Mass From 2020-2024 Due To Staggering Snow And Ice Accumulation
- Study: Ocean Heating Rates From Thousands Of Years Ago ‘Dwarf’ Modern Ocean Heating Rates
- Climate Extremists Target, Attack Large-Scale Power Grid Infrastructure In Germany!
- New Study: Antarctic Ice Melt Has Contributed Less Than 1 Centimeter To Sea Level Rise In The Last 30 Years
- Fear Of Debate: Alarmist German Climate Scientist Calls On Mainstream Media To Discredit Skeptic Voices
- End-Of-August Arctic Sea Ice Extent Hasn’t Fallen In 20 Years, Official Data Show!
- News-Making Nepal Region Has Had As-Warm Or Warmer Periods Than The 2000s In The 1600s, 1700s, 1800s
Aletho News 