Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

“Trump’s presidency is at risk of being destroyed” Col Douglas Macgregor

ANI News | April 28, 2026

April 28, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Video, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on “Trump’s presidency is at risk of being destroyed” Col Douglas Macgregor

How Cognitive Science Explains Our Looming Nuclear Crisis

By Thomas Karat | The Libertarian Institute | April 28, 2026

Bombs have been falling on Iran for fifty-nine days. As of now a ceasefire is holding, just barely, brokered under pressure from Pakistan. But before it came, a girls’ primary school in the southern city of Minab was hit on the first day of the war, at least 170 dead, most of them girls aged seven to twelve, killed by a U.S. Tomahawk missile that President Donald Trump initially denied firing. Thirty universities struck since February 28, including Iran’s equivalent of MIT. Over 2,000 Iranians killed by American-Israeli strikes. Thirteen U.S. service members confirmed dead. An American F-15E shot down over Iran. The Strait of Hormuz—20% of the world’s oil and gas—effectively closed, with China and Russia vetoing the United Nations resolution to reopen it. Gas prices heading for $4.30 a gallon and rising. Trump promising to bomb Iran “back to the stone ages.”

And underneath all of it, the detail that should be dominating every front page but isn’t: on March 21, Iranian ballistic missiles landed fourteen kilometres from Dimona— Israel’s undeclared nuclear weapons facility, the one running for six decades on the fiction that it doesn’t exist, estimated to hold 800 kilograms of weapons-grade plutonium. The reactor at Bushehr has been struck three times since the war began. The Arms Control Association has warned explicitly of radiological contamination risk across the region.

This is where we are. Now ask the question nobody in mainstream media is asking: how did we get here? Not the geopolitical answer—you can get that anywhere. The deeper answer. What made this war politically possible? What narrative ran so deep in enough Americans that a conflict of this scale, this risk, this cost, could be launched mid-negotiation—Pakistan’s foreign minister confirmed publicly that the United States and Iran were close to a diplomatic settlement when Israel launched its February 28 strikes—without triggering mass domestic revolt?

The answer is a single talking point. You have heard it thousands of times, probably without noticing its structure: forty-seven years of Iranian aggression, forty-seven years of American patience, forty-seven years of failure by every president in both parties to solve the Iran problem. It dates the conflict from the 1979 Islamic Revolution and the 444-day hostage crisis that followed—Americans held in the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, the nightly TV count, the humiliation. It frames the entire subsequent history as a story of American victimhood and Iranian intransigence. And it has been in my estimation the most effective piece of war propaganda in modern American history—not because it is true, but because of the specific cognitive architecture it exploits, which this article is going to name precisely, because naming it is the only thing that can stop it from working the next time.

The history starts not in 1979 but in 1953, when the CIA and British intelligence jointly overthrew Mohammad Mosaddegh, Iran’s elected prime minister, because he had nationalized his country’s oil. The CIA’s own declassified documents confirm the coup was “carried out under CIA direction.” Britain has still not released its files. For twenty-six years after that, the Shah’s government—sustained by American weapons and CIA training of his secret police, SAVAK—ran one of the region’s most efficient torture and imprisonment systems. The 1979 revolution was not irrational. It was direct blowback from a quarter-century of CIA-managed client state. And the hostage crisis that anchors the “forty-seven years” narrative was itself, per Gary Sick—the Iran expert on Jimmy Carter’s own National Security Council—possibly extended deliberately by Ronald Reagan’s campaign manager William Casey, who multiple witnesses say negotiated with Tehran to hold the hostages past election day in exchange for a promise of arms. The foundational American wound of this conflict may have been kept open, on purpose, for electoral advantage, by the political faction most loudly demanding Iranian accountability four decades later.

Then in 1988 the USS Vincennes, operating inside Iranian territorial waters, shot down Iran Air Flight 655—a commercial Airbus on a Dubai run—killing all 290 people aboard including 66 children. The Pentagon issued false statements about the aircraft’s flight profile. The captain was decorated. Nobody was prosecuted. This event does not appear in the “forty-seven years of Iranian aggression” narrative. It belongs to a parallel account—forty-seven years of American aggression—that the talking point is specifically engineered to prevent you from thinking about.

Here is where the cognitive science becomes urgent, because it explains not just how the talking point spreads but why correcting it with facts—including everything in the preceding three paragraphs—fails so consistently, even with audiences that are already skeptical of government. The political psychologist Jonathan Haidt established in his moral foundations research that human moral reasoning runs on several distinct evolutionary systems and critically, that libertarians score measurably lower on the Sanctity foundation, the disgust-and-contamination system that codes out-groups as morally polluted. You are, if you read this publication, statistically more resistant than the average American to the “Iran is evil, the mullahs are fanatics” framing. That part of the propaganda largely didn’t work on you. But the “forty-seven years” talking point doesn’t primarily run on disgust. It runs on three other systems that are universal and for which the libertarian movement has built almost no intellectual defense.

The first is loss aversion: Kahneman and Tversky’s finding that humans feel losses roughly twice as intensely as equivalent gains. “Forty-seven years of failure” is a pure loss narrative—not a promise of future benefit, but an open wound, a thing taken and not returned. It activates the loss-detection system before rational evaluation can engage. The second is the sunk cost mechanism: the longer the conflict, the more the accumulated investment—of attention, of sanctions, of covert operations, of proxy wars—makes the brain read escalation as rational rather than reckless. Half a century of failure becomes, neurologically, an argument for drastic action rather than against it. The third is dominance signalling: primates, including humans, carry a hard-wired system that reads unanswered challenges from rivals as weakness inviting further challenge. Forty-seven years of Iranian defiance of American authority, narrated as a sequence of inadequate responses, activates this system viscerally. Crucially, the libertarian principle of non-aggression reads inside this frame not as principled restraint but as submission. Your correct position sounds, to your neighbour’s dominance-monitoring system, like fear.

George Lakoff showed in Don’t Think of an Elephant that political frames operate below the threshold of conscious reasoning and that facts introduced into the wrong frame bounce off rather than dislodging it. The “forty-seven years” frame installs a strict father moral logic: the nation as a family whose authority must not be defied without punishment. Once that frame is active, every historical correction—the 1953 coup, the Vincennes, the October Surprise—arrives as information the brain is not structured to receive. The frame stays. The facts leave.

This is the machine that produced the war you are watching right now. The school in Minab. The missiles over Dimona. The Bushehr reactor taking strikes. The Strait of Hormuz closed while the LSE warns that bombing a country out of its desire for a nuclear deterrent is not possible and that every strike makes eventual acquisition of a weapon not less likely but more. The former director of the National Counterterrorism Center resigned and told Libertarian Institute Director Scott Horton that he had watched Israeli officials mislead Trump about the Iranian nuclear threat to manufacture the justification for this war. Pakistan’s foreign minister stated in parliament that diplomacy was actively progressing when Israel launched its surprise attack and derailed it. A Reuters/Ipsos poll found only one in four Americans supports the strikes.

The talking point has done its work. It ran for forty-seven years, activating loss detectors and dominance monitors and sunk cost accumulators and strict father frames in enough of the population to make a war with genuine nuclear escalation risk feel not just permissible but long overdue. Now fourteen kilometres separates us from a direct strike on a reactor that has been producing weapons-grade plutonium for sixty years under a policy of official denial—and the IAEA, which Iran has now suspended from cooperation, has no inspectors inside to tell us what is actually there.

The ICAN nuclear abolition campaign noted that striking nuclear installations is explicitly banned under international law. Both sides are now doing it. The International Atomic Energy Agency has called for maximum military restraint near nuclear sites. Both sides are ignoring it. The ceasefire this morning is the third since the war began, and both sides have violated the previous two.

The talking point got us here. Understanding how, at the neurological level, through the specific cognitive systems it exploited, is not an academic exercise while bombs are falling. It is the precondition for building an antiwar argument that can actually break through the frame, rather than bouncing off it for the forty-eighth year running.

The state built a machine over forty-seven years. You are watching it run. The machine works in the dark. This is the light.

April 28, 2026 Posted by | Deception, Militarism | , , | Comments Off on How Cognitive Science Explains Our Looming Nuclear Crisis

Have the US and Israel killed non-proliferation?

Ashes of Pompeii | April 28, 2026

The United Nations has elected Iran as one of the thirty-four vice presidents of the 2026 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, proceeding despite formal objections from the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Australia, and the United Arab Emirates. Rather than a mere procedural footnote, this appointment signals a pronounced structural realignment and underscores the increasing diplomatic isolation of Western capitals within multilateral governance.

For decades, nuclear restraint was widely regarded as a stabilizing imperative, a framework endorsed by practically all nations, including Iran, who consistently endorsed this through state doctrine and a longstanding religious fatwa explicitly prohibiting the pursuit of atomic armaments. The Iranian prohibition was the foundation of the JCPOA agreement allowing internation inspection of Iranian nuclear sites. It is important to note that it was the USA who withdrew from the JCPOA agreement and not Iran, and Iran seems to have respected the terms even after this withdrawal.

This is the context for the current situation. Iran has been attacked by the USA and Israel because of the perceived threat that Iran might, despite the inspections and the conclusions of the American intelligence agencies, cross the nuclear threshold. Please note the contrast: Iran was attacked because it might develop nuclear weapons, whereas North Korea enjoys relative security precisely because it has nuclear weapons. That is to say, non-proliferation treaty compliance would seem to correlate with heightened vulnerability.

Whatever one might think of Kim Jong Un, the caricatures propagated regarding North Korea’s leadership as erratic, epitomized by the “Rocketman” epithet, are increasingly untenable when subjected to rigorous strategic analysis. Evaluating outcomes rather than rhetoric, it becomes evident that Pyongyang’s leadership was methodically positioned ahead of other global policymakers. While other regimes face coercive diplomacy or military intervention, North Korea’s deterrent has insulated it from external operations. We can assume other countries have noticed this, that non-proliferation or strategic ambiguity offer far less protection than verified atomic capability.

And this realization is coming at a time when America itself is coming to be seen as more erratic, and potentially a less reliable partner than it was perceived to be in the past. Can America’s allies still feel secure under America’s nuclear umbrella? Is an “America First” America going to risk nuclear conflageration to defend its allies? Many will have calculated that it might not.

Washington and Jerusalem have long justified their confrontational posture toward Tehran by citing the purported threat of an Iranian breakout, even as Israel maintains an arsenal that, though officially unacknowledged, is universally understood by all. If the recent campaigns against Iranian military and energy infrastructure were to be assessed through a deterrence lens, it can be argued that the absence of an atomic shield rendered Tehran strategically exposed. Had Iran possessed a credible second-strike capability, those operations would likely have been deemed too escalatory to execute.

Consequently, the international community can probably anticipate a quiet reassessment of nuclear thresholds. Governments are not yet explicitly announcing an intention to seek atomic weapons, but it does seem evident that more will be seriously considering it, whether because they no longer trust America as ally or because they see that nuclear deterrance has been successful for North Korea. For now, it seems likely that these nuclear intentions will remain under wraps, but who can doubt that, at the very least, multiple feasability studies will have been undertaken across the world.

The strategic calculus advanced by the Trump administration and the Netanyahu government has effectively engineered an environment where non-proliferation is, at best, a diminishing paradigm, and at worst, an existential error for a sovereign state. Therefore, the eventual deployment of tactical or strategic nuclear assets across multiple countries becomes increasingly probable.

The profound irony, of course, is that given the stated justifications for the launch of the US/Israeli war on Iran, that Israel will be a highly plausible future target within the very security vacuum it helped to normalize.

April 28, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Comments Off on Have the US and Israel killed non-proliferation?

Argentina’s Javier Milei sells out his country for Israel

The Grayzone | April 27, 2026

The Grayzone’s Oscar Leon interviews Argentine journalist Sebastian Salgado about the significance of the bizarre visit this month by President Javier Milei to Israel.

Salgado details the emergence of a project to erode Argentina’s national sovereignty by handing over control of the country’s water to an Israeli company and provide benefits to Israeli expats while selling off the country’s public assets to wealthy investors and multinationals.

Salgado addresses disturbing rumors of a plan allowing for the resettlement of as many as 300,000 Israelis in Argentina, and the growing appeal of the Patagonia region to these outsiders. He argues that Milei’s ultimate legacy will be the balkanization of the country by an economic hit man more loyal to a sectarian ultra-Orthodox religious cult than to his own nation’s interests.

April 27, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Timeless or most popular, Video | , , , | Comments Off on Argentina’s Javier Milei sells out his country for Israel

Villains of Judea: Douglas Feith

The shadow architect of the Iraq War

José Niño Unfiltered | April 27, 2026

Few individuals embody the conflict between American national interest and the demands of world jewry as sharply as Douglas Feith. Throughout his career, Feith has operated as a consummate advocate for the Jewish state, positioning himself within the highest echelons of the U.S. government to ensure that American military and foreign policy served as a potent instrument for his own tribal convictions. From his early days in the pro-Israel lobby to his role in architecting the catastrophic Iraq War, Feith’s career is a study in the subordination of American sovereignty to the priorities of the Jewish people.

General Tommy Franks, who commanded the invasion of Iraq, famously said he had to deal with “the fucking stupidest guy on the face of the earth almost every day” — referring to Feith, as documented in Bob Woodward’s Plan of Attack. Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell’s chief of staff at the State Department, separately stated: “Seldom in my life have I met a dumber man.” Irrespective of his perceived deficiencies, Feith was able to reach the apex of the national security establishment and fundamentally reshape American foreign policy for the benefit of Israel.

The Zionist convictions Feith brought to the highest levels of American government were not adopted in adulthood but absorbed in childhood.

The Origins of a Zionist Hawk

Douglas Jay Feith was born on July 16, 1953, into a Jewish family in Philadelphia. His background was rooted in Zionist tradition through his father, Dalck Feith, who had been a member of Betar, the Revisionist Zionist youth organization founded by Ze’ev Jabotinsky, active in Poland during the 1930s. Betar was a militaristic movement associated with Jabotinsky’s Revisionist Zionism, a hard-line nationalist strand that rejected the socialist mainstream of the Zionist movement and evolved through the Herut Party into what became the Israeli Likud Party,

Dalck Feith came to the United States in January 1942 and became a businessman, philanthropist, and Republican donor. Douglas Feith grew up in Elkins Park, a Philadelphia suburb, and has acknowledged that his father’s Betar membership and the family’s experience of the Holocaust profoundly shaped his own Zionist convictions.

Feith has publicly described himself as a Zionist — specifically not a Labor or “peace now” Zionist but a right-wing Zionist closely aligned with the Likud tradition. He wrote a 2021 op-ed in the Jewish News Syndicate titled “Why I’m a Zionist,” arguing that support for a Jewish state is entirely compatible with American patriotism. His worldview draws heavily on Ze’ev Jabotinsky’s “iron wall” doctrine, the idea that Arabs will only accept a Jewish state after recognizing they cannot destroy it militarily.

Education and Early Career

This ideological foundation accompanied Feith through an elite educational track and into the upper reaches of the legal profession. Feith graduated magna cum laude from Harvard College in 1975 and magna cum laude from Georgetown University Law Center in 1978, according to his Hudson Institute biography.

He began his public career in 1975 working as an intern on Senator Henry M. “Scoop” Jackson’s Subcommittee on Investigations — the Democratic senator from Washington famous for his hawkish anti-Soviet foreign policy and strong support for Israel. While at Harvard, Feith studied under Professor Richard Pipes, a Polish-born Jewish scholar and anti-Soviet hawk who chaired the CIA’s Team B strategic intelligence exercise in 1976 and later joined Reagan’s National Security Council in February 1981. Feith joined the NSC as a Middle East specialist that same year, working under Pipes.

The Reagan Years

These formative experiences positioned Feith for a direct entry into the national security establishment. Feith joined the government in 1981 as a Middle East specialist on the National Security Council, serving under his former Harvard professor Richard Pipes. The following year, he moved over to the Pentagon to take up duties as Special Counsel to Richard Perle, then Assistant Secretary of Defense. Feith later characterized the role in his own words as covering “UN-related, law of war, and the like” issues that fell to him as the only lawyer in that office. Two years later, in 1984, Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger elevated Feith to Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Negotiations Policy, where he remained until 1986.

One striking and highly contentious chapter unfolded in 1982, when Feith departed the NSC amid an FBI probe into administration officials suspected of leaking intelligence to Israel. Accusations surfaced that he had mishandled classified materials, though Feith never faced prosecution.

The Private Sector and the Pro-Israel Network

Feith soon traded government service for the lucrative side of the defense and foreign-policy world. When Feith left the Pentagon in 1986, he and Marc Zell co-founded Feith & Zell, P.C., a law firm based initially in Israel that lobbied the U.S. government on behalf of the Turkish, Israeli, and Bosnian governments while representing defense contractors including Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman. In 1989, Feith separately established International Advisors, Inc., a lobbying operation whose clients included Turkey.

In 1999, Feith & Zell merged with the Israel-based Zell, Goldberg & Co. to form the FANDZ International Law Group. When Feith returned to government in 2001 as Undersecretary of Defense overseeing Iraq reconstruction, FANDZ was simultaneously running a task force to help companies secure reconstruction contracts in Iraq.

Throughout the 1990s, Feith built an extensive presence in neoconservative and pro-Israel organizations that would later staff the Bush administration’s national security apparatus. In 1997, the Zionist Organization of America honored both Feith and his father at its annual dinner. Dalck received the ZOA’s special Centennial Award “for his lifetime of service to Israel and the Jewish people,” while Douglas received the prestigious Louis D. Brandeis Award.

Feith served as Vice Chairman of the advisory board of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), a think tank promoting close military cooperation between the United States and Israel. He also served as Chairman of the Board of the Center for Security Policy, a think tank founded in 1988 by Frank Gaffney that advocates higher military budgets, missile defense systems, space weapons programs, and hard-line Middle East policies.

Feith was also among the founding figures of One Jerusalem, created in 2001 following the Camp David peace talks, with the mission of “maintaining a united Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel.” Other founders and principals included former Israeli diplomat Dore Gold and former Deputy Prime Minister Natan Sharansky.

The Clean Break Document

Feith’s organizational work in this period laid the groundwork for direct policy advocacy on behalf of the Israeli government. The most consequential episode in Feith’s pre-government career was his participation in drafting “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm” in 1996. The paper was produced by a study group led by Richard Perle and organized by the Israel-based Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies for incoming Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It urged Netanyahu to abandon the Oslo Accords and the land-for-peace framework entirely, called for removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq as an “important Israeli strategic objective,” proposed striking Syrian military targets in Lebanon and possibly in Syria proper, and laid out a new Israeli strategic doctrine grounded in “peace through strength” rather than diplomatic concessions.

Three members of that study group later occupied senior positions shaping Bush administration Middle East policy: Perle chaired the Defense Policy Board, Feith became Under Secretary of Defense, and David Wurmser became Dick Cheney’s top Middle East adviser. Professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, in their 2006 essay “The Israel Lobby” in the London Review of Books, wrote that the Clean Break paper “called for Israel to take steps to reorder the entire Middle East” and that “Feith, Perle and Wurmser were soon urging the Bush administration to pursue those same goals.”

Under Secretary of Defense for Policy

A second and far more consequential bureaucratic creation soon followed. Appointed on July 16, 2001, Feith served as Under Secretary of Defense for Policy — the third-highest civilian position in the Department of Defense. His portfolio included formulating defense planning guidance, managing DoD relations with foreign governments, representing the Pentagon in interagency deliberations, and advising the President and Secretary of Defense on national security matters.

Early in the Bush administration, Feith created the Office of Strategic Influence, established in November 2001 to conduct information operations targeting foreign audiences, including proposals to plant news items — “possibly even false ones” — with foreign media organizations, according to the New York Times. After the program’s existence became public in February 2002 and generated intense scrutiny, Feith decided to close the office, with Rumsfeld announcing the closure at a February 26 press conference. Rumsfeld later acknowledged that its functions continued through other offices, telling reporters in November 2002: “I’m gonna keep doing every single thing that needs to be done and I have.”

The Office of Special Plans

The most damaging controversy of Feith’s tenure centered on his supervision of the Office of Special Plans, a Pentagon unit that operated from September 2002 through June 2003. The OSP was charged with supplying senior administration officials with raw intelligence about Iraq that bypassed the normal vetting process of the intelligence community.

The unit’s driving purpose was to build the political case for invading Iraq by circumventing both the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency, which had each concluded that evidence for an operational Iraq-al-Qaeda link was weak or nonexistent. Rather than work through the established intelligence consensus process, the OSP fed its conclusions directly to Vice President Cheney’s office and other senior decision-makers. According to Mother Jones, the OSP’s director, Abram Shulsky, “turned cherry-picked pieces of uncorroborated, anti-Iraq intelligence into talking points” that circulated to Rumsfeld and Cheney. The OSP also worked closely with Ahmed Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress, whose intelligence the broader community had largely discounted.

In September 2002, two days before the CIA completed its own final assessment of the Iraq-al-Qaeda question, Feith briefed senior advisers to Cheney and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, directly attacking the CIA’s credibility and alleging “fundamental problems” with its analysis. The version of the OSP briefing presented to senior White House officials differed from the version shown to the CIA — with a slide citing the CIA’s “fundamental problems” omitted from the version given to the intelligence community, according to the Washington Post’s reporting on the Inspector General’s summary.

In February 2007, the Pentagon’s Inspector General released a landmark report concluding that Feith’s office had “developed, produced, and then disseminated alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and al Qaida relationship, which included some conclusions that were inconsistent with the consensus of the Intelligence Community, to senior decision-makers.” The report found these actions “inappropriate” though not “illegal.”

Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), Chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, did not accept the limitations of that framing. “The bottom line is that intelligence relating to the Iraq-al-Qaeda relationship was manipulated by high-ranking officials in the Department of Defense to support the administration’s decision to invade Iraq,” Levin stated. “The inspector general’s report is a devastating condemnation of inappropriate activities in the DOD policy office that helped take this nation to war.”

Feith seized on the “not illegal” finding to declare he felt “vindicated” by the report, calling it proof that his office had been “smeared for years.” He disputed the Inspector General’s “inappropriate” finding as “bizarre” and “quibbling,” arguing that his office had simply produced “a criticism of the consensus of the intelligence community.”

De-Ba’athification and Its Catastrophic Consequences

The intelligence controversy was only one front of the wreckage Feith’s office produced. Among the most consequential decisions associated with Feith’s tenure were two orders that remade Iraq’s governing and security structures. The Pentagon, under Feith’s direction, drafted the de-Baathification decree that became CPA Order 1, signed by Ambassador Paul Bremer on May 16, 2003, which stripped all senior Ba’ath Party members from government positions.

A separate instrument, CPA Order 2, signed one week later, dissolved Iraq’s military and security forces — affecting 385,000 soldiers, 285,000 police, and 50,000 presidential security personnel. Together, the two orders threw hundreds of thousands of Iraqis out of work and destroyed the administrative and security infrastructure of the Iraqi state. They are now widely considered among the worst strategic decisions of the occupation, having helped ignite the sectarian insurgency that followed.

The Lawrence Franklin Espionage Scandal

The damage caused by Feith’s policy decisions was matched by serious security breaches involving his subordinates. Lawrence Franklin, a veteran Defense Intelligence Agency analyst who worked in Feith’s Near East and South Asia Bureau, was arrested in 2005 and pleaded guilty to espionage-related charges for passing classified information to AIPAC officials Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman, who then relayed the information to Israeli officials and the media. Franklin was sentenced to nearly 13 years in prison, later reduced to ten months’ house arrest. All charges against Rosen and Weissman were dropped in 2009. Although Feith himself was not charged, the scandal reinforced longstanding concerns about the security culture within his office and its relationship to Israeli intelligence interests.

After the Pentagon

After leaving the Pentagon in August 2005, Feith held the position of professor and Distinguished Practitioner in National Security Policy at Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service from 2006 to 2008. The appointment drew sharp opposition from the faculty — a letter signed by 35 professors accused Feith of ethical conflicts and of having defended the use of torture — and his contract was not renewed. He subsequently served as a Distinguished Visiting Fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution before joining the Hudson Institute in September 2008 as a Senior Fellow and Director of the Center for National Security Strategies.

In 2009, Feith became one of several Bush administration officials considered for a war crimes investigation by a Spanish court under claims of universal jurisdiction, headed by Judge Baltasar Garzón.

Ultimately, the Iraq War must not be viewed merely as a tactical or strategic failure of the American state, but as a profound success for the interests of organized Jewry, which Feith serves with unwavering fidelity. By viewing Feith as an agent of the Jewish state rather than a servant of the American public, the true objective of his career becomes clear: the advancement of his own people is his paramount duty, with the welfare of the United States trailing as a distant afterthought.

April 27, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Subjugation - Torture, Timeless or most popular, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on Villains of Judea: Douglas Feith

US pension fund invests hundreds of millions in weapons firms supplying Israel

The Cradle | April 27, 2026

The Virginia Retirement System (VRS), which manages pension benefits for the US state of Virginia’s public sector workers, holds a staggering $394 million in investments linked to weapons makers and shipping companies supporting Israel’s genocide of Palestinians in Gaza and wars on Lebanon and Iran, according to a 23 April report released by a coalition of Palestinian advocacy groups.

The report was prepared by the VRS Divest from Weapons & War campaign, the Palestinian Youth Movement (PYM), and the People’s Embargo for Palestine. It draws on publicly available financial data and records obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests.

The report presents a detailed accounting of the VRS’s investments in many of the world’s largest weapons makers as part of its $122 billion portfolio.

Lockheed Martin is the VRS’s single largest holding at $94.8 million. The firm produces the F-35 fighter jet and AGM-114 Hellfire missiles. Both have been used extensively by the Israeli military during its more than two-year Genocide of Palestinians in Gaza.

The Virginia pension system is also invested in Boeing, which manufactures precision-guided munitions, known as JDAMs, that are used to kill and maim children in Gaza.

Other investments include General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, Maersk, and Thyssenkrupp, all of which either manufacture or ship weapons for use by the Israeli military in Gaza, Lebanon, and Iran.

“These companies are critical in maintaining the weapons supply to Israel and the resulting massacres of thousands of people across the Middle East,” Bana Husseini, an organizer with the VRS Divest campaign and the Palestinian Youth Movement, told TRT World. 

Husseini and other activists are lobbying the VRS to divest from companies supporting Israel’s military and its genocide and wars. A petition calling for divestment has gathered nearly 4,500 signatures.

However, the pension system has continued to express its support for Israel.

“The VRS has responded by dismissing the campaign’s demands, arresting a firefighter for delivering the petition, inviting a notorious war criminal to their yearly retreat, and further collaborating with war profiteers,” Husseini explained.

Joelle Rudney, a retired teacher from Virginia, told TRT World she was upset to learn her pension was invested “in the bombings of hospitals, schools, and houses in Gaza in attacks that have killed nearly 70,000 people, mostly civilians.”

In response, she has helped lobby the VRS Board of Trustees to divest from the companies supporting Israel’s war crimes.

Casey Rosales, a county public servant who has worked in mental health services, was also angered to learn how her pension contributions are being invested.

“It’s difficult to reconcile the fact that while I dedicate my career to supporting and strengthening communities, the money I earn may be contributing to harm elsewhere,” Rosales stated.

A Virginia public utilities employee said she felt betrayed to learn the money she contributes to her retirement fund is supporting genocide.

“It is profoundly sad that while doing work to help men, women, and children with health care services and resources here in Virginia, my tax money goes to buying and owning shares in companies contributing to genocide,” the employee stated.

“I demand the VRS Board of Trustees divest from these companies and commit to never again invest our future into the manufacturing of death,” the employee told TRT World.

Israel’s genocide of Palestinians in Gaza has killed over 72,000 Palestinians, the majority women and children. Tens, if not hundreds, of thousands more will likely die due to the indirect effects of years of Israeli bombing that has destroyed the basic health, electricity, and water infrastructure in the strip and displaced nearly 90 percent of the population.

April 27, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, War Crimes | , , , , , , | Comments Off on US pension fund invests hundreds of millions in weapons firms supplying Israel

US bill to grant Americans serving in Israeli army same rights as US troops

MEMO | April 27, 2026

US lawmakers push to grant American soldiers serving in the Israeli army the same legal protections as US troops, in a move without precedent for any other foreign army. The bill would place some 20,000 dual citizens fighting for Israel on a legal par with Americans serving the US.

Details of the Israel first carve out was reported in Military.com. The legislation passing through Congress would, for the first time in American history, treat service in a foreign army as legally equivalent to service in the US armed forces — but only where that foreign army is Israeli occupation army.

House Resolution 8445, tabled by Republican Congressmen Guy Reschenthaler of Pennsylvania and Max Miller of Ohio, would amend Title 38 of the US Code so that Americans who fight for Israel are treated “in the same manner as service in the uniformed services” of the US. Over 20,000 American citizens serving in the Israeli military are expected to benefit if the changes come into effect.

US veterans’ benefits and military protections are, under existing law, tied to service in the American armed forces. The Bill departs from that principle by extending two of the most consequential US protections to Americans fighting for a foreign state. The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act caps interest rates on debt during active service and halts evictions and foreclosures. The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act compels American employers to hold open the jobs of those called to service.

Under H.R. 8445, an American returning from a tour with the IDF could demand their old job back from a US employer, halt a foreclosure on a US home, and benefit from interest-rate caps on US debt  on the basis of foreign military service.

Americans have served in foreign militaries for as long as the US has existed — in the French Foreign Legion, in the Australian and New Zealand armed forces, and, since 2022, in the International Legion for the Defence of Ukraine. No comparable legislation has ever been seriously advanced for any of those forces. The State Department’s standing position is that Americans who fight abroad do so at their own risk and should not expect support from the US government.

H.R. 8445 is therefore not part of a broader policy trend. It is exclusive to the IDF.

IDF personnel, meanwhile, are already compensated by Israel through stipends, housing assistance, post-service educational grants and access to the national healthcare system, all funded by the Knesset. The Bill nevertheless asks American employers, banks, and courts to treat Israeli military service as if it had been performed for the US.

The legislation is being pursued at a moment when American sentiment toward Israel has shifted decisively in the opposite direction. A Pew Research Center poll published last month found that 60 per cent of Americans now hold an unfavourable view of Israel, up nearly 20 percentage points since 2022. The proportion holding a “very unfavourable” view has tripled in that period.

Among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents, the figure has reached 80 per cent. Even within the Republican coalition championing the Bill, 57 per cent of Republicans aged 18 to 49 hold an unfavourable view of Israel.

Critics have pointed out that American veterans’ protections were built on a simple covenant: those who serve the United States have a claim on the US. Extending those protections to Americans serving a foreign government, and only one foreign government, establishes that the relevant criterion is no longer service to the country, but the identity of the country being served.

H.R. 8445 has been referred to the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs.

April 27, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism | , , | Comments Off on US bill to grant Americans serving in Israeli army same rights as US troops

What a president, a movie star, a congressman, and a cell phone all dared to say

By Jasim Al-Azzawi | MEMO | April 27, 2026

Richard Nixon was not a man given to moral clarity. But in the privacy of the Oval Office, away from the choreography of statecraft, he spoke with a bluntness that history rarely forgives and seldom forge “Let me explain something about the Jewish lobby in this country. They believe that being for Israel first does not mean that you’re putting America second. But an American president”, he insisted, “has to approach it differently. He’s always got to think first of what is best for America. An American president must make a decision that does not, in effect, give the Israelis a blank check”.

Nixon went further. “Every Jewish prime minister that I have known has enlisted American Jews to bring as much pressure as possible in the political process on American presidents”. These were not the words of a fringe voice or a conspiracy theorist. They were the words of the thirty-seventh president of the United States, speaking in the calculated, unsentimental register of realpolitik.

Marlon Brando, the greatest actor of his generation, arrived at similar conclusions through a different door, not the back corridors of power, but the front lots of Hollywood. When asked why he refused to accept the coveted Oscar award, he was unsparing: “Because of the increasing control of Zionists in Hollywood. They own the studios”, he said. “They shape the stories. They decide who gets heard and who doesn’t. I saw it clearly, and I couldn’t be part of that system anymore”. The actor who had made the whole world feel the weight of a man’s grief or ambition had looked behind the curtain and refused, on grounds of conscience, to keep performing.

Then there is Paul Findley, a Republican congressman from Illinois who served twenty-two years in the House of Representatives and, upon losing his seat, did the thing that defeated politicians rarely do: he told the truth about why. In his landmark 1985 book, They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel’s Lobby, Findley documented with meticulous and damning precision how the American Israel Public Affairs Committee — AIPAC — had become the dominant force shaping Washington’s posture toward the Middle East. The lobby, Findley wrote, had developed a near-perfect system for punishing those who deviated and rewarding those who complied. His conclusion was stark: what passed for American policy toward Israel and the Palestinians was not policy at all. It was capitulation, dressed in the language of alliance.

A president. A superstar. A congressman. Three men from entirely different worlds, operating across five decades, arriving at the same uncomfortable coordinate on the map of American power.

For nearly eighty years, that coordinate remained a forbidden zone in mainstream political discourse. The machinery that enforced the silence was formidable: campaign finance, editorial gatekeeping, and the constant threat of the career-ending accusation of anti-semitism.

Legacy media were not merely complicit in the silence; they were, in many ways, its architecture. What Nixon, Brando, and Findley observed about concentrated influence in studios, newsrooms, and legislative chambers was not paranoia. It was a structural description of how certain narratives achieved dominance, and others were quietly buried.

And then came Gaza. And then came the cell phone

No editorial board approved the footage. No network anchor contextualized it before broadcast. No studio executive decided what the audience was ready to see. The images came directly from the rubble of Jabalia, from the corridors of Al-Shifa, from the faces of mothers carrying children in plastic bags. Small children were buried alive under the rubble. Older people are torn limb from limb. Hospitals destroyed. Starvation renders human beings mere bones and skin. The International Criminal Court issued two arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and his Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, who had threatened to cut off food, electricity, and water to an entire civilian population.

The military has a phrase for what happened next: “quantity has a quality all of its own”. The sheer, relentless, unmediated volume of images from Gaza did something that decades of scholarship, congressional testimony, and presidential recordings had failed to do. It broke the monopoly of narrative. The tsunami of images horrified the world and compelled people, especially across Europe and in a growing segment of the American public, to say what had long been considered unsayable: enough. Not in our names. No more arms. No more blank cheques. No more diplomatic cover at the United Nations and in every international forum where Israeli impunity had been shielded from consequence.

The journalist and war correspondent Sebastian Junger once observed that war is always a story told by survivors about the dead. For decades, in the American telling of the Israel-Palestine story, the dead were abstractions, statistics, footnotes, and regrettable collateral. The cell phone abolished that abstraction. It put a face, a name, a cry on every casualty. It made the dead impossible to manage.

We aren’t just seeing a shift in opinion; we’re seeing a shift in the architecture of permission. It’s a rewrite of who can speak, in which spaces, without risking their entire career. The young are leading it. The streets of London, Paris, and Chicago are leading it.

Even within the American political class, there is a whispered consensus that Findley described. We’re hearing the literal break in the silence. The unspoken rule that you must censor yourself before you speak is falling apart.

Nixon feared giving Israel a blank check. Brando feared a culture in which certain stories could not be told. Findley documented the machinery by which both fears were, for decades, well-founded. What they could not have foreseen was the device in every pocket that would, finally, make the silencing incomplete.

The cell phone did not create the suffering in Gaza. But it denied the world the comfort of not knowing.

That denial, it turns out, was what justice needed most.

April 27, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , , , | Comments Off on What a president, a movie star, a congressman, and a cell phone all dared to say

Iran to charge ships passing Strait of Hormuz in rial: Lawmaker

Press TV – April 27, 2026

A motion being prepared in the Iranian parliament to regulate future transit through the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf stipulates that ships allowed to pass through the key waterway must pay tolls in Iranian rial currency.

The chairman of the Iranian parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, Ebrahim Azizi, said on Monday that charging tolls on ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz is part of an 11-article motion being prepared in the parliament.

Azizi told state TV that the motion has been discussed and finalized in his committee and will become law once ratified in a vote in the main chamber of the Iranian parliament.

He said the motion contains some smart and well-considered measures that are based on a decree by the Leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Seyyed Mojtaba Khamenei, who said last month that Iran must introduce a new system of governance in the Strait of Hormuz.

Azizi said the measures include a total ban on transit for ships owned by or linked to the Israeli regime, as well as restrictions on passage for vessels connected to hostile countries and their affiliates.

He said that the motion also seeks to require all countries that have inflicted financial damage on Iran over the past years, including by imposing sanctions or blocking its funds in foreign banks, to compensate Iran, through tolls paid by their ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz.

“It has been stipulated in the motion that the financial proceeds obtained from the Strait should be (paid) in Iranian rial,” he said.

The motion comes amid Iran’s continued control over transit through the Strait of Hormuz, which it has enforced since the early days of the US-Israeli aggression against the country in late February.

Iran has maintained its control over the strait, although the aggression ceased in early April following a Pakistani-mediated ceasefire.

April 27, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Wars for Israel | , , | Comments Off on Iran to charge ships passing Strait of Hormuz in rial: Lawmaker

Talks would resume if US accepts 3-phase framework Iran put forward

Al Mayadeen | April 27, 2026

Iran has informed mediators of a proposed three-phase framework for negotiations and says talks could resume if the United States agrees to the plan, Al Mayadeen’s correspondent in Tehran reported.

The proposal, as described by our correspondent, outlines an initial phase focused on ending US-Israeli aggression and securing guarantees that fighting will not resume against Iran and Lebanon. During this stage, Iran would not discuss any other issues, the report said.

The plan envisions coordination with Oman

If agreement is reached on the first phase, discussions would move to a second stage centered on the management of the Strait of Hormuz. The plan reportedly envisions coordination with Oman to establish a new legal framework governing the strategic waterway.

The third phase would address Iran’s nuclear program, which Tehran would only be prepared to discuss after agreements are reached on the first two phases, according to the report.

This is happening as Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has departed for Moscow, leading a diplomatic delegation.

Iranian ambassador in Moscow, Kazem Jalal, said earlier that Araghchi is set to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin during his visit to Moscow, where he will hold consultations on the latest developments regarding negotiations and the ceasefire.

April 26, 2026 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on Talks would resume if US accepts 3-phase framework Iran put forward

Israeli forces raid Syria’s Dara’a, Quneitra countryside, set up checkpoints

Press TV – April 26, 2026

Israeli occupation forces have carried out incursions into several villages in the countryside of Syria’s southwestern provinces of Dara’a and Quneitra, where they conducted searches and set up temporary checkpoints.

The official Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) reported that an Israeli convoy consisting of around ten military vehicles raided the village of Jamla in the Yarmouk Basin area west of Dara’a province early on Sunday morning.

The force withdrew after a short period and positioned itself on the road linking Jamla to the nearby Saisoun village.

This came hours after an Israeli convoy made up of two tanks and two military vehicles entered the eastern Tal al-Ahmar hill in southern Quneitra and took up positions inside prefabricated rooms it had brought to the site on Friday.

According to local reports, Israeli occupation forces entered the area on Friday with a bulldozer and several prefabricated structures, though no explanation was given for the move at the time.

Additionally, an Israeli military convoy advanced into the al-Kesarat area in northern Quneitra and established a temporary checkpoint there. They pulled out of the area shortly afterwards, positioned near Jubata al-Khashab town, and searched passersby.

Israeli occupation troops also launched an incursion into the village of al-Mushrifa and set up a checkpoint there.

On Friday, Israeli occupation forces abducted a civilian during a raid on the village of Umm al-Adham in Homs province.

Israeli forces continue to violate the 1975 Disengagement Agreement through repeated incursions into southern Syria.

A recent report documented 897 violations attributed to Israeli forces in southern Syria.

The latest Israeli violations of Syrian sovereignty came despite remarks by the leader of Syria’s ruling Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) militant group, Abu Mohammed al-Jolani, that Damascus is serious about reaching a security agreement with the Tel Aviv regime.

April 26, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Illegal Occupation | , , | Comments Off on Israeli forces raid Syria’s Dara’a, Quneitra countryside, set up checkpoints

Liberation From War

By Manlio Dinucci | Global Research | April 26, 2026

Italy is experiencing an economic slowdown: this is confirmed by the fact that in 2025 public debt stood at 37% of GDP and that the situation has worsened since then. The Italian Minister for the Economy and Finance, Giancarlo Giorgetti, attributes the crisis largely to the “energy shock” caused by the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, blamed on Iran, which led to a rise in the price of oil and natural gas. Giorgetti seems to have forgotten that the “energy crisis” began before the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz due to the halt in Russian natural gas imports. These imports have fallen from 40% of Italy’s total gas imports in 2021 to 2% in 2026.

During this period, Italy’s imports of liquefied natural gas from the United States have risen from 13% to 33%, despite the much higher price. By waging war against Russia and Iran alongside NATO, Israel and other allies, the United States has succeeded in making Italy and Europe increasingly dependent on its energy supplies.

After triggering the war that has torn Europe apart with the coup in Ukraine in 2014, the United States has succeeded in making its European allies bear an ever-increasing share of the cost.

They have now approved the 20th “sanctions package” against Russia and granted Ukraine a further “loan” of 90 billion euros. At the same time, the United States has succeeded in driving up the military spending of its European allies sharply. Between 2015 and 2025, Italian military spending has more than doubled, rising in 2025 to €45.3 billion annually – equivalent to over 2% of GDP, or an average of €124 million a day. Italian military spending is set to continue rising, reaching 3.5% of GDP – equivalent to €198 million a day – and subsequently 5%, equivalent to over €280 million a day.

Following the war against Russia, Italy is becoming increasingly involved in the conflict against Iran.

US drones and aircraft are stationed at the Sigonella base in Sicily, from where they carry out missions in the Middle East to identify targets in Iran and guide US missile and bomber strikes. For the war against Iran, US forces are also using other bases in Italy, such as Aviano and Camp Darby. The Italian government has now decided to send two military ships to the Strait of Hormuz, even without a UN mandate, officially for mine clearance. As these ships would be in a war zone, including within Iranian territorial waters, should they be threatened with attack or attacked by Iranian forces, they would be flanked by Italian Navy strike units, officially “for protective purposes”.

Italy would thus effectively enter the war alongside the United States. The US is using its warships not only to block the Strait of Hormuz and cut off Iranian ports, but also to attack and seize ships in the Indian Ocean that are carrying (or are said to be carrying) Iranian oil to China and other Asian countries.

The US military blockade of shipping lanes is triggering an economic crisis that could soon spread from Asia across the globe. In Vietnam, rice mills have cut production due to soaring electricity costs and the difficulties faced by farmers following rises in fuel and fertiliser prices. In the Philippines, many farmers have decided not to harvest their crops, leaving them to rot, as they would have to sell them at a loss due to the rise in transport fuel costs. In Indonesia, nickel mines are closing because, due to the US blockade of Iran, they no longer have the gas and sulphur needed for extraction. In Bangladesh, clothing production is falling due to the disruption of import-export chains. All this – warns a UN report – could cost the Asia-Pacific region up to $300 billion, as the region relies on imported energy. Pressure is mounting on households, small businesses and public finances, with around 9 million people at risk of falling into extreme poverty.

This shows that war causes carnage not only through weapons such as bombs and missiles, but also through economic weapons such as the blockade of ports and shipping lanes, which can result in even greater loss of life. The dramatic images of war – that of an Israeli soldier destroying a statue of Christ on the cross in the Christian village of Debel in Lebanon, that of Israeli settlers in the West Bank preventing Palestinian children from going to school by blocking their path and attacking them with tear gas grenades – demonstrate the vital need to continue the struggle for liberation, freeing ourselves from war once and for all.

April 26, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , | Comments Off on Liberation From War

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »