International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Rafael Grossi called threats of strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities “unacceptable.”
“The IAEA has always emphasized that threats against Iran’s nuclear facilities are unacceptable and that the attacks that are being discussed could not only worsen existing problems, but also create more serious environmental consequences,” Grossi was quoted as saying by the IRIB news agency on Thursday.
On Wednesday, The New York Times newspaper reported that US President Donald Trump did not allow Israel to attack Iranian nuclear facilities after he decided to pursue diplomacy with Tehran. Israeli officials were allegedly ready to attack Iran in May and counted on US support, promising to set back Tehran’s nuclear program by a year or more.
April 18, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Militarism, War Crimes | IAEA, Iran, Israel, United States, Zionism |
Leave a comment
If the situation was hopeless, their propaganda would be unnecessary.
– Anonymous
They say the most dangerous animal you can encounter in the wild is one that is dying and cornered. A trapped coyote will lash out and attack you with every fiber of its being, even if it’s mortally wounded. Especially if it’s mortally wounded.
The American Empire and the so-called state of Israel are a pair of conjoined coyotes whose paws are clamped in the jaws of a bear trap, hanging on by a few threads of tendon. In their last gasps of life before they enter the great beyond, in one final adrenaline fueled frenzy, these dogs are lashing out and doing everything in their power to destroy financially, legally, and socially anyone who dares speak out against the crimes they are committing in Palestine. I learned this for myself not too long ago.
On a recent afternoon, I attended a march for Palestine hosted by my school’s chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine. A few days prior, two Saudi national grad students at my school had their student visas revoked for expressing support for the Palestinian cause on their social media. They had taken the first flights back to Saudi Arabia so they could avoid run-ins with the police. These students weren’t thieves or rapists or anything worthy of being expelled over. The only crime these students had committed was daring to speak out against the middle east’s sex offender capital on Instagram. I found the expulsion of these students personally intolerable.
I had never attended a protest before. The SJP had held protests on campus since October 2023, but I hadn’t gone to any because I am a very private person, and I like to keep my identity hidden from individuals and organizations who would see me fired for my political beliefs. I’m a bit of a coward. I’d rather be at home with my roommates making a pot of spaghetti than marching down the street holding a flag. Plus I didn’t want to get beat up by a cop. Anyway, I figured if I could pull off a disguise, and kept my opsec airtight, I could go to a protest and make it home without my name and address plastered all over the canary mission website. My disguise was simple enough: long pants, boots, and a ski mask, with a hoodie and sunglasses to cover my face and hair. Nothing I had on was personally identifiable. I left my phone and bag at home. I just looked like some hobo. I walked to campus instead of driving, and I didn’t put on my disguise until I got to some bushes near the railroad tracks where the SJP was meeting up. I figured the steps I was taking were overkill, but I found out they were not.
The crowd was about what you would expect. A group of muslim students gathered at the front with a wagon with some water bottles and granola bars in it. A group of dysgenic looking transgender students stood to their right, sallow and lanky pink hair flopping around their shoulders. The enemy of my enemy is my friend I suppose. Other groups of generic looking kids stood around them, talking quietly. Ordinary folks. It was heartening to see them. The annoying preacher who stands on the quad everyday yelling about abortion was there too, which struck me as odd. I would have expected him to have a sign reading “Real Patriots Stand With Israel”, but he seemed determined to defy stereotypes. He carried a sign reading “Free Mahmoud Khalil” and wore the Palestinian flag like a cape. There were a few other older adults there as well, including a mother with her baby. The crowd stood about forty strong.
Off to the side stood a small group of shady looking folks with fluorescent green hats on. I made small talk with a skinny young man who stood by me to my left. He’d been to many protests before, and wasn’t surprised by the makeup of the crowd. New people like me show up every time. I asked him about the green hatted crowd, and he told me that they were marshals whose job was to monitor any policemen who showed up. They were from a police brutality watchdog organization. This was necessary since the time the police savagely beat protesters on UNC’s campus about a year ago. Footage of the cops dragging a girl across the ground by her hair is publicly available. This reaction was obviously serious overkill, and hadn’t been seen at other student protests on UNC’s campus in years past. The Black Lives Matter protests of 2020, while rowdy, had a very subdued police presence. I do not recall anyone getting their hair ripped out by the po-po in 2020. There is one key difference between the attempted race riots of 2020 and the protests for Palestine of today: the protests for Palestine are actually threatening to the powers that be.
We marched in a loop across campus. We went from the student union, to the historic district, to the library, and back to the student union. Overall I’d say we covered about a mile of ground. We had supporters. There’s a large Arab population close to campus, and we’d see Arab guys roll down the windows of their cars and cheer for us. It felt nice to have some people on our side. The trouble that showed up took the form of a small group of nasally enhanced individuals wearing sunglasses who joined our march when we reached the historic district. This group was composed of a bunch of creeps wearing dark clothes and ballcaps, who would slink into the crowd and attempt to covertly take photos of the marchers with phone cameras up their sleeve. I asked my lanky comrade about these freaks, and he told me the ADL hires people, usually Hillel students, to monitor student social media related to Palestine. These losers go to all SJP marches, and they try to dox students that go to them. Completely covering my face and body wasn’t overkill at all. They also try to bait people into losing their cool and punching them, catching assault charges. Little digs to try and ruin the lives of anyone standing against them.
As we were walking, the skinny young man pointed out a loud girl standing at the front of the group. She had on a keffiyeh, and her hair was in a slicked back blonde ponytail. She walked in the street a lot, and the muslim students seemed leery of her. “That’s a fed.” he whispered. “What makes you think that?” I asked. “She’s way older than everyone, and she’s wearing cop sneakers. Ten bucks says she’ll try to get someone to act violent later.” I kept watch on that girl. I had no reason to trust the skinny guy, but better safe than sorry.
Another paranoia inducing character was the driver of a certain grey Dodge Charger with tinted windows that followed the march the entire time we made our way across campus. It is common knowledge that the Dodge Charger has replaced the Crown Victoria as the car of choice for smokey and friends, so I immediately thought it to be an undercover cop. The rest of the crowd came to this conclusion independently. The muslim kids thought it was someone from the ADL coming to take pictures of us. Either was possible, or it could have been some rando. At least I hope it was a rando, and we were being paranoid for no reason. But the loop that car took was not a logical loop. He stayed right behind us the whole time and made no stops. Being leery of him was a smart move.
When we got back to the student union, still eyeing the Dodge Charger, the loud blonde girl spoke up. “That’s a cop no doubt!” She said, a little too loud. “Let’s throw bricks at it!” Her behavior was cartoonish. She was acting in a bizarrely scripted fashion, like a parody of an antifa thug. None of her words felt organic or genuine. If anyone was a fed at that march, it was her. I stayed far away. I walked home as discreetly as possible, thinking about what I saw.
I had a few takeaways from this experience. For one, I was shocked by the amount of effort, time, and money being put into ruining the lives of college students by organizations like the ADL and Uncle Sam. If I hadn’t seen for myself groups of shady thugs trying to get photos of and pick fights with students who have the nerve to stand up to the American Empire, I wouldn’t have believed it if you told me. Especially due to the small scale of this protest. We never left campus, and the crowd was small, especially compared to previous marches, which went directly to the state capitol building. But the powers that be decided that this goofy little crowd was a threat. This group of awkward college students and aging boomers is of top priority for the state. Not murderers, not robbers, but a bunch of kids trying to pass calculus. Really makes you think.
This experience also taught me that there is hope. The ADL and the feds wouldn’t be putting so much effort into crushing dissidence if they weren’t scared. The idea that there are Americans out there who don’t buy the propaganda pushed on us every day, from every angle, from every movie and news source since birth keeps the ADL up at night in a cold sweat. All I can say now is this: Get mad. Get even. Don’t let them see your face. They’re scared. Give them a reason to be.
April 18, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Solidarity and Activism | Human rights, Israel, Palestine, United States, Zionism |
Leave a comment
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s vehement opposition to a Palestinian state aligns perfectly with a long-standing Zionist ideology that has consistently viewed the establishment of a Palestinian state as a direct threat to Israel’s very foundation as a settler colonial project.
Thus, the mere existence of a Palestinian state with clearly defined geographical boundaries would inevitably render the state of Israel, which pointedly remains without internationally recognised borders, a state confined to a fixed physical space.
At a time when Israel continues to occupy significant swathes of Syrian and Lebanese territory and relentlessly pursues its colonial expansion to seize even more land, the notion of Israel genuinely accepting a sovereign Palestinian state is utterly inconceivable.
This reality is not a recent development; it has always been the underlying truth. This, in essence, reveals that the decades-long charade of the “two-state solution” was consistently a mirage, meticulously crafted to peddle illusions to both Palestinians and the broader international community, fostering the false impression that Israel was finally serious about achieving peace.
Therefore, it came as no surprise that Netanyahu reacted with considerable fury to French President Emmanuel Macron’s recent announcement of France’s intention to recognise the State of Palestine next June.
In a phone call with Macron yesterday, Netanyahu predictably resorted to his familiar nonsensical rhetoric, outrageously equating the establishment of a Palestinian state with rewarding “terrorism”.
And, with equal predictability, he trotted out the well-worn and unsubstantiated claims about an Iranian connection. “A Palestinian state established a few minutes away from Israeli cities would become an Iranian stronghold of terrorism,” Netanyahu’s office declared in a statement.
Meanwhile, Macron, with a familiar balancing act, reiterated his commitment to Israeli “security”, while tepidly emphasising that the suffering in Gaza must come to an end.
Of course, in a more just and reasonable world, Macron should have unequivocally stressed that it is Palestinian security, indeed their very existence, that is acutely at stake, and that Israel, through its relentless violence and occupation, constitutes the gravest threat to Palestinian existence and, arguably, to global peace.
Sadly, such a world remains stubbornly out of reach.
Considering Macron’s and France’s unwavering and often obsequious support for Israel throughout the years, particularly since the onset of the Israeli genocide in Gaza, some might cautiously welcome Macron’s statement as a potentially positive shift in policy.
However, it is imperative to caution against any exaggerated optimism, especially at a time when entire Palestinian families in Gaza are being annihilated in the ongoing Israeli genocide as these very words are read. It is an undeniable truth that France, like many other Western governments, has played a significant role in empowering, arming and justifying Israel’s heinous crimes in Gaza.
For France to genuinely reverse its long-standing position, if indeed that is the current trajectory, it will require far more than symbolic and ultimately empty gestures.
Palestinians are, understandably, weary and disillusioned with symbolic victories, hollow rhetoric, and insincere gestures.
The recent recognitions of the State of Palestine by Ireland, Norway and Spain in May 2024 did offer a fleeting spark of hope among Palestinians, suggesting a potential, albeit limited, shift in Western sentiment that might exert some pressure on Israel to cease its devastating actions in Gaza.
Unfortunately, this initial and fragile optimism has largely failed to translate into broader and more meaningful European action.
Consequently, Macron’s recent announcement of France’s intention to recognise the State of Palestine in June has been met with a far more subdued and skeptical reaction from Palestinians.
While other European Union countries that have already recognised Palestine often maintain considerably stronger stances against the Israeli occupation, France’s record in this regard is notably weaker.
Furthermore, the very sincerity of France’s stated position is deeply questionable, given its ongoing and concerning suppression of French activists who dare to protest the Israeli actions and advocate for Palestinian rights within France itself.
These attacks, arrests, and the broader crackdown on dissenting political views within France hardly paint the picture of a nation genuinely prepared to completely alter its course on aiding and abetting Israeli crimes.
Moreover, there is a stark and undeniable contrast between the principled positions adopted by Spain, Norway and Ireland and France’s steadfast backing of Israel’s brutal military campaign in Gaza from its very inception, a support underscored by Macron’s early and highly symbolic visit to Tel Aviv.
Macron was among the first world leaders to arrive in Tel Aviv following the war, while Palestinians in Gaza were already being subjected to the most unspeakable forms of violence imaginable.
During that visit, on 24 October 2023, he unequivocally reiterated, “France stands shoulder to shoulder with Israel. We share your pain, and we reaffirm our unwavering commitment to Israel’s security and its right to defend itself against terrorism.”
This raises a fundamental and critical question: how can France’s belated recognition of a Palestinian state be interpreted as genuine solidarity while it simultaneously remains a significant global supporter of the very entity perpetrating violence against Palestinians?
While any European recognition of Palestine is a welcome – if overdue – step, its true significance is considerably diminished by the near-universal recognition of Palestine within the global majority, particularly across the Global South, originating in the Middle East and steadily expanding worldwide.
The fact that France would be among the last group of countries in the world to formally recognise Palestine (currently, 147 out of 193 United Nations member states have recognised the State of Palestine), speaks volumes about France’s apparent attempt to belatedly align itself with the prevailing global consensus and, perhaps, to whitewash its long history of complicity in Israeli Zionist crimes, as Israel finds itself increasingly isolated and condemned on the international stage.
One can state with considerable confidence that Palestinians, particularly those enduring the unimaginable horrors of the ongoing genocide in Gaza, prioritise an immediate cessation of that genocide and genuine accountability for Israel’s actions far above symbolic acts of recognition that appear primarily aimed at bolstering France’s relevance as a global power player and a long-standing supporter of Israeli war crimes.
Finally, Macron, while reassuring Israel that its security remains paramount for the French government, must be reminded that his continued engagement with Benjamin Netanyahu is, in itself, a potential violation of international law. The Israeli leader is a wanted accused criminal by the International Criminal Court, and it is France’s responsibility, like that of the over 120 signatories to the ICC, to apprehend, not to appease, Netanyahu.
This analysis is not intended to diminish the potential significance of the recognition of Palestine as a reflection of growing global solidarity with the Palestinian people. However, for such recognition to be truly meaningful and impactful, it must emanate from a place of genuine respect and profound concern for the Palestinian people themselves, not from a calculated desire to safeguard the “security” of their tormentors.
April 16, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Progressive Hypocrite | France, Israel, Palestine, Zionism |
1 Comment
Anger has mounted in Tel Aviv as the United States informed Israel of its decision to begin a gradual withdrawal from Syria in the coming period, according to Israeli media reports yesterday.
The Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth reported that American security officials notified the Israeli occupation army that the withdrawal is set to commence within two months.
Israeli officials quoted by the paper said that Tel Aviv is still pressing Washington to delay the pullout, fearing that “Turkiye will take over more strategic assets in the new Syria” once US troops leave.
The report clarified that the decision by President Donald Trump to withdraw American forces from Syria does not come as a surprise. Trump had announced his intention to pull troops out of the region on 20 January.
The paper noted that Israel is concerned about heightened tensions with Turkiye, which has been openly working to expand its influence in the region following the fall of Bashar Al-Assad’s regime.
It added that “Israel believes the withdrawal of American forces could embolden Turkiye to take control of additional strategic military assets on the ground.”
Since a coalition of opposition factions ousted Al-Assad in late 2024, the Israeli occupation’s military has launched hundreds of strikes in Syria, under the pretext of targeting military installations, naval bases and air bases to prevent the new administration from seizing the former army’s arsenal.
Israeli forces have also infiltrated the buffer zone in the Golan Heights and expanded their occupation of Syrian land.
Israel has expressed concerns over Ankara’s growing influence in Damascus, especially given Turkiye’s alliance with the interim Syrian government.
Last week Trump told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that he has “great relations” with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, adding that “Any problem that you have with Turkiye, I think I can solve. I mean, as long as you’re reasonable, you have to be reasonable. We have to be reasonable.”
April 16, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Illegal Occupation, Wars for Israel | Israel, Syria, Turkey, United States, Zionism |
3 Comments
The US war on Yemen, now in its second round, has passed the one-month mark with no clear gains and no timeline for success. What is emerging instead is the growing risk of escalation – one that could force regional players, particularly Saudi Arabia and the UAE, into direct confrontation.
Still, several factors may delay or even prevent such a scenario, much like what played out last year. Understanding where this war may be headed requires a clear grasp of the terrain: how Yemen views the conflict, how its Persian Gulf neighbors are reacting, and what could trigger a wider eruption or a negotiated backtrack.
Sanaa ties its military strategy to Gaza’s resistance
Even in western circles, there’s little dispute that the war on Yemen is now deeply intertwined with Israel’s brutal war on Gaza. Washington tried, under former US president Joe Biden, to separate the two. But the reality on the ground tells a different story – one where Sanaa’s military operations were in lockstep with events in Palestine.
That link became even clearer after the January 2025 ceasefire between Hamas and Israel, which prompted a pause in Yemen’s attacks – until Tel Aviv predictably walked back its commitments. US President Donald Trump’s return to the White House brought with it a resumption of strikes on Yemen, under the pretext of defending international shipping.
Yet those attacks would not have taken place had the US not already committed to shielding Israeli vessels. The new administration, unlike the last, makes no real attempt to disguise the overlap between the two fronts.
Yemen’s strategy has been clear from the outset: Its military activity is calibrated with the resistance in Gaza. Palestinian factions determine the pace of escalation or calm, while Yemen remains prepared to absorb the fallout.
Sanaa has paid a steep price for this stance. Washington has moved to freeze economic negotiations between Yemen and Saudi Arabia, effectively punishing the former for refusing to abandon its military support for Gaza. The US has dangled economic incentives in exchange for neutrality – offers readily accepted by Arab states across the region – but Sanaa has refused to fold.
Faced with a binary choice – either maintain its support for Palestine and accept a freeze on domestic arrangements, or open a second front with Riyadh and Abu Dhabi – Yemen chose to stay the course.
That decision was rooted in three core beliefs: that Palestine must be supported unconditionally, even if it means sacrificing urgent national interests; that Ansarallah’s political identity is grounded in opposition to Israeli hegemony and thus incompatible with any alignment with Persian Gulf normalization; and that Yemen must deny Washington and Tel Aviv the opportunity to distract it with side wars designed to weaken its strategic focus.
Gulf frustration builds over Yemen’s defiance
Arab coalition partners Saudi Arabia and the UAE have not taken kindly to Yemen’s decision. Both countries have used the moment to begin backpedaling on the April 2022 truce and to impose punitive costs on Sanaa for throwing its weight behind Gaza.
The optics have not favored either of the Gulf monarchies. Abu Dhabi is fully normalized with Israel, while Riyadh is edging ever closer. Yemen, meanwhile – still scarred from years of Saudi–Emirati aggression – has moved swiftly to back the Palestinian cause. The contrast could not be more stark: The Arab state most brutalized by Riyadh and Abu Dhabi is now standing up for Palestine while the aggressors look away.
Yemen’s stance also clashes with the broader geopolitical alignment of both Persian Gulf states, which remain deeply embedded in Washington’s orbit. But their frustration has remained mostly rhetorical.
Despite their roles in the so-called “Prosperity Guardian” alliance, neither Saudi Arabia nor the UAE has made major military moves against Yemen since the new round of US airstrikes began. Initially, Riyadh attempted to tie Yemen’s maritime operations in the Red Sea to the Gaza war, but that framing soon gave way to vague talk of threats to commercial shipping – code for backpedaling.
Saudi political messaging shifted sharply in January when it refused to take part in joint US–UK bombing raids. Its defense ministry moved quickly to deny reports that Saudi airspace had been opened for US strikes, and later distanced itself from any Israeli involvement. The message from Riyadh was clear: It does not want to be dragged into another full-scale war with Yemen – not now.
Yemen counters with a policy of containment
Despite Saudi Arabia’s retreat from its prior commitments, Yemen has actively encouraged Riyadh and Abu Dhabi to maintain a posture of neutrality. This is not out of optimism but pragmatism: Avoiding a wider war with the Persian Gulf would prevent a dangerous regional blowout. Sanaa’s goal has been to steer Saudi and Emirati decision-making away from military confrontation, proxy mobilization, or economic escalation.
That last point nearly tipped the balance in July 2024, when Riyadh instructed its puppet government in Aden to relocate Yemen’s central banks from Sanaa. It was a clear economic provocation – and a red line.
Within days, Ansarallah leader Abdul Malik al-Houthi delivered a sharp warning, framing the Saudi move as part of an Israeli–American playbook.
“The Americans are trying to entangle you [Saudi Arabia], and if you want that, then try it … The move towards aggressive escalation against our country is something we can never accept,” he revealed in a 7 July 2024 speech.
He warned Riyadh that falling for this trap would be “a terrible mistake and a great failure, and it is our natural right to counter any aggressive step.”
Sanaa responded with an unmistakable deterrent equation: “banks for banks, Riyadh Airport for Sanaa Airport, ports for ports.”
The Saudi maneuver may have been a test of Yemen’s resolve, possibly based on the assumption that Sanaa was too overextended – facing down a US-led coalition and spiraling domestic hardships – to respond decisively.
If so, Riyadh miscalculated. Houthi’s reply was blunt:
“This is not a matter of allowing you to destroy this people and push it to complete collapse so that no problems arise. Let a thousand problems arise. Let matters escalate as far as they may.”
No appetite in Riyadh or Abu Dhabi for a war without guarantees
The day after Houthi’s warning, massive protests erupted across Yemen. Millions marched in condemnation of Saudi provocations, offering the clearest signal yet that public opinion was firmly aligned behind the resistance – and willing to escalate.
Riyadh knows this. Even before the latest crisis, much of Yemeni society held Saudi Arabia and the UAE responsible for what even the UN called the world’s worst humanitarian disaster. Any new conflict would only deepen that anger.
Faced with the threat of direct retaliation, Riyadh backed off its banking gambit. The memory of past Yemeni strikes on Saudi oil facilities – particularly those between 2019 and 2021 –still haunts the Saudi leadership.
Today, Yemen’s capabilities have expanded. It now possesses hypersonic missiles and increasingly sophisticated drone technologies. And it is precisely because of these advances that Washington has failed to strong-arm the Gulf into renewed warfare. There are no meaningful US security guarantees on the table – nothing that would shield Saudi oil fields, critical infrastructure, or commercial shipping lanes from blowback.
The failures are already evident. The “Prosperity Guardian” coalition has done little to stop Yemeni strikes on Israeli-linked vessels, and US–UK airstrikes have failed to stem Yemen’s ability to hit deep inside Israel. These battlefield realities have changed the calculus in Riyadh and Abu Dhabi. Escalation, for now, is off the table.
Yemen’s red lines are expanding
That does not mean Washington has stopped trying to drag Saudi Arabia and the UAE into the fight. The Biden administration failed to do so. The Trump team, however, is seen as more aggressive and more likely to provide advanced weapons systems that might tempt Riyadh and Abu Dhabi to take the plunge.
There is also the perception among Gulf elites that this is a strategic opening: Syria’s collapse, Hezbollah’s supposed decline, and shifting regional dynamics may provide a rare window to redraw the map.
But for the Saudis, Yemen remains the central concern. A liberated, ideologically defiant state on their southern border is an existential threat – not only to security, but to the cultural rebranding project that the Kingdom has invested so heavily in. The UAE shares similar anxieties. A rising Yemeni Resistance Axis threatens its carefully curated image as a regional player in sync with Israeli and western interests.
That is why Sanaa has placed its forces on high alert. Ansarallah is monitoring every move by Riyadh, Abu Dhabi, and their local proxies – many of whom are eager to join the war. These groups have signaled readiness to participate in an international coalition to “protect shipping,” and have already held direct meetings with US military and political officials.
But the Sanaa government knows these factions would not act without orders. If they are mobilized for a broad ground offensive, Yemen will respond by targeting the powers behind them. Any ground war will be seen as a Saudi–Emirati initiative, not a local one. The same logic applies to renewed airstrikes or deeper economic war. These are Sanaa’s red lines.
A warning to the Axis of Normalization
Abdul Malik al-Houthi laid it out clearly during a 4 April address:
“I advise you all [Arab states neighboring Yemen], and we warn you at the same time: Do not get involved with the Americans in supporting the Israelis. The American enemy is in aggression against our country in support of the Israeli enemy. The battle is between us and the Israeli enemy.
The Americans support it, protect it, and back it. Do not get involved in supporting the Israeli enemy … any cooperation with the Americans in aggression against our country, in any form, is support for the Israeli enemy, it is cooperation with the Israeli enemy, it is conspiracy against the Palestinian cause.”
He went further:
“If you cooperate with the Americans: Either by allowing him to attack us from bases in your countries. Or with financial support. Or logistical support. Or information support. It is support for the Israeli enemy, advocacy for the Israeli enemy, and backing for the Israeli enemy.”
This was not just a warning. It was a strategic declaration. Any country crossing these lines will be treated as an active participant in the war – and subject to retaliation.
The message is aimed not just at Riyadh and Abu Dhabi, but at other Arab and African states that might be tempted to join the fray under the guise of “protecting international navigation.”
Yemen is preparing for all scenarios. It will not be caught off guard. And this time, it won’t be fighting alone.
April 16, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | Israel, Middle East, Saudi Arabia, UAE, United States, Yemen, Zionism |
Leave a comment
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s latest trip to Washington was no ordinary visit. The consensus among Israeli analysts, barring a few remaining loyalists, is that Netanyahu was not invited; he was summoned by US President Donald Trump.
All of the evidence supports this assertion. Netanyahu rarely travels to the US without extensive Israeli media fanfare, leveraging his touted relationships with various US administrations as a “hasbara” opportunity to reinforce his image as Israel’s strongman.
This time, there was no room for such propaganda.
Netanyahu was informed of Trump’s summons while on an official trip to Hungary, where he was received by Hungarian President Viktor Orban with exaggerated diplomatic accolades. This was a signal of defiance against international condemnation of Netanyahu, an alleged war criminal wanted by the International Criminal Court (ICC). Orban’s open arms welcome portrayed him as anything but an isolated leader of an increasingly pariah state.
The capstone of Netanyahu’s short-lived Hungarian victory lap was Orban’s announcement of Hungary’s withdrawal from the ICC, a move with profoundly unsettling implications.
It would have been convenient for Netanyahu to use his Washington visit to divert attention from his failed war in Gaza and internal strife in Israel. However, as the Arabic saying goes, “The wind often blows contrary to the ship’s desires.”
The notion that Netanyahu was summoned by Trump rather than invited, is corroborated by Israeli media reports that he attempted to postpone the visit under various pretexts. He failed, and flew to Washington on the date determined by the White House. Initially, reports circulated that no press conference would be held, denying Netanyahu the platform to tout for Washington’s unwavering support for his military actions and to expound on the “special relationship” between the two countries.
A press conference was held, although it was dominated largely by Trump’s contradictory messages and typical rhetoric. Netanyahu spoke briefly, attempting to project the same confident body language observed during his previous Washington visit, where he sat straight-backed with legs splayed out, as if he was in full command of all around him.
This time, though, Netanyahu’s body language betrayed him.
His eyes shifted nervously, and he appeared stiff and surprised, particularly when Trump announced that the US and Iran were about to begin direct talks in Oman.
Trump also mentioned the need to end the war in Gaza, but the Iran announcement clearly shocked Netanyahu. He desperately tried to align his discourse with Trump’s, referencing Libya’s disarmament under Muammar Gaddafi. But that was never part of Israel’s official regional plan. Israel has advocated consistently for US military intervention against Iran, despite the certainty that such a war would destabilise the entire region, potentially drawing the US into a conflict far more protracted and devastating than the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Further evidence of the US divergence of views from Israel’s regional ambitions — which are centred on perpetual war, territorial expansion and geopolitical dominance — lies in the fact that key political and intellectual figures within the Trump administration recognise the futility of such conflicts. In leaked exchanges on the encrypted messaging platform Signal, Vice President JD Vance protested that escalating the war in Yemen benefits Europe, not the US, a continent with which the US is increasingly decoupling, if not actually engaging in a trade war.
The Yemen war, like a potential conflict with Iran, is perceived widely as being waged on Israel’s behalf.
Figures like Tucker Carlson, a prominent commentator, articulated the growing frustration among right-wing intellectuals in the US, tweeting that, “Anyone advocating for conflict with Iran is not an ally of the United States, but an enemy.”
Trump’s willingness to challenge Netanyahu’s policies openly remains unclear. His conflicting statements, such as calling for an end to the Gaza war while simultaneously advocating for the expulsion of Palestinians, add to the ambiguity. However, recent reports suggest a determined US intention to end the war in Gaza as part of a broader strategy, linking Gaza to Yemen, Lebanon and Iran. This aligns with Washington’s need to stabilise the region as it prepares for a new phase of competition with China, requiring comprehensive economic, political and military readiness.
Should Trump prove capable of doing what others could not, will Netanyahu finally submit to American pressure?
In 2015, the Israeli leader demonstrated Israel’s unparalleled influence on US foreign and domestic policy when he addressed both chambers of Congress. Despite a few insignificant protests, Republican and Democratic policymakers applauded enthusiastically as Netanyahu criticised the then President Barack Obama, who did not attend and appeared to be isolated by his own political class.
However, if Netanyahu believes that he can replicate that moment, he is mistaken. Those years are long gone. Trump is a populist leader who is not beholden to political balances in Congress. Now in his second and final term, he could, in theory, abandon America’s ingrained reliance on the approval of Israel and its aggressively influential lobby in Washington.
Moreover, Netanyahu’s political standing is diminished. He is perceived as a failed political leader and military strategist, unable to secure decisive victories or extract political concessions from his adversaries. He is a leader without a clear plan, grappling with a legitimacy crisis unlike any faced by his predecessors.
Ultimately, the outcome hinges on Trump’s willingness to confront Netanyahu. If he does, and sustains the pressure, Netanyahu could find himself in an unenviable position, marking a rare instance in modern history where the US dictates the terms, and Israel listens. Is the unthinkable about to happen? Let’s wait and see.
April 15, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | Iran, Israel, Middle East, Palestine, United States, Zionism |
1 Comment
Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas met with the EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Kaja Kallas, in March. The meeting was replete with the usual hyperbole that still clings to the defunct two-state paradigm, the PA’s reform and funding for this purpose.
Yesterday, Reuters reported that the EU will be funding the PA with a three-year package worth $1.8 billion to support reform. According to European Commissioner for the Mediterranean Dubravka Suica, “We want them to reform themselves because without reforming, they won’t be strong enough and credible in order to be an interlocutor, not for only for us, but an interlocutor also for Israel.”
The reasoning is warped.
It only spells one thing clearly: the EU wants the PA to be strong enough to act against the Palestinian people and prevent them from being their own interlocutors in a political process that concerns them much more than the PA.
Speaking about the EU funding for the PA, Kallas said, “This will reinforce the PA’s ability to meet the needs of the Palestinian people in the West Bank and prepare it to return to govern Gaza once conditions allow.” No time frames, of course, because the conditions will always depend on Israel. Funding buys time for Israel’s genocide in Gaza. Meanwhile, the PA, which has not only neglected the needs of Palestinians in the occupied West Bank, but also exacerbated their humanitarian and political neglect as evidenced in Jenin, for example, can rest assured of some more years of EU support. That is, as long as the humanitarian paradigm remains relevant to the illusory state-building funded by Brussels.
From the allocated budget, the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) will receive €82 million per year.
The most telling clause in the European Commission’s statement detailing its assistance is found right at the end. “This designation shall not be construed as recognition of a State of Palestine and is without prejudice to the individual positions of the Member States on this issue.”
France’s announcement that it might recognise the State of Palestine by June this year, symbolic as the gesture is, only shows the EC’s urge to detach itself from all possibilities, no matter how remote, of Palestinian independence. Which brings one back to the big question:
Why is the EU really funding the PA’s state-building to prevent the eventual formation of a Palestinian state?
Funding a Palestinian entity for Israeli and EU purposes does not bode well for Palestinians, who are still only spoken of in terms of humanitarian matters. The political purpose is reserved only for Israel’s allies, the PA being one of them, as seen in many instances of its collaboration with the occupation state.
But Western diplomats would do well to recall that one major democratic implementation postponed repeatedly by Abbas – democratic legislative and presidential elections – has not featured once in the EU’s vision of a post-war Gaza, determined as it is to have the PA take over political authority in the enclave and bring Palestinians under different forms of misery. How scared is the EU of having Palestinians being allowed to vote freely and possibly electing alternatives that have nothing to do with the current Fatah-Hamas bipolarisation? Funding the PA indeed serves a purpose; that of destroying Palestinian democracy.
April 15, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Corruption, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Progressive Hypocrite | European Union, Human rights, Israel, Palestine, Zionism |
Leave a comment
The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights announced Tuesday that Israeli airstrikes have killed at least 71 civilians in Lebanon since the November 27 ceasefire came into effect, in what it described as an ongoing Israeli assault on Lebanese territory.
Among the victims were 14 women and 9 children, according to the UN rights office, which added that fear continues to grip the population, and over 92,000 people remain displaced from their homes.
UN human rights spokesperson Thameen al-Kheetan told reporters in Geneva that the southern suburb of Beirut was bombed in two separate incidents since the ceasefire was struck. He noted that both strikes targeted areas near schools.
On the morning of April 1, an Israeli airstrike hit a residential building in the area, killing two civilians and causing serious damage to nearby buildings, he said.
Just two days later, on April 3, Israeli airstrikes destroyed a newly constructed medical center operated by the Islamic Medical Association in the southern town of Naqoura. The strike also damaged two ambulances.
Deadly Israeli strikes
Between April 4 and 8, Israeli airstrikes reportedly killed at least six more people in various towns across southern Lebanon.
Al-Kheetan said Israeli strikes have repeatedly hit civilian infrastructure since the ceasefire was declared, including residential buildings, medical facilities, roads, and even a café in the town of Aita al-Shaab.
The latest report comes amid continued Israeli violations of the ceasefire agreement, with repeated attacks on southern Lebanon, the Bekaa region, and Beirut’s southern suburb, alongside the ongoing Israeli occupation of five disputed points along the border.
Targeting of civilians
Earlier today, one person was killed and three others, including a child, were injured in an Israeli airstrike targeting a vehicle in the town of Aitaroun, in the Bint Jbeil district of southern Lebanon.
On a related note, MP Hassan Fadlallah of the Loyalty to the Resistance bloc emphasized in parliament last week that expelling the Israeli occupation from Lebanese territory, liberating Lebanese prisoners, halting “Israel’s” aggression and violations of sovereignty, and rebuilding what it has destroyed are responsibilities that fall on all loyal Lebanese citizens, as well as on the state and its institutions.
He emphasized that the defensive strategy is a purely internal Lebanese matter to be agreed upon by those who believe in these principles and who recognize “Israel” as Lebanon’s enemy.
“As for those who do not view Israel as an enemy of Lebanon, who incite internal division, and who promote, justify, and market for the enemy — such individuals are unfit to take part in any internal dialogue focused on building the components of national strength to protect sovereignty,” Fadlallah indicated.
April 15, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Illegal Occupation, War Crimes | Israel, Lebanon, Zionism |
Leave a comment
Al Mayadeen’s correspondent in southern Lebanon reported on Tuesday that an Israeli occupation drone targeted a car in the town of Aitaroun in the Bint Jbeil district of southern Lebanon, near the border with occupied Palestine.
The Lebanese National News Agency reported that the Israeli aggression was carried out with three guided missiles, while Lebanon’s Ministry of Health reported one martyr and three wounded, including a child.
Also, according to the National News Agency, the Israeli occupation forces opened fire with machine guns on the eastern neighborhood of Mays al-Jabal.
The occupation continues to breach the ceasefire agreement with Lebanon through repeated assaults on the South, the Bekaa, and Beirut’s southern suburbs, as well as by maintaining control over the five disputed points.
On a related note, MP Hassan Fadlallah of the Loyalty to the Resistance bloc emphasized in parliament last week that expelling the Israeli occupation from Lebanese territory, liberating Lebanese prisoners, halting “Israel’s” aggression and violations of sovereignty, and rebuilding what it has destroyed are responsibilities that fall on all loyal Lebanese citizens, as well as on the state and its institutions.
He emphasized that the defensive strategy is a purely internal Lebanese matter to be agreed upon by those who believe in these principles and who recognize “Israel” as Lebanon’s enemy.
“As for those who do not view Israel as an enemy of Lebanon, who incite internal division, and who promote, justify, and market for the enemy — such individuals are unfit to take part in any internal dialogue focused on building the components of national strength to protect sovereignty,” Fadlallah indicated.
April 15, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | Israel, Lebanon, Zionism |
Leave a comment
The rhetoric surrounding a potential US–Israeli strike on Iran has intensified, fueled by veiled threats, media leaks, and what appeared to be an unofficial ultimatum from the Trump administration to Tehran. While no concrete consequences were outlined, the implication of direct military action looms large.
Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution – and especially after the Iran–Iraq War – Iran has lived under constant threat of US-led military intervention. These threats have fluctuated depending on regional dynamics and shifting US priorities.
In the aftermath of the illegal US invasion of Iraq in 2003, Iran and Syria appeared to be next in line for American-style regime-change. But the protracted insurgency in Iraq and the cost of occupation deterred further US military adventures – particularly against a civilization-state like Iran, whose size and geography pose significant challenges.
Republican leaders, and especially US President Donald Trump, have typically leaned toward employing open threats and economic strangulation policies against perceived US adversaries, rather than pursuing quiet diplomatic solutions. Today, they sense a unique opportunity to strike a deadly blow against Tehran given the recent weakening of Iran’s allies, particularly Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Syrian state, both of which have faced military setbacks and political isolation under western pressure and US-backed Israeli aggression.
Hezbollah, long viewed as Iran’s forward line of defense, now faces internal Lebanese constraints and sustained Israeli aggression, limiting its capacity to act preemptively should Iran be targeted. Meanwhile, Syria’s logistical value to the Axis of Resistance has diminished under sanctions, military exhaustion, and the toppling of former president Bashar al-Assad’s government by foreign-backed extremists under its self-appointed Al Qaeda-linked President Ahmad al-Sharaa.
Exploiting the regional moment
With the Axis of Resistance on the defensive, Washington and Tel Aviv see a fleeting opportunity to consolidate their gains. Yet despite their saber-rattling, Iran retains significant deterrence capabilities and appears prepared to retaliate if provoked.
Trump’s strategy, it must also be noted, extends well beyond Iran and its indigenous nuclear program. These foreign policy postures are part of a broader bid to isolate China, reset regional conflicts, distance Beijing from Moscow, and redirect global energy flows and prices, all while propping up Israel as Washington’s local enforcer.
In this context, West Asia becomes both a proving ground and a potential quagmire. Trump seeks to finalize the so-called “normalization” process between Israel and Arab states, neutralize Palestinian resistance, and pressure Iran to concede its regional role.
While he casts himself as a pragmatist open to deals, this posture serves a dual purpose: securing domestic political capital and forging a regional alliance rooted in US dependency.
Still, for such a deal to materialize, Iran would have to abandon core ideological and strategic pillars – namely, its regional alliances and missile deterrence. This is unlikely. Iran knows that surrendering these elements would strip the Islamic Republic not only of its ideological foundation but of any meaningful regional influence.
Iran’s multi-layered deterrence
Tehran’s defense strategy rests on several pillars. First is its alliance network stretching from Iraq to Yemen and Lebanon, forming a buffer against western hegemony. Second is its growing arsenal of precision missiles, drones, and domestically developed air defense systems. Third is geography: Iran’s control over key chokepoints in the Persian Gulf and its capacity to disrupt global oil supply grants it substantial leverage.
The final line of defense remains Iran’s nuclear program. While officially peaceful, there have been sporadic signals that suggest Tehran may recalibrate its doctrine in response to a major direct attack. Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, particularly at Fordow – a fortified facility deep beneath a mountain – underscores this strategic depth.
Despite recent blows, Hezbollah is unlikely to remain passive if Iran faces an existential threat. Likewise, US interests in Iraq and bases in the region, particularly Djibouti, could become targets for retaliatory strikes from Yemen’s Ansarallah movement.
Iran’s weapons development program has made extraordinary strides post-2011, with multiple lines of ballistic missiles like the Khyber Shakan and Fattah series, and more basic but highly producible systems like Imad and Radwan.
Meanwhile, Iran’s drones have proven effective in theaters from Ukraine to the Red Sea, while its layered air defenses – Khordad, Power-373, and Majid systems – make sustained air campaigns costly for adversaries. Its naval strategy hinges on asymmetric warfare and control of the Strait of Hormuz, a lifeline for global energy trade.
American options – and constraints
The US maintains around 60,000 troops across West Asia, mainly in Persian Gulf bases, and has shifted assets – including aircraft carriers and Patriot systems – from the Pacific to the region. Washington can certainly initiate a campaign to damage Iran’s infrastructure, but sustaining it would be difficult.
All regional US bases are within range of Iranian missiles, meaning any engagement could mark the first conventional war for the US with real counter-fire in decades.
Expect Washington to lean heavily on cyberwarfare and covert operations targeting civilian and military infrastructure alike to sow chaos inside Iran. Yet, a limited strike risks triggering a protracted conflict – something Iran is arguably more prepared for.
Iran’s strategy of attrition suits its asymmetric strengths and the fragility of US supply chains for munitions such as Patriots, SM-series interceptors, and cruise missiles.
The ongoing engagement in the Red Sea has already strained American resources. US aircraft carriers are operating from positions well beyond effective range, and stockpiles of precision munitions are running low – many earmarked for future conflict with China.
Manufacturing limitations, not cost, are the real bottleneck in sustaining a prolonged campaign. Despite these constraints, the US could still inflict serious initial damage. But sustaining such an operation, especially in the face of regional retaliation, would exact a high political and economic cost.
Between brinkmanship and bargaining
Both sides have much to lose – and much to bargain with. For Washington, a limited conflict could serve immediate strategic aims. For Tehran, dragging the US into a drawn-out war could shift pressure back onto American decision-makers already grappling with economic turbulence at home.
While the rhetoric of war dominates headlines, the path to direct conflict remains uncertain. Much depends on the outcome of indirect negotiations, particularly the recent round of indirect talks in Muscat, Oman.
Trump’s theatrics – threats, military build-up, and erratic messaging – are better understood as negotiating tactics than a clear march to war. Notably, Trump’s insistence that the occupation state should take the lead in any war on Iran reveals his reluctance to entangle the US in yet another West Asian quagmire.
His preference remains a deal, on his terms, allowing him to parade a foreign policy ‘win’ without bloodshed. In sum, war is neither inevitable nor necessarily decisive. The US needs a strategic pause in West Asia to refocus on other global priorities.
Iran, meanwhile, seeks time to rebuild internally and block Israel from exploiting current momentum. The coming weeks may decide whether this standoff ends in confrontation, or compromise.
April 15, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Wars for Israel | Iran, Israel, Middle East, United States, Zionism |
Leave a comment
Millions of people around the world were at the edge of their seats over the weekend, waiting to hear whether Trump special envoy Steve Witkoff’s indirect talks with the Iranian foreign minister would ratchet down tensions or would break down and bring on a major Middle East war.
If it seems bizarre that the outcome of a meeting between a US president’s designated negotiator and a foreign government minister could determine whether we plunge into possibly our biggest war since World War II, that’s because it is bizarre. In fact, this is an excellent example of why our Founders were so determined to keep warmaking authority out of the Executive Branch of government. No one person – much less his aide – should have the power to take this country to war.
That is why the Constitution places the authority to go to war firmly and exclusively in the hands of the representatives of the people: the US Congress. After all, it is the US people who will be expected to fight the wars and to pay for the wars and to bear the burden of the outcome of the wars. When that incredible power is placed in the hands of one individual – even if that individual is elected – the temptation to use it is far too great. Our Founders recognized this weakness in the system they were rebelling against – the British monarchy – so they wisely corrected it when they drafted our Constitution.
Unless the US is under direct attack or is facing imminent direct attack, the Constitution requires Congress to deliberate, discuss, and decide whether a conflict or potential conflict is worth bringing the weight of the US military to bear. They wanted it harder, not easier, to take us to war.
When wars can be started by presidents with no authority granted by Congress, the results can be the kinds of endless military engagements with ever-shifting, unachievable objectives such as we’ve seen in Afghanistan and Iraq.
We are currently seeing another such endless conflict brewing with President Trump’s decision to start bombing Yemen last month. The stated objectives– to end Houthi interference with Israeli Red Sea shipping – are not being achieved so, as usually happens, the bombing expands and creates more death and destruction for the civilian population. In the last week or so, US bombs have struck the water supply facilities for 50,000 civilians and have apparently blown up a civilian tribal gathering.
Starting a war with Iran was the furthest thing from the minds of American voters last November, and certainly those who voted for Donald Trump were at least partly motivated by his promise to end current wars and start no new wars. However, there is a strange logic that to fulfill the promise of no new wars, the US must saber rattle around the world to intimidate others from crossing the White House. This is what the recycled phrase “peace through strength” seems to have come to mean. But the real strength that it takes to make and keep peace is the strength to just walk away. It is the strength to stop meddling in conflicts that have nothing to do with the United States.
That is where Congress comes in. Except they are not coming in. They are nowhere to be found. And that is not a good thing.
April 14, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Militarism, Wars for Israel | Iran, Israel, Middle East, United States, Yemen |
Leave a comment
Al Mayadeen has obtained a copy of the Israeli proposal submitted to mediators and subsequently conveyed to Hamas regarding negotiations for a permanent ceasefire in Gaza.
In March, “Israel” reneged on a ceasefire that brought two months of relative calm and resumed its war on the Gaza Strip.
The document outlines that Hamas would release captive Edan Alexander on the first day as a special gesture to the United States, signaling goodwill at the onset of the discussions.
The Israeli proposal includes a clear demand for the complete disarmament of the Gaza Strip, setting forth a framework for a 45-day temporary ceasefire. This ceasefire would encompass the cessation of military operations, the delivery of humanitarian aid, and the exchange of prisoners.
On the second day of the truce, Hamas would release five living captives in exchange for 66 Palestinian prisoners serving life sentences and 611 detainees from Gaza.
The proposal stipulates that any release of captives must occur without public displays or ceremonial proceedings.
Moreover, the proposal calls for the establishment of a mutually agreed-upon mechanism to ensure that humanitarian aid reaches civilians exclusively.
Following the release of the five captives, the document allows for the entry of humanitarian aid and necessary shelter equipment to assist displaced persons in Gaza.
Additionally, the Israeli military would begin its “redeployment” in the Rafah area and northern Gaza Strip following the release of the captives.
On the third day, negotiations are set to begin on “the day after,” which would center on disarmament efforts and the formal declaration of a permanent ceasefire.
By the seventh day, Hamas would release four captives in exchange for 54 Palestinian prisoners serving life sentences, as well as 500 detainees held since October 7, 2023.
The proposal specifies that after the seventh day, the Israeli military would begin “redeploying” east of Salah al-Din Street.
On the 10th day, Hamas would be required to provide comprehensive information about all remaining living captives in exchange for corresponding information on Palestinian detainees
On the 20th day, Hamas would release 16 dead captives in exchange for 160 Palestinians who have been killed, with both groups to be released simultaneously.
The Israeli proposal further outlines that negotiations for a permanent ceasefire must be finalized within 45 days. It also specifies that once a ceasefire agreement is reached, the remaining live and dead captives will be released.
If a temporary ceasefire is successfully agreed upon, the proposal indicates that it could be extended under mutually agreed-upon conditions and for a duration to be determined by both parties.
Finally, the document underscores that the guarantors of the deal—Egypt, Qatar, and the United States—would continue to exert efforts to ensure the continuation of negotiations and the eventual establishment of a permanent ceasefire agreement.
Resistance leader details Gaza proposal, Hamas’ stance
Earlier on Monday, a Palestinian Resistance leader speaking to Al Mayadeen outlined the key points of the latest Israeli proposal, which includes the redeployment of Israeli occupation forces to positions held before March 2, a 45-day term for halting military operations, the opening of crossings, and the entry of humanitarian aid—but all under Israeli-imposed conditions.
According to the source, the proposal fails to meet Hamas’ core demands of a permanent ceasefire and a complete Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, he added.
The leader further warned that the Israeli plan appears designed to gradually strip Hamas of its leverage by extracting captives without securing meaningful concessions.
He further told Al Mayadeen that the Israeli proposal seeks to disarm Hamas and ensure it does not return to power in Gaza.
April 14, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | Hamas, Israel, Palestine, Zionism |
Leave a comment
Aletho News 