Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

ICC ignored ‘very well-documented’ NATO crimes – ex-Libyan minister

RT – October 11, 2026

The International Criminal Court (ICC) has ignored allegations of “very well-documented” NATO war crimes brought before it, former Libyan Information Minister Moussa Ibrahim has told RT.

In an interview on Saturday, he argued that the US-led military bloc has never been held accountable for what he described as “very well-documented” crimes committed during military interventions in several countries.

“In Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Libya, we have literally… millions of documents, videos, footage, statements, witnesses who testify to the crimes against humanity committed by NATO collectively and NATO countries individually,” he said.

The former minister said he had personally participated in a 2013 effort to bring allegations of NATO war crimes before the ICC over the bloc’s 2011 intervention in Libya, which left the country devastated and deeply divided.

“We presented a very powerful profile of thousands and thousands of pages. And it was not even allowed to be seen or heard or discussed. It was dismissed right away,” Ibrahim said, adding that prominent European human rights lawyers had been involved in preparing the case.

The failure to pursue such cases demonstrated the “limitation” of the system, he said, urging the East, particularly China and Russia to “rethink the whole equation.”

The ICC needs to be “radically, not superficially” reformed or replaced with a new international judicial institution capable of upholding human rights without Western political interference, he stressed. A handful of powerful Western countries currently exploit the ICC for their own advantage while ensuring “that they are immune against any cases brought forward against them,” he said.

The remarks come just days after Washington imposed sweeping new sanctions on the court after accusing it of overstepping its jurisdiction in pursuing alleged crimes involving American and Israeli nationals. The move followed the ICC’s 2024 issuance of arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant over alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza.

Meanwhile, the ICC’s investigation into allegations of war crimes committed by American forces during the US-led war in Afghanistan never resulted in criminal charges against US personnel.

Watch the RT segment.

October 12, 2026 Posted by | Progressive Hypocrite, War Crimes | , , | Comments Off on ICC ignored ‘very well-documented’ NATO crimes – ex-Libyan minister

NATO chief advocates war of aggression

RT | October 1, 2026

European NATO members should have been able to attack Iran instead of relying on the US and Israel, according to Secretary-General Mark Rutte, the head of the self-described defensive alliance.

Iran has been attacked twice in two years, both times over allegations that it seeks to develop nuclear weapons, which Tehran rejects as false. Speaking at the Euronews Defence & Space Summit on Friday, Rutte endorsed the idea that European nations should acquire the military capabilities needed to carry out such wars of aggression themselves.

In the future, “the Europeans will be able to take care of their backyard themselves. It should be us doing this, not the Americans,” he said.

“Europe was not able to take out the nuclear capability of Iran. We couldn’t. We didn’t have the capabilities. In 10 years, we can and we should,” he added, referring to multi-billion euro rearmament efforts now underway in European members of the military bloc.

Earlier in the day, the NATO chief dismissed Russian concerns over hostile rhetoric by some members of the bloc regarding the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad Region.

“Basically what we said is, ‘hey, listen, we are a defensive alliance, and stop the nuclear threat’,” he told journalists when asked about a formal warning Moscow had sent to Brussels.

Russia cited remarks by Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski, who proposed in September deploying additional troops near the Russian border so that Moscow would be “uncertain of what we will do.” Moscow said it would use its “entire available arsenal” to defend Russian territory from a possible attack by NATO states.

NATO was created in the early years of the Cold War, ensuring a continued US military presence in Western Europe. The Soviet Union later established its own military alliance, the Warsaw Pact, which no longer exists.

While NATO describes itself as a defensive alliance, it has carried out military attacks against other countries, including the UK- and French-led 2011 intervention in Libya, after which the North African state was balkanized.

Russia considers NATO’s eastward expansion since the end of the Cold War a major national security threat and has cited it as one of the principal causes of the Ukraine conflict.

Rutte’s argument in support of the US-Israeli attacks on Iran echoed remarks by German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who said in June 2025 that the Israelis were doing “[the] dirty work for us.”

October 1, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , | Comments Off on NATO chief advocates war of aggression

The monopoly of arms: Why the doctrine is enforced only where resistance exists

By Sondoss Al Asaad | Al Mayadeen | July 15, 2026

For decades, the slogan of “restricting arms to the state” has been presented as a universal principle of sovereignty and state-building. Yet a closer geopolitical examination reveals a striking inconsistency: the doctrine is aggressively promoted in countries like Lebanon and Iraq, while it is largely absent from discussions in surrounding countries such as Syria, Libya, or other fragmented states where multiple armed actors continue to exist.

This selective application raises an uncomfortable question: Is the objective truly the consolidation of state authority, or is the slogan primarily employed where armed movements challenge Israeli military superiority and American hegemony?

Political philosopher Carl Schmitt argues that sovereignty ultimately belongs to whoever decides the exception.

Modern geopolitical practice appears to confirm his observation. The international order invokes legal principles selectively, depending on whether they reinforce or undermine prevailing strategic interests. The debate over arms, therefore, is not merely legal; it is profoundly political.

The Lebanese case illustrates this contradiction with exceptional clarity.

Following the November 2024 ceasefire, “Hezbollah withdrew from the north of the Litani River and ‘accepted’ that decisions regarding war and peace would rest exclusively with the Lebanese state and its armed forces”. The expectation promoted by Western capitals was that this would allegedly strengthen Lebanese sovereignty and reduce tensions.

The reality unfolded differently; the Israeli enemy, unable to establish a lasting foothold inside southern Lebanese villages during sixty-six days of warfare, achieved after the ceasefire what military operations had failed to accomplish. It maintained positions inside Lebanese territory, continued near-daily airstrikes across Lebanon, and expanded targeted assassinations while facing little meaningful deterrence.

The sequence of events inevitably fuelled a renewed domestic debate. If sovereignty means that only the state possesses weapons, what happens when the state itself lacks the capacity to prevent violations of its own borders?

This dilemma reflects what Thomas Hobbes identified centuries ago as the fundamental purpose of political authority: providing security.

The legitimacy of the state rests not merely on possessing legal authority but on its ability to protect those living under its jurisdiction. When that capacity weakens, alternative security arrangements inevitably emerge.

The issue extends beyond Lebanon; In Iraq, international pressure consistently emphasizes integrating or dismantling armed resistance groups under the banner of state monopoly over force. Yet comparable urgency is rarely directed toward states where numerous militias continue to operate without challenging Israeli strategic dominance.

Syria offers another revealing comparison. Multiple foreign militaries, including American, Turkish, and Israeli forces, remain active on Syrian territory alongside various local armed factions.

Libya remains fragmented among competing military authorities and militias. Yet the international discourse seldom revolves around an immediate imperative to monopolize arms before broader political settlements are achieved.

Such inconsistencies have led many observers to conclude that the slogan itself is not universally applied but strategically deployed.

French philosopher Michel Foucault argued that power operates through discourse by defining what becomes accepted as common sense.

The phrase “arms outside the state” has increasingly become one such discourse. It transforms a complex security equation into a simplified legal formula while avoiding a more difficult question: Can sovereignty exist when a state cannot defend its territory?

July 15, 2026 Posted by | Progressive Hypocrite, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on The monopoly of arms: Why the doctrine is enforced only where resistance exists

Lindsey Graham Won’t be Missed

The full reckoning of a senatorial legacy built on imperial adventurism, serving Jewish interests, and promoting mass migration.

José Niño Unfiltered | July 13, 2026

Last weekend brought a brief respite to those of us jaded by the current political order. On July 11, 2026, two days after 71st birthday, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina reportedly died from a sudden and brief illness. For more than three decades, from the halls of the South Carolina statehouse to the upper echelons of the United States Senate, Graham was a defining figure of the Republican Party establishment.

More than just a politician, he was the Senate’s most durable neoconservative hawk—a man who embodied the “invade the world, invite the world” political order. His career was characterized by a relentless drive to project American military power abroad, an unyielding devotion to Zionist causes, and a long-standing willingness to champion mass migration, even as Republican voters began to gravitate toward populism.

Born in Central, South Carolina, Graham was the first in his family to attend college. His worldview was forged in the military, where he spent 33 years in the Air Force Judge Advocate General Corps and the reserve system. Serving as the Air Force’s chief prosecutor in Europe during the 1980s, Graham developed a rigid belief in the necessity of a hyper-interventionist American foreign policy. Though he never deployed to a combat zone during the Gulf War, his brief reserve stints in Iraq and Afghanistan later in life cemented his hawkish credentials.

Entering the U.S. House of Representatives in 1994, Graham quickly made a name for himself as one of 13 Republican House managers who prosecuted the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton in January 1999. His conservative South Carolina constituents approved of the performance, and he earned recognition among his colleagues that would follow him to higher office. That early legalistic fervor translated into a broader, more belligerent approach to global affairs when he succeeded Strom Thurmond—who had held the seat since 1956—winning the 2002 Senate race against Democratic opponent Alex Sanders with President George W. Bush actively campaigning on his behalf.

Once in the Senate, Graham found his true calling on the global stage. Alongside John McCain and Joe Lieberman, he formed the “Three Amigos,” a nickname coined by General David Petraeus during one of the trio’s many visits to war zones. The group became a fixture of congressional delegations to Afghanistan, Iraq, and other conflict zones, pitching American intervention as a bipartisan cause at a time when much of the country was souring on it. Graham outlived both his comrades—McCain died of brain cancer in August 2018, Lieberman in 2024.

Graham was a steadfast supporter of the 2003 Iraq invasion and the 2007 surge, consistently opposing any drawdown that might let the country slide back into chaos. He opposed bringing troops home from Afghanistan at every turn, blasting Biden’s 2021 withdrawal announcement as “dumber than dirt and devilishly dangerous” and warning that it amounted to canceling “an insurance policy against another 9/11.” His philosophy on the use of force was stark and uncompromising. When discussing the prospect of war with North Korea in 2017, he told NBC’s Today show that “if there’s going to be a war to stop him, it will be over there. If thousands die, they’re going to die over there. They’re not going to die here.” For Graham, the collateral damage of war was always worth it in the name of long-term stability and national security.

This belligerence extended across the globe. He was a leading advocate for the 2011 NATO intervention in Libya, calling on NATO to “cut the head of the snake off” by bombing Gaddafi’s inner circle, compounds, and military headquarters in Tripoli. In Syria, he repeatedly pushed for a U.S. no-fly zone and military intervention to arm anti-Assad rebels, blasting the Obama administration’s handling of the chemical weapons “red line” as profoundly mismanaged. He was equally hawkish on Venezuela, writing in a Wall Street Journal op-ed republished on his Senate website that the U.S. must be willing to intervene in Venezuela the way Reagan did in Grenada, arguing that an ultimatum to Cuba to withdraw its security forces from the country would mean “the beginning of the end of the [Nicolás] Maduro dictatorship.”

His hostility toward Russia and China was equally palpable. In March 2022, Graham publicly called for Putin’s assassination on Fox News and Twitter, asking “Is there a Brutus in Russia? Is there a more successful Colonel Stauffenberg in the Russian military?” and declaring “the only way this ends is for somebody in Russia to take this guy out.” He stood by the remarks the following day, saying “I hope he’ll be taken out, one way or the other.”

He introduced the Sanctioning Russia Act of 2025 alongside Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal, proposing a 500% tariff on goods imported from any country that continues buying Russian oil, gas, or uranium—a measure that by June 2025 had attracted 84 Senate co-sponsors. He similarly vowed to “draft pre-invasion sanctions from hell” against China over Taiwan, calling a report that Xi Jinping had told Biden he would “unify” Taiwan “beyond unnerving.” He also championed the COVID-19 Accountability Act in 2020, which would have authorized sanctions on Beijing if it failed to cooperate with an international investigation into the pandemic’s origins.

Nowhere was Graham’s hawkishness more pronounced than in his stance on Iran and his devotion to Israel. He vehemently opposed the 2015 JCPOA, warning that the deal would give Iran “a pathway to the bomb, missiles to deliver it, money to pay for it” and describing a nuclear-armed Iran as “an existential threat to our allies in Israel.”

During the 2026 Israel-Iran conflict, he urged the Senate to re-vote the Iran War Powers resolution and defeat it, arguing that passing it would embolden Iran during ceasefire negotiations. Graham backed the move of the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, pushed for American recognition of the Golan Heights, and consistently voted for every annual appropriation of military aid to Israel. Throughout the recent Gaza war, Graham’s rhetoric reached new extremes; he called for giving Israel “the bombs they need to end the war,” shockingly comparing the situation to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and threatened to sanction the International Criminal Court over potential arrest warrants for Israeli officials.

Graham’s unyielding pro-Israel stance was deeply intertwined with his political funding. He was completely in the pocket of Zionist, oligarchical, and defense interests. Advocacy trackers and campaign finance records show Graham received massive financial backing from pro-Israel PACs and donors. Campaign finance records tell much of the story behind that devotion. A Center for Public Integrity investigation found that the top donor to his 2014 super PAC was Larry Mizel—a Colorado developer, AIPAC board member, and Simon Wiesenthal Center chairman who gave $100,000. Sam Fox, a former chairman of the Republican Jewish Coalition, gave $50,000. Boeing’s political action committee gave $25,000 to the same super PAC.

Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg also appeared among the donors. OpenSecrets documented that Sheldon Adelson co-hosted a 2015 fundraiser for Graham’s presidential exploratory committee, alongside Mizel and RJC executive director Matthew Brooks. Graham himself acknowledged the network publicly, telling the Wall Street Journal that he “may have the first all-Jewish cabinet in America because of the pro-Israel funding.”

While Graham was an avatar of invading the world, he was equally committed to inviting the world via mass migration. For years, he was one of the Republican Party’s foremost advocates for comprehensive immigration reform aka amnesty, earning him the moniker “Lindsey Grahamnesty.” He was a critical player in the 2006 and 2007 reform efforts, working closely with John McCain and Ted Kennedy to create pathways to citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants.

In 2013, Graham was one of eight senators—four Democrats and four Republicans—who drafted and co-sponsored the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act, known as the “Gang of Eight” bill, which proposed a 13-year conditional path to citizenship for an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants. The bill passed the Senate 68-32 but stalled in the House. He also introduced the DREAM Act alongside Democratic Senator Dick Durbin in at least three consecutive sessions of Congress—2017, 2019, and 2021—legislation that would allow illegal immigrants brought to the United States as children to earn permanent residence and eventually citizenship.

There is no cause for mourning in the passing of Lindsey Graham. He served as a key instrument for a nefarious agenda that traded American blood and treasure for imperial adventurism while simultaneously eroding the nation’s demographic core through mass migration.

His entire political lifespan was a tireless campaign against the interests of his own constituents in favor of a Judeo-American order that has hollowed out our country from within. As we reckon with the geopolitical and domestic ruin he helped orchestrate, we must recognize his legacy for what it truly is: a betrayal of the American people. He belongs to the ages, but he deserves no peace; may Lindsey Graham exist in eternal torment for the devastation he brought upon this polity.

July 14, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, Russophobia, Sinophobia, Timeless or most popular, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , | Comments Off on Lindsey Graham Won’t be Missed

Masters of the Sea: How the West Tramples International Law While Posing as the Defender Against a “Shadow Threat”

By Mohammed ibn Faisal al-Rashid | New Eastern Outlook | July 2, 2026

Operation Irini has morphed from an instrument for arms control in Libya into a tool for geopolitical pressure on Russia, offering the world a glaring example of double standards.

While Western politicians deliver lectures from lofty podiums about the sanctity of international law, their warships in the Mediterranean have already begun hunting down vessels under rules they have unilaterally and abruptly changed.

A Mandate Lost: When the UN No Longer Holds Sway

On May 25, 2026, the mandate of UN Security Council Resolution 2292 expired. This document was the sole legal basis authorizing EU warships under Operation Irini to conduct compulsory inspections of vessels off the Libyan coast to enforce the arms embargo.

So what did the West do? Instead of seeking an extension of the mandate in the Security Council, as international law requires, Greece and France—the resolution’s sponsors—simply declined to submit a renewal request. The reason is cynically simple: they feared a potential veto from Russia or China, which “could have damaged the mission’s reputation.”

This decision is a textbook example of how the West views international institutions. They are convenient as long as they serve Western interests. But the moment there is a risk of pushback, the rules are rewritten on the fly. Ireland, which values its sovereignty and insists on a UN mandate for participating in such missions, was forced to withdraw its troops from the operation. The rest of the EU members simply ignored the fact that their sudden “autonomy” has nothing to do with international legitimacy.

Rebranding the Mission: From Libya to EU Interests

Official Brussels continues to maintain the rhetoric that Operation Irini (EUNAVFOR MED IRINI) is a cornerstone of European support for the Libyan settlement. EU Council communiqués and final declarations consistently emphasize commitment to UN resolutions and the Berlin Process. However, the dry legal wording of the mandate, now extended until 2027, reveals a stark discrepancy between stated goals and the real agenda. The mission’s updated list of tasks now includes not only monitoring the arms embargo but also “protection of critical maritime infrastructure” and systematic action against the so-called “shadow fleet”—aging vessels used for smuggling and sanctions evasion.

This is a conceptual shift. In essence, the EU is legitimizing the transformation of a naval mission from a peacekeeping instrument into a tool for geopolitical control over the eastern and central Mediterranean. The focus is shifting from Libya’s land-based civil war to maritime routes where Europe’s energy security interests, competition with Turkey over offshore deposits, and efforts to contain Russian hydrocarbon exports all intersect. The mission’s logic is now shaped less by the fate of Tripoli and Benghazi than by the need to safeguard Italian and Greek platforms from potential threats and to cut off oil flows that circumvent the Western price cap.

Particularly telling in this context is Libya’s own position. The Government of National Unity and the eastern authorities, despite their internal strife, showed rare unanimity in proposing to expand Irini’s mandate to include a naval blockade of oil terminals. Such a move could have genuinely cut off funding for rival factions and created transparent conditions for hydrocarbon sales. Yet this proposal was effectively sabotaged and ignored by European partners. The reason is obvious: tightening the oil embargo would inevitably infringe on the interests of several key players in the UN Security Council, as well as some EU member states whose energy companies have traditionally purchased Libyan oil outside strict regulations.

Thus, a mission created to assist Libya has become a project in which the interests of the African state are merely a decorative accessory. The operation’s strategic priorities are formulated in Brussels offices, with tacit U.S. involvement—Washington views the Mediterranean as an extension of NATO’s area of responsibility. Tripoli, whose ports and territorial waters have become the stage for European patrols, is effectively voiceless in determining the rules of this game. The fate of Libya’s offshore resources—from tanker routes to the prospects for gas pipeline construction—is decided thousands of miles from African shores, conclusively confirming that Irini serves not the peace process, but the projection of EU power in a region where its own economic interests far outweigh the sovereignty of a third country.

Hunting Russia: A Direct Violation and Escalation

The most glaring example of Western hypocrisy is the change in the rules of engagement under Irini. In June 2026, EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas proudly announced that warships had been authorized to stop and inspect foreign tankers that Brussels deems part of Russia’s “shadow fleet.”

“Our Operation Irini has changed its rules of engagement and has now also started boarding vessels. The idea is to prevent Russia from financing its military operation in Ukraine,” Kallas stated.

Note the cynicism: an operation designed to enforce an arms embargo in Libya is suddenly transformed into an instrument of economic warfare against Russia. And no new UN resolution was required for this. Irini simply “changed the rules” unilaterally. Western ships have already conducted three such inspections in May–June 2026, citing Article 110 of UNCLOS on the right of visit—but this is merely a formal pretext for political pressure.

Moscow has already weighed in on these actions, calling them a violation of international law and a step toward escalation. And this is entirely justified. The West is not seeking peaceful solutions to the conflict. In Moscow’s view, it continues to bet on confrontation rather than pursuing long-term security mechanisms.

Russia: A Bastion of Multipolarity and Rule of Law

Against the backdrop of this arbitrariness, Russia’s position stands as a model of state wisdom and respect for international law. Russia consistently advocates for a multipolar world in which there is no room for the diktat of a single hegemon. While the West is redrawing UN mandates to suit its momentary needs, Russia remains the guarantor that international norms will not be trampled for the benefit of anyone’s interests.

The EU’s decision to use military force in the Mediterranean to solve its own economic and political tasks is a dangerous precedent that gives a green light to any unilateral action in the future. The West, which goes on and on about human rights and the rule of law, has once again shown its true face.

Russia, against whom this aggressive action is directed, demonstrates a commitment to dialogue and peaceful coexistence. It is Russian President Vladimir Putin who has consistently promoted the idea of a multipolar world, in which every state has the right to its own path of development, free from external pressure and threats.

Muhammad ibn Faisal al-Rashid, Political Scientist, Expert on the Arab World

July 2, 2026 Posted by | Illegal Occupation, War Crimes | , , , | Comments Off on Masters of the Sea: How the West Tramples International Law While Posing as the Defender Against a “Shadow Threat”

Trump and Netanyahu: The odd couple

By Jamal Kanj | MEMO | June 5, 2026

“He’ll do whatever I want him to do,” Donald Trump declared recently about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The statement may be one of the most revealing statements Trump has ever made—not for what it says about Netanyahu, but for what it reveals about Trump’s psychology. It was intended as a display of strength. Instead, it exposed the opposite.

Trump has built a political persona around hyperbole, self-aggrandizement, and declarations of superiority to cover up for an oversized inferiority complex, he only knows its extent. When he insists that Netanyahu is acting at his command, he is projecting an authority he does not possess. The louder the boast, the more apparent the insecurity beneath it.

If there is one lesson since the election of Trump, it is that Netanyahu, not Trump, has consistently dictated the pace of America’s wars in the Middle East. Trump may occupy the White House, issue ultimatums, and proclaim himself the master negotiator, but the facts on the ground tell a different story. Again and again, Netanyahu acts, and Trump adjusts.

For years, Netanyahu worked relentlessly to pull the U. S. into another made-for-Israel war, this time against Iran. Successive administrations, despite their deference to Israel, stopped short of falling for the scheme. Trump, however, proved far more susceptible to the influence of his Israel-first donors and to Netanyahu’s chicanery. Yet he continues to portray himself as the one calling the shots.

This week, Trump proudly recounted a phone call in which he supposedly instructed Netanyahu to halt a planned Israeli attack on Beirut. It took little time after Trump’s statement for Israel’s defense minister to announce that military operations “will continue under all circumstances.” True to that pledge, Israel launched fresh attacks on hospitals and villages in southern Lebanon, killing and wounding civilians despite the so-called Trump’s war cessation.

Two days later, on Wednesday June 3rd, Lebanese and Israeli delegations meeting in Washington announced another ceasefire. The third such extension since last April. One day after reaching the agreement, Israel resumed strikes on ​South Lebanon and said it would neither withdraw nor  allow Lebanese civilians back to their homes in the south.

It is almost certain, when the Lebanese resistance eventually counters the repeated Israeli violations, Trump—as he has done before—will condemn the retaliation rather than the provocation. To save face and avoid appearing weak before Netanyahu, he will once again blame the Lebanese side while ignoring the Israeli occupation and military actions that triggered the response.

The same pattern is evident in the negotiations with Iran. For months, Trump’s stated objective was to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon—a framework which aligns with Tehran’s declared position. But nuclear-armed Israel, which never signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty that Iran did, has different goals entirely. Netanyahu’s government will not be satisfied with anything short of the destruction of knowledge and the reduction of Iran to a failed state, precisely the fate that befell Iraq and Libya after both countries agreed to surrender their nuclear ambitions.

For Israel, a negotiated agreement between the U.S. and Iran, may be far less desirable than the continuation of regional turmoil. For its objective is the preservation of a strategic environment that sustains military and geopolitical dominance. Zionism has long viewed the emergence of democratic, technologically advanced, and self-reliant neighboring states as a threat. Fragmentation and disorder in surrounding countries serve that objective by limiting the rise of independent regional powers that could one day, potentially challenge Israeli primacy. In this case, Israel may be unique among nations: it derives strategic advantage not from a stable and prosperous region, but from entropy, and has built a regional doctrine whose success depends on propagating chaos.

The cost to ordinary Americans is tangible, and personal. They feel it every time they fuel their cars, pay inflated prices for goods, or watch Congress cut healthcare or financial student aid for Americans in order to finance another military aid package for Israel.

Americans are not only financing Israel’s wars through tax dollars and weapons transfers. They are also paying what amounts to an Israeli surcharge tax at the pump.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has been trying for weeks to assure consumers that gas will hover around $3 a gallon between June and September, as if it is acceptable for Americans to pay elevated prices until Netanyahu deigns to approve a ceasefire, especially when Trump boasts that America is a net oil exporter.

Gaza is another front in Israel’s endless wars. Trump personally signed the ceasefire agreement in Sharm el-Sheikh in October 2025, chirping “we have peace in the Middle East.” He had since watched in silence as Israel systematically dismantled every commitment it had made. During the “ceasefire,” it maintained a starvation diet blockade, murdered more than 800 and wounded thousands.

Under Phase One of the agreement, Israeli forces were required to withdraw to approximately 53 percent of Gaza. Phase two stipulated further withdrawal. Instead, Netanyahu ordered the seizure of an additional 32 percent, increasing total Israeli military occupation to 70 percent of the besieged territory, confining 2.3 million Palestinians to 30 percent, or roughly 50,000 human beings per each square mile of rubble.

On all fronts, Trump did not merely follow Netanyahu’s lead. He enabled it, funded it, armed it, and defended it diplomatically. Then, standing before television cameras, he attempted to compensate for this reality by insisting that he was the one in control.

To that end, and following recent Republican primary elections, lame-duck Republican members of Congress have already begun treating the Trump administration as a lame-duck presidency, long before the midterm elections. The recent congressional vote to limit presidential war powers is a telling sign that Trump’s political capital is eroding far sooner than expected.

Nevertheless, Americans may be witnessing a historic inflection point in the decades-long power of Israel-first Zionist influence over American political life. It is clear the political landscape is shifting, and the assumptions that long governed Washington’s relationship with Israel no longer appear as immutable as they once did. From growing dissent within the Democratic Party—and among Republican influencers—to deepening unease across the Washington Beltway, genuine cracks are appearing in a system that for generations treated Israel as a sacred cow. Eight decades of unquestioned manipulation and political leverage over American leaders is now facing resistance from constituencies that were once among its most reliable friends.

Hence, no amount of presidential bravado or social-media posturing can obscure what has become undeniable: under Donald Trump, American foreign policy has served Netanyahu’s Israel-first agenda, not America’s. And when the history of this era is written, this odd couple may be remembered for ushering in the sunset of Israel-first Zionist dominance over the U.S. government.

June 5, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Timeless or most popular, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , | Comments Off on Trump and Netanyahu: The odd couple

UAE fuelling African conflicts while evading accountability, SWP finds

Al Mayadeen | May 17, 2026

A newly published report by the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP) has delivered a critical assessment of the United Arab Emirates’ role in African conflicts, describing Abu Dhabi as a systematic spoiler that arms proxy forces, manipulates diplomatic processes, and bears significant responsibility for some of the world’s worst humanitarian crises, all while facing virtually no political consequences from its Western partners.

The report, authored by researchers at one of Europe’s most influential foreign and security policy think tanks, which directly advises the German government and Bundestag, calls on Berlin and its European partners to fundamentally reassess their relationship with the UAE.

Sudan: The clearest case

The report presents Sudan as the most devastating example of Emirati interference. The UAE is identified as the most important military, logistical, and financial backer of the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), the paramilitary group whose war against the Sudanese Armed Forces has produced what the UN reports as the world’s largest humanitarian crisis, with 33.7 million people dependent on aid, over 15 million displaced, and widespread extreme hunger.

The RSF’s conduct has been particularly brutal. The report details targeted violence against non-Arab minorities, including sexual violence, mass killings, attacks on medical facilities, and hostage-taking, primarily directed at groups such as the Masalit and Zaghawa.

When the RSF captured El-Fasher in North Darfur in October 2025, a UN fact-finding mission described its actions against the civilian population as bearing the hallmarks of genocide.

Emirati support for the RSF continued even after Iranian strikes on the UAE, with numerous cargo flights departing from Emirates airports to Ethiopia, apparently to ferry supplies across the border to RSF positions.

A UN panel of experts documented 458 flights involving heavy transport aircraft from Emirati military airports or the transhipment hub of Bosaso to eastern Libya between October 2024 and the end of 2025, 239 of them bound for Kufra, a key hub for RSF resupply, in likely violation of UN arms embargoes on both Libya and Darfur.

A proxy model built on plausible deniability

The UAE rarely deploys its own forces. Instead, it operates through a carefully constructed network of local proxies, private military contractors, and logistical intermediaries. Beyond the RSF in Sudan, its partners include Khalifa Haftar’s Libyan Arab Armed Forces, the Puntland Maritime Police Force in Somalia, and, in a departure from the pattern, the Ethiopian government during its war against the Tigray people.

The report details how the UAE recruited and deployed hundreds of Colombian mercenaries to Sudan via an Emirati security firm, with the US government noting in 2025 that these fighters had served as infantry, artillery personnel, drone pilots, and even trained children for combat.

Supplies to the RSF have been routed through LAAF-controlled Libya, Chad, Kenya, Uganda, and Rwanda, with Abu Dhabi deploying financial leverage to secure cooperation, including a 1.5 billion dollar loan to Chadian President Idriss Déby in 2023.

The UAE also profits from gold smuggling networks in conflict zones, with members of the ruling family reported to have personal ties to both Haftar and RSF commander Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo.

Why the UAE intervenes

SWP identifies several overlapping motives. Economic interests are central, as state-owned logistics giants DP World and AD Ports Group have port and infrastructure projects across the continent, and military interventions serve to protect access to trade routes and strategic resources.

But economics alone do not explain the pattern. The report points to the UAE’s drive to outcompete Saudi Arabia for regional influence, a rivalry that has only sharpened since Riyadh forced Abu Dhabi out of southern Yemen.

Ideological opposition to the Muslim Brotherhood also shapes policy, with the UAE consistently backing actors who suppress Islamist movements. Personal enrichment through resource networks and ruling family ties to conflict actors adds a further layer.

Diplomatic manipulation

The report scrutinises the UAE’s use of diplomatic engagement as cover, whereby Abu Dhabi participates in international peace processes while simultaneously intensifying support for belligerents.

In September 2025, the UAE joined the Sudan Quad format alongside Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the United States, signing joint commitments to end external support for conflict parties. According to US intelligence reporting, however, the UAE was actively intensifying support for the RSF at the same time.

The UAE also pledged 200 million dollars at a February 2025 humanitarian conference and a further 500 million dollars at a US conference in 2026, while contributing only around 33 million dollars to the UN-coordinated humanitarian plan.

In November 2025, Emirati Minister of State Lana Nusseibeh spent four days meeting with Members of the European Parliament in Brussels. Nusseibeh’s endeavor was successful, as a Parliament resolution on Sudan adopted at the same time made no mention of the UAE’s support for the RSF, following opposition from the European People’s Party to amendments tabled by left-wing parliamentary groups.

The same pattern played out during the Berlin Libya Process in 2019-20, when the UAE pledged to halt arms transfers to Libyan conflict parties but continued them regardless. Transport aircraft flew from the Emirates to eastern Libya on the very day of the Berlin conference in January 2020.

European silence, eroded accountability

The report stresses that Western governments, including Germany, have consistently refused to name the UAE publicly in international forums, despite substantial documented evidence of its role in fuelling conflicts. No UN Security Council member has explicitly raised Emirati support for the RSF in formal meetings, either.

This reluctance, SWP argues, is not incidental but reflects a broader calculation in which trade ties, security cooperation, the UAE’s close relationship with “Israel,” and the strategic goal of preventing Abu Dhabi from drifting further toward China or Russia have consistently outweighed accountability concerns.

The UAE’s open disregard for the UN embargo on Libya from 2014 onward, the report notes, likely encouraged other states to adopt a similar approach, with the same dynamic now being repeated in Sudan.

Five recommendations

SWP outlines five concrete steps for Germany and its European partners:

  • First, Abu Dhabi should be named explicitly in international forums rather than referenced in vague language about “external actors.”
  • Second, EU financial sanctions should be expanded and applied more consistently where Emirati actors have documented embargo violations.
  • Third, German arms export policy toward the UAE requires a fundamental review, given the documented transfer of German-chassis military equipment to conflict zones.
  • Fourth, anti-money-laundering enforcement should be tightened, with greater focus on Emirati financial centres as hubs for conflict economies and sanctions evasion.
  • Fifth, the strategic partnership Germany has maintained with the UAE since 2004 should, at a minimum, be suspended unless Abu Dhabi demonstrably reorients its policy toward de-escalation.

The report concludes that the war on Iran, mounting tensions with Saudi Arabia, and growing reputational vulnerabilities have made the UAE more susceptible to European pressure than at any previous point, and that this window should not go unused.

May 17, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism | , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on UAE fuelling African conflicts while evading accountability, SWP finds

Ukraine Sea Drone Fired From Libya Hit Russian Tanker in Mediterranean

By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | April 9, 2026

Last month, a Russian tanker, the Arctic Metagaz, was badly damaged by a sea drone attack off the coast of Malta.

On Tuesday, two Libyan officials speaking with the Associated Press said that the government based in Tripoli is hosting Ukrainian forces under a covert deal with the West.

Libya fractured after President Barack Obama authorized a war that led to the murder of Muammar Gaddafi. Following the conflict, the US backed a government in Tripoli, while Khalifa Haftar rules in eastern Libya. The damaged Arctic Metagaz is headed to a port in the eastern city of Benghazi.

Russian officials told state media that Kiev is looking to replicate the attack on the tanker in the Northern Sea by Ukrainian forces based in Norway. One official said that Norway’s assistance is dragging NATO into war with Russia.

Throughout the war, Ukraine has attempted to target and destroy assets that allow Russia to export energy. Kiev sees the strategy as key to depriving Russian President Vladimir Putin of the funding he needs to keep the conflict going.

However, the US and Israeli war on Iran has caused the shutdown of most energy exports from the Persian Gulf. In an effort to keep oil prices from spiking, Trump suspended oil sanctions on Iran, Russia, and Venezuela.

The Ukrainian attacks on Russian pipelines have also caused significant tensions with some members of NATO and the European Union. Hungary and Slovakia have threatened to halt gas shipments to Ukraine if Kiev does not halt attacks on Russian pipelines that bring oil into Eastern Europe.

April 9, 2026 Posted by | War Crimes | , , , , | Comments Off on Ukraine Sea Drone Fired From Libya Hit Russian Tanker in Mediterranean

No time for losers: Why the war meant to save Israel may destroy it

By Ramzy Baroud | MEMO | March 16, 2026

When Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu launched their military aggression against Iran on 28th February, they appeared convinced that the war would be swift. Netanyahu reportedly assured Washington that the campaign would deliver a decisive strategic victory—one capable of reordering the Middle East and restoring Israel’s battered deterrence.

Whether Netanyahu himself believed that promise is another matter.

For decades, influential circles within Israel’s strategic establishment have not necessarily sought stability, but rather “creative destruction.” The logic is simple: dismantle hostile regional powers and allow fragmented political landscapes to replace them.

This idea did not emerge overnight. It was articulated most clearly in a 1996 policy paper titled A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm, prepared for then-Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by a group of US neoconservative strategists, including Richard Perle.

The document argued that Israel should abandon land-for-peace diplomacy and instead pursue a strategy that would weaken or remove hostile regimes in the region, particularly Iraq and Syria. The goal was not merely military victory but a geopolitical restructuring of the Middle East in Israel’s favor.

The logic is simple: dismantle hostile regional powers and allow fragmented political landscapes to replace them.

In many ways, the subsequent decades seemed to validate that theory—at least from Tel Aviv’s perspective.

The Middle East Reordered

The 2003 US invasion of Iraq was widely considered a catastrophe for Washington. Hundreds of thousands died, trillions of dollars were spent, and the United States became entangled in one of the most destabilising occupations in modern history.

Yet the war removed Saddam Hussein’s government, dismantled the Baath Party, and destroyed what had once been the strongest Arab army in the region. For Israel, the strategic consequences were significant.

Iraq, historically one of the few Arab states capable of confronting Israel militarily, ceased to exist as a coherent regional power. Years of instability followed, leaving Baghdad with a fragile political system struggling to maintain national cohesion.

Syria, another central concern in Israeli strategic thinking, would later descend into its own devastating war beginning in 2011. Libya collapsed earlier after NATO’s intervention in 2011 as well. Across the region, once-formidable Arab nationalist states fractured into weakened or internally divided systems.

From Israel’s vantage point, the theory of regional fragmentation appeared to be paying dividends.

Without strong Arab states capable of projecting military power, several Gulf governments began reconsidering their long-standing refusal to normalise relations with Israel.

The result was the Abraham Accords, signed in September 2020 under the Trump administration, which formalised normalisation between Israel and the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, later followed by Morocco and Sudan. For a moment, it seemed that the geopolitical transformation envisioned decades earlier had been realised.

Gaza changed the equation

But history rarely moves in straight lines. Israel’s genocide in Gaza did not produce the strategic victory Israeli leaders had anticipated. Instead, the war exposed deep vulnerabilities in Israel’s military and political standing.

More importantly, Palestinian resistance demonstrated that overwhelming military force could not translate into decisive political control.

The consequences reverberated far beyond Gaza.

The war galvanized resistance movements across the region, deepened divisions within Arab and Muslim societies between governments aligned with Washington and those opposed to Israeli policies, and ignited an unprecedented wave of global solidarity with Palestinians. Israel’s international image suffered dramatically.

For decades, Western political discourse framed Israel as a democratic outpost surrounded by hostile forces. That narrative has steadily eroded. Increasingly, Israel is described—even by major international organizations—as a state engaged in systematic oppression and, in Gaza’s case, genocidal violence.

The strategic cost of that reputational collapse cannot be overstated. Military power relies not only on weapons but also on legitimacy. And legitimacy, once lost, is difficult to recover.

Netanyahu’s final gamble

Against this backdrop, the war on Iran emerged as Netanyahu’s most consequential gamble.

If successful, it could restore Israel’s regional dominance and reassert its deterrence. Defeating Iran—or even severely weakening it—would reshape the balance of power across the Middle East. But failure carries equally profound consequences.

Netanyahu, now facing an arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court in 2024 over war crimes in Gaza, has tied his political survival to the promise of strategic victory.

In multiple interviews over the past year, he has framed the confrontation with Iran in almost biblical terms. In one televised address in 2025, Netanyahu declared that Israel was engaged in a “historic mission” to secure the future of the Jewish state for generations. Such rhetoric reveals not confidence but desperation.

What was supposed to be a rapid campaign increasingly resembles a prolonged conflict. Israel cannot wage such a war alone. It never could. Thus, Netanyahu worked tirelessly to draw the United States directly into the conflict—a familiar pattern in modern Middle Eastern wars.

The paradox of Trump’s war

For Americans, the question remains: why did Donald Trump—who repeatedly campaigned against “endless wars”—allow the US to enter yet another Middle Eastern conflict?

During his 2016 presidential campaign, Trump famously declared: “We should have never been in Iraq. We have destabilised the Middle East.”

Yet nearly a decade later, his administration has plunged Washington into a confrontation whose potential consequences dwarf those of the earlier wars.

The precise motivations matter less to those living under the bombs.

Across the region, the scenes are painfully familiar: devastated cities, mass graves, grieving families, and societies once again forced to endure the violence of foreign intervention.

But this war is unfolding in a fundamentally different geopolitical environment.

The US no longer commands the unchallenged dominance it once enjoyed. China has emerged as a major economic and strategic actor. Russia continues to project influence. Regional powers have gained confidence in resisting Washington’s dictates.

The Middle East itself has changed.

A war already going wrong

Early signs suggest that the war is not unfolding according to the expectations of Washington or Tel Aviv.

Reports from US and Israeli media indicate that missile-defense systems in Israel and several Gulf states are facing a serious strain under sustained attacks. Meanwhile, Iran and its regional allies have demonstrated missile capabilities far more extensive than many analysts had anticipated.

Energy markets provide another indication of shifting dynamics. Rather than securing greater control over global energy flows, the war has disrupted supplies and strengthened Iran’s leverage over key maritime routes.

Strategic assumptions built on decades of uncontested American military power are colliding with a far more complex reality.

Even the political rhetoric emanating from Washington has become noticeably defensive and increasingly angry—often a sign that events are not unfolding as planned.

Within the Trump administration itself, the intellectual poverty of the moment is difficult to miss. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, whose public persona is built on television bravado rather than strategic literacy, has often framed the conflict in language that sounds less like military doctrine and more like locker-room theatrics.

Hegseth’s style is symptomatic of a broader intellectual collapse within Washington’s war-making circles—where historical knowledge is replaced by slogans, and strategic planning by theatrical displays of toughness.

In speeches and interviews, he has repeatedly reduced complex geopolitical realities into crude narratives of strength, masculinity, and domination. Such rhetoric may excite partisan audiences, but it reveals a deeper problem: the people directing the most dangerous war in decades appear to understand very little about the forces they have unleashed.

In such an environment, wars are not analyzed; they are performed.

The end of an era?

Netanyahu sought to dominate the Middle East. Washington sought to reaffirm its position as the world’s unrivaled superpower. Neither objective appears within reach.

Instead, the war may accelerate the very transformations it was meant to prevent: a declining US strategic role, a weakened Israeli deterrent posture, and a Middle East increasingly shaped by regional actors rather than external powers.

Trump, despite the lofty and belligerent language, is in reality a weak president. Rage is rarely the language of strength; it is often the mask of insecurity. His administration has overestimated America’s military omnipotence, undermined allies and antagonized adversaries alike, and entered a war whose historical, political, and strategic dimensions it scarcely understands.

How can a leadership so consumed by narcissism and spectacle fully grasp the magnitude of the catastrophe it has helped unleash?

One would expect wisdom in moments of global crisis. What we have instead is a chorus of slogans, threats, and self-congratulation emanating from Washington—an administration seemingly incapable of distinguishing between what power can achieve and what it cannot.

They do not understand how profoundly the world has changed. They do not understand how the Middle East now perceives American military adventurism. And they certainly do not understand that Israel itself has become, politically and morally, a declining brand.

Of course, Trump and his equally arrogant administration will continue searching for any fragment of ‘victory’ to sell to their constituency as the greatest triumph in history. There will always be zealots ready to believe such myths.

But most Americans—and the overwhelming majority of people around the world—no longer do. Partly because this war on Iran is immoral. And partly because history has very little patience for losers.

March 17, 2026 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on No time for losers: Why the war meant to save Israel may destroy it

Ukrainian drone attacked Russian LNG tanker in Mediterranean Sea

RT | March 4, 2026

Ukraine has carried out a drone attack on a Russian liquefied natural gas (LNG) tanker in the central Mediterranean off the coast of Malta, the Transport Ministry in Moscow has said.

Kiev has for months been attempting to target Russia-linked shipping both in the Black Sea and beyond, with Moscow accusing Kiev of “terrorism.” The attack on the tanker in Mediterranean waters represents a clear escalation in Ukraine’s war on Russian shipping.

In a statement on Wednesday, the ministry confirmed the raid on the Russia-flagged Arctic Metagaz vessel, which had been en route from Murmansk “with cargo processed according to all international rules” when Ukrainian unmanned boats launched from the Libyan coast struck the vessel.

All 30 Russian crew members abandoned the ship and were saved thanks to a rescue operation mounted by Russian and Maltese emergency services.

“We believe the incident to be an act of international terrorism and maritime piracy, a gross violation of the fundamental norms of international maritime law,” the ministry said.

It suggested that such “criminal actions” had been committed in part because EU members had turned a blind eye to Ukrainian policies, adding that they “should not remain without assessment by the international community.”

The explosions following the impact on the 277-meter Arctic Metagaz in international waters, were visible for some 40 nautical miles, images show.

The strike was apparently the first instance of Ukraine targeting an LNG instead of an oil-laden tanker. While a complete destruction of a gas carrier could produce less long-term environmental impact, an LNG blast would likely result in pool fires with far greater heat radiation than oil blazes – along with the risk of vapor cloud explosions capable of causing casualties at considerably greater distances.

Ukraine has for months sought to undermine Russia’s oil trade. In December 2025, Kiev acknowledged striking the Qendil, a Russia-linked and Omani-flagged oil tanker, in the eastern Mediterranean off Libya’s coast. At the time, Euronews cited a Ukrainian intelligence source describing the attack as “an unprecedented special operation.”

Kiev’s Western backers have also sought to crack down on Russia-linked vessels. In January 2026, the French navy boarded the oil tanker Grinch in the western Mediterranean. In light of the crackdown, Russian officials have accused NATO of seeking to impose an illegal maritime blockade, warning of potential countermeasures.

March 4, 2026 Posted by | War Crimes | , | Comments Off on Ukrainian drone attacked Russian LNG tanker in Mediterranean Sea

Jeffrey Epstein’s sinister shadow over West Asia

By Kit Klarenberg | Al Mayadeen | February 13, 2026

In late January, the US Department of Justice dumped millions of documents detailing the criminal activities of US oligarch and serial paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, including his vast rolodex of paedophilic celebrities, financiers, politicians and public figures. The tranche is so vast, independent journalists and researchers have barely scratched the surface yet. But preliminary investigations amply demonstrate Epstein was centrally enmeshed with multiple foreign spy agencies. First and foremost, the Zionist entity’s notorious Mossad. The horrors wrought on West Asia as a result are incalculable.

A recurrent phenomenon in the newly-released documents, emails and text messages is Epstein and his grand global nexus seeking to profit from Western-inflicted misery the world over. On March 18th 2014, in the Maidan coup’s immediate, violent aftermath, he emailed Ariane de Rothschild, a French banker and CEO of the Edmond de Rothschild Group since March 2023, due to her marrying into the famous, powerful Jewish family. Epstein was exhilarated. “Ukraine upheaval should provide many opportunites [sic],” he wrote.

De Rothschild was drained after a “very long day sitting on bank board,” but delighted to hear from her close friend. “Miss our talks and hope you’re well,” she gushed. “Will be at home tomorrow night, will you be free? And let’s discuss Ukraine.” The “opportunities” Epstein perceived in the shattered post-coup country, as it plunged into Western-sponsored civil war, ranged from an untapped reservoir of young girls and vulnerable women to pimp out to high-ranking ‘clients’, to pillaging the country’s vast resources.

In July 2011, Epstein emailed associate Greg Brown, declaring “the Libyans now are legit, but need real help,” adding “they must be careful there will be many claims on that money.” He was referring to Tripoli’s frozen overseas assets, seized by Western powers in March that year, after the country plunged into insurrectionary violence. Epstein fired off this missive right when NATO’s bombing of Libya graduated from striking government forces to actively supporting rebel advances, as foreign fighters closed in on the country’s capital.

Brown excitedly responded, “there are already $80 billion in frozen funds/assets internationally,” and perhaps “three to four times this number in sovereign, stolen and misappropriated assets.” He was working with MI6 and Mossad veterans to “identify stolen assets and get them recovered.” If they could “identify/recover 5% to 10% of these monies and receive 10% to 25% as compensation,” the Anglo-Israeli private spying network could reap “billions of dollars”.

However, this paled in comparison to gains to be had once the Western-sponsored National Transitional Council unseated Libya’s longtime leader Muammar Gaddafi. “The real carrot is if we can become their go-to guys because they plan to spend at least $100 billion next year to rebuild their country and jumpstart the economy,” Brown salivated. He reminded Epstein the country was “rich”, with a small population but “the ninth largest crude oil & natural gas reserves on the planet.” Gaddafi was murdered by rebel forces that October.

‘Secret Weapon’ 

Numerous declassified materials amply indicate Epstein was a journeyman intelligence asset, with connections to several ostensibly separate spying agencies. Tellingly, some heavily redacted communications contain references to Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities (SCIF). These buildings are used by US intelligence and government agencies to exchange top secret information, and access requires the highest security clearance. In a secret January 2018 discussion with political strategist Steve Bannon, Epstein bragged that his sprawling New York mansion was “similar to a SCIF.”

Bannon was one of many right-wing figures Epstein courted. Another was Peter Thiel, the billionaire founder of shadowy data harvester Palantir. In June 2014, Epstein emailed to say he increasingly lent credence to Thiel’s “‘intentionality’ argument” – the proposal that the “mess” unfolding across the Arab and Muslim world over recent years was what then-US President Barack Obama “really wanted”. Epstein remarked, “we would have to admit a strategy brilliantly executed.” Thiel fired back:

“The ‘intentionality’ argument would center on making sure the US gets less involved with the rest of the world (I think that’s the ‘plan’). The more of a mess, with just lots of bad guys on different sides, the less we will do.”

Thiel was well-placed to know this was the Obama administration’s strategy. Birthed with seed funding from In-Q-Tel, the CIA’s venture capital arm, Palantir made vast sums serving as the War On Terror’s “Secret Weapon”. It was used to hunt “bad guys” at war with the US, and “Israel” – the key beneficiary of West Asia being set on fire during this period. Not coincidentally, the Zionist entity has for years employed a variety of Palantir products. Thiel commented in July 2024, the Gaza Holocaust well-underway:

“My bias is to defer to Israel.”

Accordingly, Epstein was clearly in the employ of both US and Israeli intelligence. In a February 2016 email exchange with Thiel, he declared, “as you probably know I represent the Rothschilds.” The banking dynasty was instrumental in “Israel’s” creation, funding construction of colonial settlements in Palestine from the late 1800s onwards. Epstein’s own ties to the Zionist entity were deep and coherent. From September 2010 to March 2019, he formally met with prominent Israeli politician and military veteran Ehud Barak over 60 times.

Barak was a repeat visitor to Epstein’s private island, Little St James. On at least one occasion, in January 2014, Barak visited with his wife, and specifically left his security detail behind. In June that year, Epstein arranged for Barak to meet Thiel. The Israeli politician was such a frequent guest at Epstein’s New York apartment on 301 East 66th Street, his staff referred to the lodgings internally as “301.”

‘Terrorism Financing’

In January, Barak sought to distance himself from Epstein, claiming he “deeply regret[s] having any association with him.” However, their bond was intimate, warm, and long-running. Epstein’s 2008 conviction for sex offences didn’t dim their connection, and come November 2018, Barak referred to Epstein as a “great friend” in discussions with Jabor Yousef Jassim Al Thani, a businessman and member of the Qatari royal family. An FBI investigation was opened into Epstein on June 12th 2018.

That same day, Epstein lodged an order for six 55 gallon drums of sulfuric acid, “with fuel and insurance charge for transport,” with now-defunct, Florida-based Gemini Seawater Systems. It would be unsurprising if he’d been tipped off about the Bureau probe. Someone within the FBI, or a foreign spying agency keeping a close eye on the agency, could’ve alerted him. Just as Epstein maintained ties between different foreign services, he enjoyed relations with high-ranking state figures the world over.

Jabor Yousef Jassim Al Thani was but one Gulf royal who the paedophile financier counted as a close confidante. Epstein was evidently considered a go-to figure when Qatar was seeking to communicate with “Israel”. In February 2010, Al Thani wrote to Epstein that the “Israeli operation… doesn’t help anyone.” He referred to the brazen assassination of Palestinian Resistance fighter Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in Dubai the previous month by Mossad. A day earlier, local authorities formally blamed Mossad for the killing, triggering a media firestorm.

In July 2017, following the UAE and Saudi Arabia leading Arab states in severing diplomatic relations with Qatar, and imposing a US-supported land, air and sea blockade on the monarchy in advance of a planned land invasion, Epstein wrote to Al Thani, offering him advice on how Dubai could rescue herself. “I think Qatar should stop kicking and arguing,” and make nice with the Zionist entity, he proposed. “Let the heat come down a bit.”

In reference to the monarchy’s support for Hamas, he suggested “Qatar needs to come out against terrorism,” as “the smell of terrorism financing will be around for years.” Epstein went on to reference Indian Prime Minister Modi’s recent international jaunt, where he’d met Trump in June, before becoming the first-ever Indian prime minister to visit the Zionist entity. Modi also snubbed the Palestinian Authority, eliciting condemnation from PA officials. Epstein reported:

“Modi took advice and danced and sang in Israel for the benefit of the US president [Donald Trump]. They had met a few weeks ago. IT WORKED!”

Troublingly, Epstein’s filial alliance with Ehud Barak overlapped with Barak serving as Tel Aviv’s security minister, raising the obvious question of whether Epstein in any way directly influenced Israeli policy during this time, or acted as an advocate and broker for the Zionist entity with other countries in West Asia and beyond. Barak solicited Epstein’s input with his public writing, including a draft of his book My Country, My Life: Fighting for Israel, Searching for Peace, which was released in May 2018.

That month, Barak’s wife emailed Epstein while visiting New York demanding an “urgent short meeting” between Epstein and her husband. One day later, Donald Trump withdrew from the Iranian nuclear agreement, in favour of a “maximum pressure” campaign. In July 2018, Barak’s private surveillance firm Toka broke cover publicly for the first time, announcing it had raised $12.5 million in seed funding from investors including venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz.

Andreessen Horowitz invested in several ventures also backed by Jeffrey Epstein, including CoinBase. It is unknown whether Epstein invested in Toka, although his interest in such a company would be clear. The firm is stacked with former Israeli cyber spies, and has patented technology capable of locating security cameras and webcams, hacking into them, then altering their live feeds without trace. Such a resource removes any need for real-life individuals to oversee “honey trap” operations, and targets to take the bait.

February 14, 2026 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Muammar Gaddafi’s son assassinated in Libya amid reports of French ‘meddling’ in Africa

The Cradle | February 6, 2026

Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, the prominent son of former Libyan President Muammar Gaddafi, was assassinated by unknown gunmen in Libya on 3 February.

Gaddafi was killed in his home in the town of Zintan, 136km southwest of the Libyan capital, Tripoli.

Gaddafi’s political team released a statement saying that “four masked men” stormed his house and killed him in a “cowardly and treacherous assassination.”

The statement said that he tried to fight off the attackers, who shut off the security cameras at the house “in a desperate attempt to conceal traces of their heinous crimes.”

Gaddafi served as his father’s close advisor from 2000 until 2011, when Muammar Gaddafi was killed by NATO-backed militants with links to Al-Qaeda.

As part of the so-called Arab Spring in early 2011, British and Qatari intelligence organized an army led by members of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) to topple the Libyan state.

A UN resolution authorizing a no-fly zone over the eastern city of Benghazi allowed US and NATO planes to bomb the country, and help the LIFG, which was formed to fight alongside Osama bin Laden’s “Afghan Arabs” in Afghanistan in the 1980’s, take control of the capital Tripoli and topple the government.

Muammar Gaddafi was murdered by the NATO-backed militants after fleeing his hometown, Sirte, in a military convoy following a battle there in October 2011.

Sirte later fell under the control of Libya’s branch of ISIS, serving as its most significant base outside of West Asia, while the country descended into civil war and chaos.

Saif al-Islam Gaddafi was captured and imprisoned in Zintan in 2011 after attempting to flee the North African country following his father’s killing.

He was released in 2017 as part of a general pardon and had lived in Zintan since.

Saif al-Islam’s assassination comes as France has reportedly been preparing “neo-colonial coups d’etat” in Africa and seeking opportunities for “political revenge” on the continent, according to the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service’s (SVR) press bureau.

French influence in African countries it had formerly colonized is waning, as African nations refused “to serve as puppets of the financial and political oligarchy of French globalists,” the press bureau stated.

“Whether inspired by the American operation to capture Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro or imagining himself as the arbiter of the fate of African peoples, Macron has authorized his special services to launch a plan to eliminate ‘undesirable leaders’ in Africa,” the SVR press bureau claimed.

The SVR added that France was involved in the attempted coup against military leader and President Ibrahim Traore in Burkina Faso last month.

“Our intelligence services intercepted this operation in the final hours. They had planned to assassinate the head of state and then strike other key institutions, including civilian personalities,” said Burkina Faso security minister Mahamadou Sana.

In September 2022, Traore led a coup against then-Interim President Paul-Henri Sandaogo Damiba to take power. His government quickly distanced itself from France while helping to found the Alliance of Sahel States, comprising Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger.

The SVR said France was also seeking to destabilize the governments of Mali, the Central African Republic, and Madagascar.

February 6, 2026 Posted by | Aletho News | , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries