Middle East « Aletho News

Covert Crusade: Washington’s $600m digital war on Iran

By Kit Klarenberg | The Cradle | February 21, 2025

Earlier this month, The Cradle exposed how in 2023, the US State Department’s shadowy Near East Regional Democracy (NERD) fund earmarked $55 million to stoke unrest in Iran during the following year’s elections.

This was part of a wider US campaign of interference designed to disrupt and destabilize the Islamic Republic. As that investigation noted, details on where this money goes – and who benefits – are strictly confidential as a matter of policy. Still, there are clues in the public domain pointing to at least some recipients.

Regime change by another name

As a US Congressional Research Service report records, due to hostile US–Iran relations, and Tehran’s well-founded view of NERD “as a means of financing regime change,” its programs rely on “third-country training” as well as “online training and media content.”

The report further confirms that despite NERD being Washington’s primary “foreign assistance channel” for projects targeting Iran, “activities, grantees, [and] beneficiaries” are not advertised “due to the security risks posed by the Iranian government.” It continues:

“NERD was created in 2009 as a ‘line item for Iran democracy’ but was not (and is still not) technically Iran-specific … For 2024, the Biden Administration requested $65 million for NERD … to ‘foster a vibrant civil society, increase the free flow of information, and promote the exercise of human rights,’ including at least $16.75 million for internet freedom.”

What was unstated in the report is that NERD represents a simple rebranding of the Iran Democracy Fund, created by former president George W. Bush in 2006 with the explicit goal of toppling the Islamic Republic.

The initiative was ostensibly shut down under Barack Obama three years later, eliciting bitter condemnation from much of the western media, neoconservative pundits, and lawmakers. However, as the BBC acknowledged at the time, the move was in fact “welcomed by Iranian human rights and pro-democracy activists”:

“These US funds are going to people who have very little to do with the real struggle for democracy in Iran and our civil society activists never received such funds,” a Tehran-based human rights lawyer told the British state broadcaster. “The end to this program will have no impact on our activities whatsoever.”

Internet interference

In reality, the program never ended – it was merely repackaged. White House officials maintained the fiction that NERD was focused on democratization rather than regime change, a claim undermined by a June 2011 New York Times exposé.

That investigation revealed the Obama administration’s so-called “Internet Freedom” initiative aimed to “deploy ‘shadow’ internet and mobile phone systems dissidents can use to communicate outside the reach of governments in countries like Iran, Syria, and Libya.”

In other words, Washington sought to build a covert legion of regime change operatives in Tehran, and provide them with the technology to coordinate in secret. It is clear from the Congressional report’s marked reference to “internet freedom” that these machinations continue today.

Moreover, as a 2020 report by the DC-based Project on Middle East Democracy noted, organizations genuinely committed to advancing Iranian rights still steer well clear of NERD. An anonymous NGO worker described its “style” as “aggressive.” Another implied NERD is engaged in deeply dirty work:

“We choose not to apply for NERD grants because we do not want to get pulled into [anything] crazy.”

‘Non-Iranian’

The same year, the Financial Times (FT) reported how NERD efforts had become turbocharged under US President Donald Trump’s administration, explicitly to facilitate and encourage “anti-Tehran protests.”

This included “providing apps, servers, and other technology to help people communicate, visit banned websites, install anti-tracking software,” and more in the Islamic Republic, in order to offer “Iranians more options on how they communicate with each other and the outside world.”

Curiously, while portraying Iran as a digital prison, the FT admitted that major western social networks remain accessible in the country, and Iranians can easily view western media. As usual, recipients of NERD funds remained unnamed – except for Psiphon, a VPN provider long-associated with discredited exiled Iranian opposition figures and, by then, controlled by the Open Technology Fund (OTF). The FT estimated that just three million Iranians used Psiphon, less than four percent of the population.

OTF was an “Internet Freedom” product – one of its board members has openly admitted the Fund’s agenda is “regime change.”

Fast forward to September 2024; as former US president Joe Biden’s administration was seeking increased funds for NERD – mere months after the $55 million invested the previous year failed to produce desired mass unrest and upheaval around that year’s elections in Iran – a White House meeting was convened with major tech giants, encouraging them to offer more “digital bandwidth” for OTF-bankrolled apps and tools.

As fund chief Laura Cunningham explained, a “sizeable chunk” of OTF’s budget was taken up by the cost of hosting all the network traffic generated by its vast array of digital destabilization apps, which included Signal and Tor.

While OTF sought to support “additional users” of these products, it lacked resources to keep up with “surging demand.” What came of this meeting, which was attended by representatives of Amazon, Cloudflare, Google, and Microsoft, is not clear.

Yet, if further “digital bandwidth” was granted to OTF, it is clear the Trump administration’s “pause” in overseas aid funding has thrown all NERD’s meddling efforts in Iran into total – and potentially permanent – disarray.

A 27 January report in the Saudi-funded, anti-Islamic Republic Iran International quoted numerous anonymous beneficiaries of US financing bemoaning how grantees, including foreign-run Persian-language media outlets and organizations documenting purported “abuses” to keep the Islamic Republic “accountable,” had been abruptly shuttered.

An anonymous “human rights activist” told the outlet Washington’s freeze on aid spending “(will) impose restrictions on projects that address human rights violations or investigate governmental and military corruption which have impacted Iran’s economy and social conditions in favor of foreign terrorist activities and money laundering.”

They said “several non-Iranian American institutions [emphasis added] have been using these funds to investigate corruption and money laundering.” Now though, “these organizations will be forced to halt their activities.”

‘Severe implications’

US-supplied Virtual Private Network (VPN) services also loomed large among the malign resources impacted by the aid “pause.” A nameless “activist” told Iran International that 20 million Iranians used such tools “to bypass Tehran’s internet curbs.”

The outlet further quoted an article published by Human Rights Activists in Iran, a US-funded NGO not based in the Islamic Republic, but Virginia, near the CIA’s Langley headquarters: “In today’s Iran, the internet has no meaning without VPNs.”

Such dire warnings were echoed by Ahmad Ahmadian, head of California-based tech firm Holistic Resilience, which “aims to advance internet freedom and privacy by developing and researching censorship circumvention.”

An Iranian expat and alumni of Tehran University, Ahmadian warned major US tech firms “may not be willing or able to continue their support for providing anti-censorship tools” without government support. Such remarks highlight how these supposedly popular resources lack grassroots backing or financing, being wholly dependent on Washington’s sponsorship to operate:

“The leadership of the US government has been crucial in urging big tech companies to provide public services. Without the encouragement of the US government, these companies wouldn’t take the initiative on their own.”

Other unnamed activists further warned Iran International, “the consequences of Trump’s executive order will not remain limited to internet censorship circumvention tools.” They believe that if NERD’s activities “do not receive an exemption within the next month” – by the end of February – “they will either collapse entirely or be deeply curtailed.”

One declared, “the impact of this freeze might not be immediately noticeable, but its severe implications will become evident over time.”

Meanwhile, “internet experts” cautioned that “even if US aid starts again” after the 90-day pause, “the damage is irreversible since many people … might never fully return to using US-backed secure services.”

As The Cradle noted on 11 February, Washington’s forced withdrawal from meddling in Iran could create fresh opportunities for genuine diplomatic engagement between the two long-time adversaries. But another possibility looms: after spending $600 million over a decade with little success, the US may simply be preparing to test out new, potentially more malign regime-change strategies.

February 21, 2025 Posted by aletho | Corruption, Deception | CIA, Iran, Middle East, United States | Leave a comment

Kissinger, Ford outraged by Israel humiliating the US in the eyes of Arabs, British documents reveal

By Amer Sultan | MEMO | February 18, 2025

Former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger was deeply frustrated by Israel’s behaviour, which he saw as “blowing up” the American foreign policy and “humiliation” of the US, declassified British documents reveal.

The documents, unearthed by MEMO in the British National Archives, also indicate that US President Gerald Ford shared Kissinger’s “outrage” over Israel’s approach to negotiations with Arab states.

Kissinger criticised Israel’s strategy of “giving with one hand and taking away with the other” and condemned Israelis’ total “unrealism” and “lack of understanding the Arabs”.

In January 1974, Kissinger brokered the first Egyptian-Israeli disengagement agreement in just eight days. By May, he had successfully mediated a similar deal between Syria and Israel. In early 1975, he resumed efforts, alongside his deputy, Joseph Sisco, to negotiate a second Egyptian-Israeli disengagement agreement as a prelude to broader peace talks. However, negotiations collapsed in late March.

On his way back to the US, Kissinger met with his British counterpart James Callaghan at London airport, where he blamed Israel for the breakdown of the talks. According to meeting records, Kissinger stated that Israelis “had locked themselves into a more inflexible position than they need have done”. He understood that Israel “seemed intended” to be inflexible from the outset of his mission.

Kissinger described Israeli negotiators as “hopelessly confused” about the military and political aspects of their demand for a formal non-belligerency statement from Egyptian President Anwar Sadat. He noted that Israel insisted on both military assurances and political concessions, although the main purpose of the negotiations was to reach a deal on non-engagement of forces. He described this confusion as “a Talmudic wrangle”, adding that the Israelis “had shown a total lack of realism”. When the Israelis asked him whether their demands were not unreasonable, he replied they were “disastrous”.

Kissinger’s step-by-step diplomatic strategy aimed at gradually resolving the Israeli-Arab conflict, but he warned that if this process stalled, “things would start going rapidly against Israel”. He expressed frustration over Israel’s “extraordinary lack of understanding” of both Arabs and the wider international scene”.

Before negotiations broke down, Ford attempted to push Israel to change its position. Kissinger informed Callaghan that the US president had sent a message to Israel containing “some very stern language” warning that the Israelis “couldn’t expect the Americans to go on financing a stalemate”.

Following the failure of Kissinger’s mediation, Israeli Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Yigal Allon blamed Egypt for “hardening of attitude” which he alleged “manifested itself only in the concluding phase”.

In a message to British Prime Minister Harold Wilson and Foreign Secretary Callaghan, Allon asserted that Egyptians were prepared to concede to Israel “far less than might have been assumed before the talks began” while the Israelis “went substantially beyond that maximum” to which they “had initially considered it possible” for them to go.

He insisted that at every stage of the negotiation the Israelis showed themselves “ready to move closer towards the Egyptian position but without response on their side.”

Kissinger, however, dismissed Allon’s version of events as “weird” and “almost wholly fictitious,” calling Israel’s supposed concessions “an outright lie.”

In late March 1975, Kissinger told British Ambassador in Washington Peter Ramsbotham that there had “never at any times had there been any real movement” on Israel’s side. “What they gave with one hand, they took away with the other,” he said.

During negotiations, Israel presented six key demands, which Kissinger called “conditions”, including an Egyptian pledge of non-belligerency, end to propaganda against Israel in the Egyptian media, allowing Israeli cargos through the Suez Canal using ships of a third country, allowing overflights in Sinai, an end to the economic boycott and an end to actions against Israel in the international forum.

Kissinger revealed that Sadat had not only shown willingness to meet these demands but also offered additional concessions. These included allowing some Israeli crew members on third-party ships passing through the Suez Canal, preventing paramilitary activities, giving Israel private assurances on maritime passage through the Bab El-Mandeb Strait, and establishing a joint Israeli-Egyptian commission under UN supervision to resolve future disputes. Sisco, who accompanied Kissinger in the meeting with the British ambassador, said these concessions “had come as a surprise”.

While Sadat could not agree to a formal non-belligerency statement, he offered a compromise pledging not to use force during the disengagement period. This pledge, Kissinger explained, was not only “to be signed by the Egyptian military and diplomatic personnel” but there would be a provision that the pledge “would remain in force until suspended by some other agreement”. He described these as “substantial concessions” to Israel, and advised the British that it was “totally wrong” for the Israelis to say the Egyptians hadn’t made any real concessions.

However, Israel rejected Sadat’s offer and continued to insist on a formal non-belligerency agreement, prompting Kissinger to “blow up” and tell them “they couldn’t get this”.

Kissinger informed the British of a heated exchange between Sadat and Egyptian Defence Minister, General Abdel Ghani El-Gamasy, on more concessions Sadat was prepared to concede with regard to the control of strategic passes and oilfields in Sinai. The US minister confirmed that the concessions “brought an explosion” from El-Gamassy, who expressed “vehement objections”. But these objections “were brushed aside by Sadat as had his other objections earlier in the negotiations”.

Despite Sadat’s willingness to compromise, negotiations collapsed due to Israeli obstinacy. Upon learning of the breakdown, Ford “immediately” sent a letter “in a very strong language” to Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.

Kissinger, who showed the British ambassador a copy of the letter, noted that he had “never seen President Ford so outraged.” The president felt “personally betrayed” by Israel’s conduct. To emphasise the gravity of the situation, Kissinger arranged for a prominent American Jewish leader to meet Ford. After the meeting, Kissinger remarked that the man had emerged “a shaken man.”

Kissinger also made it clear to the British government that “all along, there was an Arab willingness to negotiate,” but Israel responded only with “intransigence.” He cited King Hussein of Jordan’s stance on the Allon”s plan as an example of Arab flexibility. Contrary to public statements, Hussein had privately told the U.S. that he “was prepared to accept half of the plan” and “half of the West Bank”.

The plan, which was presented by Allon, the then Israeli minister of labour, in July 1967 and was amended over years, aimed at Judaisation of the Palestinian territory especially the West Bank. It would enable Israel to annex most of the Jordan Valley, from the river to the eastern slopes of the West Bank hill ridge, East Jerusalem, and the Etzion bloc of settlements. At the same time, the heavily populated areas of the West Bank, together with a corridor that included Jericho, would be offered to Jordan.

Meanwhile, in a meeting with Kissinger, Saudi King Faisal expressed his belief that Israel “shouldn’t remain in the occupied areas” he expressed his “support” to the US efforts to “reach a solution in the Middle East”.

Kissinger lamented that Israel’s actions had “destroyed this support.”

Although Kissinger stressed that it was not in the US interest to be “publicly critical” of Israel, he believed that the Israelis “had to learn to be flexible and not believe that because of their friendly links with various governments, they could always count on support regardless of their behavior.” When British Ambassador Ramsbotham asked whether the Israeli behaviour could have any backlash inside the US, Kissinger said that “it wouldn’t be difficult for the Administration to generate a wave of indignation in the US against Israel”. But, the Americans “would not do so”, he added

Kissinger also stressed that the Israelis “had to realise that they could not blow up the US foreign policy, humiliate the United States in the Arab eyes”. The Ford Administration “felt more and more outraged” by what happened, in a reference to the Israeli behaviour that led to failure of the negotiations.

After the collapse of negotiations, Callaghan considered visiting the Middle East. Kissinger advised him to caution Israel that it “had tried the US patience too far”. He also advised that “it was very important not to give the impression to the Israelis that the British government were sympathetic with the position they had got themselves”.

Kissinger believed that if Callaghan had any new proposals, it would probably be “a mistake at this time for him to put them forward himself”. He asked for any suggestions to be “offered to him in private”.

Despite the impasse, negotiations resumed a few months later, leading to the signing of the Sinai II Agreement on 4 September 1975, in Geneva. The accord allowed Egypt to recover parts of Sinai occupied since 1967. While Sadat saw the deal as strengthening ties with the West, it strained Egypt’s relations with the Arab States, particularly with Syria and the Palestine Liberation Organisation.

February 20, 2025 Posted by aletho | Illegal Occupation, Timeless or most popular | Egypt, Israel, Middle East, Palestine, United States, Zionism | 1 Comment

With US Or Against US? America’s ultimatum to Arab leaders

By Robert Inlakesh – Al Mayadeen – February 18, 2025

For 15 months, the majority of the Arab and Muslim World’s leaders sat back as the first live-streamed genocide took place inside the land of Palestine. Praying for a return to the status quo that once supported their rules, they have now been faced with an ultimatum. Now, it’s time to pick a side.

While US President Donald Trump presented his idea of clearing out Gaza’s civilian population, taking control of the territory, and reconstructing it, he did so using the tone of someone believing such actions would be humanitarian in nature. In reality, what was being proposed was an invasion, mass murder, and ethnic cleansing.

To be clear, the likelihood of such an invasion occurring is slim, not least because it involves an enormous amount of planning to implement correctly and there is simply no evidence that any moves are being made in this direction. However, the threat of such a monstrosity alone has proven enough to instantly mobilise the Arab and Muslim nation’s leaderships in a way we have not witnessed in decades.

Suddenly, they woke up, after behaving as if the people of the Gaza Strip were not being mass murdered on an industrial scale, on the land of the Prophets, on the land of Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Holy Sepulchre. Not even the invasion of Lebanon, the murder of some 3,000 people, nor the occupation of more Syrian lands, nor the threats of annexation in the West Bank, had mobilised these leaders. The screams of Gaza’s youths, the tears of Gaza’s mothers, the honor stripped from the tortured and raped, nothing registered.

But now, for the first time, we feel a pulse. Why? Because everyone’s head is on the chopping block. A glimpse was caught of what Donald Trump’s proposed future could cause and the likes of Jordanian King Abdullah II realised they are just another Arab in the eyes of the Israeli-US alliance, nothing more and nothing less. The only reason they remain is because they capitulate. This was Trump’s true message; it was not so much as a threat but a reminder.

Without delving too deep into the issue of an American invasion of Gaza, it would prove disastrous in so many ways that it seems unrealistic on the face of things. This is not least due to the enormous costs involved in a US occupation that could travel north of hundreds of billions in US taxpayer dollars, while the US soldier casualties would be high and place enormous domestic pressure on Trump. This would likely be America’s new Vietnam, as the star-spangled coffins would trigger outrage across the States.

A US invasion would also fail to achieve the objectives set out by Trump, because Palestinians will not leave willingly and this could easily turn into a situation where the US army picks up from where the Israelis left off; inflicting Genocide. If the ethnic cleansing would work partially, the destabilizing effects would be horrific.

As mentioned above, the majority of the leaders of Arab and Muslim nations may have stood aside and allowed the Gaza Genocide to unfold, yet their populations are now more motivated to defeat the Zionist occupiers than ever before.

Opening the ‘gates of hell’

When Hamas announced that it would postpone the weekly prisoner exchange arrangement until the Israelis allowed sufficient humanitarian aid to enter Gaza, in accordance with the ceasefire agreement, Donald Trump’s reaction was to threaten opening the “gates of hell”. Despite the threats that came from Trump and Netanyahu, the Israelis caved under pressure and were quickly set to allow the prisoner exchange to go ahead as planned.

Whether the US President is truly the mastermind behind his own rhetoric or not, which is quite frankly unlikely, reading between the lines has actually helped achieve four objectives:

The outrageous and illegal proposals that Trump has put forth have helped save the image of Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu in front of his extremist coalition.
The rhetoric has therefore given the Zionist regime more wiggle room to reach the second phase of the agreement, as the more extreme elements in the regime now feel as if they will get to complete their ethnic cleansing, settlement, and occupation endeavors.
Upon the initial conclusion of the ceasefire agreement, the momentum in terms of popular understanding of power dynamics – manufactured as a result of the ongoing media war – had Hamas painted as the victor and the Zionist regime a loser. Trump managed to suddenly shift the conversation and manipulate popular understandings of who is in control and “winning” the war.
It has brought together the Arab and Muslim leaders who were previously inactive or distant from the post-war Gaza plan.

Donald Trump is actively speaking as if he is a more extreme Zionist fanatic than Netanyahu, but is yet to follow through on any of his threats. If he continues to speak in such a way, it is possible that the US will have to start following through on some of the President’s rhetoric, however, in order for Washington to maintain credibility.

The reality in the region is that the leaderships of West Asia are still trying to revert back to the status quo that existed pre-October 7, 2023. Now they are having to come to terms with the fact that this is no longer an option.

Although this may seem hyperbolic, the “Israel” that everyone knew from before is no more, it no longer exists. To those who have studied the issue closely, this was somewhat inevitable. Right now, we are living through a scenario that occurred prior to 1948, where the Zionist regime had to try and define itself. For some time, they managed through their military superiority to pacify those around them or overcome armed confrontations with brute force, all while developing their economy and pretending as if they were operating a European State in the Eastern Mediterranean.

This was never going to last, not least because the Palestinian to Jewish population inside the borders of historic Palestine had become roughly 50/50. On top of this, the fastest growing Jewish group has been the Haredim (Ultra-Orthodox), who do not serve in the army and don’t even believe in the worth of modern Nation States. Yet, all Israelis wanted the West Bank and to rule over occupied Jerusalem. With land concessions to the Palestinian Authority off the table, there were only ever going to be two options that the Zionists were going to have to choose from: Commit a genocide or mass ethnic cleansing; or both.

With the rise of right-wing nationalist religious fundamentalism, the secular-leaning right-wing system that modelled itself off of “Western Liberal Democracies” suddenly found itself under threat. Prior to October 7, 2023, this was a dominant theme in Israeli politics, where the religious ultra-nationalists were challenging the somewhat contradictory vision that was held onto by around half of the Israeli Jewish population.

What happened here is that the secular-leaning Israelis were trying to cling onto their delusion that they could simply live in a liberal Jewish supremacist Apartheid colony forever and expect a level of stability that they had long enjoyed due to the overwhelming power of their military. On the other hand, the extremist right-wing coalition of Benjamin Netanyahu that won power in late 2022 began to present an alternative vision in a way that hadn’t been done before.

Then came the wakeup call, Hamas launched Operation al-Aqsa Flood, and the Zionists were forced to wrestle with the fact that you cannot continue oppressing the Palestinian people and expect them to simply go away or give up on their struggle for national liberation. Because of the racist collective narcissism trained into the minds of the Zionist settlers, they reacted in the most emotional way possible. This is why Zionists in the West have also been working overtime to suppress any criticism; their racism is being challenged.

The knee-jerk reaction of the Zionists was to think “how dare these people challenge our supremacy”. For the first time in its history, the Zionist Entity had been militarily torn to pieces and proven incapable of overcoming an indigenous resistance force armed primarily with light weapons and self-produced armaments. US-Israeli supremacy in West Asia appeared to be crumbling, so the occupying entity and its imperialist backer responded in the only way they know how, mass murder.

What happened in Gaza was a frenzy of racist violence that was supposed to “teach a lesson” to the Arab and Muslim peoples that they will remain forever inferior. The genocide was calculated to send a message: resist our supremacy and you will die.

Two things are now happening:

The “Israel” of the past died, now it is scrambling to redefine and recreate itself.
The US is attempting to revive its efforts to transform the region through normalisation and the construction of new trade routes, but is going to do so using maximum force in order to put down any semblance of dissent.

So where does this all fit into Donald Trump’s crazy threats? It’s simple. The United States is projecting its intention to remodel the entire region. This message is clear, yet it won’t likely come through a US invasion of Gaza, rather from putting tremendous pressure on the nations of the region to capitulate and work as slaves of the US-Israeli alliance.

If Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia do not capitulate, their leaderships will be replaced by ones that do. In the event that either a US invasion of Gaza or mass ethnic cleansing occurred, Egypt would be destabilised and likely face a limited Israeli incursion into the Sinai, while the Jordanian government could be toppled, or at the very least the nation will be totally destabilised, then, in the backdrop, Saudi Arabia could also be in the cross-hairs.

Hundreds of thousands of Gazans being ethnically cleansed into the Kingdom of Jordan would inevitably birth a new Palestinian Resistance front also, which could happen regardless at this point.

The ethnic cleansing of Palestine between 1947-49 left a major scar on the Arab World as a whole, one that has never healed. What just occurred in Gaza is a much deeper wound that will inspire Resistance until the end of the Zionist regime. Although it is often not factored into the equation, the Israelis also murdered 3,000 people in Lebanon too, including the late Secretary General of Hezbollah, Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah.

A mistake often made by the imperialists and settler colonialists is assuming that because a population appears pacified today, it will also be tomorrow. In reality, revolutions and resistance movements take time, with mass mobilisation sometimes occurring due to what could be perceived as mere chance when it emerges.

Meanwhile, the US is now offering the same option to the Arab and Muslim World that was presented by George W. Bush Jr. upon his announcement of the so-called “War on Terror”: “You are either with us or with the terrorists!”

It may be presented in a different way, but the truth is that there is no way to play the role of holding a middle-ground position. Now is the time, submit to being a slave, even losing your territory, pride and stability; or you decide to resist. The problem for a nation like Jordan is that if you resist, you may also be overthrown.

Donald Trump’s comments for now were designed to force the Arab and Muslim leaders to come to a joint consensus and present an alternative plan to his insane proposal, which appears to be working. Interestingly enough, it appears as if this is actually helping to allow for the Gaza ceasefire to reach phase 2.

Unfortunately for these leaders, the Palestinian issue they now face is not over with Gaza. In the event of the Israelis annexing the West Bank, this could eventually trigger the downfall of the Palestinian Authority and/or initiate a major uprising. In such a scenario, the Israeli military could then seek to ethnically cleanse large swathes of the West Bank too. The destination of these displaced refugees could also end up being Jordan.

Even former US Secretary of State Antony Blinken warned, in his second last address about foreign policy, of the collapse of the normalization agreements between the Zionist regime and its neighbours in Amman and Cairo. Speaking at a conference organised by the Atlantic Council, Blinken used the first part of his speech to espouse pure Israeli propaganda, before speaking candidly on a few issues towards the latter half of his address. He stressed that without a so-called “Two-State solution”, the normalisation deals with Egypt and Jordan could collapse.

If a resistance front opens inside Jordan, it could be the beginning of the end for the Zionist regime. Jordan shares the largest, mostly undefended, land border with occupied Palestine. Once a major resistance movement is rooted there, the war would expand in such a way that no one is capable of predicting. It is also clear that the Zionists seek to continue their aggression against Iran, Yemen, and to degrade Hezbollah at all costs in Lebanon.

All of what is mentioned above will not likely just unfold overnight, everything takes time. Yet there is no question that the war is far from over.

February 18, 2025 Posted by aletho | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes, Wars for Israel | Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Middle East, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, United States, Zionism | Leave a comment

End of the American Empire?

Professor Glenn Diesen with Colonel Douglas Macgregor

Glenn Diesen | February 14, 2025

I had a conversation with Colonel Douglas Macgregor about the state of the US empire and what Trump attempts to do to reverse the relative decline of the US. Trump has been very aggressive against the deep state, which has become wasteful and ideological over the past decades. Trump is making huge moves to get the US out of Ukraine, which will also enable the US to get out of Europe. The greatest weakness in Trump’s foreign policy appears to be his approach to the Middle East, where he risks unleashing a major regional war. Trump’s tactic of bluster and noise to disrupt the status quo and create greater room for manoeuvre will trigger huge movements in the region that cannot be controlled.

February 16, 2025 Posted by aletho | Militarism, Video, Wars for Israel | China, Iran, Israel, Middle East, NATO, Palestine, Russia, Ukraine, United States | 2 Comments

Ceasefire Monitor Committee Plans Lebanese Army Control of Southern Towns after Incomplete Israeli Withdrawal

Al-Manar | February 14, 2025

US Central Command announced that the ceasefire committee conducted planning to complete transfer of all villages to LAF control by February 18.

Head of the Ceasefire Monitoring Committee in Lebanon, U.S. General Jasper Jeffers had stated, “We are confident that the Lebanese army will control the villages south of Litani River before Tuesday.”

Meanwhile, the Israeli media reflected the occupation’s insistence on keeping troops in five positions in South Lebanon after February 18. The Jerusalem Post reported that ‘Israel’ rejected a French proposal that enhances the Israeli full withdrawal with UN forces replacing the occupation troops in the five said positions.

Al-Manar TV’s editor of Hebrew affairs Hasan Hejazi said that the Israeli enemy insists on keeping troops in South Lebanon in order to blackmail Lebanon and achieve more gains in return for its full withdrawal.

The ceasefire took effect on November 27, 2024, ending a 66-day Zionist war on Lebanon. After the end of the 60-day withdrawal deadline, the biased US sponsor of the agreement supported the Israeli enemy in keeping its occupation forces in South Lebanon till February 18, 2025.

Regarding the Zionist violations, the Israeli enemy boob-trapped seven houses in the northeastern sector of Yaroun border town. The Israeli occupation forces erected surveillance equipment in Mount Blat area in preparation to keep troops there after February 18.

February 14, 2025 Posted by aletho | Deception, Illegal Occupation, War Crimes | Israel, Lebanon, Middle East, United States, Zionism | Leave a comment

Neocon think tanks persuading Trump to stomp down on West Asia

By Hassan Fakih | Al Mayadeen | February 13, 2025

Think thanks are making attempts to persuade the reinstated Donald Trump administration to take an iron fist approach to West Asia in light of news that US government bodies are making moves to begin pulling troops out.

The Vandenberg Coalition, an American neoconservative think tank headed by Elliott Abrams, a US politician who held foreign policy positions in the offices of presidents Ronald Reagan, George Bush, and Trump, published a report with their recommendations on how the 47^th president should handle the region.

Mainly, the report seeks to have Trump’s administration ensure that the region remains in line with American interests by seeing to it that olive branches are not to be extended to nations like Iran, China, or Russia.

“To protect U.S. security and ensure America has the resources to deter and confront adversaries outside of the Middle East, we must implement new policies toward the region,” the report reads.

The think tank lays out multiple methods as to how the reinstated White House Administration should act towards all of the nations of West Asia, whether they house forces hostile to the US or are Gulf allies.

The report sees Iran as the major roadblock to expanding US power over the region. It calls the Islamic Republic “the greatest threat to American interests in the Middle East and the cause of most of the region’s security problems.”

The coalition calls on Trump to reinstate “maximum pressure” on the Islamic Republic in order to deter it from gaining influence.

On the economic front, it demands that Washington fully enforce existing US oil sanctions so as to prevent economic growth via business between Iran and China.

Hostile words alluding to military action against Iran are littered throughout the report. It notes that the US should make Iran “pay” in the case that allied Resistance Axis forces carry out operations against an invading American force and considers it an attack carried out by Tehran.

“Any attack on U.S. forces or military assets by proxies must be considered an attack by Iran so as to encourage deterrence,” the report read. “The proxy attacks will not cease until Iran is made to pay a serious price for them. That should be US policy, communicated unequivocally to Iran.”

The Washington Institute, another US neoconservative think tank, also states in a report that the US should increase pressure on Iran. Its author, Michael Singh, outrightly declares that Washington should look towards a military solution as a means to combat Tehran’s nuclear enrichment project in place of complex diplomacy.

“One of the difficulties with diplomatic resolutions to nuclear crises is that they require the sort of domestic buy-in that was not obtained in America for either the Agreed Framework or JCPOA,” Singh wrote. “Given Iran’s vulnerability and the advanced state of its nuclear program, the Trump administration would be remiss not to consider, and indeed prepare seriously for, military strikes against Iran’s nuclear program.”

In regards to other West Asian countries, the Vandenberg coalition says that the US should keep its presence and sphere of influence in Iraq and Syria to prevent Iranian-backed groups from gaining power, as well as to try and cut off growing ties with China and Russia.

It supports the Israeli annexation of Syria’s land and attacks on military sites, adding that Washington should back such military moves by Tel Aviv.

“America must strongly support Israel’s efforts to identify, secure, and destroy the former Assad regime’s military infrastructure and chemical weapons stockpiles,” the Vandenberg Coalition’s report reads. “The United States must continue to allow Israel to obliterate these sites and equipment lest militant groups seize them.”

As for Lebanon, the coalition says that the Lebanese Republic should be treated “as a state captured by Iran” so far as Hezbollah exists.

It claims that “Israel” is the only capable body that can “secure the Israeli-Lebanese border,” and condemns the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) by saying that they and other international organizations are too outspoken about “Israeli defensive actions.”

It wrongly justifies “Israel’s” occupation of Lebanese territory, done so under the guise of border protection, by pinning the blame on Hezbollah for breaking the 27 November ceasefire agreement.

The reality is that during the 60-day ceasefire, Israeli violations were north of 1,300; this includes the imposed ceasefire as well as breaches of UN Resolution 1701, with “Israel” targeting areas north of the Litani River. The counter continues to climb as the Israeli army is still bombing Lebanese territory during this extended ceasefire.

For its part, Hezbollah launched one “initial warning defensive response” against the Israeli army’s Ruwaysat al-Alam site after multiple violations by the Israeli forces.

The claim that “Israel” should stay in Lebanon is also a view held by the Hudson Institute’s Rebeccah Heinrichs, who claims Hezbollah’s presence in the south, generalizing the entire region and not just south of the Litani, is justification for “Israel’s” occupation of Lebanese territory.

When it comes to recommended actions against Palestine, the Vandenberg Coalition says that Gazan sovereignty should be replaced with overseers from volunteer Arab States vetted by the Americans, noting that “American policymakers should prohibit the participation of any entities with longstanding support for Hamas.”

The main goal for US foreign policy regarding Palestine, according to the think tank, is to “prioritize the security of Israel and our Arab partners,” Palestinian rights will only go so far as the Americans will allow them.

“Israel’s” Institute for National Security Studies’ Chuck Freilich gave the opinion that Trump should help with the idea of creating a Jordanian-Palestinian confederation instead of looking at a viable means for Palestinians to stay on their lands.

Trump seems to have taken this view, as he said during a February 5 presser with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that neighboring nations should absorb the Palestinians living in Gaza.

“Being in [Gaza’s] presence just has not been good, and it should not go through a process of rebuilding and occupation by the same people that have really stood there and fought for it and lived there and died there,” Trump said. “Instead, we should go to other countries of interest with humanitarian hearts, […] and build various domains that will ultimately be occupied by the million Palestinians living in Gaza, ending the death and destruction and frankly bad luck.”

The US president failed to mention “Israel” as being the reason for the death and destruction of the besieged enclave, instead, referring to them as “wonderful people.”

Normalization between “Israel” and Arab states is still also a significant goal of these recommendations. Both the American Vandenberg Coalition and the Israeli think tank, The Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security, call for an expansion of the Abraham Accords under the guise of creating a strong network to combat Iran.

The coalition also declares that the US should remove “unwarranted” restrictions to arms sales with “Israel”, noting, “Arming Israel in a timely manner shows Iran and its proxies that the United States stands shoulder to shoulder with its ally.”

Even Gulf states that have taken positions very kind to America and “Israel” historically are being targeted as nations in need of American discipline.

Growing ties with China are listed as a reason for cracking down on Saudi Arabian, Qatari, and UAE ambitions, as the three nations have been in talks with Beijing on military matters, a subject which Washington sees as a notable threat.

Censorship of Saudi Arabian speech is also a part of the recommended acts, noting, “Saudi Arabia should be asked to stop rhetoric about Iran or Israel that creates any confusion about the Kingdom’s allegiances,” highlighting statements made at the 2024 Arab League in which Riyadh called on Washington to respect Iran’s sovereignty.

The Vandenberg coalition called on Trump to revoke Qatar’s Major Non-NATO Ally (MNNA) status due to its “overt support of Hamas and other Iranian-affiliated terrorist groups.”

In Yemen, there are calls for the Americans to conduct operations in the Red Sea to ensure the safe travel of ships, and “destroy Iranian ships,” as a means of fulfilling this goal.

It also calls for the US to discipline UN bodies operating in West Asia, the Vandenberg Coalition outrightly declares that Washington should “immediately cease all funding to UNRWA” and authorize UNIFIL to be able to independently search private property in South Lebanon to find weapon caches.

If UNIFIL doesn’t comply, the recommended act is for the US to halt all voluntary funding to the group.

The coalition states that the US should also “vet potential appointments of senior UN officials” in order to “prevent conflicts of interest.”

What these think tanks desire from Trump’s administration is for it to adopt a Henry Kissinger-esque view of America first policy towards West Asia, meaning that the US and its Israeli ally should always come before the natives of the land by any means necessary.

Trump’s vision of pulling out troops from the region is undesirable to these academic hawks because they view that without the policing of America, the region’s nations will turn their back to Washington and benefit adversaries like China or Iran.

Neoconservatives want a diplomatic strategy from Trump that sees the sovereignty of West Asian nations taking a back seat if they do not comply with America’s vision of the region.

We can expect that Trump will eventually comply in one way or another with the demands brought forward, as policymakers want to ensure that the US stays on the throne it commandeered following the collapse of the USSR by making Trump a Machiavellian prince.

February 13, 2025 Posted by aletho | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | Iraq, Israel, Lebanon, Middle East, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Syria, United States, Zionism | 1 Comment

Trump: Madman strategy or madman actions?

By Dr Mohammad Makram Balawi | MEMO | February 11, 2025

As expected, during Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit, the American president surprised everyone with reckless, unrestrained and illogical positions that align with the “madman strategy” he followed in his first term. However, this time, many people are convinced that the man is not merely feigning this strategy, but rather it is an intrinsic part of his reality. One of the most prominent indicators of this, or what cemented this belief for many, is his reckless statements about Gaza, his intention to relocate its population to neighbouring countries, seize the land and build a large tourist resort resembling the French Riviera on the eastern shores of the Mediterranean.

This development even shocked the most ardent supporters of ethnic cleansing – not only because it aligns with these criminal proposals that violate international law, United Nations resolutions, and are deemed crimes against humanity by international courts, but also because such a claim requires tools for execution and practical measures that do not exist on the ground. Undoubtedly, the forced displacement of more than two million people is no simple matter, especially given that Israeli efforts to carry out displacement through all forms of violence have failed miserably. So how does Trump intend to implement these insane ideas without sufficient forces on the ground and without possessing a greater destructive capacity than that of Israel?

Israel deployed approximately 300,000 soldiers and is believed to have lost around 2,000 military armed vehicles in Gaza. So, in the absence of military forces, how can Trump achieve this unless he intends to commit another crime against humanity; starving the population to death? While such a notion is not far-fetched for a mindset of this kind, we have already seen direct rejection from the countries he mentioned as destinations for displacement, foremost among them Egypt and Jordan.

Moreover, when Trump provided clarifications regarding the rebuilding of Gaza and transforming it into another Riviera, he claimed that the Arab states, which have abundant wealth, would be the ones funding the project. This attitude reflects unprecedented arrogance and disdain, as he not only seeks to displace the Palestinian people into Arab countries and threaten their national security, but also expects Arabs, particularly Saudi Arabia, to finance a plan that would undermine their own security and potentially ignite a larger and more violent round of conflicts and confrontations. This explains the strong Saudi and Arab reaction, which categorically rejected this initiative. Saudi officials, especially Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman, linked any potential diplomatic relations with Israel to the establishment of a fully sovereign Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital, in accordance with the Arab Peace Initiative — which was originally a Saudi initiative.

Netanyahu’s response to this was nothing short of outrageous, as he suggested that Saudi Arabia should establish a Palestinian state on its own territory. In a continuation of the arrogance and condescension previously exhibited by Trump, these positions are not merely obstacles to Saudi-Israeli normalisation and, by extension, broader Arab and Islamic normalisation, but they could also deal a severe blow to Saudi-American relations. These relations were expected to flourish under Trump’s presidency, particularly given his demands — or rather, commands — for a trillion dollars from Saudi Arabia.

Whether Trump realises it or not, his stance represents a complete dismantling of his own foreign policy doctrine, which was ostensibly based on ending wars and exerting soft pressure. In reality, it may mark the beginning of a series of major events, next to which the 7 October war could seem like a mere excursion. Having clashed with nearly everyone, Trump now resembles an elephant in a glass shop, making it crucial for Arab states to rethink their policies — not only toward Israel but also toward its Western supporters, particularly the United States — if they wish to preserve their existence.

Needless to say, successive Israeli policies have inflicted immense suffering on the region — displacing an entire people from their homeland, occupying Arab territories, including Islamic and Christian holy sites, and denying the rights of an ancient people with a history spanning thousands of years. These policies continue to generate further suffering and tragedies, rooted in a supremacist ideology that does not recognise human equality, but rather applies one moral code to the weak while allowing the strong to enforce their own rules as they see fit.

Israel’s attacks on Syria following the collapse of Bashar Al-Assad’s regime and the destruction of its military capabilities were crimes beyond imagination, costing perhaps billions of dollars, under the pretext of “pre-emptive strikes”. Israel has now assumed the right to hold others accountable for mere intentions, as seen in the Iranian nuclear project, granting itself the right to defy all logic and reason so long as it enjoys protection and support from the international community, particularly the United States, which remained silent about these crimes.

Time and again, events have proven what we have long asserted: halting cooperation with Israel, which considers itself above the law, is imperative. This policy of complicity with Israel is dragging the entire world into an endless cycle of violence that could threaten global peace, not just regional stability. The Palestinian cause has always served as a mirror for the world to see itself, yet the world has persistently chosen to turn away in favour of its own interests.

February 12, 2025 Posted by aletho | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | Human rights, Israel, Middle East, Palestine, United States, Zionism | Leave a comment

Trump to ‘clean out’ and own Gaza?

Seyed Mohammad Marandi, Alexander Mercouris & Glenn Diesen

Glenn Diesen | February 9, 2025

I had a conversation with Alexander Mercouris and Prof. Seyed Mohammad Marandi (advisor to Iran’s nuclear negotiation team) about Trump’s recent comments about ethnically cleansing Gaza and the US seizing ownership over the territory. It is said that Trump should not be taken literally as much of his talk is either a negotiation tactic or he is simply improvising. Trump’s comments could have been aimed to ensure Israeli compliance with the ceasefire, to keep Netanyahu in power, or to have been part of a wider retrenchment strategy as the US must appear strong at a time when it is pulling back and shifting priorities.

February 11, 2025 Posted by aletho | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Video, Wars for Israel | Iran, Israel, Middle East, Palestine, Russia, Sanctions against Iran, United States, Zionism | 1 Comment

Trump’s Foreign Policy – Strategy Behind the Noise?

Prof. Jeffrey Sachs with Prof. Glenn Diesen

Glenn Diesen | February 5, 2025

Trump’s actions in the international system are defined by the aims to remake US foreign policy, and the tendency to make noise that keeps him in the headlines. A key challenge for analysts is therefore to distinguish between the strategy and the noise. Some of Trump’s messaging has a deliberate purpose while at other times he is seemingly improvising.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio dropped a bombshell by arguing that the unipolar world order is over and the natural condition is multipolarity. Does this represent Trump’s decision to retire the “hegemonic peace” in Europe through NATO expansion (that triggered a war in Ukraine), or was it simply an independent commentary by Rubio? Trump wants peace with Russia and recognises that NATO provoked the war, but he also attempts to threaten Russia to accept US terms. Trump wants to end the wars in the Middle East, but he also sends 2000-pound bombs to Israel and casually suggests ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians from Gaza. Trump wants to get along with China, but also to end China’s technological leadership. What is foreign policy and what is noise?

February 6, 2025 Posted by aletho | Economics, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Video | China, Israel, Middle East, NATO, Palestine, Russia, United States, Zionism | 1 Comment

‘I much prefer a nuclear deal’: Trump dismisses talk of US–Israeli attacks on Iran

The Cradle | February 5, 2025

US President Donald Trump has denied that Washington and Tel Aviv are planning military attacks against the Islamic Republic of Iran, saying that he would “much prefer” a nuclear agreement preventing Tehran from acquiring an atomic weapon.

“I want Iran to be a great and successful Country, but one that cannot have a nuclear weapon. Reports that the United States, working in conjunction with Israel, is going to blow Iran into smithereens, ARE GREATLY EXAGGERATED,” Trump said early on 5 February on his social media platform Truth Social.

“I would much prefer a Verified Nuclear Peace Agreement, which will let Iran peacefully grow and prosper. We should start working on it immediately, and have a big Middle East celebration when it is signed and completed. God Bless the Middle East!” the president went on to state.

In early February, reports said that Trump shot down Israeli plans for an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities.

Trump expressed hope late last month that a nuclear deal could be “worked out without having to go that further step,” referring to an attack.

A Wall Street Journal report in December said Trump’s team was mulling options for strikes on the Iranian nuclear program and that there was a “rare opportunity to counter Iran’s nuclear buildup.”

This week, the US president signed an executive order restoring his “maximum pressure” policy of sanctions on the Islamic Republic, as reports had said he would prior to his second presidential term.

“If the main problem is Iran not having nuclear weapons, this problem can be solved,” Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on Wednesday, adding that “maximum pressure is a failed experiment and testing it again will lead to another defeat.”

Trump withdrew from the 2015 US–Iranian nuclear deal in 2018 – during his first term – and restored harsh sanctions against Iran.

Tehran is subject to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) of 1970, as well as a religious fatwa outlawing the development and use of any form of weapons of mass destruction.

Former CIA director said last month that “we do not see any sign” that Iran is planning to weaponize its nuclear program.

February 5, 2025 Posted by aletho | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism | Iran, Israel, Middle East, United States, Zionism | Leave a comment

The Saudi–Israeli normalization ‘delusion’

By Stasa Salacanin | The Cradle | February 5, 2025

On 4 February, when asked if the Saudis demand the establishment of a Palestinian state as a condition for recognizing Israel, US President Donald Trump, sitting alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the Oval Office, swiftly replied: “No, they’re not.”

The Saudi Ministry of Foreign Affairs was also quick to respond, stating that its stance on the establishment of a Palestinian state remains “firm and unwavering,” insisting that Riyadh would make no deal with Tel Aviv otherwise:

“His Royal Highness (Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman – or MbS) emphasized that Saudi Arabia will continue its relentless efforts to establish an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital, and will not establish diplomatic relations with Israel without that.”

The statement further stressed that the Saudi position on this is “non-negotiable and not subject to compromises.”

Despite the fervent optimism of Trump’s newly appointed foreign policy team, the much-touted Saudi–Israeli normalization agreement remains an elusive goal, just as it was for his predecessor, Joe Biden. While Washington insists that such a deal is potentially around the corner, a more sober analysis suggests the pathway to a deal remains rife with obstacles.

Spanner in the works

The Abraham Accords, brokered under Trump’s first term, were hailed in Washington as a historic breakthrough in West Asian diplomacy, bringing the occupation state into official relations with the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan. Yet, the glaring absence of Saudi Arabia – the most influential Arab state – was the missing piece that the US and Israel craved most.

Biden’s tenure, rather than advancing Trump’s initiative, has arguably undermined it. His administration’s unyielding support for Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza and its brutal military campaign in Lebanon has alienated many Arab and Muslim states, further diminishing the likelihood of new normalization deals.

Meanwhile, China has capitalized on Washington’s waning credibility, scoring a major diplomatic coup in 2023 by brokering a historic rapprochement between Saudi Arabia and Iran – a relationship that, against the odds, remains intact.

Despite the changed reality on the ground, this US administration still believes that the deal between the world’s largest oil exporter and Israel is still attainable on its terms. Mike Waltz, the Trump administration’s new national security advisor, has stated that reaching a peace agreement between Riyadh and Tel Aviv is a “huge priority” for the new administration.

Saudis caution: A deal on whose terms?

While the Saudis drew a clear line and maintained it for a very long time by linking normalization with Israel to the establishment of a Palestinian state, neither Israel nor the new Trump administration have shown any willingness to accommodate Saudi intentions.

Many of Trump’s supporters and major donors, such as Miriam Adelson, as well as the Israeli government, not only oppose any form of a Palestinian state, but are openly talking about annexing the entire occupied West Bank. Therefore, it is still unclear how Trump intends to reconcile two vastly opposing views and expectations and expand the Abraham Accords.

According to Giuseppe Dentice, an analyst at the Mediterranean Observatory (OSMED) of the Italian Institute for Political Studies “San Pio V,” Trump will likely fall back on his tried-and-tested approach – leaning on the Abraham Accords as a framework while resurrecting elements of his so-called “deal of the century.”

Dentice explains to The Cradle that the ultimate goal of such efforts is to sideline the Palestinian cause entirely, pushing it to the periphery of both regional and global agendas.

Moreover, many believe that the Trump administration will launch a crusade against the “global intifada” and those who dare to criticize Israel or insist on prosecuting Israeli war crimes.

This approach, Dentice contends, essentially forces a single option in the negotiations: Take it or leave it.

“Trump’s aggressive approach to Riyadh could backfire for the US and its interests in the Middle East (West Asia), especially if the Al-Saud kingdom continues to reject these terms, risking closer alignment with the agendas of other international actors (such as China or Russia, if only in strategic or instrumental terms).”

Saudi investments in the US: Buying leverage or time?

Some observers speculate that Saudi Arabia’s recent announcement that Riyadh plans to invest $600 billion in the US over the next four years could be understood as a certain early bribe to Trump in return for easing his zealous pressure regarding the Saudi–Israeli normalization agreement and other geopolitical issues as well.

While it is true that convincing the Saudis will be a tough nut to crack, Dentice, for one, does not believe that even such a significant economic commitment could distract or dissuade the new government from its goals.

He believes that beyond the issue of normalization agreements with Israel, Riyadh wants to strengthen its understanding and cooperation with Washington, especially with this government. Nonetheless, it remains true that key figures associated with this administration, such as Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, could undermine Saudi processes and intentions through their own business relationships.

For Dr Paul Rogers, Emeritus Professor of Peace Studies in the Department of Peace Studies and International Relations at the College of Bradford, President Trump is far too unpredictable for anyone to conclude on the chances of a deal with Saudi Arabia, but his recent comments on the option of expelling the Palestinians from Gaza indicate a very close relationship with far-right Israeli political factions.

Dr Rogers tells The Cradle that he suspects “that the Saudis will stay away from any kind of agreement, no matter what offer they make.”

Arab public opinion: A hard sell

Beyond geopolitical calculations, public sentiment in the Arab world remains a major obstacle to normalization. The rejection of a Palestinian state, coupled with an aggressive push for Saudi–Israeli ties, is widely viewed as an attempt to erase the Palestinian cause altogether – an agenda that lacks legitimacy among Arab and Muslim populations.

Furthermore, many observers believe that Israel’s war crimes and the genocide in Gaza have made it very difficult and uncomfortable for Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MbS) to continue peace talks.

But West Asian views against normalization precede even the brutal 15-month war. According to the Arab Opinion Index from 2022, for example, an average of 84 percent of citizens in 14 countries rejected diplomatic relations with Israel. These figures show that the Arab enforcers of the Abraham Accords ultimately failed to reach or sway wider Arab public opinion.

The war in Gaza has only cemented anti-Israeli views in Saudi Arabia, and an unconditional normalization agreement with Israel would only increase the risk of destabilizing the crown prince’s image in the kingdom and abroad. It would also humiliate MbS, who has publicly condemned Israel’s actions in Gaza, recognizing them as a “genocide.”

A mirage in the desert

Palestinian statehood is by no means a simple issue, even if an Israeli government supported the initiative, which the current one resolutely rejects.

Palestinian national aspirations can lose momentum due to internal divisions, the lack of an organized leadership capable of addressing current and future challenges, and the faltering support of traditional Arab sponsors – notably the loss of Syria following the ousting of former president Bashar al-Assad by Al-Qaeda-linked extremists – Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) – who now form the new government.

For all the speculation surrounding a Saudi–Israeli deal, the reality is that no proposal for Palestinian statehood has made meaningful progress in the past three decades. As a result, ad hoc unilateral initiatives have increasingly taken center stage, often yielding disastrous consequences.

In this context, the push for a Saudi–Israeli accord seems less like a diplomatic breakthrough and more like a mirage conjured by Washington and Tel Aviv.

Dentice believes that in such a context, and with the prospect of a possible Saudi–Israeli agreement, the Palestinians will have even less political relevance in the future. This will give space for radical and armed groups to gain ground and further exacerbate tensions on the Palestinian and Arab streets.

Trump’s aggressive tactics may succeed in strong-arming some leaders, but they are unlikely to change deep-seated regional attitudes. If anything, the pursuit of an agreement without major concessions for Palestinians could inflame tensions further, pushing the region into even greater instability.

For now, the notion of a Saudi–Israeli deal may be more fantasy than fact – an illusion sustained by wishful thinking rather than political reality.

February 5, 2025 Posted by aletho | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | Human rights, Israel, Middle East, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, United States, Zionism | Leave a comment

Pulling the Money Chain: The NGO Network in Ukraine and the Global War on Terror

By Matt Wolfson | The Libertarian Institute | February 5, 2025

Detritus from Joe Biden’s administration doesn’t just amount to the obvious—inflation and deficit spending, regulations and wars. There’s also been a more subtle shift off of these failures, affecting who has power in our country and how they’ll use it in the future.

Nowhere is the shift less noticed or more definite than in the world of humanitarianism, which has been enriched these past three years by the previous administration’s proxy wars. Since 2022—when the Biden White House responded to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine by neither escalating nor defusing but prolonging—a network of humanitarian non-profits has grown up around the conflict. This network has fed off the deaths of Ukrainians and the piling on of debt for future Americans through its operators’ deep contacts with the United States government and its outgrowths.

This network is worth investigating on its own. But with the advent of the second Trump Administration which is looking to wind down the war, its players appear to be pivoting from Ukraine to the Middle East: from ginning up funds for an endless proxy war to ginning them up for a repeat of the Global War on Terror.

The most obvious entry point into this network is Ukraine NGO Coordination Network (UNCN), which has a small staff but a wide reach: forty-two organizations are members. Many of them are some version of globalist: “Cross Border Civilians,” “Aviation without Borders,” “Global Outreach Doctors,” “Medical Teams Worldwide.” And many of these have the institutional links one might expect. Cross Border Civilians recruits from the World Economic Forum while Global Outreach Doctors traffics in Black Lives Matter. But even UNCN non-profits with close connections to Ukraine are much more tied into Washington DC-backed institutions than they first appear.

Listed first of all these organizations is Razom, a Ukrainian-American non-profit active since 2014. Its president, Dora Chomiak, is a Princeton and Columbia graduate who served in the 1990s as a Director of Regional Media Programs for George Soros’ newly-founded Open Society Institute. Under Chomiak’s leadership, Razom has a spot at the World Economic Forum, a regular Soros haunt. It also has a strong presence at Bard College, a major accepter of Ukrainian refugees which recently received a $500 million endowment pledge from Soros, whose second wife directs the Bard Graduate Center.

Razom also has government and university contacts. Samantha Power, the outgoing director of USAID, the government agency responsible for foreign aid, has been a featured speaker at Razom-hosted events, and so has the U.S. State Department’s Special Representative for Ukraine’s Economic Recovery, Penny Pritzker. Columbia University, which has received extensive donations from Soros as well as tax exemptions from Washington, hosts regular pro-Ukrainian events at its Harriman Institute, where Chomiak serves on the board.

Another prominent member of UNCN’s network is Help Ukraine, founded by Brian Mefford, who also founded Wooden Horse Strategies, which by its own description is “a Kyiv-based consulting firm focusing on USAID and EU project development and evaluation, risk analysis, due diligence, political strategy and strategic communications” that “provides clients with both Ukraine and regional insight that achieves results for their projects, businesses and policy objectives.” In 2023, Wooden Horse Strategies was listed by Russian officials as under contract with Ukraine’s Science and Technology Center to help carry out “the United States’ military biological programs in Ukraine.”

This claim isn’t verifiable, but it is verifiable that Ukraine’s Science and Technology Center contracted with Wooden Horse Strategies to combat “disinformation” about the Ukrainian war effort. Mefford was also reliably identified as an attendee at a 2022 Washington summit on the conduct of the war sponsored by “private sector cyber security and intelligence operators and CIA venture capital firm In-Q-Tel,” which, according to its CEO, has seen over thirty of its portfolio companies “deplo[y]” their technologies “as part of Western efforts to support Ukraine.

These players, in other words, are not the Salvation Army. They’re highly plugged into government-funded universities and intelligence agencies as well as the U.S. Department of State. This positions them to be indirect or direct recipients not just of defense and university grants but of staggering amounts of formal humanitarian aid. “Since February 2022,” according to a Congressional Research report released on January 6, 2025, “Congress has appropriated more than $46 billion in emergency funds for accounts solely or partially managed by USAID to address the war in Ukraine” including for “humanitarian assistance.” This is on top of $65.9 billion in direct military assistance in the same period.

It’s not clear, as this report notes, where funds raised and spent this fast actually went. But almost surely some of them percolated directly or indirectly to the organizations which help make up the UNCN. Now, with the Trump administration opposed to further involvement in Ukraine, at least one of UNCN’s players appear to be mobilizing to get funding for a different foreign cause.

This player is Sarah Adams, Chief of Operations for UNCN from January 2022 to January 2024 and an institutional operator par excellence. At the start of her career, Adams worked for a pharmaceutical company with links to Pfizer and in the 2010s she was a CIA analyst abroad, including in Libya. She serves as a Program Analyst for the United States Department of the Air Force in Tampa.

Currently, though, on conservative podcasts like Shawn Ryan’s and Tudor Dixon’s on which she appears, Adams presents herself as a former CIA agent and whistleblower cut from MAGA’s mold: an ex-soldier sounding the alert on jihadi infiltrations. She makes the case for a unified global movement of pre-planned Al Qaeda “wave” attacks which represent a clear and present danger to the United States. Not surprisingly, in the wake of the January 1 terrorist attack in New Orleans, Adams’s supporters claimed validation for her—despite the fact that the attacker was an American-born resident of Texas and a Deloitte employee radicalized online.

Adams claims to be going up against Pentagon pushback when she makes her warnings, despite the fact that she’s employed by the Air Force, which is run from the Pentagon. But the Pentagon’s history of firing employees who dissent, among them decorated Space Force Colonel Matthew Lohmeier, renders this claim extremely dubious. Journalist Max Blumenthal has pointed out other inconsistencies as well. Not only are “Adams’ sources [for her claims] unnamed,” they’re also uncited outside of her constant references to “we.” In only the first fifteen minutes of her appearance on The Shawn Ryan Show, Adams cites “open source” information, i.e. information from publicly available sources or that she got “on the ground”; doesn’t link to those sources (outside of a terrorist training video); and then makes broad claims. One is that Al Qaeda activities in Europe are a planned operation for revenge against America for its interfering in the Middle East. Another is connecting threatened Al Qaeda attacks on America to the October 7 attack against Israel, implying that combating one means combating the other.

The way Adams phrases her warnings reinforces the confusion. She sounds either like she’s not confident in her own material, or that she’s patronizing her audience by talking down. “But it’s just, um, al Qaeda has all these waves of attacks planned, okay” is her way of describing a clear and present threat to Americans. About terrorist trainees: “Remember their life is they train all the time so if that’s all you’re doing all day long, I mean, you’re gonna get really competent at it and then they have different emotions behind it too and, you know, different beliefs, and the religion behind it too, which makes you more devout.” She calls a Pentagon communication to her a “nastygram.” She says (jokingly? not?) that Shawn Ryan’s head of production looks like a terrorist and that she “could have [his address] by the end of the day if I really wanted it.” This doesn’t sound like an experienced veteran delivering a serious warning. It sounds like a self-promoter with a strange side.

When it comes to questions about her analysis or sources, Adams is not tolerant. When I pushed back on X with “total respect” about whether the issue of the Taliban targeting a French Afghani in France was relevant, as Adams claimed, to “all of us,” she responded before blocking me:

One reason Adams may take this attitude is that engaging with American conservatives isn’t really what she wants to be doing; it’s a means to an end. One of her supporters explained to me on X: “Sarah’s focusing on raising attention with ‘the right’ (even though they typically lack nuance) because they’re still national security focused, while Left leaning westerners tend not to [be].” This ally, James Griffin, runs a website titled “Analytica Camillus.” It pairs broad sloganeering (“Morality in Ruthlessness”; “You may not be interested in war but war is interested in you”) with intricately plotted maps of counteroffensives in Ukraine.

All of this raises a question: if Muslim terror tactics have been such clear threats and created such humanitarian calamities, why did self-identified experts in war and humanitarianism like Adams and Griffin spend years focusing on Ukraine and only pivot to Islamism as a new Donald Trump presidency loomed? One answer is that these pivots—from the Russia threat to Muslim terror, from Kosovo to Iraq—have been happening for three decades, executed by the same connected institutional operators in the name of the same general principles applied to different situations based on which administration is in the White House.

These general principles are security and humanitarianism, a double rhetorical punch that has justified the foreign interventions that have created unprecedented non-and-for-profit boondoggles since the 1990s. Tellingly, Adams describes herself as 10% warlord, 90% humanitarian, or a warrior in the name of humanitarian ideals, and neither her pairing of war and human rights nor the profits that accrue from that pairing are new. An early beneficiary was George Soros, whose Open Society Foundations picked up in the Balkans where NATO left off, and who has been heavily invested in Ukrainian companies. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars were also a boondoggle for non-profits as well as for business ventures to “build up” the region America had decimated by players like the Pritzker Family; one of whose members, Thomas Pritzker, set up North America Western Asia Holdings in partnership with a former undersecretary of Defense in the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administration to pursue those opportunities in 2011.

A humanitarian-crusader thru-line also runs through the careers of government officials responsible for these crusades. Biden USAID director Samantha Power made her name in the 1990s with a Pulitzer Prize winning book urging American intervention in the name of human rights and later stage-managed the intervention in Libya, where Sarah Adams served as a CIA analyst. Biden’s Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, a key backer of humanitarianism up to his last days in the State Department, had a father, another humanitarian, who was a key supporter of the NATO expansion off of our 1990s Balkans interventions which began our long cool down with Russia. Both Power and Blinken also advanced their career off of or in support of the Iraq War. This was the ultimate in humanitarian-security politics gone wrong. It was justified by links between Muslims (Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda) that later proved conflationary and that are uncomfortably similar to the links Sarah Adams is currently making between different Muslim groups.

In between stints in government, both Power and Blinken subsisted off Ivy League research perches with links to nonprofits and security contractors. Almost surely, both will lend their support to policies already being bandied around in Washington, and reinforced by testimony from people like Sarah Adams that empower those institutions. These policies include re-authorizing government surveillance on American citizens and expanding the power of the Department of Homeland Security in the name of combating Muslim terror.

Other prominent supporters of these policies like Aayan Hirsi Ali, operating out of non-profits inside government-funded universities, want Americans to take the same broad-brush approach to national security as Sarah Adams does. But they expand the threats even further, broadcasting a new humanitarian and security crusade against Marxism, Islamism, the Chinese Communist Party, and Vladimir Putin. Tellingly, Hirsi’s husband, Niall Ferguson, an institutionally-connected booster of American interventionism and humanitarianism since a dozen years before the Iraq War, has recently become a Trump supporter, self-professedly dancing at Mar-a-Lago not too long ago.

He, along with longtime interventionist Bret Stephens and Stephens’ protégé, Free Press founder Bari Weiss, have increasingly identified with conservatives while pushing very different focuses. As of January 28, The Free Press’ last twenty international stories have included five on the Western hemisphere or China; the other fifteen have been on Europe and the Middle East. And this doesn’t even mention The Free Press’ separate section on Israel and antisemitism. Whatever one’s views of these issues, these players’ focus is far away from the focus of constitutional conservatives or the Trump White House.

Arguably, these humanitarian-military crusades—the ones which fund people like Sarah Adams, Brian Mefford, and Dora Chomiak, and which open investment opportunities for the Pritzkers and George Soros—are the most durable beneficiaries of America’s post-Cold War deep state apparatus. Quietly since 1995 and loudly since 2001, there has literally not been a year when we weren’t engaged in one of these missions, empowering contractors and non-profits abroad while encouraging surveillance at home.

Today’s latest sales pitch for a new crusade by Ukraine War pushers is something believers in small government and individual liberties should push back against. Profits in the name of war-linked humanitarianism are suspect to begin with. But when they threaten our liberties and our finances, they’re anathema to American interests.

February 5, 2025 Posted by aletho | Corruption, Deception, Militarism, Progressive Hypocrite, Timeless or most popular, Wars for Israel | Middle East, Ukraine, United States, Zionism | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries Next Entries »

Stanislav Krapivnik: Massive Escalation – Attack on Putin’s Residence

Aletho News Videos

or go to

Aletho News Archives – Video-Images

Book Review

Truth and Public Policy in the Digital Age

The Kevin Barrett-Chomsky Dispute in Historical Perspective – 10th part of the series “9/11 and the Zionist Question”

Prof. Tony Hall | American Herald Tribune | August 9, 2016

… In Among The Truthers Kay repeats the core idea of The Volunteer: A Canadian’s Secret Life in the Mossad. As Kay would have it, 9/11 confirms the role of Israel as the West’s primary bulwark against Islamic savagery. In making this case Kay repeats the assertion of Benjamin Netanyahu that 9/11 was good for Israel.

Kay asserts, “Following the attacks supporters of Israel spoke of a silver lining. The war against militant Islam suddenly was a global one. Now the whole world would see and understand the sort of nihilistic hatred that Israelis confront every day.” As Kay sees it, Jews are being enlisted en masse to serve as primary soldiers in a war of civilizations.

He writes, “The Jew was the perfect anti-Islamist, whose zeal and reliability was hard-wired into his political DNA thanks to six decades of Israeli warfare against Islamic terrorists in the Middle East.” … Read full article

Blog Roll

Subscribe to Aletho News

Enter your email address to receive new posts by email.

Email Address:

Join 2,407 other subscribers
Visits Since December 2009
- 7,264,104 hits
Looking for something?

Search for:
Archives
Archives
Calendar

December 2025

M T W T F S S

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8 9 10 11 12 13 14

15 16 17 18 19 20 21

22 23 24 25 26 27 28

29 30 31

« Nov
Categories

Aletho News Civil Liberties Corruption Deception Economics Environmentalism Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism Fake News False Flag Terrorism Full Spectrum Dominance Illegal Occupation Mainstream Media, Warmongering Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity Militarism Progressive Hypocrite Russophobia Science and Pseudo-Science Solidarity and Activism Subjugation - Torture Supremacism, Social Darwinism Timeless or most popular Video War Crimes Wars for Israel
Tags
9/11 Afghanistan Africa al-Qaeda Australia BBC Benjamin Netanyahu Brazil Canada CDC Central Intelligence Agency China CIA CNN Covid-19 COVID-19 Vaccine Donald Trump Egypt European Union Facebook FBI FDA France Gaza Germany Google Hamas Hebron Hezbollah Hillary Clinton Human rights Hungary India Iran Iraq ISIS Israel Israeli settlement Japan Jerusalem Joe Biden Korea Latin America Lebanon Libya Middle East National Security Agency NATO New York Times North Korea NSA Obama Pakistan Palestine Poland Qatar Russia Sanctions against Iran Saudi Arabia Syria The Guardian Turkey Twitter UAE UK Ukraine United Nations United States USA Venezuela Washington Post West Bank WHO Yemen Zionism

December 2025
M	T	W	T	F	S	S
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
8	9	10	11	12	13	14
15	16	17	18	19	20	21
22	23	24	25	26	27	28
29	30	31

Aletho News
If Americans Knew
No Tricks Zone
Contact:

atheonews (at) gmail.com
Disclaimer

This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.

This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.

Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.

Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.

The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.

The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.

Fair Use

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

DMCA Contact

This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.

If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.

We will respond and take necessary action immediately.

If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.

All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.

	Rod on How Intelligence, Politics, an…
	papasha408 on Trump Says Hamas Will Be Given…
	papasha408 on Is Israel About to Return to G…
	Bill Francis on NSW Premier Admits New “Securi…
	Richard Ong on Israeli forces arrest writer a…
	Bill Francis on How reporting facts can now la…
	loongtip on Europe’s Panic Economy: Frozen…
	Gemma on Israel’s diamond industr…
	Bill Francis on Victoria Moves to Force Online…
	papasha408 on The Empire of Lies: How the BB…
	loongtip on US Weighs Port Restrictions on…
	Bill Francis on Chris Minns Defends NSW “Hate…

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Professor Glenn Diesen with Colonel Douglas Macgregor

Seyed Mohammad Marandi, Alexander Mercouris & Glenn Diesen

Prof. Jeffrey Sachs with Prof. Glenn Diesen

Featured Video

Book Review

Prof. Tony Hall | American Herald Tribune | August 9, 2016

Blog Roll

Subscribe to Aletho News

Visits Since December 2009

Looking for something?

Archives

Calendar

Categories

Tags

Recent Comments

Contact:

Disclaimer

Site info