US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin have agreed that the first step towards ending the Ukraine conflict should be an “energy and infrastructure ceasefire,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt has revealed. The leaders reached the agreement during a 2.5 hour phone conversation on Tuesday.
According to the readout of the phone call published on X by Leavitt on Tuesday, both leaders concur that the conflict must conclude with a lasting peace. They also emphasized the importance of strengthening bilateral relations.
“The leaders agreed that the movement to peace will begin with an energy and infrastructure ceasefire, as well as technical negotiations on implementation of a maritime ceasefire in the Black Sea, full ceasefire and permanent peace,” the transcript reads.
The Kremlin has confirmed that Putin supported Trump’s proposal for Russia and Ukraine to halt strikes on energy infrastructure for 30 days, and instructed his military accordingly.
According to the readout, Moscow and Washington have agreed to hold relevant negotiations “immediately in the Middle East.”
Aside from Ukraine, the two heads of state are said to have discussed the situation in the Middle East as well as potential cooperation with a view to preventing future conflicts in the region.
Another topic high on the two leaders’ agenda was the “need to stop proliferation of strategic weapons” globally, according to the White House press secretary.
“The two leaders agreed that a future with an improved bilateral relationship between the United States and Russia has huge upside,” including but not limited to “enormous economic deals and geopolitical stability,” the readout concludes.
Neoconservatism began to take root in the 1970s as strength through militarism and an interventionist foreign policy were increasingly seen as the path to peace. Ideological Manicheanism and narratives of peace through strength challenged more traditional concepts of security that focused on mitigating the security dilemma. Human rights, rather than restraining the use of force, were discovered as a weapon that would legitimize the removal of restraints on the use of force.
I had a conversation with Alastair Crooke and Alexander Mercouris about the geoeconomic confusion in Europe. The US is repositioning itself as the unipolar world order has ended, and multipolarity is already here. The Europeans have no strategy and the policies subsequent lack direction and reason. In Isreal, society has polarised to the extent that political and societal instability will become a challenge to national security.
Over the weekend President Trump ordered a massive military operation against the small country of Yemen. Was Yemen in the process of attacking the United States? No. Did the President in that case go to Congress and seek a declaration of war against the country? No. The fact is, Yemen hadn’t even threatened the United States before the bombs started falling.
Last year, candidate Trump strongly criticized the Biden Administration’s obsession with foreign interventionism to the detriment of our problems at home. In an interview at the Libertarian National Convention, he criticized Biden’s warmongering to podcaster Tim Pool, saying, “You can solve problems over a telephone. Instead they start dropping bombs. Recently, they’re dropping bombs all over Yemen. You don’t have to do that.”
Yet once in office, Trump turned to military force as his first option. Since the Israel/Hamas ceasefire plan negotiated by President Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff, Yemen has left Red Sea shipping alone. However, after Israel implemented a total blockade of humanitarian relief to citizens of Gaza last week, Houthi leaders threatened to again begin blocking Israel’s Red Sea shipping activities.
That was enough for President Trump to drop bombs and launch missiles for hours, killing several dozen Yemeni civilians – including women and children – in the process.
After the attack, Trump not only threatened much more force to be used against Yemen, but he also threatened Iran. His National Security Advisor Mike Waltz added that the US may start bombing Iranian ships in the area, a move that would certainly lead to a major Middle East war.
Like recent Presidents Bush and Obama, candidate Trump promised peace after four years of Joe Biden’s warmongering and World War III brinkmanship. There is little doubt that with our war-weary population this proved the margin of his victory. Unfortunately, as with Bush and Obama, now that he is President, he appears to be heading down a different path.
The Republican Party is gradually becoming a pro-peace, America first party, but the warmongers and neocons of the old line in the Party are not going to let go so easily. Unfortunately many of these dead-enders have found their way to senior positions in Trump’s Administration, with voices of restraint and non-intervention nearly nowhere in sight among his top tier of advisors.
To solve the Yemen problem we must understand it: Russian and Chinese ships, for example, are not being threatened because they are not enabling the Israeli demolition of Gaza. The slaughter there has been facilitated with US money and US weapons. It is the US doing Israel’s bidding both in Gaza and in the Red Sea that is painting a target on us and unnecessarily putting our troops at risk of retaliation.
The US government, starting with Biden and continuing now with Trump, seems eager to make this our war even though, as Rep. Thomas Massie pointed out over the weekend, Red Sea shipping is of minor importance to the US economy.
In a real “America first” foreign policy we would be following the Russian and Chinese lead and staying out of the conflict. It’s not our war. End US military involvement in the Middle East and our troubles disappear. It really is that simple.
Hezbollah’s Secretary-General Naim Qassem said on 9 March that Israeli forces currently occupying south Lebanon will inevitably face resistance if they do not withdraw.
“I tell the Israelis, if you remain at these points, this resistance will not let you continue there,” Qassem stated on Sunday.
“If the occupation continues, it must be confronted by the army, the people, and the resistance,” despite some people wanting “liberation through diplomacy,” the resistance leader added.
“We committed to the [ceasefire] agreement while the enemy violates it … it assaults people far from the border in their cars and in their homes,” he went on to say. “The ceasefire agreement is the one announced and distributed, and there is no secret agreement or clauses under the table.”
“The resistance is fine and continuing, but it was wounded and hurt and made great sacrifices … We had a security exposure and some shortcomings, and we are conducting an investigation to learn lessons and hold people accountable,” Qassem said.
The Hezbollah chief commented on the recent entry of hundreds of settlers into south Lebanon under Israeli army protection, calling “it the greatest evidence that we are not facing aggression in a single phase, but rather [an Israeli expansionist] project from the ocean to the Gulf.”
Israeli forces continue to occupy Labbouneh, Mount Blat, Owayda Hill, Aaziyyeh, and Hammamis Hill, despite the ceasefire implementation and withdrawal deadline expiring on 18 February.
Tel Aviv has violated the ceasefire agreement over 1,300 times with non-stop attacks and infiltration of Lebanon’s airspace since the deal was signed in November last year.
Israel claims to be acting on its rights within the deal by preventing Hezbollah from rearming itself. However, the agreement signed by Beirut does not include anything about Israeli forces having the right to attack the country, instead stipulating that the resistance’s presence and military infrastructure must be dismantled by the Lebanese army south of the Litani River in south Lebanon.
Tel Aviv accuses Hezbollah of having not fully withdrawn to the north of the Litani River, as per the agreement. It also accuses the Lebanese resistance of trying to reconstitute its forces.
A Lebanese soldier was killed by Israeli forces on Sunday when they opened fire at citizens in the border town of Kfar Kila. Another Lebanese soldier was shot in the leg and kidnapped on the same day.
On Friday, Israeli warplanes launched more than 20 air raids, targeting valleys and forested areas on the outskirts of Zebqin, Beit Yahoun, Al-Aishiyeh, Al-Rayhan, Ansar, and Al-Bissariya.
In a brazen declaration of expansionist Zionist ambitions, an Israeli Knesset member has openly called for Syria to be placed under the regime’s full control.
Boaz Bismuth said Israel “will not allow a military force to emerge in Syria after Assad’s fall.”
“Damascus must be under full Israeli control, and we will ensure that it comes under our control.”
The remarks reveal long-standing Israeli objectives to reshape West Asia by force.
“Syria is our bridge to the Euphrates, and in the future we will reach Iraq and Kurdistan.”
The extremist Israeli politician also voiced wishful thinking that the entire region should become subordinate to Israeli policies.
“Syria must be completely subordinate to us, as must Jordan, without any military capabilities.”
“We wake up the King of Jordan in the middle of the night to make him carry out our orders.”
Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently said the regime will not tolerate the presence of the HTS or any other forces affiliated with the new rulers in southern Syria.
He also said the regime’s troops will remain stationed at a so-called “buffer zone,” seized following the fall of President Bashar al-Assad, inside the occupied Golan Heights.
The buffer zone was created by the United Nations after the 1973 Arab-Israeli War. A UN force of about 1,100 troops had patrolled the area since then.
Netanyahu said the regime’s forces will maintain an indefinite military presence at the summit of Mount Hermon, and the adjacent security zone.
Mount Hermon, known as Jabal al-Shaykh in Arabic, is a huge cluster of snowcapped mountain peaks towering above the Syria-Lebanon border.
It overlooks the Damascus countryside as well as the Golan Heights, which Israel occupied during the 1967 Six-Day War.
Following the downfall of Assad, the Israeli military has been launching airstrikes against military installations, facilities, and arsenals belonging to Syria’s now-defunct army.
The strikes were accompanied by ground incursions, as tanks and armored bulldozers penetrated Syrian territory, beyond the Golan Heights to Qatana, barely 30 kilometers from Damascus.
Israel has been condemned for the termination of the 1974 ceasefire agreement with Syria, and exploiting the chaos in the country in the wake of Assad’s downfall to make a land grab.
Former al-Qaeda affiliate the HTS took control of Damascus in early December in a stunning offensive, prompting Israel to move forces into a UN-monitored demilitarized zone within Syria.
The Israeli regime has occupied some 600 kilometers of Syrian territory since the fall of Assad.
The HTS remained conspicuously silent on the unprecedented Israeli aggression, refusing to condemn the land theft, a move seen by regional experts as a sign of internal instability.
Through the past three year period, Moscow claimed that it faced an existential threat from the US-led proxy war in Ukraine. But in the past six weeks, this threat perception has largely dissipated. The US President Donald Trump has made a heroic attempt to change his country’s image to a portmanteau of ‘friend’ and ‘enemy’ with whom Moscow can be friendly despite the backlog of a fundamental dislike or suspicion.
Last week, Trump turned to the Iran question for what could be a potentially similar leap of faith. There are similarities in the two situations. Both Russian President Vladimir Putin and Iranian president Masoud Pezeshkian are quintessential nationalists and modernisers who are open to westernism. Both Russia and Iran face US sanctions. Both seek a rollback of sanctions that may open up opportunities to integrate their economies with the world market.
The Russian and Iranian elites alike can be described as ‘westernists’. Through their history, both Russia and Iran have experienced the West as a source of modernity to ‘upgrade’ their civilisation states.In such a paradigm, Trump is holding a stick in one hand and a carrot on the other, offering reconciliation or retribution depending on their choice. Is that a wise approach? Isn’t a reset without coercion possible at all?
In the Russian perception, the threat from the US has significantly eased lately, as the Trump administration unambiguously signalled a strategy to engage with Russia and normalise the relationship — even holding out the prospects for a mutually beneficial economic cooperation.
So far, Russia has had a roller coaster ride with Trump (who even threatened Russia with more sanctions) whose prescriptions of a ceasefire to bring the conflict in Ukraine to an end creates unease in the Russian mind. However, Trump also slammed the door shut on Ukraine’s NATO membership; rejected altogether any US military deployment in Ukraine; absolved Russia of responsibility for triggering the Ukraine conflict and instead placed the blame squarely on the Biden administration; openly acknowledged Russia’s desire for an end to the conflict; and took note of Moscow’s willingness to enter into negotiations — even conceded that the conflict itself is indeed a proxy war.
At a practical level, Trump signalled readiness to restore the normal functioning of the Russian embassy.If reports are to be believed, the two countries have frozen their offensive intelligence activities in cyber space.
Again, during the recent voting on a UN Security Council resolution on Ukraine, the US and Russia found themselves arrayed against Washington’s European allies who joined hands with Kiev. Presumably, Russian and American diplomats in New York made coordinated moves.
It comes as no surprise that there is panic in the European capitals and Kiev that Washington and Moscow are directly in contact and they are not in the loop. Even as the comfort level in Moscow has perceptively risen, the gloom in the European mind is only thickening, embodying the confusion and foreboding that permeated significant moments of their struggle.
All in all, Trump has conceded the legitimacy of the Russian position even before negotiations have commenced. Is an out-of-the-box thinking conceivable with regard to Iran as well?
In substantive terms, from the Russian perspective, the remaining ‘loose ends’ are: first, a regime change in Kiev that ensures the emergence of a neutral friendly neighbour; second, removal of US sanctions; and, third, talks on arms control and disarmament attuned to present-day conditions for ensuring European and global balance and stability.
As regards Iran, these are early days but a far less demanding situation prevails. True, the two countries have been locked in an adversarial relationship for decades. But it can be attributed entirely to the American interference in Iran’s politics, economy, society and culture; anunremitting mutual hostility was never the lodestar, historically.
A constituency of ‘westernists’ exists within Iran who root for normalisation with the US as the pathway leading to the country’s economic recovery. Of course, like in Russia, super hawks and dogmatists in Iran also have vested interests in the status quo. The military-industrial complex in both countries are an influential voice.
The big difference today is that the external environment in Eurasiathrives on US-Russia tensions whereas, the intra-regional alignments in the Gulf region are conducive to US-Iran detente. The Saudi-Iranian rapprochement, a steady and largely mellowing of Iran’s politics of resistance, Saudi Arabia’s abandonment of of jihadi groups as geopolitical tool and its refocus on development and reform as national strategies — all these mould the zeitgeist, which abhors US-Iran confrontation.
This historic transformation renders the old US strategy to isolate and ‘contain’ Iran rather obsolete. Meanwhile, there is a growing realisation within the US itself that American interests in West Asia no longer overlap Israel’s. Trump cannot but be conscious of it.
Equally, Iran’s deterrence capability today is a compelling reality. By attacking Iran, the US can at best score a pyrrhic victory at the cost of Israel’s destruction. Trump will find it impossible to extricate the US from the ensuing quagmire during his presidency, which, in fact, may define his legacy.
The US-Russia negotiations are likely to be protracted. Having come this far, Russia is in no mood to freeze the conflict till it takes full control of Donbass region — and, possibly, the eastern side of Dniepr river (including Odessa, Kharkhov, etc.) But in Iran’s case, time is running out. Something has to give way in another six months when the hourglass empties and the October deadline arrives for the snapback mechanism of the 2015 JCPOA to reimpose UN resolutions to “suspend all reprocessing, heavy water-related, and enrichment-related activities” by Tehran.
Trump will be called upon to take a momentous decision on Iran. Make no mistake, if push comes to shove, Tehran may quit the NPT altogether.Trump said Wednesday that he sent a letter to Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, calling for an agreement to replace the JCPOA. He suggested, without specifics, that the issue could quickly lead to conflict with Iran, but also signalled that a nuclear deal with Iran could emerge in the near future.
Later on Friday, Trump told reporters in the Oval Office that the US is “down to the final moments” negotiating with Iran, and he hoped military intervention would prove unnecessary. As he put it, “It’s an interesting time in the history of the world. But we have a situation with Iran that something is going to happen very soon, very, very soon.
“You’ll be talking about that pretty soon, I guess. Hopefully, we can have a peace deal. I’m not speaking out of strength or weakness, I’m just saying I’d rather see a peace deal than the other. But the other will solve the problem. We’re at final moments. We can’t let them have a nuclear weapon.”
Trump aims at generating peace dividends out of any normalisation with Russia and Iran, two energy superpowers, that could give momentum to his MAGA project. But cobwebs must be swept away first. Myths and misconceptions have shaped contemporary Western thinking on Russia and Iran. Trump should not fall for the phobia of Russia’s ‘imperialistic’ ambitions or Iran’s ‘clandestine’ nuclear programme.
If the first one was the narrative of the liberal-globalist neocon camp, the second one is a fabrication by the Israeli lobby. Both are self-serving narratives.In the process, the difference between westernisation and modernisation got lost. Westernisation is the adoption of western culture and society, whereas, modernisation is the development of one’s own culture and society. Westernisation can at best be only a subprocess of modernisation in countries such as Russia and Iran.
Trump’s ingenuity, therefore, lies in ending the US’ proxy wars with Russia and Iran by creating synergy out of the Russian-Iranian strategic partnership. If the US’ proxy wars only has drawn Russia and Iran closer than ever in their turbulent history as quasi-allies lately, their common interest today also lies in Trump’s ingenuity to take help from Putin to normalise the US-Iran ties. If anyone can pull off such an audacious, magical rope trick, it is only Trump who can,
The AIPAC-aligned Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), which often refers to itself simply as The Washington Institute, was recently outed as a “dark money” think tank for its lack of transparency on donors and is continuing to push the United States to engage in conflicts overseas to Israel’s benefit. Its case raises questions about how the Israel Lobby functions through think tanks across the board, shaping U.S. foreign policy behind closed doors.
WINEP has a long history of shaping U.S. foreign policy. It was deeply involved in the neoconservative push for regime change in Iraq, joining calls for the Clinton administration to topple Saddam Hussein as early as 1998. They also pushed for U.S. military intervention and helped justify the eventual invasion in 2003.
At the beginning of the year, the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft unveiled the “Think Tank Funding Tracker,” a one-of-a-kind project that examined the funding sources of the top 50 U.S. think tanks since 2019 and rated their transparency from 0 to 5. WINEP and 16 others—including the neoconservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD)—received a zero transparency rating, exposing its reliance on “dark money” contributions.
While WINEP claims “to be funded exclusively by U.S. citizens” on its website, it does not publicly disclose its donor list. Its AIPAC roots were first exposed in 2006 by Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer in The London Review of Books, where they described WINEP as an AIPAC cutout advancing Israel’s agenda under the guise of independent research. The pair wrote at the time that “The Lobby created its own think tank in 1985, when Martin Indyk helped found WINEP. Although WINEP plays down its links to Israel and claims instead that it provides a “balanced and realistic” perspective on Middle East issues, this is not the case. In fact, WINEP is funded and run by individuals who are deeply committed to advancing Israel’s agenda.”
This claim that AIPAC created WINEP was later corroborated by former AIPAC official MJ Rosenberg, who wrote in HuffPost : “How do I know? I was in the room when AIPAC decided to establish WINEP.” The now-deceased WINEP co-founder, Martin Indyk, was also the head of the Saban Center for Middle East Studies, funded by Israeli-American billionaire Haim Saban.
Recent U.S. foreign policy developments have only strengthened WINEP’s influence. The Biden administration’s unwavering support for Israel’s war on Gaza, including a $14 billion emergency military aid package, aligns with WINEP’s long-standing push to ensure that U.S. military assistance to Israel remains untouchable. WINEP actively shaped public discourse as the war progressed, with Executive Director Robert Satloff praising Biden’s refusal to support an early ceasefire, calling it “correct and courageous.”
When House lawmakers convened hearings in late 2023 to attack the administration’s Iran policy, their rhetoric mirrored WINEP’s narratives, particularly opposition to any sanctions relief. Witnesses from WINEP-adjacent institutions like FDD and JINSA were brought in to reinforce the case for a more aggressive posture toward Iran. Meanwhile, WINEP continues to push for U.S. military leverage in post-Assad Syria, another key policy area where the Biden administration has quietly followed its recommendations by maintaining a military foothold and targeting Iranian assets with airstrikes.
WINEP’s revolving-door relationship with the U.S. government does little to shed its reputation for shaping policy. In May 2023, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan delivered a keynote address at WINEP’s annual Soref Symposium, praising Satloff’s “extraordinary work.” Sullivan’s participation wasn’t just symbolic—it reinforced WINEP’s position as an informal but essential policy hub. This is evident from the administration’s embrace of the Abraham Accords, another WINEP priority.
Former WINEP fellow Dan Shapiro was appointed the State Department’s senior advisor for regional integration, carrying out the think tank’s long-standing vision for Arab normalization with Israel. WINEP is currently led by Michael Singh, Robert Satloff, Dennis Ross, and Dana Stroul. Stroul, who serves as WINEP’s Research Director, returned to the position after serving as the Biden administration’s deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East from 2021 to 2024. During her tenure, she played a central role in Washington’s anti-Iran initiatives, the response to the Gaza war, and shaping U.S. Syria policy.
THROWBACK: Ex-Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defence for the Middle East Dana Stroul gloats that the US 'owns' the most hydrocarbon & grain-rich one-third of Syria🇸🇾 and that the US will use it as leverage to pursue regime change
Beyond WINEP, the broader issue of think tank influence is now facing increasing scrutiny. In 2023, lawmakers introduced the Think Tank Transparency Act, which requires policy organizations to disclose foreign government funding and contractual agreements. While WINEP does not receive direct funding from Israel, watchdogs have highlighted that its pro-Israel agenda is sustained through wealthy American donors closely linked to AIPAC. Using domestic contributions to advance a foreign policy agenda has enabled WINEP to operate without falling under the scrutiny of foreign lobbying laws, even as its “scholars” shape U.S. positions on Iran, Syria, and the Israel-Palestine conflict.
Currently, the two primary issues on WINEP’s agenda are how to best leverage American influence to shape outcomes in post-Assad Syria and how to assure regime change in Iran. Indicative of the think tank’s influence is that not only was its hardline Syria strategy the exact model used by the U.S. to aid regime change in Damascus, but its chief researcher was taken on as a senior official by the previous administration.
As demonstrated by the Quincy Institute’s new report, the lack of transparency over who exactly finances the AIPAC lobby’s “cutout” think tank presents serious questions about who is actually shaping U.S. foreign policy and to whose benefit.
Iran will not engage in negotiations with the United States on its nuclear program unless the White House steps back from a recently reinstated “maximum pressure” campaign, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi says.
Araghchi was addressing a press conference on Tuesday alongside his visiting Russian counterpart, Sergey Lavrov.
The foreign minister said Iran will address the nuclear issue in coordination with its allies – Russia and China.
“On nuclear negotiations, Iran’s stance is very clear: we will not negotiate under pressure, threat, and sanctions.”
“Therefore,” the Iranian foreign minister stated, “there is no possibility of direct negotiations between us and the United States on the nuclear issue as long as maximum pressure continues to be applied in its current form.”
Araghchi highlighted his “detailed and constructive” discussions with Lavrov on a broad range of topics, particularly concerning the Caucasus, Asia, and Eurasia.
The Iranian foreign minister praised the rapid progress in economic cooperation between Tehran and Moscow, citing collaborations in energy, railways, and agriculture.
On Palestine, Araghchi said they discussed Trump’s “unacceptable” forced displacement plan targeting Gaza residents.
Regarding Syria, he underlined the alignment of Iranian and Russian positions.
“Stability, peace, territorial integrity, and progress in Syria based on the will of its people are priorities for Iran. We support establishing peace and stability in this country.”
Room for diplomacy on nuclear issue
Lavrov also elaborated on his “detailed and constructive” discussions with Araghchi during the press conference.
The Russian foreign minister said both sides agreed to enhance cooperation within the framework of BRICS.
Lavrov drew attention to a notable increase in trade between Iran and Russia despite Western sanctions.
“Trade exchanges between Iran and Russia have increased by more than 13%, and we hope this trend will continue.”
The Russian minister also expressed satisfaction with the progress on the Rasht-Astara railway project.
“Construction has begun, supported by a Russian government loan, which is an important step toward establishing the North-South Corridor,” he stated, referring to a trade route connecting India to northern Europe.
Lavrov pointed to Tehran’s successful hosting of the Caspian Economic Forum and expressed optimism about convening a joint economic cooperation commission later this year.
Addressing Iran’s nuclear program, Lavrov put a premium on diplomacy.
“We believe there is still diplomatic capacity to resolve Iran’s nuclear issue, and we hope a solution can be found. This crisis was not created by Iran.”
Iran has long been subjected to Western sanctions over its nuclear activities, human rights issues, and other pretexts.
The administration of US President Donald Trump has escalated these measures since taking office, reinstating the so-called maximum pressure policy, a campaign of hybrid warfare targeting Iran.
Similarly facing sanctions over its military operations in Ukraine, Russia has deepened its cooperation with Iran in recent years.
In January, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian visited Moscow and signed a strategic partnership agreement with President Vladimir Putin to bolster economic and military collaboration.
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 2011New 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 NGOnot 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.
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.
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.
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.
Instead of high-quality education, these institutions are fostering a global neo-feudal system reminiscent of the British Raj
By Dr. Mathew Maavak | RT | May 30, 2025
In a move that has ignited a global uproar, US President Donald Trump banned international students from Harvard University, citing “national security” and ideological infiltration. The decision, which has been widely condemned by academics and foreign governments alike, apparently threatens to undermine America’s “intellectual leadership and soft power.” At stake is not just Harvard’s global appeal, but the very premise of open academic exchange that has long defined elite higher education in the US.
But exactly how ‘open’ is Harvard’s admissions process? Every year, highly qualified students – many with top-tier SAT or GMAT test scores – are rejected, often with little explanation. Critics argue that behind the prestigious Ivy League brand lies an opaque system shaped by legacy preferences, DEI imperatives, geopolitical interests, and outright bribes. George Soros, for instance, once pledged $1 billion to open up elite university admissions to drones who would read from his Open Society script.
China’s swift condemnation of Trump’s policy added a layer of geopolitical irony to the debate. Why would Beijing feign concern for “America’s international standing” amid a bitter trade war? The international standing of US universities has long been tarnished by a woke psychosis which spread like cancer to all branches of the government.
So, what was behind China’s latest gripe? ... continue
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.
Aletho News 