‘Israel’ has no coherent plan for Gaza, Trump’s plan proves It
By Robert Inlakesh | Al Mayadeen | November 25, 2025
Gaza’s hastily assembled ceasefire agreement was designed less to bring genuine relief than to test new strategies aimed at dismantling the Palestinian Resistance while granting the Israeli military a much-needed pause. The vagueness of the plan put forward by US President Donald Trump only underscores this reality, and yet the so-called international community is, shamefully, choosing to go along with it.
The UNSC’s recent resolution 2803 is nothing short of a green light for a US-led international regime change operation, which seeks to implicate a multi-national military force in the Gaza genocide as a desperate attempt to finish off the Palestinian Resistance for the Israelis. The only reason such a solution is being attempted is that the Zionist entity failed.
From the outset, following the Hamas-led operation on October 7, 2023, the Israelis made it clear that their intention was genocide. Their reputation and pillars on which the regime was built have been shaken. It suddenly appeared as if a military solution to the occupying entity was within reach. So, desperately, they accelerated their goals and reached the natural conclusion of what such a settler-colonial project seeks to achieve: the total annihilation of the indigenous population.
The ethno-supremacist mindset of the Zionist regime came out in its most extreme form because the project itself appeared to be under threat. Their solution was annihilation, a Gaza Final Solution. In their thinking, the mass slaughter of civilians and total destruction of Gaza’s infrastructure would eliminate not only the Palestinian cause but also dismantle the entire regional notion of resistance.
In short, they failed. What instead happened is that the people of Gaza never gave up, and neither did their willingness to resist at all costs. Suddenly, the Israelis found themself entangled in a Vietnam War scenario.
The Palestinian Resistance is a force that, according to its own estimates, consisted of no more than around 50,000 fighters, armed with domestically made weapons, most of which were crafted out of the explosives the Israelis themselves dropped on the besieged territory. Gaza is a territory of the displaced, the downtrodden, the starved, the dreamers who strived to break free.
When the genocide began, this guerrilla fighting force stood no chance of fighting a conventional war and so depended on ambushes. The side they were at war with consisted of hundreds of thousands of Israeli soldiers, equipped with the most high-tech killing machines on earth and backed by the entire Western world’s governments, including the planet’s top military superpower, the United States.
Yet, with all their equipment, technology, intelligence agencies, and superiority on the battlefield, they were incapable of defeating the Resistance that fought from tunnels and amongst the rubble of their destroyed neighbourhoods. Instead of targeting the fighters and going after them directly, the Zionist regime targeted the civilian population, believing that if the people were defeated, then the Resistance would follow.
The world watched this live-streamed genocide and naturally identified with the underdogs, many seeing a reflection of their own humanity in the people of Gaza. Although it took years for this to fully unfold, even the population of the most powerful superpower on earth was captivated by this small group of people, so much so that the domestic politics of the average American was fundamentally altered by it.
While their governments continued to back the Israelis and bend to the commands of lobbyists and billionaires, the populations of these nations began to identify with the cause of the Palestinians, the Palestinian cause, the cause of the people of Gaza…
Over time, the Israeli regime attempted to implement countless strategies to finish off the Palestinians of Gaza. They pushed them from north to south, then to the center of the besieged coastal enclave. They flattened everything in sight, took out prominent leaders, assassinated the truth-telling journalists, and destroyed the hospitals and shelters. They starved Gaza; they employed collaborators both inside and outside of the strip.
The Zionists peddled lie after lie; they took thousands of captives, mocked dead Palestinian women by parading around in their underwear. They committed mass rape, sexual humiliation, and created torture centers. All of the so-called Muslim leaders, with the exception of very few, betrayed them and aided the Israelis in committing their genocide.
The Israelis attempted to implement the “General’s Plan” in late 2024, but they failed. They tried “Operation Gideon’s Chariots” and then “Operation Gideon’s Chariots 2”, or the plan to occupy Gaza City. They failed.
Meanwhile, their own society decayed from within and was driven to even greater extremist ideology, their economy sank, and major investments were cleared up. The northern settlements were partially destroyed, and the domestic tourism industry in the north and south collapsed. Amid this chaos and failure, the Israeli leadership has turned to fighting on front after front.
Despite managing to pull off tactical victories against Hezbollah in Lebanon and even Iran, through intelligence operations and assassinations, they were unable to secure any strategic victory. Their attempt to degrade Iran failed, and they were forced into a ceasefire, sent back to study how to advance their agenda through a new round of attacks.
Out of total desperation, the Israelis launched a new propaganda campaign targeting conservatives in the United States and across the Western World, but are incapable of stopping the rapid loss of support for them. They are now trying to stir tensions between right-wing Westerners and Muslims, fearmongering about so-called “Islamic terrorism” using the “War on Terror” playbook, all to divert attention from their crimes in Gaza and the fact that their lobby groups are working toward imposing mass censorship.
All of this considered, the Europeans and Arab regimes began searching for an answer to save the Israelis from themselves, to reward them for their genocide. Then came the United States, which offered its even more pro-Israeli slant on the Saudi-French “New York Declaration” that was voted on unanimously at the United Nations General Assembly.
The leaderships of the world were exposed, and the Gaza genocide was transformed into a major strategic debacle. These unrepresentative rulers were not willing to end their support and relationships with the genocidal entity, so they devised a plot to help it eliminate what had become their own enemy. Regular people around the world identify with the Palestinians, while their leaders are enablers and supporters of genocide, even if they don’t say it out loud and even if they offer weak statements condemning their Israeli allies.
This is where UNSC 2803 comes in. It allows these nations to help the Israelis finish their genocidal project and eliminate the Palestinian cause once and for all. Yet, they face a major problem: there are only three options for ending this struggle: Either the Israelis totally destroy the Palestinian people along with the regional Resistance, sentencing the survivors to permanent occupation and exile; they agree to a so-called “two-state solution”; or they are themselves defeated.
Almost all of the Israeli regime’s allies seek the “two-state solution”, an option that the Zionist entity will not accept. Therefore, all of these vague schemes as to how to conduct a successful multi-national regime change operation in the Gaza Strip are bound to fail, which is why Phase 2 of the ceasefire is nearly impossible to implement fully. It will be a total disaster and only create further issues for those nations involved in the so-called “International Stabilization Force,” or what should be accurately dubbed the International Invasion Force.
Failing the implementation of Donald Trump’s regime change plan, the Israelis will eventually return to the only thing they know how to do: conducting genocide from a distance. This period is being used to experiment with different plans, while giving the Israeli military time to recover. It is very likely that this will enormously backfire.
Ambassador Mike Huckabee Secretly Meets Top Israeli Spy Jonathan Pollard
Let’s remove both Huckabee and Israel from American foreign policy
By Philip Giraldi • Unz Review • November 25, 2025
Given the high visibility of the Israeli genocide being carried out in Gaza, for the first time many among the American general public are beginning to ask why a rich country like Israel should be getting billions of dollars from the United States taxpayer to pay for waging its war when many Americans are struggling. Inevitably, of course, the press coverage of the questions being asked about the cash flow and what is playing out in Gaza have failed to discuss the real magnitude of the “aid,” which goes far beyond the $3.8 billion a year that President Barack Obama committed to America’s “best friend and closest ally.” In fact, over the past two years, Washington has given Israel more than $21 billion in weapons and cash and just last week the 1,000th US transport plane filled with weapons landed in Israel. On top of all that, there are trade concessions, co-production “defense partnership” projects and dicey charitable contributions from Zionist billionaires that our federal and many state governments shower on the Jewish state, easily exceeding $10 billion in a “normal” year without Israel claiming having “greater need” as it goes about violating ceasefires and killing Gazans, Lebanese and Iranians.
The fact that Joe Biden and Donald Trump have enabled Israel’s slaughter without so much as the slightest hesitation should in itself be damnable, but the average American is fed a steady diet of propaganda favoring Israel through the devastatingly effective Jewish media control that prevails nationwide. Interestingly, however, as the American public is beginning to tire of the Israeli lies, the Israel Lobby in the US is following the orders of Prime Minister Benjamin Natanyahu, who has declared that his country will be fighting eight wars – seven against all of its neighbors and one to control the United States’ increasingly negative opinion of what Israel represents. As a result, laws like the Antisemitism Awareness Act are being passed to silence “freedom of speech” critics of the Jewish state and criminalize what they are saying.
During his 2016 campaign Donald Trump swore that he would be the best friend that Israel has ever had in the White House, a pledge that some viewed skeptically as Trump was also committed to bringing the troops home from “useless wars” in Asia, most of whom were in the Middle East supporting Israeli interests. More recently Trump admitted that America was in the Middle East to “protect Israel” and he has indeed proven to be the great benefactor he promised to be in responding fully to Netanyahu’s wish list. In his first term in office, Trump increased tension dramatically with Iran, moved the US Embassy to Jerusalem, recognized Israeli sovereignty over the Syrian Golan Heights, and basically gave Israel the green light to do whatever it wants on the Palestinian West Bank, including getting rid of the Palestinians.
And currently as all that has already played out the Israelis have attacked and killed thousands of civilians in Gaza, Syria and the West Bank with impunity, protected by the US veto in the UN Security Council against any consequences for their actions while a subservient Congress gives Netanyahu fifty-six standing ovations and bleats that “Israel has a right to defend itself.” Trump has made the United States completely complicit in Israeli war crimes and has added a few unique touches of its own to include the widely condemned assassination of the senior Iranian official Qassem Soleimani while on a peace mission in Baghdad in January 2020.
Israel more-or-less openly admits that it controls the actions of the United States in its region, Netanyahu having boasted how the US federal government is “easily moved” when it comes up against the Israeli Lobby. Nor is there any real secret to how the Lobby uses money to buy access and then exploits that access to obtain real power, which is then used to employ all the resources of the US government in support of the Jewish state. The top donor to the Democratic Party, Israeli-American Haim Saban has stated that he is a one issue guy and that issue is Israel. This single-minded focus to promote Israel’s interests at the expense of those of the United States makes the Israel Lobby the most formidable foreign policy lobby in Washington.
One of the tools used by Trump to facilitate the virtual slavery under the Israeli yoke is the appointment of passionately Zionist US Ambassadors to Israel, where they often behave as if they are there to represent Jewish interests rather that those of the United States. Trump’s first term appointment David Friedman was a personal lawyer with no diplomatic or international experience, so he inevitably endorsed with some enthusiasm every extreme proposal coming from Netanyahu, which he then went on to sell to Trump. Friedman, now retired, has a home in Jerusalem and has reportedly opted to spend much of his time in Israel.
Friedman was, however, somewhat of a gem compared to the current ambassador Mike Huckabee, an Israel-Firster Baptist preacher from Arkansas, who repeatedly expresses his love for the Jewish state and white-washes whatever it does. For what it’s worth, on October 13th, 2025, Friedman and Huckabee performed a rendition of Lynyrd Skynyrd’s hit song Sweet Home Alabama in Jerusalem but with altered lyrics that promoted Zionism and the city of Jerusalem itself. Friedman played guitar while Huckabee played bass. Trump, of course, is similar in his overweening embrace of Israel, whether it be because he is being blackmailed, or honestly believes in what he is saying, or even because he has converted to Judaism in 2017, as some believe. In any event, the theatrical duet performance by the two Israel-loving ambassadors failed to provide any benefit to the United States of America.
The complete contempt that the Israelis and Israeli supporters in the US – to include the Ambassador Huckabee – have for other Americans and their interests has been on full display recently and it involves the most significant espionage operation that Israel has ever “run” inside the United States. Jonathan Pollard, the most damaging spy in American history, stole for Israel the keys to accessing US communications and information gathering systems, which gave the Jewish state access to all US intelligence as it was being collected. He was Jewish and a US citizen, his father a professor at Notre Dame University. As a student at Stanford, where he completed a degree in 1976, Pollard’s penchant for dissimulation was already noted by other students. He is remembered for having boasted that he was a dual citizen of the United States and Israel, claiming to have worked for Mossad, to having attained the rank of Colonel in the Israel Defense Forces (even sending himself a telegram addressed to “Colonel Pollard”), and to having killed an Arab while on guard duty at a kibbutz. All the claims were lies.
Physically Pollard was also unappealing, overweight and balding, seemingly an unlikely candidate to become a US Navy intelligence analyst which he accomplished after having failed a polygraph test when trying to join CIA. One review board determined that he had been hired in the first place under pressure from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). According to an intelligence agency after-the fact-damage assessment “Pollard’s operation has few parallels among known US espionage cases… his first and possibly largest delivery occurred on 23 January [1984] and consisted of five suitcases-full of classified material.”
Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger wrote a forty-six page review of the Pollard case that remains largely classified and redacted to this day, detailing what incredible damage Pollard had done. Part of the document states: “In this case, the defendant has admitted passing to his Israeli contacts an incredibly large quantity of classified information. At the outset I must state that the defendant’s disclosures far exceed the limits of any official exchange of intelligence information with Israel. That being the case, the damage to national security was complete the moment the classified information was given over. Ideally, I would detail… all the information passed by the defendant to his Israeli contacts: unfortunately, the volume of data we know to have been passed is too great to permit that. Moreover, the defendant admits to having passed to his Israeli handlers a quantity of documents great enough to occupy a space six feet by ten feet… The defendant has substantially harmed the United States, and in my view, his crimes demand severe punishment… My foregoing comments will, I hope, dispel any presumption that disclosures to an ally are insignificant; to the contrary, substantial and irrevocable damage has been done to this nation. Punishment, of course, must be appropriate to the crime, and in my opinion, no crime is more deserving of severe punishment than conducting espionage activities against one’s own country.”
Pollard was detected and arrested in 1985, convicted in 1987, and imprisoned. The case sent shockwaves through both Washington and Tel Aviv at the time of the conviction. Pollard pled guilty, confessing to selling the thousands of pages of secret documents to the Israelis for cash, vacations to Europe, and promised future payments to be wired to a Swiss bank account. A federal judge correctly dismissed pleas for clemency.
In 2015 Pollard was released from prison under parole which required him to remain in the United States. But in January 2021 Pollard was released from the parole conditions and was allowed to fly “home,” meeting Netanyahu as he disembarked from a private plane that had departed from Newark New Jersey before being given a hero’s welcome. The Pollard trip to his “home” occurred because Donald Trump had obligingly lifted the travel restrictions on him the week before, one more favor to Israel. At the airport, Pollard and his wife knelt to kiss the Israeli soil before Netanyahu handed him an Israeli citizen ID and welcomed him. The 737 luxury-fitted executive jet Pollard and his wife flew on belonged to Las Vegas casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, then the chief donor to the Republicans and to Donald Trump. Adelson was married to an Israeli, Miriam Adelson, who now survives him and continues the donations to the Republicans. Sheldon famously once said that he regretted having worn a US Army uniform when he was drafted in World War 2, much preferring instead that he might have done military service in the Israel Defense Forces.
But the Pollard story does not end there. In July Jonathan Pollard was a guest at the US Embassy in Jerusalem, where he met with Ambassador Mike Huckabee. The meeting was his first with US officials since his release and immigration to Israel. It was a break with precedent and the move by Huckabee, even all these years after the crime, still alarmed American intelligence officials even though, as it was Israel, media coverage in the US was minimal. John Kiriakou, a former CIA counter-terrorism officer, has argued that Pollard should have been detained by the Marine guards at the American Embassy in Jerusalem and should not have been allowed to meet with the ambassador. “[Pollard] has called for Jewish Americans who have security clearances… to begin spying for Israel, just like he did… So for him to be welcomed into the American Embassy is a bridge too far. If anything, he should have been snatched when he entered the American embassy.”
The Trump administration was apparently not consulted regarding the planned get-together. “The White House was not aware of that meeting,” Trump spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt claimed. It was reportedly left off the public schedule of the ambassador, suggesting at a minimum that it was a terrible decision by Huckabee acting on his own which he made some attempt to conceal. And yet, when the story broke the Trump administration still condoned the actions of the ambassador, who reportedly had a friendly chat with the spy who had done the most grave damage ever to the United States. “The president stands by our ambassador, Mike Huckabee,” Leavitt added, “and all that he’s doing for the United States and Israel.” She did not elaborate on what he has been doing for the United States.
After the story broke, Pollard accused “anti-Israel and isolationist elements within the US government of leaking that he met off-the-books with US Ambassador Huckabee in a bid to discredit and oust the pro-Israel envoy.” He claimed that “the New York Times story was part, or is part, of an effort to discredit the ambassador and have him removed. I think the people behind this are anti-Israel elements within the Trump administration, the neo-isolationists… and others, perhaps pro-Saudi, pro-Qatari elements within the administration that would like to see a person like Ambassador Huckabee sent home.” Pollard later gave an interview in which he named Steven Witkoff and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner as likely culprits “representing Saudi and Qatari rather than US interests” in brokering the Gaza ceasefire, and he added that he “despises them” for daring to “carry on with terrorists.” Pollard added his view that the 20-point ceasefire plan, leaving the door open to the possibility for Palestinian statehood, threatens Israel’s security and “undermines our independence,” and the October 9th truce-hostage deal that is based on that plan would have been worthwhile only had Israel “unleashed… hell on Hamas” following the October 13th release of the last 20 living hostages from Gaza.
Pollard described his meeting with Huckabee as “personal” and “friendly” and confirmed that it was his first meeting with a US government official after his release by Trump from travel restrictions. He concluded that “A lot of people seem to think that I harbor an anger toward the United States, which I don’t. There were specific people that lied about me, that lied about Israel, that tried to use me as a weapon to undermine the US-Israel special relationship, and those are the people I have problems with but certainly people like Ambassador Huckabee, and others, I have absolutely no problem talking to. If I could guess, I would say it’s that community, particularly the CIA station in the embassy, that probably was the one that initiated this whole effort to discredit the ambassador.”
Pollard clearly is promoting a false narrative that makes himself look like some kind of honorable and valiant defender of Israel when in reality he did what he did for the most base of reasons, i.e. for money. Money is indeed how the Israeli boosters in the United States have been able to flat out corrupt America’s political process to attain the dominance that has enabled them to promote the Israeli agenda. They have bought or intimidated every politician that matters to include presidents, congressmen and even those in state and local governments. Anyone who criticizes Israel or Jewish collective behavior in support of the Israeli state is subject to character assassination and blacklisting a la Tucker Carlson, Marjorie Taylor Greene and Tom Massie. Those who persist are denounced as anti-Semites, a label that is used liberally by Zionist groups. Now Pollard is portraying himself as some kind of Israeli hero. The end result is that when Israel kills civilians in violation of a ceasefire in Gaza and is allowing rampaging armed settlers to destroy Palestinian livelihoods the United States government chooses to look the other way and instead showers the rogue state with money so it can continue to do its dirty work. Providing that political cover for Israel is in part the real dark side of Huckabee’s job as he sees it, not to engage over real American interests.
And then there are the hot buttons a-la the lies about Israel being advanced by Pollard and his ilk which, if the US actually had a functional government that is responsive to the people, should have been pushed long ago. “Best friend” Israel is ranked by the FBI as the number one “friendly” country in terms of its spying against the United States. Pollard is an exception who was actually punished since his crime was so dramatic and damaging, but Israeli spies are routinely slapped on the wrist when caught and never face prosecution for that crime, as one might note in the current “investigation” of Jeffrey Epstein, which was undoubtedly a major MOSSAD intelligence operation.
And there are also the MOSSAD agents who were the “Dancing Shlomos,” celebrating while the twin towers went down on 9/11, who were allowed to go home and various assassinations including JFK and even Charlie Kirk that have an Israeli back story. And Israel has never truly paid any price for the horrific bombing and torpedoing of the USS Liberty fifty-eight years ago, which killed 34 Americans and injured over one hundred and seventy more. The completely unprovoked attack took place in international waters and was later covered-up by President Lyndon Baines Johnson, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara and Congress. May they burn in hell. The few remaining surviving crew members are still waiting for justice.
Good riddance to scum like Jonathan Pollard and the Israel-Firsters who enable him. It is reported in Israel that Pollard is now preparing to run for the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, which explains his demeanor and phony narrative. It also all means that it is past time to get rid of folks like Ambassador Mike Huckabee who prefer to advance Israeli interests rather than those of his own country because, he believes, God is telling him to do so. More generally speaking, it is well past time to get rid of the special relationship with Israel, sanctified in the halls of Congress and by a Jewish dominated media, which does nothing good for the United States and for the American people. Israel’s constant interference in the US political system and economy comes at a huge cost, both in dollars and in terms of actual American interests.
So, let’s all resolve for 2026 to do whatever we can to pull the plug on Israel. Let Israel, which is now seeking a 20 year commitment of even more cash annually from the US taxpayer, pay its own bills and take care of its own defense. American citizens who prefer the Jewish ethno-religious state to our constitutional republic should feel free to emigrate. In fact, they should be encouraged to leave. Lacking Washington’s backing, Israel will also be free to commit atrocities and war crimes against all of its neighbors but without the US United Nations veto it will have to begin facing the consequences for its actions. But most of all, as Americans, we will no longer have to continue to carry the burden of a country that manipulates and uses us and also has a certain contempt for us while doing so, witness how Trump’s kid-glove handling of Jonathan Pollard has played out. And maybe just maybe freeing the United States from Israel could lead to an end to all the wars in the Middle East that Washington has been waging in spite of the fact that we Americans are threatened by no one in the region and have no real interest whatsoever in prolonging the agony of staying engaged there.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is https://councilforthenationalinterest.org address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is inform@cnionline.org
How Saudi F-35s would not erode Israeli air superiority: Report
By Ali Halawi | Al Mayadeen | November 19, 2025
The Trump administration’s move to advance a potential sale of Lockheed Martin F-35s to Saudi Arabia might mark a significant turning point in regional military dynamics. Yet the central question remains: would the acquisition truly grant Riyadh a decisive edge, or will “Israel’s” deeply entrenched air superiority remain firmly intact?
The announcement, made as Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) visited Washington, does not itself consummate a transfer. Any sale would require formal notification to, and likely scrutiny by, the US Congress, and would reopen the fraught question of how Washington preserves “Israel’s” qualitative military edge (QME) while exporting one of the world’s most advanced fighter aircraft. While the operational edge of Israeli pilots and aircrew is evident, the US retains the ability to constrain Saudi F-35 capabilities through technical and software-based controls.
The deal on the table and the road to congressional approval
When a US president signals willingness to sell F-35 aircraft, the next formal step is notification under the Arms Export Control Act and a review period during which Congress can raise objections or seek certifications. For decades, US administrations have treated QME for “Israel” as a legal and political constraint on certain arms transfers; that tradition has informed reviews of past F-35 discussions with the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Any proposed sale to Riyadh will therefore be judged not only on price and offset packages but on assurances that “Israel’s” operational superiority will remain intact; a determination that is both technical and political and could trigger contentious hearings. Members of both parties have in the past conditioned or slowed high-end sales over human-rights concerns, counter-proliferation assessments, and explicit demands to preserve the QME.
However, competing pressures further complicate Washington’s calculus as the Trump administration attempts to solidify its strategic partnership with Saudi Arabia, secure a landmark normalization agreement with one of West Asia’s most influential powers, and counter the expanding Russian and Chinese footprint in the Kingdom’s defense and technology sectors.
Who in the region flies fifth-generation aircraft today
As of today, the Israeli Air Force is the only air force in West Asia operating the F-35s.
Abu Dhabi negotiated for the aircraft in 2020 but later suspended the talks; other Gulf air forces operate advanced fourth-generation fighters but not fifth-generation stealth airframes.
The practical consequence is that a US sale to Riyadh would not simply add another modern fighter to the region; it would introduce a category of capability that, until now, has been regionally singular.
Why the airframe is only half the story
It is important to separate the aircraft’s physical attributes from the invisible systems that make it decisive in combat. The F-35’s important advantages include low observable design or stealth, powerful sensors, sensor fusion, and integrated electronic warfare, which enable pilots and commanders to detect, identify, and engage threats at ranges and with a fidelity earlier generations cannot match.
Much of the F-35’s real combat power does not lie in the airframe but in the software stack that governs nearly everything the jet does:
- Mission-data files (MDFs)
- Electronic-warfare threat libraries
- Radar-emitter databases
- Electronic-attack and jamming profiles
- Sensor-fusion logic
- Weapons-employment algorithms
Most critically, the US controls every layer of this ecosystem for all export customers, except “Israel”.
“Israel’s” F-35I “Adir” has a special agreement allowing the integration of sovereign Israeli-made sensors, electronic warfare systems, and locally developed software add-ons. While the core flight software remains a US product, “Israel” can add its own “plug-and-play” systems and has the authority for some domestic maintenance and upgrades, giving it a level of independence not afforded to other customers. In practice, the platform’s combat potential is as much a product of data and code as it is of metal and jet engines.
This creates a built-in mechanism for Washington to tilt the operational balance decisively toward “Israel,” even if other states receive the same aircraft on paper.
Update priority, withholding certain mission-data libraries, limiting weapons-integration permissions, and controlling sustainment services are all practical mechanisms to maintain an advantage for one operator over another.
“Israel’s” F-35I “Adir” and operational freedom
Israel negotiated an unusually broad set of privileges for the Adir. Unlike most customers, the Israeli regime has been permitted deep customization, integration of indigenous sensors and weapons, unique mission-data development, and a degree of independence from the US sustainment cloud that most operators use.
Those permissions give the Israeli Air Force both practical freedom of operation and a pathway to maintain and evolve its fleet in ways other buyers cannot match.
Israeli mission data files are infused with intelligence drawn from decades of regional aggression. Their electronic-warfare tuning reflects specific threat libraries, and the backlog of locally developed weapons integrations further differentiates the Adir from standard F-35As.
The aircraft can fire the Israeli Python‑5 and Derby/Derby‑ER air‑to‑air missiles, giving it a sovereign engagement capability independent of US munitions. It also carries advanced stand‑off strike weapons such as the SPICE‑1000 and SPICE‑2000 precision‑guided kits and the Delilah loitering cruise missile, enabling deep, accurate attacks against heavily defended targets. Added to this is a bespoke Israeli C4I architecture and a classified electronic‑warfare suite installed directly into the aircraft’s systems, granting the Israeli Air Force full control over threat libraries, jamming profiles, and data links.
The airframe itself has also been adapted to support these systems. The Israelis received rare permission to incorporate custom apertures, access points, and internal wiring channels into the fuselage in coordination with Lockheed Martin, enabling installation and maintenance of its electronics. In addition, “Israel” is the only country known to operate F‑35s equipped with Conformal Fuel Tanks (CFTs), which add 600–800 gallons of fuel along the fuselage without compromising stealth or weapons capacity. These tanks extend the Adir’s operational range, reduce reliance on aerial refueling, and allow longer, deeper-strike missions, providing a level of flexibility and endurance unavailable to any other F‑35 operator.
Software and sustainment
The F‑35’s combat edge lies less in its airframe than in the software, mission-data, and sustainment systems that govern nearly every aspect of its operations. Historically, the US has used software-centric restrictions to preserve the advantage of favored partners, ensuring that certain operators maintain a decisive qualitative edge.
Key instruments include mission-data files (MDFs), which encode threat signatures, radar and SAM profiles, and geospatial threat maps. Operators with richer, bespoke MDFs detect and classify threats more quickly and respond more effectively. Denying or limiting MDF depth to a buyer is therefore a direct mechanism to sustain another operator’s superiority. Similarly, restricting electronic-warfare software, including emitter libraries, advanced jamming and deception modes, and the timing of mission-data updates, can materially degrade an F‑35’s ability to detect, classify, and suppress hostile radars. The operational effect is slower threat identification, narrower jamming envelopes, and less accurate geolocation for Suppression of enemy air defenses (SEAD) operations, giving the Israeli Air Force a persistent edge even if both sides operate the same airframe.
These fundamental differences could prove decisive in a theoretical Saudi-Israeli confrontation. An export-restricted Saudi F-35, with its potentially downgraded software, might detect Israeli emitters seconds later and with reduced precision. In contrast, the Israeli F-35I Adir, equipped with bespoke software, proprietary threat libraries, and its electronic warfare systems, could identify, geolocate, and suppress Saudi radar networks first.
These software controls illustrate how the US could maintain Israeli superiority should the Saudi deal move forward. While technically effective, such safeguards carry grave political and operational costs for the buyer, the same concerns Abu Dhabi cited when it stepped back from F‑35 talks in 2021.
Basing, geography, Israeli red lines
Unlike the UAE, whose main airbases are distant from Israeli interests, parts of Saudi Arabia lie relatively close to Israeli settler populations and military centers. Israeli officials have publicly signalled concern that basing F-35s in western Saudi Arabia would materially shorten flight times into Israeli airspace and therefore elevate risk perceptions in Tel Aviv. Reports also indicate “Israel” is pressing Washington to condition any sale on formal normalization and legally binding basing limits.
Those basing preferences are intimately linked to the software and sustainment controls described above. Even if Riyadh accepted software tiering, “Israel” still wants to condition the basing of F-35 jets to be outside Western Saudi Arabia airstrips.
Why Abu Dhabi balked despite normalization
The UAE’s experience is a near-perfect case study for what Riyadh may face. Abu Dhabi negotiated a package in 2020 under a broader normalization agreement but informed US officials in December 2021 that it would suspend discussions, citing “technical requirements, sovereign operational restrictions, and cost-benefit analysis” as reasons.
Three interlocking fault lines explain why. First, as explained, export conditions on software, weapons, and mission systems sharply limit a buyer’s operational autonomy. Doing anything beyond the approved list requires US authorization and often a long, costly certification process. For a state that prizes independent strike options and rapid operational adaptation, those limits impose real political and tactical costs.
Second, sustainment architecture locks customers into US logistics and updates ecosystems. The F-35’s logistics and health-monitoring systems (ALIS originally, now the ODIN framework) and the global sustainment enterprise mean that maintenance and updates become levers Washington can control.
Third, and more prosaically, the practicalities of preserving stealth require specialized sustainment. Low-observable coatings, seam integrity, and specialized repairs demand trained personnel, approved materials, and certified processes; many of those tasks are regulated and performed under Lockheed-approved protocols or at regional hubs designated by the program. Buyers often cannot fully sustain the low-observable characteristics that make the jet survivable without continuing contractor or US support.
Finally, political and geostrategic concerns compounded the technical ones. Washington’s scrutiny of buyers’ ties to third parties, notably China, and congressional insistence on preserving “Israel’s” QME raised further strings the UAE found difficult to accept, from restrictions on sensitive supply-chain partners to conditioned access to high-end sustainment and software features.
“The Americans want to sell the Emiratis the planes but they want to tie their hands,” a Gulf source told Reuters at the time. The source, speaking on condition of anonymity, said defense deals include requirements for purchasing nations, but that the restrictions in this deal made it unfeasible.
Geopolitical considerations, only amplified by Riyadh’s larger strategic weight and geography, will determine whether Saudi Arabia accepts comparable limits, if imposed by Washington, or walks the same path as Abu Dhabi.
On the ‘Legitimate Authority to Kill’
By Laurie Calhoun | The Libertarian Institute | November 18, 2025
“I don’t think we’re gonna necessarily ask for a declaration of war. I think we’re just gonna kill people that are bringing drugs into our country. Okay? We’re gonna kill them. You know? They’re gonna be like dead. Okay.”- President Donald Trump, October 23, 2025
As of today, the Trump administration has launched missile strikes on at least nineteen boats in the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean, terminating the lives of more than seventy unnamed persons identified at the time of their deaths only as “narcoterrorists.” The administration has claimed that the homicides are legal because they are battling a DTO or “Designated Terrorist Organization” in a “non-international armed conflict,” labels which appear to have been applied for the sole purpose of rationalizing the use of deadly force beyond any declared war zone.
An increasing number of critics have expressed concern over what President Trump’s effective assertion of the right to kill anyone anywhere whom analysts in the twenty-first-century techno-death industry deem worthy of death. Truth be told, as unsavory as it may be, Trump is following a precedent set and solidified by his recent predecessors, one which has consistently been met with both popular and congressional assent.
The idea that leaders may summarily execute anyone anywhere whom they have been told by their advisers poses a threat to the state over which they govern was consciously and overtly embraced by Americans in the immediate aftermath of the attacks of September 11, 2001. Unfortunately, all presidents since then have assumed and expanded upon what has come to be the executive’s de facto license to kill with impunity. Neither the populace nor the congress has put up much resistance to the transformation of the “Commander in Chief” to “Executioner in Chief.” Fear and anger were factors in what transpired, but the politicians during this period were also opportunists concerned to retain their elected offices.
Recall that President George W. Bush referred to himself as “The Decider,” able to wield deadly force against the people of Iraq, and the Middle East more generally, “at a time of his choosing.” This came about, regrettably, because the congress had relinquished its right and responsibility to assess the need for war and rein in the reigning executive. That body politic declined to have a say in what Bush would do, most plausibly under the assumption that they would be able to take credit for the victory, if the mission went well, and shirk responsibility, if it did not.
Following the precedent set by President Bush, President Barack Obama acted on his alleged right to kill anyone anywhere deemed by his targeted-killing czar, John Brennan, to be a danger to the United States. The Obama administration commenced from the premise that the Authorizations for Use of Military Force (AUMFs) granted to Bush made Obama, too, through executive inheritance, “The Decider.” Obama authorized the killing of thousands of human beings through the use of missiles launched by remote control from drones in several different countries. To the dismay of a few staunch defenders of the United States Constitution, some among the targeted victims were even U.S. citizens, denied the most fundamental of rights articulated in that document, above all, the right to stand trial and be convicted of a capital offense in a court of law, by a jury of their peers, before being executed by the state.
As though that were not bad enough, in 2011, Obama authorized a systematic bombing campaign against Libya, which removed Moammar Gaddaffi from power in a regime change as striking as Bush’s removal from power of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Rather than rest the president’s case for war on the clearly irrelevant Bush-era AUMFs, Obama’s legal team creatively argued that executive authority sufficed in the case of Libya no less, because the mission was not really a “war,” since no ground troops were being deployed. Obama’s attack on Libya, which killed many people and left the country in shambles, had no more of a congressional authorization than does Trump’s series of assaults on the people of Latin America today.
It is refreshing to see, at long last, a few more people (beyond the usual antiwar critics) awakening to the absurdity of supposing that because a political leader was elected by a group of human beings to govern their land, he thereby possesses a divine right to kill anyone anywhere whom he labels as dangerous, by any criterion asserted by himself to suffice. President Trump maintains that Venezuela is worthy of attack because of the drug overdose epidemic in the United States, a connection every bit as flimsy as the Bush administration’s ersatz linkage of Saddam Hussein to al Qaeda. Operating in a fact-free zone akin to that of Bush, Trump persists in insisting that the drugs allegedly being transported by the small boats being blown up near Venezuela are somehow causally responsible for the crisis in the United States, even though the government itself has never before identified Venezuela as a source of fentanyl. In truth, Trump has followed a longstanding tradition among U.S. presidents to devise a plausible or persuasive pretext to get the bombing underway, and then modify it as needed, once war has been waged.
In the 1960s, the U.S. government claimed that North Vietnam would have to be toppled in order for Americans to remain free. The conflict escalated as a result of false interpretations of the 1964 Tonkin Gulf incident, which came to be parroted by the press and repeated by officials even after the pretext for war had been debunked. The U.S. intervention in Vietnam ended unceremoniously with the military’s retreat, and no one was made less free by the outcome, save the millions of human beings destroyed over a decade of intensive bombing under a false “domino theory” of how communist control of Vietnam would lead to the end of capitalism and the enslavement of humanity.
Beginning in 1989, the country of Colombia became the focus of a new “War on Drugs,” the result of which was, for a variety of reasons too complicated (and frankly preposterous) to go into here, an increase in the use of cocaine by Americans. In the early twenty-first century, Americans were told that the Taliban in Afghanistan had to be removed from power in order to protect the U.S. homeland and to secure the freedom of the people of Afghanistan. The military left that land in 2021, with the Taliban (rebranded as the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan) once again the governing political authority. Many thousands of people’s lives were destroyed during the more than two decades of the “War on Terror,” but there is no sense in which anyone in Afghanistan was made more free by the infusion of trillions of U.S. dollars into the region.
Let these examples suffice to show (though others could be cited) that no matter how many times U.S. leaders insist that war has become necessary, a good portion of the populace, apparently oblivious to all of the previous incantations of false but seductive war propaganda, comes to support the latest mission of state-inflicted mass homicide. Among contemporary world leaders, U.S. officials have been the most flagrantly bellicose in this century, and they certainly have killed, whether directly or indirectly, many more human beings than any other government in recent history. This trend coincides with a marked rise in war profiteering, as a result of the LOGCAP (Logistics Civil Augmentation Program) scheme of the late secretary of Defense and Vice President Dick Cheney, whose policies made him arguably the world’s foremost war entrepreneur.
The general acceptance by the populace of the idea that conflicts of interest no longer matter in decisions of where, when, and against whom to wage war, has resulted in an increased propensity of government officials to favor bombing over negotiation, and war as a first, not a last, resort. Because of the sophistication of the new tools of the techno-death industry, and the establishment of a plethora of private military companies (PMCs) whose primary source of income derives from government contracts, there are correspondingly more war profiteers than there were in the past. Many apparently sincere war supporters among the populace are not profiteers but instead evince a confused amalgam of patriotism and pride, and are often laboring under the most effective galvanizer of all: fear.
The increasing influence on U.S. foreign policy of the military-industrial complex notwithstanding, it would be a mistake to suppose that the folly of war has anything specifically to do with the United States. The assumption of a legitimate authority to kill on the part of political leaders has a long history and has been embraced by people for many centuries, beginning with monarchic societies wherein the “received wisdom” was that rulers were effectively appointed to rule by God Almighty and therefore acting under divine authority. The fathers of just war theory, including St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, lived and wrote in the Middle Ages, when people tended to believe precisely that.
As a result of the remarkable technological advances made over the past few decades, the gravest danger to humanity today does not inhere, as the government would have us believe, in the possibility of havoc wreaked by small groups of violent dissidents. Instead, the assertion of the right to commit mass homicide by political leaders inextricably mired in an obsolete worldview of what legitimate authority implies has led to the deaths of orders of magnitude more human beings than the actions said by war architects to justify recourse to deadly force.
Today’s political leaders conduct themselves as though they are permitted to kill not only anyone whom they have been persuaded to believe is dangerous, but also anyone who happens to be located within the radius of a bomb’s lethal effects. This abuse of power and insouciance toward human life has been seen most glaringly since October 7, 2023, in the comportment of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, under whose authority the military has ruthlessly attacked and terrorized the residents of not only Gaza, but also Lebanon, Syria, Qatar, Iran, and Iraq, on the grounds that militant Hamas members were allegedly hiding out in the structures being bombed.
Even as piles of corpses have amassed, and millions of innocent persons have been repeatedly terrorized by the capricious bombing campaigns, Zionists and their supporters reflexively bristle and retort to critics that Netanyahu’s intentions were always to save the hostages. It was certainly not his fault if Hamas persisted in using innocent people as human shields! As a result of this sophism, the IDF was able to kill on, wholly undeterred, massacring many thousands of people who posed no threat whatsoever. Throughout this savage military campaign, the IDF has ironically been shielded by the human shield maneuvers of Hamas.
The “good intentions” trope has served leaders frighteningly well and, like the so-called legitimate authority to kill, is a vestige of the just war paradigm, which continues rhetorically to inform leaders’ proclamations about military conflict, despite being based on an antiquated worldview the first premises of which were long ago abandoned by modern democratic societies. With rare exceptions, people do not believe (pace some of the pro-Trump zealots) that their leaders were chosen by God to do what God determines that they should do. Instead, modern people are generally well aware that their elected officials arrive at their positions of power by cajoling voters into believing that their interests will be advanced by their favored candidates, while fending off, by hook or by crook, would-be contenders who, too, claim that they will best further the people’s interests. Despite debacles such as the U.S. interventions in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Libya, the just war theory’s “Doctrine of Double Effect,” according to which what matter are one’s leaders’ intentions, not the consequences of their actions, continues to be wielded by war propagandists, undeterred by the sort of ordinary, utilitarian calculus which might otherwise constrain human behavior on such a grand scale.
The slaughter of hundreds of thousands and the harm done to millions more persons in Afghanistan and Iraq by the U.S. government was said to be justified by the architects of the War on Terror by the killing of approximately 3,000 human beings on September 11, 2001. Similarly, the Israeli government’s slaughter of many times more people than the number of hostages serving as the pretext for mass bombing was a horrible confusion, an affront to both basic mathematics and common sense. Nonetheless, it was said to be supported by the false and sophomoric, albeit widespread, notion that “our” leaders (the ones whom we support) have good intentions, while “the evil enemy” has evil intentions. That notion is, at best, delusional, for it entails that one’s own tribe has intrinsically good intentions and anyone who disagrees is an enemy sympathizer, the absurdity of which is clear to anyone who has ever traveled from one country to another. Stated simply: geographical location has no bearing whatsoever on the moral status of human beings, what should be obvious from the incontestable fact that no one ever chooses his place of birth.
Beyond its sheer puerility, the “We are good, and they are evil!” assumption gives rise to a very dangerous worldview on the part of leaders in possession of the capacity to commit mass homicide with impunity, as leaders such as Netanyahu and Trump, along with many others, currently do. Note that the same assumption was made by Hitler, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Stalin, and every other political mass murderer throughout history. Most recently, when supporters of Israel began to characterize anyone who voiced concern over what was being done to the Palestinians as “Hamas sympathizers,” they embraced the very same framework which came to dominate the U.S. military’s efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan as people who opposed the invasions were lumped together indiscriminately with the perpetrators of the attacks of September 11, 2001, and denounced as terrorists.
It is obvious to anyone rational why dissidents become increasingly angry as they directly witness the toll of innocent victims multiply. The very same type of ire was experienced by Americans when their homeland was attacked. Yet in Afghanistan and Iraq, the idea that human beings have a right to defend their homeland was seemingly forgotten by the invaders, and little if any heed was paid by the killers to the perspective of the invaded people themselves, who inveighed against the slaughter and mistreatment of their family members and neighbors, even as it became more and more difficult to deny that the U.S. government was in fact creating more terrorists than it eliminated.
Returning to 2025, President Donald Trump continues to authorize the obliteration of a series of small vessels off the shore of Venezuela and in the Pacific Ocean. It is unclear who is behind this arbitrary designation of some—not all—boats alleged to be loaded with drugs to be sunk rather than intercepted by the Coast Guard, which until now has been the standard operating procedure—and with good reason. According to Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), more than 25% of the vessels stopped and searched by the Coast Guard on suspicion of drug trafficking are found not to contain any contraband whatsoever. Senator Paul has also made an effort to disabuse citizens of the most egregious of the falsehoods being perpetrated by the Trump administration, to wit: The country of Venezuela is not now and has never been a producer of fentanyl, the primary cause of the overdose epidemic in the United States.
Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, a denizen of the fact-challenged Trump world, appears to delight in posting short snuff films of the Department of War missile strikes, most of which have left no survivors nor evidence of drug trafficking behind. In two of the strikes, there were some survivors, who were briefly detained by the U.S. government before being repatriated to their country of origin. The incoherence of the administration’s treatment of these persons—alleged wartime combatants, according to every press release regarding all of these missile strikes—has caught the attention of an increasing number of critical thinkers.
Senator Rand Paul has admirably attempted, on multiple occasions, to wrest control of the war powers from the executive and return it to the congress. Most recently, he drew up legislation to prevent Trump from bombing Venezuela, well beyond the scope of the AUMFs granted to George W. Bush at the beginning of the century, but the motion failed. Democratic Senator Fetterman, who voted against the bill along with most of the Republican senators, has evidently fallen under the spell of the techno-death industry propaganda according to which the president may kill anyone anywhere whom he deems even potentially dangerous to the people of the United States. Since the legislation was voted down, Trump and his team no doubt view this as a green light. The president may not have a new AUMF, but the senate, by rejecting Rand Paul’s legislation, effectively signaled that he does not need one. Fire away!
What all of this underscores is what became progressively more obvious throughout the Global War on Terror: most elected officials and their delegated advisers are not critical thinkers but base their support of even obviously anti-Constitutional practices, such as the summary execution of suspects, as perfectly permissible, provided only that the populace has been persuaded to believe that it is in their best interests. In the twenty-first century, heads of state are being advised by persons who are themselves working with analysis companies such as Palantir, which devise the algorithms being used to select targets to kill, and have financial incentives for doing so.
What began as a revenge war against the perpetrators of 9/11 somehow transmogrified into the serial assassination of persons whose outward behavior matches computer-generated profiles of supposedly legitimate targets. The industry-captured Department of War’s inexorable and unabashed quest to maximize lethality has played an undeniable role in this marked expansion of state-perpetrated mass homicide based on an antiquated view of divinely inspired legitimate authority.
As the Trump administration prepares the populace for its obviously coveted and apparently imminent war on Venezuela, mainstream media outlets have reported a surprisingly high level of support among Americans for the recent missile strikes. According to one recent poll, 70% of the persons queried approve of the blowing up of boats involved in drug trafficking. If true, this may only demonstrate how effective the Smith-Mundt Modernization act has been since 2013, permitting the government to propagandize citizens to believe whatever the powers that be wish for them to believe. Given the government’s legalization of its own use of propaganda against citizens, we will probably never know how many of the social media users apparently expressing their exuberant support for the targeting of small boats on the assumption that they contain drugs headed for U.S. shores are in fact bots rather than persons. None of this bodes well for the future of freedom.
Trump considers skipping disarmament phase of Gaza plan amid deadlock: Report
The Cradle | November 16, 2025
The US is looking to “forgo” the stage of the Gaza ceasefire initiative, which involves deploying an international security force to the strip to disarm Hamas and other Palestinian resistance factions, Israeli media reported over the weekend.
The October ceasefire agreement remains in its first stage as talks continue to stall over the issue of Hamas’s disarmament and post-war administration of Gaza.
This potential change in US direction is causing ongoing negotiations to “deadlock,” an Israeli security source told Hebrew news outlet Channel 13.
The source said Washington is struggling to get commitments from countries to directly participate in disarming the factions.
As a result, it has started to look for “interim solutions, which are currently unacceptable to Israel.”
“This interim solution is the worst there is,” the source added, referring to the plan to forgo disarmament and skip ahead to reconstruction.
“Hamas has been strengthening in recent weeks since the end of the war. There can be no rehabilitation before demilitarization. It is contrary to Trump’s plan. Gaza must be demilitarized,” the Israeli source went on to say.
Channel 13 notes that there has been a collapse in ceasefire talks over Washington’s inability to form the international force – referred to in Donald Trump’s ‘peace plan’ as the International Stabilization Force (ISF).
The US recently submitted a draft for the establishment of the force, and is seeking UN backing to implement the plan along with the rest of Trump’s 20-point ceasefire initiative.
The draft includes a broad mandate for Washington to govern Gaza for at least two years. It also mentions that the ISF will be established in coordination with the Gaza ‘Board of Peace,’ which Trump will head.
Russia has proposed its own draft, which entirely removes the ‘Board of Peace’ clause and calls on the UN to identify “options” for the ISF.
The US draft is expected to be put to a vote at the UN on Monday. On 14 November, the US, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Egypt, the UAE, Indonesia, Pakistan, Jordan, and Turkiye issued a joint statement backing the US draft. That day, Indonesia said it had readied 20,000 troops for the plan.
Arab and Islamic states have “leaned toward supporting the US draft because Washington is the only party capable of enforcing its resolution on the ground and pressuring Israel to implement it,” a source told Asharq al-Awsat, adding that there is “firm American intent to deploy forces soon, even if that requires sending a multinational force should Moscow use its veto.”
However, multiple reports in western and Hebrew media over the past several days have revealed an Arab unwillingness to directly force Hamas’s disarmament through a confrontation.
“Most countries that have expressed interest in participating in the ISF have said they would not be willing to enforce the disarmament … and would only act as a peacekeeping force,” Times of Israel wrote.
Israel’s Broadcasting Corporation (KAN) reported on Saturday that Tel Aviv is expecting the resolution to pass, and is preparing for the entry of thousands of foreign soldiers into Gaza.
Israel demands Lebanese army raid civilian homes in south: Report
Smoke and debris rise after an Israeli airstrike on the southern Lebanese village of Teir Debba on Thursday
The Cradle | November 10, 2025
Israel is pressing for the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) to launch raids into civilian homes in south Lebanon in search of weapons belonging to Hezbollah, Lebanese sources told Reuters on 10 November.
The report coincided with new drone strikes on southern Lebanon, and came hours after an Israeli army force raided near the Lebanese town of Hula and blew up two homes.
“Israel is pressing Lebanon’s army to be more aggressive in disarming … Hezbollah by searching private homes in the south for weaponry,” three Lebanese security sources said.
The demand “has been rejected” by the LAF, the sources added. Army leadership fears such a move could trigger civil strife and derail its overall disarmament plan, which the Lebanese military views as “cautious but effective.”
Israel requested these “raids” indirectly in October via the ceasefire mechanism, which includes Washington, Tel Aviv, Beirut, Paris, and the UNIFIL.
The request was followed by an increase in Israeli attacks and ground operations in the south, where Israeli forces have established an occupation in violation of the ceasefire deal.
The escalation was seen “as a clear warning that failure to search more intrusively could prompt a new full-blown Israeli military campaign,” the sources went on to say.
“They’re demanding that we do house-to-house searches, and we won’t do that … we aren’t going to do things their way,” one of the officials told Reuters. “Residents of the south will see house raids as subservience to Israel.”
Since the start of the year, the Lebanese army has been dismantling Hezbollah infrastructure and confiscating arms south of the Litani River in line with the ceasefire deal reached in November 2024.
But Israel is accusing Lebanon of “dragging its feet,” and says Hezbollah is rearming faster than the Lebanese army is dismantling.
The US is pressuring Lebanon to establish direct channels of communication with Israel, a violation of the country’s own laws.
Washington has also threatened Lebanon with a new Israeli war if Hezbollah is not disarmed immediately.
The resistance says it would eventually be willing to discuss incorporating its arms into the Lebanese military as part of a defensive strategy that would keep the weapons available for use if Lebanon is attacked.
However, it rejects any discussion of the matter while Israel continues to attack Lebanon and occupy several areas along the southern border.
The Reuters report on Monday coincided with new Israeli attacks.
An Israeli drone strike targeted the outskirts of the town of Hmayri in the Tyre district in south Lebanon.
Earlier, an Israeli drone strike on a vehicle in Bisariyeh, on the Sidon–Tyre highway, claimed the life of Lebanese citizen Samir Faqih.
The night before, Israeli troops raided an area near the southern Lebanese town of Hula, rigging and detonating two homes.
“Israeli soldiers entered the Subeih hill in northeast Hula (south Lebanon), planted explosives in two homes, and detonated them. The hill is near a Lebanese army checkpoint, where several soldiers stand with one or two vehicles,” Lebanese journalist Khalil Nasrallah wrote.
“It is the only checkpoint. The army personnel are not to be blamed under any circumstances. Believe me, those who know the area know what I mean. The army personnel are not weak, and their blood is not cheap to us, but precious. The blame lies with those who gave the army orders to confront without reinforcing it and strengthening its presence in many sensitive areas near the border,” he added.
Over 40 Lebanese people have been killed by Israel in the past month and a half. Tel Aviv has vowed to continue escalating.
From UAE to Kazakhstan: Trump’s Normalization Strategy Shows Signs of Exhaustion
By Robert Inlakesh | The Palestine Chronicle | November 8, 2025
This Thursday, US President Donald Trump announced that Kazakhstan will be joining his so-called Abraham Accords project, which seeks to bring together Arab and Muslim-majority nations in a quest to normalize ties and form a regional alliance. Yet, this move reflects desperation rather than a significant advancement.
On the Kazakhstan move, Trump took to Truth Social to explain that “We will soon announce a Signing Ceremony to make it official, and there are many more Countries trying to join this club of STRENGTH”.
The countries that Kazakhstan will join are the UAE, Bahrain, and Morocco.
While the Trump administration has been engaged in talks with the new Syrian leadership to bring them into the fold of the agreement, with its primary goal being the facilitation of a deal between Israel and Saudi Arabia, the US government is now settling with a non-Arab country that will have little bearing on the overall project.
Kazakhstan’s joining the so-called Abraham Accords makes no sense, not only due to its irrelevance when it comes to regional affairs, but the Central Asian country had normalized ties with Israel back in 1992.
A far cry from Riyadh or Damascus, Astana appears like a rather desperate attempt to keep the ball rolling and demonstrate that the normalization process is ongoing.
Although Saudi Arabia appeared poised to normalize ties with Israel, as its leader, Mohammed bin Salman, even hinted at, prior to October 7 of 2023, it remains clear that achieving such a deal now will prove very difficult.
This also seems to have been a factor in Riyadh’s recent military pact with Islamabad, which could serve as protection in the event of another regional escalation between the US-Israeli-led alliance and Iran.
Contrary to Donald Trump’s framing of the “Abraham Accords” as a peace alliance, the very opposite is the truth. It was, in fact, an initiative that was born out of the desire to kill Saudi Arabia’s ‘Arab Peace Initiative’, a project which entailed the Arab and Muslim-majority nations agreeing to sign onto normalization deals in exchange for a viable Palestinian State.
Ultimately, due to the weakness of the Palestinian Authority (PA), the Arab Peace Initiative served as the only remaining bargaining chip for achieving a Palestinian State inside the territories occupied by Israel during the June 1967 war.
Taking this chip off the table means the collapse of the PA’s leverage, hence putting them in the position where they must choose between two options: to disband and relaunch the liberation struggle, or to submit and accept the end of their role in the Palestinian cause.
Out of the three nations that committed themselves to the Trump normalization agenda, the only one that has seen any benefit has been the United Arab Emirates. However, even in the UAE’s case, the deal only works in favour of its rulers.
Bahrain is irrelevant and was likely only included due to Saudi Arabia’s testing of the waters, while Morocco was forced into the agreement through ultimatums.
There was not only immense pressure placed upon Rabat by the US, but also the UAE, which used all kinds of pressure points, such as port projects and the issue of Western Sahara, to force Morocco’s hand.
Similarly, following the ousting of former Sudanese President Omar Bashir, the new military leadership was blackmailed and pressured into committing itself to the accords. Sudan was stripped of its state sponsor of terrorism designation, had its sanctions removed, and offered financial relief, yet descended into a horrifying war that Israel played a role in helping to start.
Saudi Arabia knows the potential consequences of joining this alliance and that it would pit them against their neighbour Iran, in a way that sets them on the war path. The UAE is also rapidly becoming a Pariah for its role in Sudan, but also its overt collaboration with the Israelis in their genocide against the people of Gaza.
When it comes to Syria, its new leadership has attempted to reach a so-called “security agreement” with the Israelis, which, despite the best efforts of Damascus to frame it as falling short of normalization, is in essence a recognition agreement.
Yet, due to Syria’s leadership being so incredibly weak and proving incapable of running the country, the Israelis themselves have expressed doubts about the viability of such an agreement. If a deal with Tel Aviv is going to be struck, it will be on Israel’s terms and could cause enormous issues for Damascus.
Trump resorting to dragging along Kazakhstan comes off as desperate; it indicates that the Abraham Accords are far from attractive to regional countries at this time and adds no value to the strategy. More than anything, it serves as a public humiliation ritual that implicates Kazakhstan in the Gaza genocide.
Yemen between two wars: A fragile truce and the shadow of a regional escalation
By Mawadda Iskandar | The Cradle | November 4, 2025
Since mid-October, Yemen has returned to the forefront of the regional scene. Political and military activity has intensified across several governorates, exposing the limits of the current ceasefire. From Sanaa’s view, the phase of “no war and no peace” cannot continue.
Any attack, it warns, will be met with a direct response. Deterrence, it insists, is now part of its core strategy.
Saudi Arabia, meanwhile, is trying to juggle two tracks – military pressure and renewed dialogue through Omani mediation. Riyadh wants to keep its weight on the ground while testing the possibility of a broader settlement.
The US and Israel have again inserted themselves into the mix, each working to block a negotiated outcome that might strengthen the Sanaa government. Washington has revived coordination channels with the coalition, while Tel Aviv watches the Red Sea front and pushes for the containment of Ansarallah-aligned armed forces. Yemen has once more become an overlapping arena of peace talks, foreign manoeuvring, and military threats.
Negotiations under fire
Oman has returned as the main regional mediator, moving to calm tensions after both Sanaa and Riyadh accused each other of violating the 2024 economic truce – the backbone of the UN “road map.” On 28 October, Muscat announced new diplomatic efforts to prevent a wider clash and reopen a political track.
But the situation on the ground shows little restraint. In Saada governorate alone, monitors recorded 947 violations this year, leaving 153 dead and nearly 900 injured. On 29 October, Saudi artillery shelled border villages in Razeh.
Sanaa affirmed that the “reciprocal equation” remains in place, staging a large military parade near Najran to display readiness. Riyadh, in turn, tested civil-defence sirens in its major cities – a move mocked by Ansarallah figure Hizam al-Assad, who said no siren would protect Saudi cities while the aggression and siege continue.
Speaking to The Cradle, Adel al-Hassani, head of the Peace Forum, points out that the crisis is worsening due to the deterioration of the economic situation and sanctions, which have affected more than 25 million Yemenis, while Oman is intervening as a mediator for the de-escalation.
According to Hasani, the roadmap includes two phases: the first is humanitarian, including the lifting of the blockade, the payment of salaries, and the resumption of oil exports; the second is political – to form a unity or coalition government that would coincide with a declared coalition withdrawal. Only that, he says, could stabilize the situation.
Washington and Tel Aviv’s new strategy
After Operation Al-Aqsa Flood and the ensuing war on Gaza, the US-Israeli approach to Yemen has shifted toward hybrid operations – mobilizing local partners, information warfare, and targeted strikes rather than any open intervention.
Sanaa’s recent warning about hitting Saudi oil sites came after detecting moves to create a US-Israeli front against Ansarallah. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called the resistance movement “a very big threat,” and Defense Minister Israel Katz threatened airstrikes on Sanaa itself.
The idea is to keep Saudi Arabia under pressure while allowing Israel to act indirectly. Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich said the “Yemeni threat” is unresolved and urged Arab allies to take part in containing it.
Western think tanks have echoed this, urging Washington to rebuild Riyadh’s military role after the failure of the Red Sea naval alliance. The head of Eilat Port, Gideon Golber, admitted that maritime trade has been badly hit, adding that “We need a victory image by restarting the port.” A US Naval Institute report also noted that despite spending over $1 billion on air defense and joint operations, control over the corridor remains weak.
Between November 2023 and September 2025, Yemeni forces carried out more than 750 operations in the Red Sea, Gulf of Aden, and Indian Ocean – part of what Sanaa calls a defensive response. Head of the Supreme Political Council, Mahdi al-Mashat, urged Saudi Arabia to “move from the stage of de-escalation to ending aggression, siege, and occupation and implementing the clear entitlements of peace.”
He further accused Washington of using regional tensions to serve Israel. National Council member Hamid Assem added that an earlier de-escalation deal, signed a year and a half ago in Sanaa, was dropped by Riyadh under US direction after Operation Al-Aqsa Flood.
A source close to Sanaa tells The Cradle:
“The movement’s leadership is firmly convinced that the responsibility for these tools cannot be separated from those who created, armed, and trained them since 2015. Therefore, Sanaa affirms that any movement of these tools in Marib, the west coast, or the south of the country will not remain isolated, and will carry with it direct consequences that will affect the parties that supported and supervised the preparation of these groups.”
The source adds that:
“America has long experience with Yemen and may be inclined to avoid direct ground intervention, as its priorities appear to be focused on protecting Israel by striking Ansarallah’s missile and naval capability without extensive land friction. Therefore, it has begun to implement a plan that adopts hybrid warfare: intensifying media pumping, distortion, information operations, and psychological warfare, in addition to logistical and coordination preparations to move internal fronts through local pro-coalition tools.”
This hybrid strategy may coincide with Israeli military and media steps, the source points out, through threats and statements by officials in Tel Aviv, so that the desired goal becomes to “blow up the scene from within” and weaken Sanaa through internal chaos that paves the way for pressing options or strikes targeting its arsenal without direct American ground intervention.
US and UAE movements in the south
Throughout October, the US, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE expanded their presence in the south, west coast, and Al-Mahra to reorganize coalition factions and tighten control. US and Emirati officers arrived in Lahj Governorate, supervising the restructuring of Southern Transitional Council (STC) units from Al-Kibsi Camp in Al-Raha to Al-Mallah district. Security around these areas was reinforced with barriers and fortifications.
In Shabwa and Hadhramaut, joint committees of American and Emirati officers inspected Ataq Airport and nearby camps, counting recruits, running medical checks, reviewing weapons stock, and mapping command chains. Sources say Latin American contractors and private military firms assisted, ensuring resources stayed under external supervision.
In Taiz, another committee visited Jabal al-Nar to evaluate the Giants Brigades, their numbers, and armaments. On the west coast – from Bab al-Mandab to Zuqar Island – construction work is ongoing: terraces, fortifications, and outposts operated by “joint forces” hostile to Sanaa, including Tariq Saleh’s formations. Coordination reportedly extended to naval meetings aboard the Italian destroyer ‘ITS Caio Duilio’ to secure sea routes and “protect Israeli interests” in the Red Sea.
Hasani, who follows these movements, informs The Cradle that “These committees are evaluation and supervisory, not training, and are directly supervised by the US to ensure the readiness of the forces and perhaps as a signal to pressure Sanaa.”
He adds that British teams have appeared in Al-Mahra, while groups trained on Socotra Island are being redeployed to Sudan and Libya under UAE management.
Saudi-aligned Salafi units known as “Homeland Shield” now operate from Al-Mahra to Abyan and Hadhramaut. “These forces are today a pillar of the coalition to reduce the ability of Ansarallah, taking advantage of its religious beliefs, as part of the coalition’s tendency to turn the conflict into a sectarian war,” Hasani explains.
In Al-Mahra, local discontent is growing. Ali Mubarak Mohamed, spokesman for the Peaceful Sit-in Committee, tells The Cradle that Al-Ghaydah Airport remains closed after being converted into a joint US-British base.
“The committee continues to escalate peacefully through field trips and meetings with sheikhs to raise awareness of the community about the danger of militias,” he says, noting that the US presence has been ongoing since the coalition was established, though the exact nature of its presence is unknown.
A map showing the distribution of control in Yemen
Where is Yemen heading?
These field movements are taking place as Washington and Abu Dhabi coordinate more closely with Tel Aviv. After meetings in October between the US CENTCOM commander and the Israeli chief of staff, a new plan began to take shape: build a joint ground network across southern Yemen to contain Sanaa and safeguard the Bab al-Mandab Strait – one of the world’s most critical shipping lanes.
At the same time, the US State Department appointed its ambassador to Aden’s Saudi-backed government, Steven Fagin, to lead a “Civil-Military Coordination Center” (CMCC) linked to ceasefire efforts in Gaza. Regional observers see this as a move to integrate the Palestinian and Yemeni fronts into one framework of US security control stretching from the Mediterranean to the Arabian Sea.
Reports circulating in Shabwa and Al-Rayyan say Emirati officers have been dispatched to Gaza to help organize local brigades – a claim still unconfirmed but consistent with the UAE’s wider operational pattern. Investigations by Sky News Arabia noted similarities in the slogans and structure of UAE-backed militias in Yemen and armed factions in Gaza, hinting at shared logistics and training links.
Adnan Bawazir, head of the Southern National Salvation Council in Hadhramaut, tells The Cradle that the scenario of recruiting mercenaries to fight in Gaza is not proven, but is possible – especially with the assignment of the interim administration in Gaza by Fagin, linking local moves to broader regional plans.
In Hadhramaut, Fagin’s visits to Seiyun, which includes the First Military Region, indicate preparations for a possible confrontation, especially since the area is still under the Saudi-backed Islah’s control in the face of the STC conflict, while Riyadh seeks to reduce Islah’s influence by transferring brigades and changing leadership.
Bawazir also points to suspicious movements in Shabwa and at Ataq airport, where field reports indicate flights transporting weapons to strengthen the front, given the governorate’s proximity to Marib and the contact fronts with Ansarallah, which makes it a hinge point for any regional or local escalation.
The moves are therefore part of three interrelated scenarios.
First, shifting pressure from Gaza to Yemen to compensate for the political and moral losses of Tel Aviv and Washington, while using the pro-coalition factions as a pressure arena against Sanaa. Second, preparing for possible military action in the event of the failure of the negotiations. Third, reorganizing the pro-coalition factions and building a central command that can be directed by Washington, thus turning the brigades into executive tools, ready to escalate the situation internally with a sectarian character.
Each scenario positions Yemen once again as a test field for foreign ambitions. The country remains divided between two trajectories: the possibility of a political settlement through Oman’s diplomacy, and the risk of a new conflict fed by regional competition and foreign control over its coasts and resources.
Whether the coming months bring a deal or another war will depend less on what Yemenis want and more on how their neighbors choose to use their soil.
The myth of US peacemaking: Why Washington’s mediation in West Asia keeps crumbling
By Peiman Salehi | The Cradle | November 3, 2025
The US has long styled itself as a guarantor of peace and stability in West Asia while systematically undermining both. From the Oslo Accords to the Abraham Accords, Washington’s so-called peace initiatives have masked coercion as consensus.
These efforts consistently reinforce the regional status quo, prioritizing Israeli security over Palestinian sovereignty, and maintaining western hegemony over regional autonomy.
The collapse of another US-backed Gaza ceasefire, violated within days by renewed Israeli aggression, exposes the structural flaws in this diplomatic model. Rather than arbitrating peace, Washington serves as an enabler of conflict.
Its diplomacy rests on selective morality and strategic interest, not universal principles. The American insistence on brokering ceasefires while actively resupplying Tel Aviv’s military machinery makes a mockery of its so-called neutrality.
‘No legal basis under international law’
The recent joint letter by Iran, China, and Russia to the UN Secretary-General rejecting Washington’s attempt to reactivate the expired “snapback” mechanism under Resolution 2231 further lays bare the fissures between western powers and global legitimacy.
The mechanism, part of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) nuclear deal, formally expired on 18 October 2025. Yet, the US and its European partners are now attempting to revive sanctions via a legal instrument widely considered void.
Tehran’s rejection of the move, supported by Moscow and Beijing, signals a collective refusal to let Washington unilaterally interpret international law. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian affirmed in August that “China reaffirms its commitment to the peaceful resolution of Iran’s nuclear issue and opposes the invocation of the UN Security Council’s ‘snapback’ mechanism.”
His words echoed a broader conviction across the Global South that legitimacy can no longer be dictated by Washington’s will. Fifteen years ago, Beijing and Moscow joined western powers in imposing sanctions on Iran; today, they stand beside Tehran in open defiance of that same framework.
The world’s center of gravity is shifting from a unipolar order managed by Washington to a multipolar one defined by resistance to its dominance.
Economic multipolarity and the end of American centrality
Nowhere is the erosion of US dominance more visible than in East and Southeast Asia. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), once conceived as a Cold War neutral bloc, has evolved into a robust, self-sustaining economic engine. As reported by the Japan News in March 2024, ASEAN’s combined GDP now rivals that of Japan.
Following Washington’s 2017 withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the region coalesced around the China-led Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP). Even traditional US allies have joined. As Professor Amitav Acharya argues in ‘The End of American World Order,’ what is emerging is not anti-western, but post-western – a world in which regions increasingly manage their own affairs. Trump’s recent visit to East Asia highlighted Washington’s growing irrelevance in a region it once dominated.
Yet Washington continues to operate as though the post–Cold War era never ended. Its diplomats still speak the language of the “rules-based order,” even as its actions violate the very norms they claim to uphold.
The attempt to weaponize international law through the snapback mechanism mirrors its broader conduct in Gaza: mediation that enforces control rather than fosters compromise. When the US calls for restraint but resupplies Israel with weapons as civilian casualties rise, its moral authority collapses under its own contradictions.
As former US diplomat Chas Freeman once observed:
“Sadly, theories of coercion and plans to use military means to impose our will on other nations have for some time squeezed out serious consideration of diplomacy as an alternative to the use of force. Diplomacy is more than saying ‘nice doggie’ till you can find a rock … The weapons of diplomats are words and their power is their persuasiveness.”
This transition from persuasion to pressure has degraded Washington’s credibility. US diplomacy increasingly resembles an extension of Pentagon strategy – a negotiation backed by bombs, not by principle.
And this is not limited to Gaza or Iran. From Venezuela to North Korea, from Syria to China, Washington’s diplomatic strategy hinges on threats, sanctions, and military posturing. The soft power myth has dissolved under the weight of decades of failed interventions.
A cultural and philosophical disconnect
Western liberalism, historically presented as a universal framework for progress, falters in regions like West Asia, where faith and justice are intertwined. As even Francis Fukuyama – the American political scientist best known for declaring the “end of history” at the Cold War’s close – himself conceded, liberalism is not a universal fit. For Iran and much of West Asia, peace cannot be reduced to the absence of war or bought through economic incentives. It must arise from justice, dignity, and recognition.
This is the blind spot of every US-brokered deal: the failure to grasp that sovereignty and moral legitimacy cannot be negotiated away. The more Washington pressures regional actors into conformity, the more resistance solidifies into a collective identity.
Tehran’s approach reflects this new reality. Rather than reacting impulsively to western provocations, Iran has adopted a hybrid posture combining strategic deterrence with selective diplomacy. Its partnership with Moscow and Beijing is not an alliance of convenience but of conviction – a shared rejection of a system where power masquerades as principle.
In the wake of the failed snapback, Tehran has deepened energy and transport cooperation through the North–South Corridor while maintaining calibrated dialogue with regional states seeking stability beyond US patronage.
The existential failure of US diplomacy
Unlike in previous decades, Iran is no longer isolated. It now commands a regional network of partnerships that reflect mutual interests rather than asymmetric dependencies. From Iraq to Central Asia, Tehran’s outreach has become a model for post-western engagement.
Meanwhile, the Gaza ceasefire serves as a grim mirror of Washington’s diplomatic decay. Within 48 hours of its declaration, Israeli airstrikes resumed under the pretext of “pre-emptive defense,” and the White House responded with silence. For the Arab and Muslim world, this silence is deafening and an unmistakable confirmation that American mediation is designed to manage violence, not end it.
The myth of the western peacemaker has endured because it served both sides: it offered Washington moral legitimacy and offered local elites a pretext for inaction. But that myth is now collapsing under the weight of its contradictions.
A world divided between moral resistance and strategic cynicism cannot be reconciled through the language of “balance.” It demands a new moral vocabulary – one that acknowledges power but subordinates it to justice.
The failure of US mediation in West Asia is therefore not tactical but existential. It stems from a worldview that confuses control with order and influence with peace. Until Washington accepts that peace cannot be engineered through dominance, its diplomacy will remain what it has always been: an empire’s negotiation with its own illusions.
Palestine Genocide
By Richard Hugus | November 3, 2025
“To Zionists everywhere— you do not have a PR problem that can be solved with more branding campaigns and lies and propaganda. You have a forever problem, because you will never recover from this. Your depravity, unfathomable to normal humans, will be dismantled one way or another. Your fake identity will be exposed to all for the historic fraud that it is. You are the pariahs and parasites on this earth, and the world is finally waking up to this truth. Never has humanity witnessed such explicit and breathtaking evil.” — Susan Abulhawa
(See Susan Abulhawa’s December 2024 speech at Oxford Union here.)
Now past two years of explicit genocide in Gaza, the Zionist state seems intent on creating a new reality for the world – one in which there is no longer a moral order. As “the chosen people” Zionists feel entitled to do what has always been forbidden. For all the world to see, they kill women and children, bomb hospitals, bomb homes and neighborhoods, bomb the tents which people were then forced to live in, withhold food from people they have already starved, assassinate leaders, destroy sanitation infrastructure and water supplies, destroy farmland and olive trees, shoot fishermen, murder journalists, demolish homes with bulldozers, torture and execute prisoners, use people as human shields, snipe children, agree to ceasefires but continue bombing, and more.
October 7, 2023 was the Zionists’ excuse to do openly what they had been doing less openly for the previous 75 years – attempting to get rid of the Palestinian population and steal their land, and then the land of neighboring countries, starting with Lebanon and Syria. In a July 2024 speech to his craven representatives in the US Congress, Benjamin Netanyahu claimed to be defending civilization from barbarism, when in fact the Zionist state was and is busy returning civilization to barbarism. Aside from outright lies, Zionist propaganda is always marked by projection – accusing others of what it is doing, and inversion – turning the truth upside down.
One form of inversion is taking whatever is considered good and doing the opposite. Sabbatai Zevi, who declared himself the Jewish messiah in Smyrna in 1666, taught that doing things considered sinful actually led to redemption. Zevi was supposedly reincarnated fifty years after his death in the person of Jacob Frank in Poland, who went on to create the cult of Sabbatean Frankism. These men are considered apostates by the Jewish mainstream, but their insane messianism has strong reflections in the outlook of men like Benjamin Netanyahu, Itamar Ben Gvir, and Belazel Smotrich today, who have the backing of most of Israeli society. They believe that anything they do to the Palestinians, or “human animals” as former defense minister Yoav Gallant called them, is justified. There are no bounds, no rules, no limits.
One wonders where the Zionist project got the power to thumb its nose at a world horrified and outraged by its crimes. The resources backing up this project are immense and go far beyond the borders of the Zionist entity. “Israel” has always been, if not the centerpiece, at least an important part of the push for a “new world order.” The idea of the Novus Ordo Seclorum began in the late 18th century with Meyer Amschel Rothschild and his financial backing of both Adam Weishaupt’s Illuminati and Jacob Frank’s cult of transgression. Today it is backed by new controlling powers – central bankers, powerful families that own the banks, secret societies, oligarchs, hedge fund managers, intelligence agencies, the Pentagon, defense contractors, predatory philanthropists, subversive NGOs, subversive political fronts, the UN and World Health Organization, the World Economic Forum, bought national governments, and the agents who staff those governments, from President to bureaucrat. Zionist power controls banking, media, and government in the United States. It had the power to kill the Kennedys, carry out the 9-11 attacks, foment war against its enemies in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Sudan, and Iran, and get away with all of it. It has the power to drop bombs which kill a hundred or more Palestinians a day, while telling the world Israelis were the victims.
It would be a mistake to believe this all comes from one small country. This is a global project, and degrading the human race through humiliation, watching Palestine being beaten mercilessly day after day, year after year, seems to be a part of it. Zionism is not only getting away with genocide, it is forcing everyone else to witness it, and each day that goes by without meaningful action to stop it, our humanity is diminished. What we might call the forefathers of Zionism – Sabbatai Zevi and Jacob Frank — aimed to gain control of the world through depravity, through deception, through appalling subversion of the moral order. The world will react to this, and soon, just when the forces behind this monstrosity think they have achieved success.
Seyed M. Marandi: Israel & Iran Prepare for War — ‘America First’ Says No to U.S. Intervention
Glenn Diesen | November 3, 2025
Seyed Mohammad Marandi is a professor at Tehran University and a former advisor to Iran’s Nuclear Negotiation Team. Prof. Marandi outlines how both Israel and Iran are preparing for the next war, and how the “America First” movement keeps distancing the US from Israel.
Follow Prof. Glenn Diesen: Substack: https://glenndiesen.substack.com/ X/Twitter: https://x.com/Glenn_Diesen Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/glenndiesen
Support the research: PayPal: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/Diesen79 Buy me a Coffee: buymeacoffee.com/gdieseng Go Fund Me: https://gofund.me/09ea012f
Books by Prof. Glenn Diesen: https://www.amazon.com/stores/author/B09FPQ4MDL
How Many Americans Killed by Israel? [Answer Will SHOCK You]
If Americans Knew
CJ Werleman is a journalist, author, and political commentator who has been published in Byline Times, TRT World, Middle East Eye. In this video he provides information on the many Americans he says that Israel has killed. Below is additional information on each.
RELATED INFORMATION:
- A Costly Friendship
- Neo-Conservatives And The Israeli Lobby Are Promoting War With Iran, As They Did With Iraq
- WATCH: How Pro-Israel Neocons Pushed for War in Iraq (Alison Weir)
- Rachel Corrie
- Shireen Abu Akleh
- Israel was part of the conspiracy to kill JFK
- Author Martin Sandler says Mossad may have assassinated JFK
- Israel Honors Egyptian Spies 50 Years After Fiasco
- When Eisenhower and Nixon reined in Israel and defied the lobby
- If Americans Knew Receives Death Threat
- USS Liberty
- If Americans Knew videos
- Voters Against Billions to Israel – an online statement for Americans to sign stating that they will not vote for any politician who sends U.S. tax money to Israel.
Featured Video
Israelis SUDDENLY Mass Deported From Many Countries
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Elite Western universities are a corrupt, parasitic empire
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
Blog Roll
Recent Comments
loongtip on Report warns that ‘Jewish terr… Craig Nelms on New study shows that toxic gas… loongtip on A Funny Thing Happened on the… loongtip on EU free trade pact on hold as… John Edward Kendrick on Regime Change In Iran Is The F… Bill Francis on Australia Passes New Hate Spee… seversonebcfb985d9 on Australia Passes New Hate Spee… Bill Francis on Britain’s AI Policing Plan Tur… loongtip on Miami Beach Resident Questione… loongtip on Israeli agricultural export co… loongtip on The War On Free Speech In Aust… seversonebcfb985d9 on Scott Ritter Hiding the Domina…
Aletho News- Orban Hits Out at EU Green Light for $1.5 Trillion Ukraine Aid
- World has had enough of confused clowns: Araghchi to Zelensky
- Jordan using Israeli software to monitor journalists, rights defenders: Report
- Israelis SUDDENLY Mass Deported From Many Countries
- Peace Plan Phase 2 Without Phase 1: Can the US Really Bring Peace to Gaza?
- Hamas: Netanyahu’s inclusion in ‘peace council’ threatens justice
- Report warns that ‘Jewish terrorism is out of control’ and could lead to major security escalation
- Lebanese Resistance will inevitably triumph: Former President Lahoud
- Iran: The Eurasian Lock
- Russian gas exports to China soar – data
- If Americans Knew
- War criminal Netanyahu kills 11 in Gaza, joins Board of Peace – Not a ceasefire Day 104
- Another baby dies of cold in Gaza, as Rafah crossing remains locked down – Not a ceasefire Day 103
- Brutal Beatings, Arson, and Impunity: A Palestinian Plant Nursery Becomes a Target for Settler Pogroms
- On Iran’s protests, Israeli hypocrisy knows no limits
- A Cease-fire for Israelis and a War for Palestinians
- ‘When will Baba come back?’ Gaza’s widows and orphans struggle to survive
- Genocide research institute levels accusations against Germany for denying Israel’s genocide against Palestinians
- Over 1,200 Israeli truce violations in Gaza – Not a ceasefire Day 102
- Trump has created a monster: Gaza Board of Peace – Not a ceasefire Day 101
- As world leaders squabble over controlling Gaza, another baby freezes to death – Not a ceasefire Day 100
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study: Sea Levels Rose 20 Times The Modern Rate During The Roman Warm Period
- As German Gas Storage Dips Dangerously Low…Shortage Hardly Avoidable
- New Study: Brazil’s Relative Sea Level Was 2+ Meters Higher And SSTs 3-4°C Warmer 6000 Years Ago
- Philosopher Schopenhauer: Climate Science Certainty Stems From Stupidity, Ignorance
- New Study: Species Extinction Rates Declining Since 1980 – ‘Climate Change Is Not An Important Threat’
- Denmark Places Climate Protection Above Animal Welfare, Poisoning And Culling Cows
- New Study: Greenland Was 3-7°C Warmer And Far Less Glaciated Than Today 6000-8000 Years Ago
- German Media Report That Current Frigid Weather Can Be Explained By Arctic Warming!
- Berlin Blackout Shows Germany’s $5 Trillion Green Scheme Is “Left-Green Ideological Pipe Dream”
- Modeling Error In Estimating How Clouds Affect Climate Is 8700% Larger Than Alleged CO2 Forcing
Aletho News 