The myth of Israel’s isolation: the reality of Arab collaboration with Zionism
By Lucas Leiroz | Strategic Culture Foundation | September 15, 2025
The narrative construction of Zionism fundamentally depends on two premises: historical victimization and alleged regional isolation. Both are rhetorical weapons designed to justify Israel’s systematic brutality against Palestinians and other native populations of the Middle East. But neither of these narratives holds up under even a minimally honest analysis of the region’s current geopolitical reality. The myth of the “tiny State of Israel surrounded by enemies” is one of the greatest fabrications of contemporary Western propaganda.
The idea that Israel is a solitary bastion in a sea of Arab hostility is, today, completely baseless. With few exceptions, countries in the region not only tolerate Israel but actively collaborate with the Zionist regime — including militarily and diplomatically. The supposed regional resistance has evaporated in recent decades, giving way to a policy of normalization and, in many cases, direct submission to Israeli interests.
The most emblematic case is Syria. The fall of Assad became an obsession for the West, enabled by Islamist militias with logistical and military support from the West, Israel, and the Gulf petro-monarchies. After Al-Qaeda’s victory, the terrorist regime almost immediately engaged in negotiations with Israel, despite ongoing Zionist bombings of Syrian territory. Today, the so-called “Free Syria” is functionally an ally of Israel. Fragmented and destabilized, the country has lost its national capacity for resistance.
In Lebanon, the scenario is equally ambiguous. Despite Hezbollah’s firmly anti-Israeli stance, the Lebanese government follows a path of conciliation with Tel Aviv. The recent ceasefire agreement, signed without Hezbollah’s consent, makes it clear that the Lebanese elites prioritize accommodation with Israel over national sovereignty. Government pressure for Hezbollah’s disarmament is another indicator of veiled collaboration.
Even the Palestinian Authority — supposedly the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in the West Bank — has acted as a silent partner of the Zionist regime. Its role is increasingly that of a submissive mediator, suppressing popular resistance and ensuring the stability of illegal Israeli settlements. Local authorities in the West Bank seem entirely incapable of challenging the colonial status quo, abandoning any real project of liberation.
Jordan, with its puppet monarchy, is another blatant example of collaboration. While official rhetoric often speaks of “justice for Palestinians,” in practice Amman functions as a key piece in the architecture of regional containment, facilitating Israeli intelligence and surveillance operations. The Jordanian monarchy is essentially an extension of Anglo-American policy in the region and, by extension, an objective ally of Tel Aviv.
In the Gulf, the situation is even more obvious. The United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar maintain close relations with Israel, both economically and militarily — even if many of them do not formally recognize the Zionist entity. As Brazilian analyst Rodolfo Laterza correctly observed, the effectiveness of Israel’s air defense is not due solely to systems like the Iron Dome, but to a regionally integrated infrastructure supported by Gulf monarchies. These countries not only allow American military presence and overflights but also share intelligence and threat tracking — giving Israel a significant strategic advantage.
Israel’s recent bombing of Qatar reignited talk of a possible “Arab awakening,” but until concrete developments occur, such “Arab solidarity” remains fiction and empty rhetoric. The Gulf regimes — utterly dependent on Western military support and fearful of internal destabilization — are among Zionism’s most useful agents in the Middle East. This is combined with the region’s typical strategic ambiguity, where governments believe they can maintain multiple alignments simultaneously without paying the price.
In the end, the only full-fledged state actor opposing Israel is Iran — which, ironically, is not even Arab. Isolated, blockaded, demonized, Iran continues to take a confrontational stance toward Israeli apartheid and remains the main supporter of resistance movements like Hezbollah and Hamas. Alongside war-torn and divided Yemen, it is the only state actor on the board that openly challenges Israel’s expansionist agenda.
Tel Aviv’s propaganda, amplified by the Western media, insists on portraying Israel as a victim. But the truth is that Zionism has co-opted and bought off nearly all its neighbors. The so-called “Israeli isolation” is a fiction — a lie repeated endlessly to justify the unjustifiable: the continuation of a colonial, supremacist, and genocidal project.
Iraqi PM Calls For Islamic Military Alliance Against Israel
Sputnik – 14.09.2025
Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani urged Arab and Muslim nations to form a joint security force in response to Israel’s recent strikes in Gaza and Qatar.
He said Tuesday’s Israeli attack on Doha, which killed Hamas members and a Qatari officer, was a “shocking breach of international law” and a threat to regional security.
Sudani stressed that the Islamic world has “numerous levers” to deter Israel, warning that aggression “will not stop at Qatar.”
His remarks came ahead of the Arab-Islamic emergency summit in Doha on Sept 15–16, amid Israeli strikes on Qatar, where leaders are expected to discuss activating the long-proposed joint Arab military force.
Iranian Supreme National Security Council chairman Ali Larijani has also called on Islamic nations to create a “joint operations room” against Israel.
Egypt, meanwhile, is pushing for a NATO-style Arab military force for rapid defense in case of attacks, with Cairo seeking regional backing for the plan ahead of the summit.
The Israeli strike on Doha hit a residential compound where Hamas politburo members were meeting to discuss a US proposal to end the Gaza war, which has already claimed more than 64,800 Palestinian lives since October 2023.
Israel’s ‘Holy War’ falters: Seven fronts, Zero victory
Netanyahu’s ‘historic and spiritual mission’ is bleeding international support, turning short-term military gains into an imminent strategic defeat.
By Mohamad Hasan Sweidan | The Cradle | September 11, 2025
For nearly two years, Israel has been waging what Netanyahu calls a “multi-front war.” This war includes, in addition to Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, the occupied West Bank, and Iran. In one of his interviews, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stressed that he feels he is on a “historic and spiritual mission,” and that he is “deeply connected” to the vision of the Promised Land and Greater Israel. With these words, Netanyahu confirms that what he calls a “multi-front war” is driven by both religious and political motives.
The danger lies in Netanyahu and the radical religious Zionist right believing that the world must approach the brink of a great war “for the Messiah to descend and save it”. For this reason, they encourage continuing and expanding the violence in Gaza to Lebanon, Iran, and beyond, seeing this as the “age of the Messiah.”
The seven fronts of the war
On 9 October 2023, just two days after Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, during a meeting with the mayors of the southern border towns affected by the 7 October attack, Israel’s Prime Minister stated that Tel Aviv’s response to the unprecedented multi-front assault launched by Palestinian fighters from Gaza “will change the Middle East.” From that moment, it became clear that the war would not remain confined to Gaza, but that Israel would expand it to achieve its main goal, which is a new regional order where the balance of power favors Tel Aviv.
Israeli leaders have repeatedly claimed they are simultaneously fighting on seven fronts – Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, the occupied West Bank, and Iran – portraying all these conflicts as targeting an “Iran-led axis” allegedly seeking to “destroy the Jewish state.”
To achieve this goal, Israel pursues two main paths: weakening its enemies and enforcing compliance by force on the rest of the region’s states, including US allies. On the first path, Israel has relied on direct military strikes, framing them as “multi-front wars” under a “defensive” rationale.
As for the second path, enforcing compliance by force, Israel repeatedly attacked the “new Syria,” a state no longer hostile to Israel or the US, and has occupied portions of its territory. Syria’s consistently positive overtures toward Tel Aviv did not deter Israel, which persisted in its strikes and continued occupation.
Meanwhile, Israel’s recent strike on Qatar on 9 September fits within two parallel tracks of its policy. The first is aimed directly at Hamas’s political leaders, signaling that there is no safe haven for them anywhere in the world. The second conveys a clear message to Qatar and other US allies in the region; Israel’s approach is not based on shared interests but on fear of consequences. Alliances based on mutual interests are one thing, and compliance enforced through fear is another. At this stage, this is precisely the message Trump seeks to send to the region’s states: “Obey me, or I cannot guarantee that Israel will remain distant from you.” Fundamentally, this warning is addressed to all states in the region, without exception.
Regional states must understand that what once shielded their capitals from Israeli-American aggression was the presence of the Axis of Resistance that maintained a regional deterrence balance for years. Once this axis weakened, Israel was liberated from constraints and began operating without limits. It should not be noted that Qatar is officially designated a “Major Non-NATO Ally” of the US, a status conferred by the Biden administration since March 2022. In addition, Qatar hosts the Al-Udeid Air Base, which is far more than a conventional military base, but serves as the headquarters of US Central Command (CENTCOM) in the region, making it one of Washington’s most strategically significant hubs worldwide. Yet none of this prevented Tel Aviv from attacking it.
What has Israel achieved?
We must begin by defining strategic achievement. In international relations, a strategic achievement can be defined as attaining long-term goals that reshape the balance of power, enhance state security, or expand influence in the international system. Strategic achievement differs from short-term tactical or operational gains in that it “produces changes in the fundamental structures of interaction between states and non-state actors.” This means that strategic achievement must consolidate a lasting advantage in the geopolitical arena.
From this perspective, Israel has so far failed to achieve any strategic accomplishments in West Asia. Instead, over the past two years, it has accumulated a series of tactical gains that it seeks to transform into strategic advantages. In Gaza, Tel Aviv remains unable to eliminate the Hamas, and in Lebanon, it has likewise failed to dismantle Hezbollah – despite managing to weaken both resistance movements. In Iran, its attempts to change the regime or dissuade Tehran from supporting resistance movements have failed. In Yemen, its actions did not stop Sanaa’s support for Gaza.
Therefore, the core of the current battle is to prevent Tel Aviv from transforming its tactical gains into entrenched strategic ones. If Israel fails to eliminate the Palestinian resistance, fails to isolate and disarm Hezbollah in Lebanon, sees Iran continue to support resistance movements and anti-hegemony discourse, and if the Yemeni support front remains steady, then Israel will have exhausted the maximum of its power to impose a regional reality that grants it temporary superiority, neutralizing resistance for a period, but remaining fragile and unsustainable in the medium and long term.
The outcome of this struggle ultimately depends on Tel Aviv’s opponents overcoming the multiple challenges created by its wars in West Asia. Either the resistance forces succeed in thwarting Tel Aviv’s attempts to turn temporary gains into a long-term strategic achievement, or Tel Aviv and Washington succeed in leveraging these tactical gains to impose a new strategic reality that serves their interests.
A critical question then arises: What price has Israel paid to achieve its current ‘accomplishments’?
In a recent article titled ‘Israel is Fighting a War It Cannot Win,’ Ami Ayalon, former head of the Israeli Navy and former director of Shin Bet, writes, “The course Israel is currently pursuing will erode existing peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, deepen internal divisions, and heighten international isolation. It will fuel greater extremism across the region, escalate religious-nationalist violence by global jihadist groups thriving on chaos, weaken support from US policymakers and citizens, and drive a rise in anti-Semitism worldwide.”
He concludes by saying, “Israel’s military deterrence has been restored, demonstrating its ability to defend itself and deter its enemies. But force alone cannot dismantle Iran’s network of proxies nor secure lasting peace and stability for Israel for generations to come.”
Additionally, as a result of Israeli crimes in Gaza, responsibility for the humanitarian catastrophe there has shifted from Hamas to Israel. For a long time, Tel Aviv sought to portray Hamas as primarily responsible for Gaza’s difficult humanitarian reality. However, Israel’s unlimited aggressiveness undermined this effort.
A survey conducted by Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs to evaluate its global reputation found that respondents in the US, Germany, Britain, Spain, and France believe that the majority of those killed by Israel in Gaza are civilians. The survey also revealed that Europeans, in particular, “agree with characterizing Israel as a state of practicing genocide and apartheid, despite their opposition to Hamas and Iran.” Moreover, a recent Quinnipiac University poll indicated that 37 percent of US voters support Palestinians, compared to 36 percent who support Israelis. The danger of these figures is that they show Israel is losing western public opinion, which may make support for Tel Aviv a key issue in future western elections.
Furthermore, nine states completed the legal procedures required to formally recognize the State of Palestine last year, the largest annual increase since 2011:
These recognitions raised the global total from 138 to 147 in 2024, meaning that nearly three-quarters of UN member states (147 out of 193) now officially recognize the State of Palestine.
In addition, three of the US’s key allies – France, the UK, and Canada – announced their intention to recognize a Palestinian state, while several other countries are considering the same step. This marks a significant shift that further isolates Israel amid growing international concern over Gaza’s humanitarian crisis. These three countries will become the first G7 members to formally recognize a Palestinian state, posing a clear challenge to Israel. Should they proceed, the US would remain the sole permanent UN Security Council member not to recognize Palestine.
A new combat doctrine
There is no doubt that 7 October marked a turning point in Israel’s military strategy. From that date onward, Israel abandoned for the first time the combat doctrine established by David Ben Gurion, Israel’s first prime minister. Blitz wars were no longer its preferred option, the issue of recovering prisoners was no longer a central priority, and its threshold for human and material losses in any military confrontation rose significantly. This shift compels all regional states to recalibrate their strategies to match Tel Aviv’s new combat doctrine.
It is important to stress that Ben Gurion designed Israel’s combat doctrine to suit its geographic and demographic realities. This may have prompted retired Israeli colonel Gur Laish, former head of war planning in the Israeli Air Force and a key participant in the army’s strategic planning, to publish a paper on 19 August at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, warning Israeli leaders against adopting a new security doctrine that disregards Israel’s limits of power. Yet, the following crucial question remains: Will Netanyahu succeed in proving the effectiveness of Israel’s new approach, or will abandoning Ben Gurion’s doctrine mark the beginning of Israel’s end?
Israel’s strike on Qatar exposes the collapse of Arab security assumptions
By Dr Sania Faisal El-Husseini | MEMO | September 12, 2025
The thunder of Israeli warplanes over Doha this week was more than just a military operation, it was a shattering moment for the region. Missiles aimed at residential neighbourhoods in Qatar’s capital, as an attempt to assassinate Hamas leaders, sent a shockwave across the Gulf. The United States, caught between its alliance with Israel and its defence commitments to Qatar and other Arab Gulf states, sought refuge in manoeuvering, distancing itself from the strike while tacitly enabling it. For Arab national security, particularly in the Gulf, the implications are sobering.
The paradox is glaring, Qatar, host to the vast Al-Udeid Air Base, America’s forward headquarters in the region, and dependent on US military systems for its defence, finds itself exposed. The strike underscored what many Arab analysts have long warned, Washington’s strategic loyalty lies firmly with Israel, while Arab allies are seen as expendable partners.
This attack, the first of its kind on Qatari soil, is unlikely to be the last in the region. While framed as part of Israel’s campaign against Hamas, its significance extends far beyond Gaza.
For years, Qatar has hosted indirect negotiations between Hamas and Israel, offering itself as a diplomatic broker. But Israel, it now appears, used those talks as cover, buying time while pursuing unchanged objectives, the conquest of Gaza, the dismantling of Hamas, and the displacement of its population. As Israel intensified its push into Gaza City, it simultaneously targeted the Hamas delegation in Doha, an unmistakable signal that diplomacy was never the true endgame.
The operation reflects a broader Israeli strategy, expand military dominance step by step, strike beyond borders, and erase red lines that once constrained its reach.
Qatar’s own relationship with Israel has always been a delicate balance. From the opening of an Israeli trade office in Doha in 1996, to intelligence meetings hosted in recent years, to participation in joint air exercises in Greece, the two states have maintained limited yet functional ties. Still, Israel’s decision to strike inside Qatar amounts to a message to the entire Arab Gulf, no country is immune, and restraint will only embolden further violations.
This reality stretches well beyond the Palestinian question. Israel’s ambitions are no longer confined to blocking Palestinian statehood. The Netanyahu government, driven by the most hardline coalition in Israel’s history, has laid bare its intent, redraw the regional map through force, not diplomacy. Its declared expansion goals in the region, military reach backed by nuclear superiority, unmatched intelligence networks, and unwavering US support positions it as a major security threat to the regional countries. From assassinations in Iran to operations in Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Iraq, and now Qatar, Israel acts with impunity. The Gulf, it seems, is simply no longer far from its attacks and ambitions.
The position of the American adminstration towrds the Israeli attack on Qatar has revealed a pivotal thorny issue. Qatar’s partnership with Washington was supposed to offer military and security safeguards. The two countries signed a Defence Cooperation Agreement in 1992, renewed in 2013, and Qatar was designated a Major Non-NATO Ally in 2022. Billions have been invested in Al-Udeid, now central to US operations across the region and Central Asia. Yet when Israel violated Qatari sovereignty, the US response revealed the harsh truth, strategic guarantees for Arab states collapse the moment they clash with Israel’s interests.
For Qatar and for every Arab state relying on US military systems, the lesson is stark. Dependence on Washington offers no shield when it matters most.
Many Arab states, particularly in the Gulf, have built their national defense almost entirely on Western military and security systems. In addition to Qatar, Saudi Arabia relies heavily on U.S. made F15 fighter jets and Patriot missile defence systems, the United Arab Emirates has invested billions in advanced American and French aircraft, as well as the THAAD missile shield, Bahrain hosts the US Fifth Fleet, and Kuwait depends on American logistical and intelligence support. These examples reflect a broader regional reality, the very foundations of Arab security are tied to Western supply chains, training, and decision making structures. Yet the Israeli strike on Qatar laid bare the danger of this dependency. When the interests of Washington and Tel Aviv converge, as they so often do, the security of Arab allies becomes secondary. Israel’s declared ambitions to project power beyond Palestine, coupled with the US’s unambiguous tilt toward Israel, mean that the entire architecture of Arab national security now stands on precarious ground.
Silence now would be perilous. If Arab governments allow this strike on Doha to pass without response, Israel will take it as a green light to extend its reach even further. The moment demands more than statements of concern. It requires a collective Arab reckoning, not only with Israel’s unchecked aggression, but with the illusion that the US security umbrella offers reliable protection.
The question is simple, if uncomfortable, will Arab states finally learn from experience, or will they continue to build their security on foundations that crumble when tested?
Geopolitical Ripple Effect: How Doha Attack Undermines US Credibility in the Gulf, Empowers BRICS
Sputnik – 12.09.2025
Israel’s aggression against one of America’s key allies in the oil-rich Persian Gulf is a wake-up call for the region’s nations about the hollowness of US security guarantees. The question now is whether they’ll answer, military and regional experts tell Sputnik.
Security
The failure of US and European-made equipment to stop Israel’s assault leaves only one option open: Russia, says defense analyst Igor Korotchenko.
Russian specialists could build Qatar a system that would give the emirate “the keys” to its skies, leaving “no country able to strike with impunity without the risk of losing both the carriers and strike systems” used in the aggression.
A pivot to Russia is fully realistic, given Moscow’s sale of Pantsir-S1s to the UAE, Qatar’s maritime neighbor.
To reliably close the skies to the enemy, Qatar could complement its defenses with Pantsirs, Buk-M3s, and Tor-M2s.
Commerce & Trade
“The Gulf is already engaged with the multipolar world” on economic matters, says Dr. Tamer Qarmout of the Doha Institute for Graduate Studies.
If the political will exists, not just Qatar but the region could “diversify their alliances and engage more with multipolarity.”
The UAE is already in BRICS, and Saudi Arabia has been invited. Gulf states also enjoy strong bilateral economic links with key BRICS powers including Russia (agriculture, IT), India (labor and trade) and China (trade and strategic initiatives like BRI).
Old Chains of Bondage Could Be Hard to Break
For most of their existence, Gulf powers “have never been truly sovereign,” says veteran Mideast expert Isa Blumi. “They’ve always been dependent on the British and the Americans,” and “internal struggles and rivalries” have made them ripe for manipulation.
That means “strategically and from a security and political perspective,” Gulf powers’ “interests are still largely embedded with, or aligned with, the US as a strategic partner,” Qarmout says.
Time for Strategic Self-Reflection
Israel’s attack “introduced significant uncertainties and major questions for Gulf nations regarding the future” of economic, political and military partnerships with the US.
The “difficult and existential” question is whether Gulf nations will “intensify” links to BRICS “to include new sectors like security and defense,” given the US’s abject failure to protect its “ally” “in such a blatant manner,” Qarmout summed up.
Qatar: an ambiguous agent in the Zionist architecture for the Middle East
By Lucas Leiroz | Strategic Culture Foundation | September 11, 2025
The recent Israeli attacks on Qatar have brought to public debate an issue long overlooked by analysts during the current Middle East conflict: Qatar’s ambiguous role in the regional security architecture.
In the geopolitical theater of the Middle East, Qatar has played a profoundly ambiguous role—at times portrayed as a regional mediator, at others as a strategic collaborator with the Washington-Tel Aviv axis. This ambivalence is neither accidental nor merely tactical. It is rooted in the very foundations of Gulf monarchies’ foreign policy, notoriously driven by a commercial mentality that prioritizes stability, survival, and diplomatic gains over any consistent ideological alignment. However, in light of the current stage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, this self-interested neutrality has increasingly morphed into active complicity with the Zionist occupation regime.
Despite hosting the political leadership of Hamas in Doha, Qatar does not finance its military wing—which, in fact, is supported by Iran. The hospitality extended to the political branch of the Palestinian movement serves, in reality, as a diplomatic tool to increase Qatari influence over the resistance and steer it toward behavior less hostile to Israeli and American interests. This strategy has been employed for years under the pretense of “mediation,” but in practice, it functions as a containment mechanism for the Palestinian national movement.
For years, the Al Jazeera network, controlled by Doha, had authorized access to the Gaza Strip, even under the strict control of Israeli security forces. This privilege was not granted out of goodwill by Tel Aviv but was the result of a strategic arrangement: Al Jazeera promoted anti-Iran rhetoric within the occupied territories, reinforcing the sectarian divide between Sunnis and Shiites and distracting Palestinians from their real source of military support. In return, Israel allowed the ideological diffusion of Wahhabism in Gaza, calculating that this doctrine would weaken Palestinian nationalism and inter-Muslim solidarity, replacing them with religious divisions and fractured loyalties.
This pact began to decline as Al Jazeera became a major outlet for exposing the brutal reality of the genocide in Gaza. Once Qatar’s media presence in occupied Palestine started to generate more costs than benefits for Israel, the Zionist regime enacted a censorship law banning Al Jazeera and assassinated several of its journalists during the criminal airstrikes on Gaza.
Qatar is also home to the largest U.S. military base in the Middle East—Al Udeid Air Base. This facility not only houses American equipment and troops but also serves as an operational platform for Israeli assets in joint missions against Gaza, Hezbollah, and potentially Iran. The Israeli presence on Qatari soil is an open secret and illustrates just how much Qatar has functioned as a logistical hub for the regional security architecture coordinated by Washington and Tel Aviv.
In June, Iran launched precision strikes against this base during its brief direct war with Israel. The message was unequivocal: by allowing its territory to be used by powers hostile to the Axis of Resistance, Qatar had crossed the limits of neutrality. Doha’s response, however, was to remain in a position of complicit silence, ignoring internal protests and maintaining its alignment with Western allies.
This posture exposes the fundamental paradox of Gulf foreign policy: even with populations broadly sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, the Wahhabi bloc has repeatedly chosen to accommodate Israeli and American projects, as long as doing so ensures dynastic survival and economic stability. This reflects a deeply rooted rationality in the political culture of desert nations—one shaped by centuries of pragmatic adaptation to scarcity and existential threats. In an environment where taking sides can mean ruin, ambiguity becomes a way of life.
However, in the current context of conflict radicalization, this ambiguity is no longer perceived as strategy but as betrayal. By refusing to break with the occupying powers, Qatar risks being dragged into an escalation it helped to ignite. The Israeli bombs falling on Gaza today do so, directly or indirectly, with American logistical support originating from Qatari territory. This undeniable fact—under any serious analysis—undermines Doha’s attempt to present itself as both bridge and wall, as arbiter and accomplice.
The recent Israeli strikes on Doha have made one thing painfully clear: befriending the Zionists is a deadly mistake.
US House votes to repeal president’s Middle East war powers
Al Mayadeen | September 11, 2025
In a significant move to reclaim Congressional authority over military engagement, the US House of Representatives voted on Tuesday to repeal decades-old laws that authorized war in the Middle East.
The 261-167 vote represents a bipartisan push to rescind the 1991 and 2002 Authorizations for Use of Military Force (AUMFs), originally enacted ahead of the Gulf War and the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
The repeal was adopted as an amendment to the annual National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and is being hailed as a victory for war powers reform advocates, who argue that outdated authorizations enable unchecked presidential use of military force.
Long-awaited win for war powers reform advocates
The amendment was co-sponsored by Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) and Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY) and garnered support from 49 Republicans and 212 Democrats. Advocates argue that keeping these authorizations in place enables future administrations to bypass Congress in deploying US military power.
“We don’t need to have Congress effectively modern-day declaring war and leaving it in place for a quarter of a freaking century, or in this case, 34 years,” said Roy.
Meeks added that he was “prepared to fight” in upcoming Senate negotiations to ensure the repeal becomes law.
Pushback from opponents
The proposal had an uncertain path to passage. Initially excluded from the package of amendments allowed for floor debate, the measure was added only after an unusual procedural win in the House Rules Committee. Republicans Ralph Norman (SC), Morgan Griffith (VA), and Chip Roy broke with their party to help Democrats force a debate on the amendment.
Not all lawmakers welcomed the repeal. Rep. Joe Wilson (R-FL) warned that revoking the war powers laws would “tie the president’s hands” in responding to regional threats, including resistance movements in Iraq.
Despite these concerns, the amendment passed with bipartisan backing, though deeper divisions remain over broader defense policies.
Wider debate over executive military power continues
While the vote represents a symbolic step toward limiting presidential war authority, critics note that the repeal will not affect recent military actions, including President Donald Trump’s alleged strike last week on a vessel in the Caribbean he claimed was for smuggling drugs.
The war powers repeal is expected to become a central issue in House-Senate negotiations over the final defense policy package. Although both chambers have voted in recent years to repeal the 2002 Iraq AUMF, no repeal legislation has yet been enacted into law.
Background on AUMFs
- 1991 AUMF: Authorized military force during the Gulf War under President George H. W. Bush;
- 2002 AUMF: Enabled the 2003 invasion of Iraq under President George W. Bush;
- 2014: Former President Barack Obama used the authorization to justify airstrikes in Iraq and Syria;
- 2020: US President Donald Trump used it in his first term to greenlight the airstrike that killed the IRGC’s Quds Force commander General Qassem Soleimani in Baghdad.
While former President Joe Biden never formally used the authorization, his administration argued it was important to keep it intact to respond to any future threats.
Qatar under Fire: Israel’s Expanding War Threatens Regional Peace
By Abbas Hashemite – New Eastern Outlook – September 10, 2025
In a shocking and fanatic move, the Zionist state targeted Hamas’ top leadership in Doha to disrupt the ceasefire process once again.
Israeli Aggression Spreads Across MENA Amid Mounting Civilian Toll
The recent Israeli attack on Qatar’s capital, Doha, marks its fifth attack in the last two days. Israel has attacked Gaza, Syria, Lebanon, Qatar, and the Sumud Flotilla on the Tunisian coast, further destabilizing the MENA region. Israel’s attack on Lebanon is a sheer violation of its ongoing ceasefire with the country. For decades, the Zionist state has been violating international law by invading the sovereignty of different Middle Eastern states. The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) has been unleashing unprecedented violence and atrocities in Gaza and the West Bank since October 7, 2023, under the veneer of its operation against Hamas. According to some conservative reports, the IDF has killed more than 80000 Palestinians, the majority of whom comprise children and women, between October 7, 2023, and January 5, 2025. The true death toll is significantly higher than the reported figures, as scores of bodies are buried under rubble.
Israel’s indiscriminate bombing and ground operations in the Gaza Enclave have flattened the entire neighborhoods, turning them into rubble and wreckage-strewn piles. As per the Gaza Government Media Office, 90 percent of the Strip’s infrastructure has been destroyed by the IDF, inflicting a loss of around $68 billion. In addition, the office stated that, 2700 families have been wiped from the official records. The IDF has also killed 1670 medical personnel, 139 civil defense members, 248 journalists, and over 170 municipal employees since October 7, 2023. The IDF also targeted numerous mosques, churches, hospitals, and educational institutions over the past two years. The Zionist state has also blocked humanitarian aid, pushing 2.4 million Gazans, including more than 1 million children, to starvation and famine. Incidents of shooting civilians after luring them for aid have also been widely reported.
Netanyahu’s Ambition and the Greater Israel Project
The Netanyahu administration has consistently sought to expand the war into the entire region to achieve its ambitions. The Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu seeks to perpetuate his rule by expanding the war. He also seeks to materialize the historic Zionist ambition of establishing “Greater Israel” by invading the territory of different regional countries. In a recent statement, he stated, “So if you’re asking if I have a sense of mission, historically and spiritually, the answer is yes.” He further stated, “You know, I often mention my father. My parents’ generation had to establish the state. And our generation, my generation, has to guarantee its continued existence. And I see that as a great mission.” These statements speak volumes about the real intention of his ongoing so-called operations against Hamas.
The Israeli government has always sought to expand the war to the whole region and beyond. Just like its Western allies, it blamed its opponents for initiating and fueling the war. However, in reality, the Israeli government has repeatedly disrupted all the peace negotiations. Recently, the US President Donald Trump proposed a peace plan to establish a ceasefire in Palestine. He asked for the immediate release of all the Israeli hostages. After proposing the peace deal, he issued his own threats to the people of Gaza and Hamas if a deal is not reached between the warring parties, implying that they have always obstructed a ceasefire. However, history suggests the reality is quite the contrary. Israel has repeatedly rejected all the proposals and holds a record of violating ceasefires.
The Zionist state’s recent attack on the Hamas leadership in Doha, Qatar – a lead negotiator in the US-led ceasefire negotiations – was also against international norms. These leaders were in Doha to discuss Trump’s peace proposal. However, the Israeli forces targeted them, disrupting another peace process and exposing the region to further instability and chaos. According to Hamas, its leadership survived the attack. However, six people, including the son and one of the aides of Hamas’ leader, Khalil al-Hayya, have been killed in these strikes. Hamas stated, “This once again reveals the criminal nature of the occupation and its desire to undermine any chances of reaching an agreement.” It declared the attack as “a heinous crime, a blatant aggression, and a flagrant violation of all international norms and laws”.
Qatar, Regional States Condemn Strike; US Denies Complicity
The Qatari government has also condemned the attack. Qatar’s Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hammad Al Thani described the attack as a “reckless criminal attack”. He also stated that the attack is “a flagrant violation of its sovereignty and security, and a clear violation of the rules and principles of international law”. All the regional states, along with several extra-regional countries, have condemned the Israeli strikes in Qatar. Reports suggest that the Israeli government took the US into confidence before conducting the strikes. In an official statement, Washington has denied all such claims. It also stated that the US had notified Qatar before the Israeli attack. However, Qatar’s government has refuted the claims by stating that they are “completely false”.
These attacks reflect that the Israeli government does not want the war to end. On the contrary, it seeks to expand it to the whole region. In addition, it shows that the silence of the Arab states has emboldened the Zionist regime to violate their sovereignty and attack any country in the region. The event further suggests that in the coming weeks or months, Israel would attack more regional countries to materialize the ambition of Greater Israel. Moreover, it also illustrates that the US and Israel do not recognize any friends in the region. The only thing that matters to them is their regional interest. Although the Qatari government has not mentioned anything about retaliation till now, it needs to respond to Israeli aggression prudently to ensure its sovereignty. OIC must also play its role to exert diplomatic pressure on Israel. Otherwise, the Zionist state will continue to spread violence, terror, and chaos in all the regional countries, threatening regional and global peace.
Аbbas Hashemite – is a political observer and research analyst for regional and global geopolitical issues. He is currently working as an independent researcher and journalist
Israel’s Doha Strike Burns Bridges for Peace, Marks Dangerous Strategic Overstretch – Experts
Sputnik – 10.09.2025
Israel expanded the geography of countries it has bombed on Tuesday, targeting a delegation of Hamas officials involved in peace negotiations in Qatar. Sputnik asked a pair of regional experts how the aggression will impact Israel’s position in the region in the long term.
Israeli military operations in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and now the Gulf signal an “overstretch” that won’t be left without serious diplomatic repercussions, Ankara-based security analyst Dr. Hasan Selim Ozertem has told Sputnik.
“Looking at Europe, looking at the US, looking at the Gulf, these countries have started to articulate their concerns about Israeli aggression, which was not the case before because of the leverage of the Israeli lobby, especially in US politics,” Ozertem explained.
With Qatar serving as mediator in the Gaza war, the Doha attack “also undermines Israel’s credibility” among the Gulf powers Tel Aviv wants to forge ties with through the Abraham Accords.
Israel’s aggression may even result in the creation of new regional pacts, Ozertem says.
“The Saudi Crown Prince said [Riyadh] will be supporting Qatar. In the past, we know that Qatar and Saudi Arabia had political problems. They managed to solve them. Now we are talking about a military alliance…an anti-Israeli opinion or bloc in the region among local actors… increasing the probability of potential confrontation between Israel and others.”
Burning Bridges
“By attacking Doha as peace negotiations for ending the Gaza genocide were in progress, Netanyahu once again demonstrated his disdain for negotiations and his preference for brute force as the ultimate solution,” says Mehran Kamrava, a professor of government at Georgetown University in Qatar.
Netanyahu’s strategy of “managed chaos” threatens to spiral out of control, and further isolate Israel “by making it a rogue, pariah state,” Kamrava said.
Besides Israel’s reputation, the attack promises to “cost the US much of its already diminished credibility in the Arab world,” the scholar says, emphasizing that unconditional US support for Israel is proving “extremely costly” as the Israeli government takes actions that make it seem increasingly “unhinged” and “devoid of all rationality.”
West Asia is lurching toward war
By M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | Indian Punchline | August 30, 2025
There is extremely alarming news about the situation around Iran. In consultations with the Trump administration — rather, in deference to the command from Washington — the E3 countries (Britain, France and Germany) who are the remaining western signatories of the 2015 Iran nuclear deal known as JCPOA, have initiated the process of triggering the so-called snapback mechanism with the aim to reimpose all UN sanctions against Iran on the plea that it has breached the terms of the ten-year old agreement.
A joint statement issued in the three European capitals on Thursday notified the UN Security Council that Tehran is “in significant non-performance of its commitments under the JCPOA” to give a 30-day notice “before the possible reestablishment of previously terminated United Nations Security Council resolutions.”
The E3 statement is patently an act of sophistry since it was the US which unilaterally abandoned the JCOPA in 2018 and the three European powers themselves have been remiss in ignoring their own commitments to lift the sanctions against Iran through the past 15-year period, which only had ultimately prompted Tehran to resume the uranium enrichment activity — although the Iranian side was ready to reinstate the JCOPA as recently as in December 2022.
A strange part of the E3 move is that they short-circuited the prescribed procedure in regard of the snapback mechanism with the intent to reduce the two other permanent member countries of the Security Council to be mere bystanders with no role whatsoever in the matter. Unsurprisingly, Russia and China have taken exception to this and in a lengthy statement on Friday, the Russian Foreign Ministry has demanded (with China’s backing) an extension of the time line by another six months by the Security Council as an interim measure so as to avoid a standoff with dangerous and tragic consequences.
Tehran has welcomed the Russia-China proposal as a “practical step.” Iran, of course, has explicitly warned that any such attempt by the E3 to reimpose the UN sanctions against it may compel it to reconsider its membership of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
It remains to be seen whether the E3 — or more precisely, the US-Israeli nexus which is the driving force behind the precipitate move — will be amenable to a compromise. All indications are that Israel with the full support of the Trump administration is spoiling for a fight with Iran and make a second attempt to force regime change in Tehran and the restoration of the erstwhile Pahlavi dynasty to replace the Islamic system that got established after the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Simply put, it is a make-or-break attempt by the US and Israel to bring about a geopolitical realignment in the West Asian region.
The US and Israel have drawn lessons out of the miserable failure of their first attempt in June to overthrow the Islamic system in Iran, and Israel suffered huge losses as Iran retaliated. This time around, the US and Israel seem to be preparing for a fight to the finish, although the outcome remains to be seen. Indeed, a protracted war may ensue. The US is rearming Israel with advanced weaponry. At some point, early enough in the war, a direct American intervention in some form can also be expected.
Unlike in June when the Trump administration in an elaborate ploy of deception lulled Tehran into a state of complacency when the Israeli attack began, this time around, Iran is on guard and has been strengthening its defenses. Make no mistake, Iran will fight back no matter what is takes. Iran is also getting help from Russia for beefing up its air defence system and there are reports that Russian advisors are helping Iran’s armed forces to augment their capability to resist the US-Israeli aggression.
Many western experts, including Alastair Crooke, have predicted that an Israeli attack on Iran can be expected sooner rather than later. The Israeli-American expectation could be that Russia’s military operations in Ukraine will have reached a climactic point by autumn which would almost certainly preclude any scope for Moscow to get involved in a West Asian conflict, and that, in turn, will give them a free hand to take the regime change agenda to its finish.
Besides, in a policy reversal, Iran has taken up the standing Russian offer to provide an integrated air defence system. Such a system will possibly be in position by the middle of next year or so and it is expected to be a force multiplier for Iran. Israel will most certainly try to attack Iran before the integrated system which is connected to Russian satellites becomes fully operational. It remains to be seen whether the Trump administration will be able to withstand Israeli pressure, given the Mossad’s alleged involvement in the Epstein scandal.
A West Asian war of titanic scale will be unprecedented. Apart from large scale loss of lives and destruction, the regional turmoil that ensues will also affect the surrounding regions — India in particular. The point is, an estimated 6 million Indians live in the Gulf region. Their safety and welfare will be in serious jeopardy if the Gulf states get sucked in to the war at some point.
The probability is high that Iran’s retaliation this time around may involve the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz through which tankers carry approximately 17 million barrels of oil each day, or 20 to 30 percent of the world’s total consumption. If that happens, oil price will sky rocket and India’s energy security, which is heavily dependent on oil imports, will be affected. India’s main sources of oil supplies are Russia (18-20%), Saudi Arabia (16-18%), UAE (8-10%) and the US (6-7%).
Clearly, if the oil supplies from the Gulf region get disrupted, India’s dependence on oil flows from Russia will only increase further. In fact, there will be a scramble for Russian oil and, paradoxically, Trump’s best-laid plans to hollow out “Putin’s war chest” will remain a pipe dream.
Significantly, according to Israel’s Kanal 13, Russia has evacuated its diplomatic personnel and their families in its embassy in Tel Aviv in anticipation of a “dramatic” change in the security situation and growing signs of an outbreak of hostilities between Israel and Iran.
These “Iran Bombings” in Australia Are a Setup for Further False Flags
By Andrew Anglin | Daily Stormer | August 26, 2025
As we get ready for the next round of the Iran war, Western governments need to come up with an explanation as to why we are going to war for Israel beyond “shielding Jews from blowback as a result of their genocide in Gaza.”
Enter: “Iranian backed terror.”
You have probably heard the claim in various Jewish media that Iran is a “state-backer of terrorism.” However, this claim, when dissected, does not refer to ISIS or al-Qeada style terrorism, but rather is a reference to Iran’s funding of various militias around the Middle East. For example, the media categorizes Iran’s support for Hezbollah and the Houthis as “backing terrorism.” Whatever you think of the militias Iran does back, this is something different than blowing up buildings or running people over with a big truck in Europe or America.
There have been some shaky claims of Iran sponsoring bombings in Saudi and Argentina in the 1990s, and in 2012, India said Iranians tried to kill an Israeli diplomat with a bomb. The same guy was accused of doing a bombing in Thailand, however, and after being extradited to Thailand from Malaysia, the Thai authorities refused to charge him and released him to Iran.
All of this is to say that this week’s accusations by the Australian Prime Minister that the Iranian government was behind the bombing of a synagogue and a Jewish deli in Australia are something different than we’ve seen before. The Melbourne synagogue was bombed on December 6th of last year. The Sydney deli, which burned up last October, was not even originally investigated as foul play by the cops. No one died in either “attack.”
As those who study the Jews are all too aware, Jewish very often commit hate crimes against themselves. Even before terrorism was a thing, Jews would regularly burn down their own properties to collect insurance money. The term “Jewish lightning” is in the lexicon to refer to anyone burning down their own property for the insurance, as Jews were so famous for this behavior (similarly to how a non-Jewish person viewed as greedy might be called “Shylock”).
It’s maybe worth noting that since the bombing, the rabbi from the synagogue in question has been on a donations tour, and with the announcement it was Iran, is on another tour asking for even more free money.
What’s more, if these were indeed intentional attacks from someone, their timing, in the middle of the Gaza genocide, could mean that literally anyone could be responsible. Although Moslems would probably be more likely, it is not hard to imagine a non-Moslem outraged at the scenes on TikTok doing something like this. On its face, blaming the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps for the bombing of a random deli and synagogue in Australia sounds ridiculous, and it seems they would be some of the last people on the list of suspects.
Even if you believe Iran was responsible for the attacks they were accused of in the 1990s and then the 2012 events, those were all political or military targets. The idea of a serious military organization ordering random restaurants and synagogues in a random country blown up is silly. Iran is capable of sending rockets at Israel, they are capable of cutting off Israel’s access to shipping lanes. It makes no sense they would sink to street level random acts of random violence, which would not need any central planning.
Further, the fact that the firebombing would not need to be centrally planned means that it would be impossible to trace it to Iranian authorities. What would even be the claim? That they found text messages from a general in the IRGC? And that it took them nearly a year to find these text messages?
The identities of the accused have not been revealed, but the claim by the government is that they are street criminals who also committed other crimes who the IRGC hired through their networks to carry out these very serious firebombings that had no political purpose and where no one even died.
Here’s the Thing
This announcement by the weasel Prime Minister Anthony Albanese that Iran ordered the bombing of these random civilian locations in a white, Western country has been a top news story all over the world. Although no one is likely to look too deeply into it, because again, literally no one died, this gets the idea that “Iran is funding terrorist attacks on civilians” into the minds of the masses of the people.
With the attacks on the World Trade Center in 2001, the FBI had previously coordinated an attempted bombing of the same buildings in 1993 as a kind of precursor. Then you had the second attack, with the airplanes, lead to an invasion of Afghanistan. Then, in the weeks and months after 9/11, someone was sending Anthrax all around to media and government people, which is when the media/government started talking about Iraq as working with the al-Qeada. In 2008, they then said it was actually some random white guy that did the anthrax. He was, conveniently, already dead.
This is the note that was with the Anthrax sent to Tom Brokaw:
The FBI never really bothered to try to explain why a white guy would do that.
But refencing the Anthrax mailed around, Colin (pronuonced “Colon” for some reason) Powell brought white powder as a prop to his UN presentation on the need to. invade Iraq,
There was an ongoing triangle of disinformation and fake news passing from the New York Times, Dick Cheney, and Fox News. They were accusing Saddam of all kinds of things, just like they are with Iran right now, but the core of it was Cheney’s “Sinister Nexus of Terror.”
You still had the steam from 9/11 when they did the Iraq war less than two years later. But with Iran now, are we really supposed to do a massive war because of October 7th? Or is there going to need to be something more significant to motivate people?
I would very much expect that this Australian cafe and synagogue is the beginning of something bigger. With 9/11 and the Anthrax, when people were saying “oh they can’t be false flags, the government wouldn’t do that,” it was like “well, they started fake wars and killed like a million people, so why wouldn’t they blow up some buildings or send some powders?”
Looking back now, it feels like the “12 Day War” (the term they are using for the back and forth between Israel and Iran that involved Trump also dropping bombs on Iran) was a kind of probing event, where they wanted to see what Iran had. I think they were possibly a bit surprised at how capable Iran was. They were not the superpower capable of wiping Israel off the map that Scott Ritter had told everyone they were, but they were able to hit Israel and with missiles and cause real damage, and it was going to be impossible for Israel to keep going much longer before they were running out of their interceptor missiles.
Israel’s view on Iran has not changed, they are saying they are going to attack them again, and there is no way they can do it without the US, and involving the US on a large scale will probably take more than some all caps Trump tweets.
Obviously, at this point, huge numbers of people are going to be saying “false flag,” even if it is something on the scale of 9/11. So I don’t claim to know how this would work. If I was Donald Trump, I’d be worried the Mossad was going to assassinate me and blame Iran. That would get all the Trump supporters behind a war and it would leave leftists confused as to how they should feel, because if they said “false flag,” they might feel like they were defending Trump. Also, there has already been a “foreshadowing” event where Trump was allegedly scraped on the ear. And, I would add, that a personality like Trump getting shot would just generally be a bigger shock to the world than a bombing, which we’ve all already seen a lot of.
Or maybe I’m wrong and there is already enough noise and there doesn’t need to be some big event to justify further action in Iran. I guess the issue is that I don’t know really what it would take. If there needed to be an Iraq style invasion, then you would need some pretty big justification. But no one understands the logistics of this war. Like I said, I think the first thing was a test as much as anything.
But there are a lot of questions.
If there was large scale bombing of Tehran, could they do a “regime change” from the air? If so, could they keep shooting rockets without a “regime”? How stable is the domestic situation in the country? How do the Arabs, Azeris, and other minorities feel? (I think we know how the Kurds feel, lol. But the others, who knows? I don’t know. I do know that Persians are barely half the population.) Are there terrorists that can be moved in through Azerbaijan? What happened all those terrorists in Syria now that their guy is in charge? Can they be moved through Iraq and into Iran? It’s much more mountainous in Iran.
This is a lot different than when ISIS was able to just roll around wherever on the flats in the Iraqi/Syrian desert.
The mountains also provide a lot of cover for hydra-type break-off groups to operate if the government falls or is at least incapable of operating normally. I’m sure they have caves loaded up with drones and cheap missiles, and as we saw in the 12 Day War, the cost of shooting them down is too much for Israel to absorb. Even if they have infinity money from Big Daddy Donald, they can’t make that many interceptor missiles.
Those are some of the big questions. There are more questions. I’m sure the people within intelligence have better estimates than I would be able to come up with as to what the answers to these questions might be, but I think even US/Israeli intelligence can’t give definite answers regarding most of these factors.
What I do think is that slowly drilling away at it until the armor cracks like they did with Syria is not a potential strategy given that unlike Syria, Iran can hit Israel with missiles. So I’m sure what Bibi wants is the full force of the US military to be brought to bear in a full invasion type war. And for that to happen, it is most likely that something very extreme would have to precipitate it.
Featured Video
Stanislav Krapivnik: Massive Escalation – Attack on Putin’s Residence
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
China and India have ‘low intellectual potential’ – top Zelensky aide
RT | September 13, 2023
The people leading India and China lack the ability to predict the long-term consequences of their policies, a senior aide to Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky has claimed.
Mikhail Podoliak pointed to what he called “the problem of the modern world,” singling out India and China, in an interview with Ukrainian media on Tuesday.
“The problem with these countries is that they do not analyze the consequences of their own moves. These countries, unfortunately, have low intellectual potential,” he said.
Podoliak suggested that even though India has a lunar exploration program, it “does not mean that this nation understands what the modern world precisely is.”
The dismissive remarks were in the context of Beijing and New Delhi’s refusal to support Kiev in its conflict with Moscow. Podoliak complained that India, China and Türkiye were “profiting” from the war by maintaining trade with Russia.
“Technically, it is in their national interests,” he acknowledged, before presenting his view of what would benefit China in the long-run.
“China should be interested in Russia disappearing, because it is an archaic nation that drags China into unnecessary conflicts,” he claimed. … continue
Blog Roll
Recent Comments
papasha408 on Trump Says Hamas Will Be Given… papasha408 on Is Israel About to Return to G… Bill Francis on NSW Premier Admits New “Securi… Richard Ong on Israeli forces arrest writer a… Bill Francis on How reporting facts can now la… Gemma on Israel’s diamond industr… Bill Francis on Victoria Moves to Force Online… papasha408 on The Empire of Lies: How the BB… loongtip on US Weighs Port Restrictions on… Bill Francis on Chris Minns Defends NSW “Hate… Sheree Sheree on I was canceled by three newspa… Richard Ong on Czech–Slovak alignment signals…
Aletho News- Stanislav Krapivnik: Massive Escalation – Attack on Putin’s Residence
- Gaza races to preserve what remains of its 5,000-year-old archaeological legacy
- Dayton At 30: US Betrayal Old And New
- UNRWA head slams ‘outrageous’ Israeli law to cut water, energy to agency’s facilities
- Trump Says Hamas Will Be Given a ‘Short Period of Time’ to Disarm
- Is Israel About to Return to Genocide? Three Scenarios for What Comes Next
- Netanyahu Aligned Think Tanker: Somaliland Offered To ‘Absorb’ One Million Palestinians
- The DOJ is flaunting the law on the Epstein Files. Why isn’t Pam Bondi in handcuffs?
- The Epstein Saga: Chapter 4, Good Old Robert
- Drone Attack on Putin’s Residence Could Have Triggered a Nuclear War: Here’s Why
- If Americans Knew
- TCN Warns – “ISRAEL FIRST: U.S. May Attack Iran Again”
- Hamas calls on Israel to allow impartial investigation into 7 October attacks
- Indiegogo Withholds $51K In Donations From MintPress in Financial Censorship Crackdown
- Gaza races to preserve what remains of its 5,000-year-old archaeological legacy
- Gaza health official says miscarriages surge as births fall by 40%
- Leahy Law Requires Ban on Aid to Israeli Police Unit for Killing Two Palestinians Who Surrendered
- Israel blocks entry of eye drops for blind people in Gaza
- I did not understand I grew up in a concentration camp until I left Gaza
- One excavator, 10,000 bodies, a sea of rubble: inside Gaza’s effort to retrieve and bury its dead
- Rights Group Warns Israel’s Genocide Isn’t Over in Gaza
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study Finds A Higher Rate Of Global Warming From 1899-1940 Than From 1983-2024
- Meteorologist Dr. Ryan Maue Warns “Germany Won’t Make It” If Winter Turns Severe
- Merry Christmas Everybody!
- Two More New Studies Show The Southern Ocean And Antarctica Were Warmer In The 1970s
- Der Spiegel Caught Making Up Reports About Conservative America (Again)
- New Study: 8000 Years Ago Relative Sea Level Was 30 Meters Higher Than Today Across East Antarctica
- The Wind Energy Paradox: “Why More Wind Turbines Don’t Always Mean More Power”
- New Study Reopens Questions About Our Ability To Meaningfully Assess Global Mean Temperature
- Dialing Back The Panic: German Physics Prof Sees No Evidence Of Climate Tipping Points!
- Astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon Challenges The Climate Consensus … It’s The Sun, Not CO2
Aletho News 